Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Refugee Employability Programme (REP)

Published 26 September 2025

Applies to England

Authors

Allaa Barri, Anita Jeffreson, Grace Atkins, Jamie Roberts, Maryam Hamedi, Ollie Brown, Richard Lloyd, Rosie Gloster, Susan Jensen and Waseem Meghjee.

Executive summary

Introduction

The Refugee Employability Programme (REP) aims to remove the barriers refugees face when adjusting to life in the UK, enabling them to be self-sufficient faster. The programme offers employment, language and integration support. This is the evaluation report from year 1 of the programme covering September 2023 to June 2024.

Methodology

This report covers interim findings from the evaluation, which employs a mixed-methods approach, incorporating:

• management information (MI): monthly data from 7,898 service users between September 2023 and June 2024
• baseline survey: responses from 933 service users between September 2023 and June 2024
• qualitative interviews: conducted with Home Office staff and lead providers (23 participants)
• case studies: detailed studies in London and Yorkshire and the Humber, including 37 interviews in total with service users, provider staff and stakeholders; these also included in-person observations and an online community
• learning strand: sessions with providers and stakeholders to share and develop best practices and a lived experience panel; in total, 17 lead providers, 4 refugees and 23 provider staff took part in learning activities

Key findings

Programme management

Home Office service delivery managers (SDMs) reported that relationships between themselves and providers were generally positive. Similarly, lead service providers described their relationships with SDMs as positive overall and improving over time. However, providers have raised concerns about the time-consuming nature of the data monitoring and review process, which could become unsustainable as caseloads increase.

The delivery of the REP varies across regions, influenced by the primary expertise of providers, geographic coverage and local partnerships. The number of delivery sites and the type of supply chain partnerships also vary between regions. For example, providers in urban areas like London have centralised operations, while those in regions with a wider geographic spread rely on local partnerships to deliver services in different areas. Providers operating in regions with a broader geographic spread, and incorporating more rural areas, identified applicant location and capacity to travel as key barriers to recruitment, both at inception and as the programme has continued. To overcome this barrier, providers have based case managers in community hubs and charity spaces across different towns and cities in their area. This approach has been effective in engaging with refugees and getting referrals onto the programme.

Programme enrolment and engagement

Service user outreach and recruitment activities are conducted at the community level and through high-level partnerships with local organisations. Providers utilise dedicated teams or integrate outreach responsibilities into case managers’ roles. Some larger providers also employed a partnership manager to make connections and support case managers. Emerging findings show that these mean case managers feel more able to focus on providing support to those already on the contract. Common referral sources include Jobcentre Plus, community organisations, and self-referral via online and helpline routes.

Outreach strategies are tailored to local contexts, with some regions employing community engagement officers and others relying on existing community networks. Existing relationships with local partners, such as Jobcentre Plus and refugee organisations, facilitated smooth referrals and programme engagement at the start of programme implementation. The range of outreach activities demonstrates the importance of multiple streams to sustain levels of referrals into the REP.

Service users reported positive experiences of enrolment. They described the self-referral process as straightforward, and they did not have to wait long for a call from the REP after submitting a form or being referred by a third-party organisation. One enabler was using simple English during initial calls with service users. A non-native English-speaking case manager in one region was found to have a higher engagement rate than their colleagues, which was attributed by their colleagues to their use of simple English.

Service users are most likely to be male (80%), aged 25 to 34 years (45%) and lived in the UK for over 2 years (48%). They are also most likely to have qualifications below GCSE level or equivalent (45%). Service users came from over 70 different countries, most commonly Afghanistan (27%), Iran (17%) and Eritrea (11%). These demographics were consistent across the regions. Most are enrolled in Package B (84%), which includes employment, language and integration support. Fifteen per cent of service users have caring responsibilities, and 5% reported having a disability. Service users face multiple barriers, including limited English proficiency and a lack of previous work experience in the UK. A significant proportion of service users also deal with complex needs, such as housing insecurity and health issues, which can further complicate their integration process.

Support provision

The initial assessment process is generally well-received, but challenges for providers include the frequency of Personal Development Plan (PDP) reviews and the logistics of remote sessions. Staff training had focused on ensuring the PDPs are useful and realistic, with different quality and compliance checks in place to ensure consistency. Some providers described training their staff on SMART goals, while others referenced tools such as the Outcomes Star™ . Working through PDPs and setting realistic, small goals helped service users to link their immediate and long-term goals and see a path to their desired future.

Support varies based on individual needs, ranging from job search skills and interview preparation to understanding the UK labour market. Practical support, such as obtaining necessary documentation and in-work support, is also provided. For example, some service users receive help with CV writing, while others benefit from practice interviews and work experience opportunities. This tailored approach helps ensure that each service user receives the support they need to become job ready.

Providers report higher-than-expected needs for English support, with many service users being at pre-entry levels and below (21%) at the point of joining the programme. In some cases, service users are illiterate in their own language, so considerable time is required to learn English sufficiently to gain and sustain meaningful employment. Providers found a key reason for refugees joining the REP is to gain access to English classes for speakers of other languages (ESOL), which was true for both those on Package A and Package B due to lower quality ESOL provision offered outside of the REP. Service users and ESOL tutors reported barriers to delivering ESOL support, including navigating unstable Wi-Fi connections, basic levels of digital literacy, and difficulty in tailoring sessions to individuals. Despite these barriers, service users commonly described the quality of teaching as being higher from their REP providers.

Integration support could include assistance with healthcare, childcare, networking and housing, although housing is not formally included in the REP. Providers highlight the complexity of navigating external systems and the significant impact of housing insecurity on service user engagement. For instance, case managers often help service users register with a GP, access mental health services and navigate the housing system.

Service user outcomes

As of June 2024, 8% of service users are in employment, with most of those working at least 16 hours. Employment outcomes have increased since the beginning of the programme and are expected to improve over time, given the 18-month support period.

Figure 1: Percentage of service users in employment each month of the programme

Source: Home Office monitoring information. Base = 7,898 service users

Intermediate outcomes include increased confidence in job searching, better understanding of the UK job market, and having an up-to-date CV. Service users report feeling more prepared for job interviews and having a clearer understanding of their career options and potential paths.

The employment rate amongst participants varied between 5% and 11% across the regions, possibly due to a combination of the varied strengths of the providers, the regional job market, and service users’ distance from the job market prior to joining the programme. Twenty-five per cent of employed service users have been in work for at least 3 consecutive months between September 2023 and June 2024, which is lower than expected as many had only recently moved into work. Nine in 10 of those service users in work (88%) were engaged in in-work support from the REP.

The REP has demonstrated positive outcomes for service users by improving their language skills and confidence in using English. Service users reported increased confidence using English in various areas, including job applications, interviews and daily tasks. ESOL sessions have fostered social networks and encouraged participation in other educational and community activities. Integration outcomes, such as access to secure accommodation and healthcare, are seen as enablers for successful engagement with the REP. Case managers often go beyond signposting to provide hands-on support, which is highly valued by service users. For instance, besides help with housing, childcare and healthcare described above, some case managers also accompany service users to important appointments, ensuring they receive the support they need to integrate into their communities.

REP successes and lessons learnt

Home Office SDMs’ prioritisation of regular communication, collaborative problem-solving, and maintaining open feedback channels with providers has worked well. This fosters trust and enables a more responsive and adaptable programme. Effective relationships between the Home Office and providers were crucial for the timely resolution of issues and continuous improvement of the programme.

The current data monitoring and review process, while essential, is seen as burdensome by providers. Service providers highlighted that contract management and using the MI tool are significantly time consuming. The process could be improved by simplifying it potentially through more user-friendly data collection tools and streamlined reporting requirements.

The Home Office recognised the value of diverse approaches to programme structure and delivery. Providers were encouraged to adapt their models based on their expertise and the local context to best meet the needs of refugees in their region. For example, focusing on employment or refugee support depending on the providers’ previous experience. Providers felt this allowed them to deliver the best service to refugees.

Housing insecurity remains a critical challenge, impacting service users’ ability to engage with the REP. Providers have had to dedicate considerable time and resources to addressing these issues, often diverting attention from other support areas. The lack of stable housing affects service users’ mental health and their ability to focus on employability and language skills. The Home Office is actively engaging with providers and other government departments to understand and address systemic barriers faced by refugees, such as housing insecurity, access to financial support and digital literacy.

Engaging employers has been a mixed experience for providers, with some regions reporting successful partnerships and others struggling due to the refugees’ skill levels and language barriers. Some providers have developed strong relationships with local businesses, while others are still working to overcome scepticism and build trust with employers.

The role of case managers is pivotal, with effective case manager and service user relationships contributing positively to service user outcomes. However, high caseloads and the complexity of service users’ needs pose significant challenges. Ensuring manageable caseloads and providing continuous training and support for case managers are crucial for the programme’s sustained success.

Conclusion

The interim findings of the REP evaluation reveal a programme that is showing promise in supporting refugees to overcome barriers and integrate into UK society. The programme has been successfully implemented across 9 regions in England, with providers demonstrating flexibility in adapting their delivery models to suit local contexts and service user needs.

The evaluation found positive working relationships between the Home Office and providers, characterised by open communication and collaborative problem-solving. This has enabled effective programme implementation and a responsive approach to emerging challenges. However, the evaluation has also highlighted the administrative burden of the current data monitoring processes, which providers perceive as time consuming.

Service users have reported positive experiences with the programme, particularly valuing the personalised support from case managers and the opportunity to improve their English language skills through the provision of ESOL classes. The initial assessment and PDP process has been well-received, allowing service users to identify their needs and set achievable goals. However, challenges remain. Housing insecurity has emerged as a significant barrier to service user engagement, requiring case managers to dedicate substantial time and resources to address housing-related issues, despite this falling outside the scope of the REP.

Overall, the REP evaluation demonstrates the importance of providing comprehensive and tailored support to refugees seeking to integrate into UK society. Addressing the challenges identified, particularly around housing, will be crucial to ensuring the programme’s continued success in empowering refugees and facilitating their successful integration.

1. Introduction

Ipsos UK in partnership with RAND Europe and Renaisi were commissioned to conduct a process, impact and economic evaluation of the REP and to undertake a learning strand. This report presents the interim findings of the process evaluation and learning strand.

1.1 Overview of the Refugee Employability Programme

The REP is an initiative from the Home Office that aims to give refugees the support they need to find work and build their lives in England. The programme offers support focused on removing the employability barriers faced by refugees that mainstream services cannot fully address. The programme offers 3 main types of support: employment support, English language support and integration support. The integration support offered on the REP was not designed to include housing support; however, case managers have found they are supporting service users to address this barrier so service users can engage with the other support strands (Section 4.5).

Refugees are eligible for the REP if they have come through the UK Resettlement Scheme, Afghan Citizen Resettlement Scheme, Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, Mandate Resettlement Scheme, or Community Sponsorship. Eligibility also extends to those granted Refugee Permission to Stay and humanitarian protections on or after 28 June 2022, and those who arrived through the Refugee Family Reunion scheme, provided their sponsoring refugee is eligible. Additionally, applicants must either have Indefinite Leave to Remain (settled status) or be on the 5-year pathway to settled status.

The Home Office is delivering the REP across all regions in England, commissioning refugee and employment support providers in each of the 9 regions (see Table 2 for the full list of regions and lead providers). The intended employment outcomes include starting employment, achieving sustained employment (over 3 months), improved satisfaction with work and improved confidence seeking work. ESOL outcomes include ESOL progression (to Level 3 or progressing up one level in 12 months) and improved confidence in using English for work. Finally, integration outcomes aim to increase access to health, improved social connections and improved understanding of employment.

1.2 Evaluation aims and objectives

This report presents interim findings for the following process evaluation questions.

1. How did the REP providers find the process of setting up the REP and working with the Home Office to deliver the programme?
2. What are the enablers and barriers to the successful implementation of the REP?
3. How effective were the processes for promoting the REP and engaging organisations in contact with refugees to make referrals/signpost eligible refugees to the REP?
4. How do REP providers work in partnership to enhance existing local provision? How does the REP integrate with existing services to support the wider needs identified through service users’ personal development plans? How does this differ between regions/places?
5. How and why does the REP bring service users closer to the labour market? Do service users gain confidence to apply for and start work relevant to their interests and skills? What aspects of the programme support this change? How do the support needs differ between different groups of service users and individuals?
6. How and why does the REP influence the integration of service users into their local community? What aspects of the support make the most difference?
7. What are the lessons for future commissioning of similar programmes and best practice supporting refugees to integrate through the provision of employment support?

The learning strand is designed to support the process evaluation by focusing on fostering learning and collaboration between providers and embedding the service user’s perspective within the evaluation. As well as developing the evaluation questions above, Ipsos, in partnership with Home Office, developed the theory of change (ToC) for the REP showing the key inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes for service users (see Table A in the appendix).

1.3 Methodology

Table 1 lists the research activities that have informed this evaluation and the findings presented in this report.

Table 1: Methodology overview

Methodology	Data collection method	Participant type	Number of participants	Dates
Quantitative research	MI data	Service users	7,898	September 2023 to ongoing
Quantitative research	Baseline survey	Service users	933	September 2023 to July 2024
Qualitative research	Qualitative interviews	Home Office staff and lead providers	23	October 2023 and February to March 2024
Qualitative research	London case study	Service users, provider staff and stakeholders	20	January to March 2024
Qualitative research	Yorkshire and the Humber case study	Service users, provider staff and stakeholders	17	April to May 2024
Learning strand	Learning cohort sessions	Lead providers	18	November 2023 and June to July 2024
Learning strand	Knowledge sharing session	Lead providers	17	December 2023
Learning strand	Lived experience panel	Refugees (service users and non-service users)	4	November 2023 to ongoing
Learning strand	Thematic workshop	Provider staff (case managers)	23	March 2024

1.3.1 Quantitative research

This report draws on quantitative data from 2 sources to draw out initial findings around outcomes. The Home Office MI, which is collected by providers and shared on a monthly basis, and includes demographic information, enrolment information and outcomes; and a baseline survey, designed by Ipsos UK and administered by service providers. This survey is completed by service users within 6 weeks of enrolling on the programme and takes on average 18 minutes to complete. Service users can either complete the survey with the case manager or independently (at their offices) with the option of a translated survey.

All differences included in this report are significantly different at the 5% level.

1.3.2 Qualitative research

This report draws on qualitative data collected over 2 time points.

Phase 1 included interviews with 5 Home Office staff and 9 paired interviews with provider leads to gather evidence on programme setup and early implementation. Phase 2 built on phase 1 with a focus on gathering evidence on implementation during the first 6 months of delivery. Two region-based case studies have also been completed; one in London to represent an urban area and one in Yorkshire and the Humber to represent a region with a mix of major cities and rural areas. The case studies involved the following activities:

• observations – Ipsos researchers visited providers’ offices to observe the REP service-user activities in person, including meetings between case managers and service users (initial Personal Development Plan (PDP) setup and PDP reviews), and ESOL assessments and classes
• service user interviews – with service users enrolled on the REP in London, conducted remotely, with interpretation being organised where required; service users received a £40 retail e-voucher as a thank you for participating in the interview
• provider staff interviews – including case managers, the business manager, partnership manager, ESOL teacher, supply chain manager and senior contract manager
• stakeholder interviews – with staff from local organisations who worked with the REP providers either through the referral process or offering support services
• online community – service users and provider staff took part in an online research community, which offered the opportunity to share experiences of the REP, its delivery and its impacts

To test the ToC and evaluation hypotheses, analysis of the qualitative data has been guided by a theory-based approach using thematic analysis. This entailed an analysis workshop looking at the qualitative findings in relation to the findings from quantitative and the learning strands.

1.3.3 Learning strand

This report draws on learning activities undertaken between March and June 2024, which includes:

• a thematic workshop exploring housing, homelessness and the REP support bringing together 23 staff members from across the 9 regions
• a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) session, bringing together 4 refugees (3 service users), to further explore housing and person-centred support
• cohort learning sessions engaging 7 of the 9 regions, exploring recruiting and supporting case managers

1.4. Data strengths and limitations

This report draws on both quantitative and qualitative data from a range of stakeholders across the programme, offering a breath of evidence. Service users were offered translations for the baseline survey and qualitative interviews to increase response rates and ensure the research was inclusive.

The MI was completed by case managers and shared with the Home Office. In some instances, this information was not completed, particularly for questions relating to ESOL. For this reason, we have not included MI data on ESOL in this report, as the missing data could mislead the results. The Home Office is working with providers to ensure ESOL data is completed for service users ahead of the final report.

Within the first 6 weeks of enrolling onto the programme, 933 service users had completed the baseline survey, representing only 12% of service users. To boost this very low response rate, from April 2024 service users were offered a £10 ‘love2shop’ retail voucher as an incentive to complete the survey and providers received a £10 payment for each completed response. This has provided a sufficient sample size for some subgroup analysis, but we have not reported groups with low bases as they are not significantly different. This low response rate has reduced the ability to explore significant differences between subgroups.

2. Programme management and setup

2.1 Home Office and provider relationships

Home Office service delivery managers (SDMs) manage the 9 provider contracts. The relationship is structured around a monthly review system that requires providers to submit monthly MI. The SDMs and lead provider staff then meet monthly to review regional progress against 8 key performance indicators (KPIs), listed in Table B in the appendix. Home Office SDMs also have weekly catch-ups with lead providers, with ad hoc meetings and communications via email.

Home Office SDMs reported that relationships with providers were generally positive. They highlighted the importance of regular contact to build relationships and trust, with a focus on open communication, discussing issues as they emerge and listening to feedback from providers. Similarly, lead service providers described their relationships with SDMs as overall positive and improving over time. Providers referenced challenges during setup and in the early implementation stage, which were reported to have been resolved through positive relationships. They felt able to voice their concerns to SDMs on issues such as changes to the MI tool, targets and invoicing. Providers felt SDMs understood the complex nature of service delivery and working with vulnerable individuals, and could engage Home Office colleagues and advocate for change.

Home Office SDMs recognised the providers faced challenges when aiming to achieve KPIs; for example, KPIs focused on frequency of contact with service users or disengagement. These were seen as too challenging to meet as they were reliant on factors outside the providers’ control, such as the service user having conflicting priorities like finding accommodation. However, providers appreciated that Home Office SDMs acknowledged that this could be difficult to achieve because it is based on service user engagement. As a result, it is not a true reflection of the efforts or performance of providers themselves. One of the SDMs also reflected this:

“… between the KPI 4 and KPI 5, I am looking at 500 plus lines to write out … I’m not going to have time to get it completed and uploaded within the 5 working days because there’s just too many singular lines to go through.”

Lead provider management staff

Despite the largely positive working relationships, a prevalent view amongst lead service providers was that collecting MI was significantly time consuming. Providers shared that the MI tool, which has had several updates, requires them to go through hundreds of lines of data to evidence and document elements such as failed contacts with service users. This is impacting the lead service providers’ experience and perceptions of the working relationship. Service providers have found it increasingly difficult to meet the reporting time frames as caseloads grow and explained it is affecting the working relationship with SDMs. Providers suggested reducing the level of detail required for reporting to maintain the frequency of reporting required.

“…between the KPI 4 and KPI 5, I am looking at 500 plus lines to write out…I’m not going to have time to get it completed and uploaded within the 5 working days because there’s just too many singular lines to go through.”

Lead provider management staff

2.2. Overview of regional variations

Delivery of the REP programme varies across the 9 regions, with providers adapting the setup and structure of the programme to their expertise and local context. Table 2 below sets out key differences between the regions, including the primary areas of expertise of the provider, the number of delivery sites, the type of supply chain partnerships and the type of employer engagement.

Table 2: Overview of regional variations

Region	Provider	Lead provider primary expertise	Target SU caseload	SU June 2024	Number of sites*	Mechanisms of supply chain delivery**	Mechanisms of outreach delivery	Mechanisms of employer engagement delivery	Mechanisms of ESOL delivery	Outcomes***
North West	Maximus	Employment	2,610	1,061	3	Geography	LA, VCO, hotels and self-referral	National and local partnerships	In-house	11% employment
Yorkshire and the Humber	The Growth Company	Employment	1,877	659	7	Geography	LA, VCO and self-referral	National and local partnerships	External	4% employment
West Midlands	Maximus	Employment	1,984	919	2	Geography	LA, VCO and self-referral	National and local partnerships	In-house	7% employment
North East	Reed	Employment	1,066	815	8	Skills	LA, VCO and self-referral	National and local partnerships	In-house	11% employment
East Midlands	Twin UK	ESOL	839	529	8	Skills and geography	LA, VCO, hotels and self-referral	Local partnership	In-house	2% employment
London	Reed	Employment	4,559	2,304	11	Geography	LA, VCO, hotels and self-referral	National and local partnerships	In-house	8% employment
East of England	Get Set UK	Employment	748	723	17	Geography	LA, VCO, hotels and self-referral	National and local partnerships	In-house	8% employment
South West	IRC	Refugee support	670	235	1	Skills	LA, VCO and self-referral	Local partnerships	In-house	9% employment
South East	Palladium	Refugee support	1,056	653	2	Skills	LA, VCO and self-referral	Local partnerships	In-house	5% employment

Notes:

1. * Number of sites is based on information supplied in the provider bids.
2. ** All service providers across the 9 regions have partners across their supply chain, ranging from third-party contractors to deliver certain elements of the programme, such as ESOL classes, to joint service delivery partners to deliver across different geographies. ‘Geography’ refers to where the provider’s supply chain is based on ensuring a wider geographic range. ‘Skills’ refers to where the provider’s supply chain is based on expertise to deliver certain elements of support, such as ESOL or employability support.
3. *** Only Package B offers ESOL (45% of users receiving Package B have also attended ESOL classes).

2.3 Logistics of support delivery

Lead service providers expressed a strong preference for support to be delivered face-to-face. Where possible, providers would have offices or hubs across their region to facilitate face-to-face support. The number of sites depends on the geographical spread of refugees in a region and the priority that providers put on in-person support. Case managers found that in-person engagement was more conducive to building trust and strengthening relationships with service users. They also highlighted that providing support and guidance in person aided practical support; for example, by physically showing a service user how to call the GP on their phone to make an appointment.

To facilitate face-to-face delivery, providers took a range of different steps to accommodate service users’ needs. Where service users were travelling to providers’ offices, providers would book appointments at convenient times, such as when the service user would have their ESOL classes, to take advantage of their travel and childcare arrangements. In some regions, providers had satellite offices for those in more rural areas wanting to travel into the provider offices. In other cases, providers referenced travelling closer to service users in rural areas or other towns in their region. Case managers referenced conducting sessions in Jobcentre Plus offices, community halls and local libraries.

“I think it’s difficult to bring them into one place, you know, I think it’s better to go out there and engage with them in their local communities as much as we can. We’re not expecting people to come into an office and be seen face-to-face, we are very much out in the community promoting the service and supporting service users.”

Lead service provider

2.4 Case manager recruitment and training

2.4.1 Recruiting case managers

Staff reflected that a wide range of job-related competencies are required because of the breadth of responsibilities encompassed by the case manager roles. Competencies displayed by case managers included strong organisational, negotiation and problem-solving skills, and effective communication. Beyond these strengths, empathy was also found to be a fundamental attribute of an effective case manager, more so than job-specific skills. This aligns with service users who reported core features of an effective case manager from their perspective, which included responsiveness, active listening skills and an empathetic approach. Additionally, service users also emphasised that an effective case manager also requires a strong understanding of, and connections to, local systems and signposting organisations.

Providers indicated that lived experience, and in particular direct experience of navigating the UK asylum system, enabled case managers to build rapport effectively with service users. Service users appreciated when case managers brought their own experience of navigating life in the UK and awareness of cultural differences. Nevertheless, providers understood that lived experience needed to be balanced alongside other role-related skills and competencies, such as a background in employability or case management. In this context, lead providers noted how they had aimed to achieve a balance across teams in the backgrounds and expertise of the case managers recruited for REP.

The providers reported that additional language skills and the ability to converse in service users’ native languages was particularly valuable for case managers. They felt this enabled case managers to build stronger rapport with service users more quickly, communicate more effectively, and so better understand their support needs.

Some providers found it difficult to maintain a balance of expertise across teams due to the challenge of securing the range of skills required in the role. Providers operating in regions with a broader geographic spread, and incorporating more rural areas, identified applicant location and capacity to travel as key barriers to recruitment, both at inception and as the programme has continued.

Providers with employment expertise (see Table 2) have prioritised recruiting case managers with employment support experience. This has included recruiting from other employability contracts, such as the Department for Work and Pension’s (DWP) Restart Scheme, as these individuals have employment support experience and, in some cases, already work for the provider delivering the REP.

2.4.2 Supporting case managers

Providers have offered a range of training for case managers, from trauma-informed practice to employment-related skills, such as CV and application support. As the programme has continued, providers have adapted training to respond to key emerging issues, particularly around homelessness and broader knowledge of the immigration and asylum system.

Across regions, providers have used team meetings, drop-in sessions and regular check-ins to provide spaces for case managers to troubleshoot challenges and share best practice, updates and learning. In most cases, team meetings have been organised virtually, with some providers also creating space for in-person meetings less regularly.

One region has introduced a cluster-based approach to delivering support, which was felt to have been particularly effective in enabling case managers to work effectively together. This approach brings case managers based in similar localities together into clusters, overseen by the provider delivery manager. Clusters meet in person, replacing larger whole-team meetings, and enabling the sharing of advice and support in a more responsive way than virtual meetings.

Alongside spaces to come together, providers highlighted the value of using online platforms such as dedicated Microsoft Teams channels to enable case managers to share and respond to live issues in an agile way.

Dedicated support roles and functions were also viewed as being useful for supporting case managers to deliver effective support. For example, in the South West, a quality auditor has helped to develop training and support for case managers, while in the North East a broader employment services team helps to connect case managers and service users to relevant roles.

Some providers have connected the REP provision and staff with other programmes, to share best practice and learnings. This includes the Restart programme, with some providers connecting staff to share knowledge on effective forms of support.

There was a recognition that learnings are being shared at senior and regional levels. Learnings are starting to be shared among case managers, such as via the thematic workshop, which focused on homelessness as a barrier for refugees. However, learning support needs to be balanced against the other demands of the case manager role.

3. Programme enrolment and service user characteristics

3.1 Service user characteristics

Management information data showed that there were 7,898 participants enrolled on the REP between September 2023 and June 2024. Most service users (84%) were enrolled on Package B (employment, ESOL and integration support), with just 16% on Package A (employment support only). Some characteristics of service users are listed below:

• nearly half of service users were aged 25 to 34 years old (45%), followed by 35 to 44 years old (25%), 18 to 24 years old (20%), and 45 to 54 years old (9%)
• by gender, 4 in 5 (80%) service users were male and 20% female
• the nationality of service users varied; over a quarter were Afghan (27%), with other nationalities including Iranian (17%), Eritrean (11%), Sudanese (9%) and Syrian (7%) – nearly 1 in 10 reported being stateless (9%), with the remainder being a mix of other nationalities (all below 4%)
• while 5% of service users reported having a disability, most (84%) reported not having any health issues, the remaining 11% preferred not to say
• 15% of service users reported having caring responsibilities, most commonly for a child or children (12%) – there were no significant differences in the percentage of males and females with caring responsibilities
• 45% of service users had qualifications below GCSE or equivalent, while 35% reported having GCSE, 5% A-level and 12% degree or equivalent qualifications
• the baseline survey (n = 933) found that most service user respondents had lived in the UK for over a year, nearly half (48%) for over 2 years, two-fifths (38%) for one to 2 years, and 12% had lived in the UK for less than one year

Service users who completed the baseline survey were most commonly accessing other forms of support via Jobcentre Plus (77%), health services such as the NHS (28%), local authority (24%), or a university or college (22%).

In the baseline survey, participants were asked about digital confidence and employment history, to assess whether they gained soft skills via the REP even if they may not have moved into employment. In terms of digital literacy, about half of service users felt confident to use digital technology in the UK to complete various tasks related to work and everyday life. For instance, more than half felt either confident or very confident in emailing to ask about a job (56%), look for support services (56%), or take part in online training (54%). Half were confident in looking for a job online (50%) or applying for a job online (48%). This implies that half of service users did not feel confident completing these digital tasks when enrolling on the programme. This is also reflected in the qualitative research, where service users have reported an increase in confidence since receiving support from the REP.

In terms of employment history, one-third (33%) of respondents last had paid work outside the UK between 2 and 4 years ago, with 26% never having a job in a country outside the UK, which was similar for males and females. Service users aged 18 to 24 years were the most likely group to have never had a job in a country outside the UK (46%). For those who had worked outside the UK, the 5 most common industries were elementary and professional occupations (17% and 14%, respectively), skilled trades (11%), sales/customer service (10%) and machine operatives (7%).

3.2 Outreach models

As shown in Table 2, providers use a combination of outreach approaches, which can be categorised as high-level partnerships with local organisations and on-the-ground outreach work. Lead providers are responsible for high-level partnership-building with local organisations which become referral partners. This involved scheduling meetings with senior stakeholders within these organisations. The types of organisations to which the providers reached out and venues used to promote the REP are:

• employment-related: such as Jobcentre Plus, local job fairs, DWP, Restart providers
• refugee-related: such as local authorities, community centres, resettlement integration teams, ESOL providers and local colleges, key charitable and voluntary organisations (such as British Red Cross, Refugee Action or Shelter), housing associations, Serco, hotels housing migrants

The outreach activities on the ground were usually the responsibility of case managers and entail engaging potential service users. Some larger providers also employed a partnership manager to make connections and support case managers. Emerging findings show that this has made case managers feel more able to focus on providing support to service users already on the programme.

“Then it is for the engagement coordinators to actually find out [someone’s eligibility]. You can always make a referral and then they can have a look at it. (…) I think if [case managers] had to do all of the assessments, see if they are eligible, it would just be too much so I’m glad that we’ve got them that check over everything.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Partnership managers established new relationships with local authorities and other strategic partners, including Jobcentres, but also community organisations like food banks, refugee football clubs and community centres. Case managers tend to carry out face-to-face work at their premises, such as holding drop-in sessions or giving presentations. Case managers also highlighted in sessions that the REP offered additional support and is not duplicating support already available. As shown in Table 2, 4 regions also visited local hotels where refugees were staying to raise awareness of the REP.

Providers without a dedicated partnership manager used case managers’ time for outreach and set weekly targets for time spent in the community or new referrals received. These targets are lowered as the case manager’s caseload fills up; however, some case managers still reported struggling to balance outreach and offering support.

“But as the caseload obviously rises, we have less and less time to do outreach unless we do specific meetings. So, we’re getting to the point where we are going to these places to conduct meetings and then there’s less opportunity for us to actually approach new people.”

Lead provider delivery staff

There are benefits for using case managers to conduct outreach activities, as it enables them to start developing a relationship with service users from the beginning of their journey. Some case managers also referenced this as enabling them to gain an understanding of the service user beyond REP, such as if the referral comes through a community organisation. However, case managers reported that outreach activities can be time consuming and intensive. For example, one case manager who spends a day a week at a hotel where refugees are housed described it as emotionally taxing and chaotic. This is because of the frequency with which individuals are ineligible for the REP and turned away.

Overall, the research found that lead providers benefit from having existing and well-established referral pathways from other programmes. Existing relationships with local partners, such as Jobcentre Plus and refugee organisations, facilitated smooth referrals and engagement at the beginning of the programme implementation. Those with previous employment experience found it easy to use pre-existing relationships with employment support organisations, while those with refugee experience were more likely to have pre-existing relationships with refugee organisations.

“Because we manage Restart as well, a lot of those contacts were already there, which made that a lot easier. This area is a new footprint for us, so that’s taken a lot longer to get the word out and for people to recognise who we are.”

Lead provider management staff

3.3 Understanding of eligibility criteria

During the early stages of the programme, providers conducted a wide range of activities to explain the eligibility criteria to referral partners. This included delivering presentations, developing handout materials, organising launch events and online webinars. While there was some confusion around the eligibility criteria at the beginning, this reduced over time as partners became more familiar with the process.

“In terms of eligibility I don’t think it’s been the easiest to explain but we’ve had referrals and we’ve, kind of, reiterated the fact, so I think now it’s becoming easier and now people are aware of those specific dates.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Providers allowed partners to refer potential service users without knowing if they were eligible and assessed their eligibility themselves. However, this created a proportion of individuals who were referred but not eligible for the REP. Providers with employment experience signposted ineligible refugees to other employability programmes. This could include referring individuals to other contracts held by the providers, such as the Restart Scheme. Those with previous refugee support experience could also refer ineligible referrals to other refugee support better suited to them.

Overall, the eligibility criteria are now well understood by partners, which has reduced the proportion of ineligible referrals. However, many wish the REP will extend to include all refugees, instead of placing a limit on when and how they received their status. This may reflect a limited understanding of the origin of the REP and its links to the National Plan for Immigration, although it also reflects the nature of the work and the providers’ and partners’ eagerness to support as many people as possible.

“I think, if it could be opened up a little bit more so we don’t have this restriction on this date, so they have to be only people from June 2022 onwards, because we are finding a lot of people who had their decision before that that potentially need some help.”

Lead provider delivery staff

3.4 Referrals

The number of service users enrolled each month steadily increased over the first few months and has remained relatively stable thereafter (Figure 2). This sustained level of enrolment could result from the partnerships established between the REP and referral partners during implementation and a growing understanding of the eligibility criteria.

Figure 2: Number of service users onboarded each month across the REP

Source: Home Office monitoring information

3.4.2 Referral partners

As shown in Figure 3, the large ‘other’ category (25%) reflects the diversity of referral routes. Jobcentre Plus is the most common referral source for the REP (34%). In the North West and West Midlands, where the provider had backgrounds in employment provision were more likely to receive referrals from Jobcentre Plus than other regions, making up 52% and 47% of their referrals. This provides further evidence of the benefit of lead providers having pre-established relationships with local organisations and referral pathways. Service users who were unemployed were more likely to be referred via Jobcentre Plus than service users who had some form of employment (temporary or part time), who were more likely to be referred via other routes. The source of referral could signal a service user’s motivation to work. One case manager reflected they find service users referred by the Jobcentre Plus more engaged in the programme, potentially due to their obligations under Universal Credit.

“I think if they are referred by the Jobcentre, they know that it is part of their commitment and they engage more. But sometimes if they are referred by a community organisation, they can take it less seriously and disengage after few meetings.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Figure 3: Source of referral into the REP at the programme level

Source: Home Office monitoring information collected between September 2023 and June 2024. Base n = 7,898

As well as referrals from partners, word-of-mouth referrals have also built up over time (7%). This varies by region, but the proportion of referrals through friends, family and WhatsApp groups is increasing. Case managers shared how service users often refer their social networks to the programme when they have had a positive experience and received some form of support. This was reflected in the experience of service users, where some shared they heard of the programme this way and others shared telling their networks about the programme.

“Yes, so I have a group on WhatsApp, it’s a group that’s related to some people that I met when I was taking weekend classes at [university]. So, we created a group on WhatsApp, and one of them shared an ad about REP. So, that’s how I heard.”

Service user

3.4.3 Referral routes and enrolment

Providers offer multiple referral routes for referral partners and service users. All providers have an online webform, often with a chat box, sometimes coupled with options for referrals by telephone or email. Providers also commonly offer the option to call a helpline number which provides translation services if a potential service user requires help to complete the referral form.

There are differences between regions in how the call-backs are conducted. Larger providers have dedicated teams who call potential service users back, check eligibility criteria and enrol those who are eligible onto the programme, and assign them a case manager, possibly using interpretation services to support with this process. Some smaller providers have used case managers to support the enrolment process where they possess the appropriate language skills, but otherwise have used interpretation services instead.

Service users reported positive experiences of enrolment. The self-referral process was described as straightforward, and service users did not have to wait long for a call from the REP after submitting a form or referral by a third-party organisation. Those with limited English could use translation tools online to understand how to complete the form. The providers’ presence in the community also allowed individuals to access the REP if they did not have internet access or were less comfortable engaging online. For example, one service user described attending a drop-in event at a local town hall and being referred on the spot by a REP case manager.

““[The case manager] referred me, I don’t like to go to websites and sign for things. So, she made a referral, and she registered me herself.”

Service user

Language has been singled out as a significant factor that needs to be accounted for during enrolment. If a potential service user gets a call back from the REP team, but is unable to communicate in English, the call must be rescheduled with a member of staff who speaks that language or an interpreter. This creates logistical challenges for the providers and can often result in disengagement.

One enabler was using simple English during initial calls with service users. A non-native English-speaking case manager in one region was found to have a higher engagement rate than their colleagues, which was attributed by their colleagues to their use of simple English. The staff member recognised that service users found it easier to understand them and were less nervous of using their limited English to communicate.

Finally, the programme being funded by the Home Office has led to hesitation amongst service users. This is in line with other research, which shows a breakdown in trust between individuals and the government due to experiences of conflict carried over from when refugees claim asylum (Zolberg, 1983 , Zolberg, 1993). Additionally, long case processing times and other kinds of negative experiences while in the process of applying for asylum can exacerbate these sentiments. This results in a general mistrust towards anyone associated with government.

“[I’ve been in] a refuge for 2 years. Then hearing something about the Home Office you are going to be a little bit scared. (…) Fighting with them getting your refugee statement for a long time and the processes with the Home Office.”

Service user

During observation visits to local providers, it was noted that Home Office branding was not used in promotional materials. Leaflets and booklets shared with the research team did not mention the Home Office, and the only information about the source of funding for the REP was a logo saying, “Funded by UK Government”. Instead of promoting the programme as having been commissioned by the Home Office, the materials instead focused on highlighting the support and benefits of enrolling onto the programme.

Overall, it is evident from the number of different referral pathways into the REP that a multi-pronged approach is required to ensure sufficient enrolment numbers onto the programme. Given the wide range of services that refugees could be involved in, it is important that providers have several different outreach activities and approaches to ensure individuals and organisations are aware of the support the REP can offer.

4. Support provision

Management information shows that, as of June 2024, most REP service users (72%) were still actively engaged in the programme. This section of the report explores how different elements of support are provided.

4.1 Assessment and Personal Development Plans

Management information recorded 6,234 service users as having created a PDP, representing 82% of service users by June 2024 (no data was provided for the remaining 18%). A higher proportion of service users on Package B had created a PDP (82%) compared to those on Package A (79%).

The initial assessments and the development of PDPs worked similarly across all regions. Senior staff and case managers highlighted that the initial needs assessment formed the foundation for support provision tailored for each participant, by helping them understand the service user’s history, previous work experience and current needs, and their aims for the future. This initial assessment can take one to 2 hours to allow sufficient time to discuss service user needs and collect the information required. Where identified needs are out of scope for the REP, case managers signpost individuals to appropriate support services.

Senior staff highlighted that staff training had focused on ensuring the PDPs are useful and realistic, with different quality and compliance checks in place to ensure consistency. Some providers described training their staff on SMART goals, while others referenced tools such as the Outcomes Star™.

“[We conducted] training to understand what a good PDP should look like and what SMART actions were … There is a quality and compliance officer who checks over the PDPs to make sure they are of a standard.”

Lead provider staff

In a thematic workshop, case managers described a range of ways in which they conducted assessments to provide support in a person-centred way:

• using tools such as the Integration Star™ to tailor support to individual service user journeys
• using diagnostic tools to identify barriers that service users may face, to set in place actions to address them – this recognises that different service users face different barriers
• focusing on empowering clients so that they feel ownership over options, which can be counter to how they experience broader asylum system

Service users commonly considered the assessment and PDP development process to be useful, providing them with the time and space to discuss their experiences, concerns and to start thinking about the future. It also provided them with greater understanding of the kinds of support they could receive. For example, one service user felt the assessment process gave them time to think about the kind of employment they wanted beyond working in sanitation. Another described how the process gave them confidence because it made them feel like they had a plan that would enable them to make progress.

“I discussed the jobs I wanted to do… And she said, ‘First you have to, sort of, basic steps.’ … [before] it was very hard, I had to apply for many jobs, but even not one replied to me. But [following the steps] I got many job opportunities, and I was excited to start. Because of the plan.”

Service user

Despite a consensus from both provider staff and service users that the initial assessment and PDP development process work well, there were challenges. They viewed the process as time consuming and could sometimes demotivate service users from engaging with the programme. Case managers noted service users were likely to have told their story to multiple different institutions and stakeholders along their journey to the UK, and there was a risk of fatigue. Case managers were also concerned about the amount of information required from service users when they enrol onto the programme and subsequently risk the process appearing like a tick-box exercise.

“I feel like some of the documents could be condensed into one. […] I think maybe condensing the paperwork would be beneficial for them, and then it feels like we’re having a natural conversation as opposed to tick, tick, tick.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Related to this, a challenge was that KPIs related to the frequency with which PDPs are reviewed. Staff across the regions felt that given service users’ complex support needs, and that progress relies on external factors, reviewing a PDP every 20 days as set out by contractual obligations of the REP was too frequent. Case managers in all regions described times where there was limited progress to discuss with service users, which could be discouraging, or instances when the process was too demanding for those with other pressing issues.

Another issue highlighted by case managers was the ability to complete initial sessions remotely. Where providers cover large regions with a wide geographic spread of service users, sessions could take place virtually. This could bring practical challenges in delivery; for example, some staff highlighted that the logistics of getting service users to sign their PDPs after each session can be difficult if they meet virtually. Some providers referenced using electronic signing systems to facilitate this virtually. However, this relied on a good level of digital literacy amongst service users, questioning whether digital or virtual delivery was accessible to all types of service users.

A final challenge highlighted by case managers was service users’ understanding of the purpose and role of PDPs. While it was clear for some, others could misunderstand their role, particularly in cases where there was a gap between the support needs identified and the support available to address them.

4.2 Employability support

The employability support provided was influenced by individual’s needs and depended on their previous work experience and qualifications, their ability to speak, read and write English, and their exposure to and understanding of working in the UK. Case managers broadly spoke of service users falling into one of 3 categories on entry into the programme, which influenced their employability support needs:

• those who are closer to work and have prior qualifications and experience
• those who are closer to work but with limited or no work experience
• those who have multiple and complex needs that may require prioritisation

The employability support provided to service users could be categorised into 4 groups:

• increasing understanding of the UK work context
• job search skills/practical support
• in-work support
• emotional support

4.2.1 Increasing understanding of the UK work context

Case managers highlighted that this often took place at the start of support and was required to some extent for all service users. It included exploring what the labour market looks like in the UK, the different types of jobs available, and the skills or qualifications needed. This support was delivered via longer appointments with case managers, group sessions in ESOL classes focused on employment language, and supporting service users to obtain work or volunteering experience. For example, a service user shared how their case manager focused on exploring the types of jobs they could consider, what skills were transferrable from previous contexts, the types of jobs available locally and the different industrial sectors.

4.2.2 Job search skills and practical support

These were often provided to those who were closer to work, holding prior qualifications, or closer to work but with limited or no experience. This included helping service users understand how to read job descriptions, providing direct links to jobs via employment advisors and practical support with CV and cover letter development, undertaking practice interviews, and arranging work experience with potential employers. Other forms of practical support included accessing appropriate documentation to apply for job roles, such as making copies of passports or drivers’ licences, providing clothing for interviews and reviewing employment offers and contracts. Service users cited this support as invaluable, particularly with converting qualifications, interview preparation and financial help with clothing.

4.2.3 In-work support

This was provided to service users who found employment. Case managers reported that this support was highly tailored based on the needs of the service user. In some cases, it comprised light-touch check-ins; in other cases, help with travel costs and more in-depth support, such as emotional support, expectation management and advice. Providers shared that as service users are entering work, in-work support provision is still developing, and they are learning what functions well.

4.2.4 Emotional support

This was provided by case managers because the process of looking for employment can be challenging, as well as to manage expectations between employment goals and immediate work outcomes; for example, supporting individuals who have extensive professional experience and qualifications but have been unable to find appropriate roles.

“I also encounter professional service users who express dissatisfaction with cleaning jobs. Placing them in suitable employment can be challenging.”

Lead provider delivery staff

4.3 ESOL support

Service users on Package B should access ESOL via REP, while service users in Package A will have access to ESOL support via other routes, such as their local authority.

The approach and content of ESOL support was relatively consistent across all service providers, with most regions offering in-house ESOL support but outsourced in Yorkshire and the Humber (see Table 2). Service users attend an assessment to determine their English language needs and their ESOL level. ESOL assessments typically happened in person and directly with ESOL tutors. All providers reflected that the level of English support need is higher than initially expected. In some cases, service users are illiterate in their own language, so the time required to learn English sufficiently to gain and sustain meaningful employment is considerable.

The ESOL assessment informs the level of ESOL support offered. For example, those with pre-entry level focus on daily conversation phrases and alphabets to start from the basics. One provider shared how their conversation sessions also included digital literacy, to combine development of English language skills with learning how to use digital systems to write CVs or make online appointments. In contrast, service users with higher levels of ESOL skills focused on reading and writing, speaking English and employment-related terminology.

Service users on Package A reported that ESOL support from other services was insufficient. This was due to factors such as perceived poor quality of teaching, difficulty with the curriculum and teaching methods, and large classroom sizes which limited the extent to which service users could receive focused support. As a result, providers found a key reason for refugees joining the REP is to gain access to ESOL classes, which was true for both those on Package A and Package B.

“We are seeing those who come through a Package A needing that extra ESOL support even though they should have already had it before. Some of the feedback from the ESOL training, so some have even said that the ESOL that they’re getting with [name of provider] is a little bit better than what they’re getting in college.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Besides the challenge of higher-than-expected English support needs, provider staff across all regions and case managers in London (Table 2) reported several challenges in delivering ESOL support.

Accreditation

Providers found that a lack of accreditation for the REP-provided English courses is a challenge in the onboarding of service users as well as maintaining attendance. Similarly, service users referenced it being beneficial to be able to evidence their English language skills from the REP. Despite this, service users commonly described the quality of teaching as being higher from their REP providers. As a result, service users often continue with both courses as the REP provides them with better learning conditions, but external courses provide accreditation.

“I think we would have a lot more potential with the ESOL but it’s not an accredited course. Whereas everything at college is an accredited course for ESOL.”

Lead provider delivery staff

Remote delivery

In areas where providers cover a wide geographic distribution of service users, and connectivity is poor, ESOL classes are often delivered remotely. This was highlighted as a challenge as service users and ESOL tutors have to navigate unstable Wi-Fi connections, basic levels of digital literacy and difficultly in tailoring sessions to individuals as they can in classrooms.

External factors

Finally, case managers reported that service users face a wide range of external barriers which affect their ability to attend classes. This was particularly discussed within the context of the unpredictability of housing circumstances and the impact that has on service users’ ability to attend classes both remotely and in person. Other external factors include the service user’s physical and mental health, and navigating other processes/appointments, such as DWP appointments.

4.4 Integration support

Integration support provided by case managers varies significantly between service users dependent on their needs, and includes the following.

Health

Providers described helping service users to register with a GP or dentist, and to access medical care for their immediate healthcare needs. This included provision for mental health support, formally and informally. Providers shared that service users often are processing difficult circumstances or past experiences for which access to mental health support is vital.

Childcare and education

In some instances, providers have supported refugees to access childcare support or education for their children, including helping them understand the education system in the UK.

Networking

Providers also highlighted supporting individuals with accessing local community initiatives and groups to help facilitate networking and social integration into the local community. This was more challenging in remote areas, where service users reported feeling more isolated and distant from places where they could access the right food or a place of worship.

IT support

In the learning strand, barriers related to IT were raised by providers, such as general IT skills or how to search the internet to access job vacancy platforms. Case managers referenced a range of activities carried out with service users to overcome digital literacy challenges. This included applying for roles together during in-person sessions, signing service users up to digital literacy sessions hosted by the providers, and providing service users with access to computers in their offices.

Wider support

Overall, case managers referenced integration support as being centred on helping service users navigate systems and processes in the UK and life in the UK more generally. Case managers and lead service providers highlighted that this element of support is often the most important for service users, is commonly complex, and requires navigating systems and processes outside the control of the service providers. In addition, accessing housing can take time despite the need being acute, and delays can have considerable impacts on individuals. Consequently, there was a sense that the definition of what constitutes integration support was too narrow, and the design of the programme did not account for the different barriers and challenges that refugees in the UK face.

4.5 Housing support

The evaluation found that responding to service users’ housing needs was one of the central challenges faced by case managers in delivering the REP across all 9 regions. As a result, housing support was a specific topic explored in the learning strand.

While the REP provision does not include housing support, case managers reported having to dedicate considerable time to supporting service users who are experiencing housing insecurity or are at risk of homelessness. Workshop attendees reported that service users have come to them to seek support to access housing, including when at immediate risk of homelessness, and in response to a lack of support from other channels.

Members of the LEP echoed this. Participants highlighted housing as a central and pressing concern for service users. Key issues highlighted included confusion around the 28-day eviction notice and where to access support for housing needs. Participants also described the difficulties that service users experience in accessing housing through the private rental sector, where the need for a guarantor represents a fundamental barrier, and the insufficiency of local authority support for a deposit when faced with high rental costs. This highlights the wide range of factors that case managers are supporting service users to navigate, which has been highlighted as difficult and time consuming.

During the thematic workshop, service users’ experience of housing insecurity was identified as often negatively impacting their ability to engage with the REP support. Attendees reported seeing service users disengage from the REP programme at points of acute housing need or when case managers are unable to provide the desired housing support.

Both thematic workshop attendees and LEP panel members also highlighted difficulties engaging with local authority housing support teams. Some case managers, for example, described a mismatch between the urgency of service users’ housing need following notice of eviction and a lack of responsiveness from local housing teams. This led service users to seek support through other routes, including their REP case manager, diverting attention from responding to other requests for assistance.

Responding to the acute housing needs of service users also presented wider challenges for case managers and providers. Lead providers observed that providing support for service users experiencing housing insecurity has impacted negatively on staff wellbeing. This was also reflected in the interviews with case managers, who expressed the emotional toll of this and how its impact can stay with them even after working hours. Some case managers described finding it difficult to set boundaries around the support they can offer, alongside the emotional toll of responding to service users experiencing crisis or at the point of homelessness. Consequently, some providers have put in place additional staff training and wellbeing support for case managers as part of their trauma-informed approach.

4.6 Reasons for exiting the programme

As of June 2024, 72% were actively engaged in the programme; the remaining are as follows: 7% were inactive, 7% were employed and 13% were receiving in-work support. Those who exited and are not receiving in work support are more likely to be unemployed than employed (15% versus 6%). Of those who had exited the programme, 22% were in employment and either did not want to receive in-work support or had completed the 6 months in-work support. Of the remainder of those who had exited, nearly a third (30%) had left voluntarily, a quarter (25%) had moved out of the area, 12% were no longer contactable and 5% had left due to health reasons. As outlined throughout this report, case managers reported that refugees left the programme because of other needs taking priority, such as securing suitable housing, which has emerged as a central issue across all regions.

5. Service user outcomes

This section outlines service user outcomes. It is important to note that at the time of writing this report, (July 2024), many service users were still being supported by the programme. Service users can access up to 18 months of support.

5.1 Employment outcomes

The primary aim of the REP is for service users to move into employment. By June 2024, 8% of service users (579 total) on the REP were recorded as being in employment in the MI data, of which 87% (505 service users) were receiving in-work support. Conversely, 83% of service users were not in employment, and a further 9% did not have data on their employment status. The employment rate varied between 5% and 11% across regions, possibly due to the varied strengths of the providers, the regional job market, and service users’ distance from the job market prior to joining the programme. The number of service users in employment has increased month on month (see Table C in the appendix for monthly breakdown). Given the length of support offered, and the complexity of service users’ circumstances, employment outcomes are expected to increase over time.

Service users who are in employment are more likely to be on Package A than Package B (9% versus 7%) and more likely to be aged 35 to 44 years (9%) than aged 23 and under (6%) or over 55 (2%). They are also more likely to have A-level (12%) or degree qualifications (10%) than below GCSE (7%) or no qualifications (2%). There is no difference in terms of gender or caring responsibilities.

For context, the average proportion of service users achieving a job outcome from employment programmes in the UK varies between 20% and 30% (Department of Work and Pensions, 2024). Service users on the REP are likely to face multiple barriers to employment including language, past trauma and long-term unemployment. Therefore, it is likely that the proportion of the REP service users achieving a job outcome will be lower than this, or it will take longer for service users to move into work.

Of the service users in work in June 2024, 57% were on contracts for more than 16 hours per week. A further 2 in 5 (41%) were on contracts of between 8 and 15 hours per week. About 2% were self-employed, were on zero-hours contracts, or were employed as an apprentice. A quarter (25%) of service users in work had been employed for at least 3 months by June 2024. Nine in 10 service users in work (88%) were engaged in in-work support from the REP.

In the baseline survey, service users were asked if they had done any work experience or voluntary work in the last 6 months; 25% of service users had done so.

5.1.1 Intermediate employment outcomes

The REP aims to help move service users towards work by improving their confidence looking for work, their job search skills and their understanding of the UK job market.

Increased confidence in looking for work. At the time of enrolling on the programme, service users completing the baseline survey were split in terms of their confidence in completing job searching activities, with half being confident and half not confident. For example, 50% were not confident applying for a job that was suitable for their skills and work experience. The qualitative research found that the support provided had increased confidence levels. Service users who received help to prepare applications or take part in mock/real interviews spoke of their increased confidence in looking for work independently. Additionally, the presence of a case manager had a positive effect on service users, as they felt they had a source of support if problems arose. This helped them to be more successful in their job search.

“I would say just because they are willing to give you that ongoing support until you find a job, I would say that would have given me a boost of confidence in myself throughout the whole process of finding a job. They are willing to be there with you throughout that whole process, you are not left by yourself.”

Service user

One aspect of support in London that helped participants feel more confident in their job search was an allowance for interview clothing, which meant they could attend the interview dressed professionally and feel confident. This was particularly appreciated by the service users who had high levels of English and motivation to seek employment independently, as they relied on the REP less for finding opportunities.

“And then also I received an allowance to get an outfit for the job interview. […] It was really, really helpful”

Service user

Better understanding of the UK employment market and how things work. Some service users described looking or applying for jobs with little success before joining the REP and not understanding why. This was discouraging for them. Employment-focused support received from the REP, including advice, CV writing and job searching, helped them to better understand recruitment processes in the UK, leading to a more focused and successful job search.

“She helped me, she said, ‘You can make a driver’s licence first, then you can get more job opportunities.’ And it was exactly like that, yes, before the driver’s licence it was very hard, I had to apply for many jobs, but even not one replied to me. But, after driver’s licence, yes, I got many job opportunities, and I was excited to start.”

Service user

Having a CV

Having an up-to-date CV in a format recognised by UK employers was highlighted as an important employability-related outcome for service users, which allowed them to continue searching for jobs independently. Where the CV development process was a collaborative exercise between case managers and service users, the process imparted the knowledge and insight to enable service users to prepare CVs themselves in future, and made them feel more positive about the experience.

Feeling ready for work

Some service users reported not feeling ready to engage with employment when starting the programme. Every service user needed different support to help them feel ready for work; for some it was advice and feedback, for others it was gaining experience through volunteering, work placement or a temporary job. Similarly, gaining qualifications or certificates, such as a driver’s licence, helped service users to feel ready for work.

Ability to plan

Both case workers and service users recognised that thinking about the future and planning how to achieve more significant goals was difficult for many individuals when they enrolled in the programme. One service user mentioned that the long time they spent in limbo as an asylum seeker reduced their ability to think about the future. Working through PDPs and setting realistic, small goals helped service users to change this perspective, allowing them to link their immediate and long-term goals and see a path to their desired future, as well as understanding that they may need time and additional qualifications to get there.

“It’s not just about employment right here, right now, it’s about taking those steps to, kind of, prepare for the future.”

Lead provider delivery staff

“She even told me, ‘You have to apply for that kind of job, they give good money.’ And I applied for those jobs, and I got one of them … Also, she said, ‘When you’ve got a better experience, then you can work for [another company].’”

Service user

There were service users who felt the employment support could have been improved to increase their likelihood of achieving outcomes. Suggestions for improvement included being given more job opportunities by their case manager (as some were only signposted to websites to carry out their own searches), and the opportunities provided being better suited to their aspirations. These were mainly mentioned by service users who were eager to find a job quickly and found the pace of the programme too slow and focused on upskilling. In such cases, service users referenced turning to their social networks to find work. In discussing such circumstances, case managers reflected on the difficulty of managing service user expectations of the labour market and encouraging upskilling to find employment in the formal labour market.

When case managers were less available to service users, individuals were more likely to either spend time looking for jobs themselves or to progress more slowly. While a service user’s experience of the REP may be linked to the soft skills of their case manager, it could also be connected to their case manager’s caseload. Higher caseloads contribute to less time available for each service user.

“I think [the provider] is, kind of, aiming to be a cap of about 40 people per caseworker. My colleague, because his numbers are not quite as high as mine, we are now looking to see if he can take some of those cases on just so that the quality of support is not undermined by how many clients that we’ve got on.”

Lead provider delivery staff

5.2 Language outcomes

Prior to joining the REP service, users’ ESOL levels were recorded in the MI data. About 1 in 5 (21%) service users had English levels at pre-entry level or below, a further quarter (26%) were at Entry Level 1, 17% were at Entry Level 2, and 10% at Entry Level 3. As nearly 50% have ESOL Level 1 or below, this demonstrates the importance of ensuring ESOL needs are met to support further progress.

In the original design of the programme, ESOL was intended to be delivered by the REP providers to Package B service users, with Package A service users receiving ESOL support from local authorities. Providers and case managers reported delivering ESOL to service users in both Package A and Package B as they felt there were gaps in the availability of ESOL support from local authorities.

The lack of quality ESOL support being offered by local authorities was further supported by findings from the LEP. Panel members described their dissatisfaction with the existing forms of ESOL provision offered to refugees. Existing ESOL provision, such as courses offered in local colleges, were felt to be too short and lacked real-life content to enable refugees to develop the desired level of English proficiency needed for work. Participants also noted that a lack of opportunities to practise conversational English can be a key barrier, as refugees may spend most of their time with members of their own community. This may explain why those on Package A are taking up the offer of additional ESOL support if the classes they are currently receiving are not meeting their needs.

The REP has had positive impacts on service users in improving their language skills and confidence using English for work and for engaging with the community:

Enhanced learning experience

As the language used in health and safety protocols, policies and procedures, and in the employment context differs from everyday language, more ‘employment specific’ ESOL sessions are required. Some providers partnered with organisations such as Learning for Life and offered language support focusing on employability. Additionally, ESOL classes were sometimes integrated with other educational services, such as college courses, to enhance the learning experience.

Enhanced confidence

Service users reported feeling more confident using English in various ways, such as in job applications, interviews and daily life tasks (such as booking GP appointments, banking and schools).

Enhanced social networks

Service users mentioned that ESOL sessions helped them with not only language skills but also with developing social networks. For example, a service user mentioned “we work together as a team” about their experience of attending ESOL classes, and since their positive experience, they had signed up for other college courses.

Observations of online and in-person ESOL sessions found they delivered a range of subjects related to integration and daily life in the UK (such as British values, equality and diversity, and talking to your neighbours). Sessions were interactive and instructors encouraged service users to engage by directly asking them questions and/or grouping them to do exercises. Although service users’ levels of English were different, they were sufficiently confident to participate in activities and express their opinions.

There are various factors affecting language outcomes. The wide range of learning levels among service users presents a significant challenge in organising effective ESOL classes. This diversity necessitates differentiated instruction strategies to cater to varying proficiency levels, making it difficult to form homogeneous groups for instruction.

Many service users prefer face-to-face instruction for its interactivity and engagement, indicating that in-person learning may be a more effective mode of delivery for ESOL programmes compared to virtual lessons. However, service users often have pre-existing commitments like college, appointments or childcare, which have a higher priority (for example, with housing associations) and restrict their availability. This complicates the scheduling of and consistent attendance at ESOL classes, impacting the effectiveness of language instruction. The researchers observed some of these challenges, including service users arriving late or leaving early due to other commitments and struggling to complete tasks or participate in activities without extra help from instructors.

Stakeholders noted that service users often only practise English during their limited ESOL class hours (one to 2 hours a week) before reverting to their native language in their daily lives. This underscores the need for more conversational English practice and informal ESOL sessions, as well as ESOL tailored for employability. Therefore, it is important to explore different ways to increase opportunities for service users to practise their English skills beyond the remit of REP by adequately signposting to suitable community organisations.

Service users do not gain certification from the offered language supports. As refugees, their previous qualifications and experiences are subject to scrutiny and often not accepted by employers, and an English language certificate could remove some barriers to employment.

5.3 Integration outcomes

As described in Section 4.4, integration support varies depending on the service user’s needs. It is embedded in the PDP sessions, less structured than language or employability support, and addressed on an ongoing basis. Integration outcomes are seen as enablers of both language and employment outcomes, as they allow service users to feel secure and sufficiently supported to engage with the programme fully. Integration outcomes mentioned by service users and case managers were:

• having access to secure accommodation (although outside the scope of the REP)
• having access to healthcare and mental health support
• understanding English culture and processes
• having someone to rely on for advice and support

The above outcomes were often achieved by enhanced support rather than simply signposting, showing the value of the wraparound support provided by the REP. This was particularly important for service users who were not supported by other organisations with an integration focus. The REP case managers went beyond signposting and accompanied service users in person to appointments to ensure that they registered with a GP or had their case heard by the local housing association.

“I’ll be honest, I went to many different places, but they just show … they just referred me to different places … but then I went to the REP and [case manager], I can say, she did everything that I needed, she explained everything.”

Service user

In terms of community integration, three-quarters of service users in the baseline survey agreed they feel safe in their home/place where they live (77%) and that they know where to access health support (76%). Around 3 in 5 felt they knew who to speak to if they needed help (62%) and that they belong in their local community (61%). This demonstrates that many refugees already felt integrated to an extent, but service users reported that case managers went above and beyond to ensure individual integration needs were met.

5.4 Barriers and enablers to outcomes

5.4.1 Barriers

As described at the beginning of the chapter, the REP service users often face multiple intersecting barriers to employment and integration. The most common barriers to outcomes are as follows.

Housing issues

There is a hierarchy of needs, which causes an immediate threat to the health or wellbeing of service users. Several service users, provider staff and stakeholders mentioned housing issues as the main barrier to outcomes, in different ways:

• limits availability of service users (for example, they must attend appointments with the local authority and housing associations) and may lead to disengagement with the programme
• affects accessibility of services – with no permanent accommodation (such as staying with family and friends in different locations), transport and accessing services could be difficult

Although not within the scope of the REP, case managers are finding they are needing to address the issue of housing before supporting with other outcomes. Steps taken by lead providers include producing one-page handouts that provide key contacts, and providing additional training for case managers.

Access to financial support

As many service users struggle with accessing financial support such as state benefits, case managers are signposting to DWP and sometimes assisting with applications.

Access to childcare

Limited access to childcare makes it difficult for service users, especially women, to engage with the REP’s activities. School pick-up and drop-off times also affect their availability for employment, limiting opportunities available for those caring for children.

Mental health issues

Many service users faced serious trauma before arriving in the UK and through the process of asylum seeking and resettlement, which severely affected their mental health. Their experience as a refugee exacerbates this (such as cultural shocks, feeling isolated, lack of self-esteem) and can make it challenging for service users to commit to additional tasks such as attending regular meetings with case managers. Case managers have taken steps to address this by signposting to other services and encouraging service users to drop into the office if they need someone to talk to.

Conversion of existing qualifications

Service users with qualifications from other countries raised the issue that their previous qualifications are not recognised or accepted in the UK and they need either to obtain new ones or convert those held to UK standards. This requires extra effort and cost for service users and represents a barrier to employment.

Access to internet and IT, and digital literacy

While regions with REP offices often allow service users to access services on-site, some more rural areas do not have offices and so cannot directly help with this barrier. Digital literacy also represents a barrier to engaging with job seeking or training online. This was also seen as a barrier in the baseline survey findings, with about half the respondents not feeling confident with completing tasks using digital technology.

5.4.2 Enablers

The role of the case manager

Service users reported that an engaged and empathic case manager would go above and beyond to offer support and help service users achieve their outcomes, for example, providing support with housing applications.

Service users’ motivation to work

Due to the voluntary nature of the programme, service user motivation is a key factor in securing employment.

Flexibility and adaptability in where to engage

Utilising community spaces such as libraries and community hubs for sessions has allowed case managers to cover wider geographic areas. Offering a mix of in-person and remote support has also ensured the support is accessible.

Establishing pre-agreements with employers

Proactively seeking out employers who express interest in hiring refugees, and offer flexible working arrangements, is beginning to open job opportunities matched to service user needs and improve employment outcomes.

6. REP successes and lessons learnt

Below, we present the key successes and lessons learnt from the REP so far. Key successes show aspects of good practice implemented across the REP. Lessons learnt highlight areas for improvement.

6.1 Programme design and management

Key successes

• programme flexibility: during the tender and setup stage, the Home Office encouraged providers to adapt their own models of delivery based on their expertise and local context to best meet the needs of refugees in their region; the evaluation finds this has aided successful programme delivery; for example, providers could focus on employment or refugee support depending on their previous experience

• strong provider relationships: Home Office SDM prioritisation of regular communication, collaborative problem-solving and open feedback channels with providers has worked well; this has fostered trust and enabled a more responsive and adaptable programme

Lessons learnt

• data monitoring and review process: the data monitoring and review process has been improved since the REP launched but is still seen as a burden for providers; the Home Office could draw on this finding and simplify the process, potentially through more user-friendly data collection tools and streamlined reporting requirements; this would free providers’ time to focus on service delivery and would be expected to improve the quality of data they collect

• systemic barriers: given the complexity of the issues facing refugees, including housing insecurity, access to financial support and digital literacy, a cross-departmental approach is required to address systemic barriers to aid successful delivery of support; the Home Office involved input from other government departments, including DWP and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the programme’s development, but the involvement of these and other parts of government could be further developed to ensure such barriers are addressed

6.2 Engagement of refugees

Key successes

• multifaceted outreach strategies: providers are successfully engaging organisations working with refugees through a diverse range of outreach activities, including high-level partnerships with local organisations and community-level engagement by case managers; this has led to successful referrals into the REP and a network of organisations to offer integration support to service users

• accessible referral routes: providers have used multiple referral routes, including online forms, telephone helplines and in-person referrals, which have ensured the programme is accessible to refugees with varying levels of digital literacy; service users have reported positive experiences of enrolment, describing the self-referral process as straightforward; this positive experience has likely contributed to a lower disengagement rate

• flexibility and variety in support locations: providers ensured support is accessible with offices and hubs set up across the region, for example working out of community centres; providers offered the option of remote support for those unable to attend in person; this has meant neither location nor logistics have been a barrier to receiving support

Lessons learnt

• managing outreach and support: case managers responsible for both outreach activities and support service users found they struggled to split their time as their case load increased; providers should monitor these workloads and consider a dedicated partnership manager if not already appointed

6.3 Effective delivery of support for refugees

Key successes

• assessment and PDP process: lead providers have highlighted that staff training has focused on ensuring the PDPs are useful and realistic, with quality and compliance checks in place to ensure consistency; service users reported this process as having been useful, providing them with the time and space to discuss their experience, concerns and to start thinking about the future

• case manager role: dedicated and empathetic case managers are fundamental to positive service user experiences and outcomes; service users highly valued the focus on person-centred support beyond signposting to provide practical assistance; providers are continuing to offer training and support to equip case managers with the skills and resources to provide personalised guidance and support

• holistic support: ase managers recognised that employability is intertwined with other aspects of a refugee’s life; they are providing wraparound support encompassing housing, language and integration needs to create a strong foundation for employment success, which is proving essential for service users

• tailored employability support: providers are adopting a person-centred approach to employability support, tailoring services like CV writing, interview practice and job searching to individual needs, skills and aspirations, and empowering refugees with the knowledge and confidence to navigate the UK job market independently

• embedded ESOL support: service users are benefitting from informal ESOL opportunities on the REP, such as meetups where they can practise their English, and English classes focused more on phrases they will use regularly rather than those required to pass the ESOL test at college, for example

Lessons learnt

• service user understanding of the assessment process: service users were not always aware of the needs assessment and PDP process or their purpose; roviders should find ways to improve service users’ understanding of the PDPs’ purpose and role, and manage expectations about available support

• work experience and placements: few service users had undertaken work experience or placements to improve employability, so providers should develop more opportunities for work experience and volunteering placements to bridge the gap for those who have limited UK work experience

• housing support: in the future, if refugee support programmes include housing support, providers should ensure case managers have sufficient training to navigate housing systems and ensure case managers are emotionally prepared to work with service users experiencing housing crises

By reflecting on these successes and lessons learnt, the REP can build on what has been achieved, address challenges more effectively and create a more empowering experience for refugees entering employment and integrating into UK society. There are opportunities also to carry the successes and insights from this programme into related forms of support and integration-focused practice.

Appendix

Table A: Theory of change

Table B: Key performance indicators

KPI	Description
KPI01	Eligibility status confirmed within 5 working days since referral.
KPI02	Service users have their introductory meeting within 10 working days of enrolment communication.
KPI03	Service users have their needs based assessment within 10 working days after the introductory meeting.
KPI04	Service users are in contact with their case manager every 10 working days. If the case manager cannot make contact with the service user, they should make attempt to make contact every 5 working days in a reporting pay period.
KPI05	Service users’ PDPs are reviewed and updated every 20 working days.
KPI06	High-risk service users (that require safeguarding cases) have been informed to the authority within one calendar day.
KPI07	Exited service users have had their exit interview within 5 working days.
KPI08	Delivery of monthly management information reports.

Table C: Monthly employment outcomes

Month	Total number of service users in employment	Percentage of service users in employment
October 2023	14	3%
November 2023	45	3%
December 2023	84	4%
January 2024	126	4%
February 2024	188	5%
March 2024	275	6%
April 2024	361	6%
May 2024	446	7%
June 2024	579	8%

Glossary

Term	Definition
Case managers	Work directly with refugees on the REP on a one-to-one basis to address their support needs and support them into employment.
Economic evaluation	Assesses the cost-effectiveness of a programme. It compares the programme’s costs with its outcomes, often measured in monetary terms, to determine if the benefits outweigh the costs.
ESOL levels	Measure proficiency in English as a second language. Entry levels 1 to 3, and levels 1 and 2 are Ofqual-accredited (Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation). Pre-entry is an unaccredited level for learners working towards the entry levels.
Home Office service delivery manager	Home Office service delivery managers (SDMs) manage the REP contracts delivered by providers. They work directly with providers through a structured system of monthly reviews, weekly catch-ups, and ad hoc meetings/contact.
Impact evaluation	Measures a programme’s overall effects and whether it achieved its intended goals. It aims to determine the programme’s causal impact by comparing outcomes for those who participated versus those who did not.
Lead provider management staff	Responsible for the REP contract, they work closely with Home Office SDMs. They manage case managers and ensure the contract is being rolled out as intended. Also known as lead providers.
Learning strand	Includes a range of activities (such as interviews and workshops) with different audiences to gain learnings from the role out of the REP and create opportunities for these to be shared back with the Home Office, providers and stakeholders.
Local support organisations	Local support organisations are those offering support to refugees either before or alongside the REP. They include voluntary and community sector organisations and local authorities.
Package A	Employment support only for REP participants who receive government-funded integration support through the local authority tariff (the UK Resettlement Scheme, Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme and Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy) or community-funded support through the Community Sponsorship Scheme.
Package B	Employment support, English language support and integration support for participants who do not receive government-funded integration support through the local authority tariff or from a community sponsor group.
Personal Development Plan (PDP)	A document co-created by a case manager and service user detailing key aspects of their discussions covering actions to support integration, language skills and to work towards employment.
Process evaluation	Examines how a programme is implemented, such as whether the programme activities were delivered as intended and if it reached the target population.
Providers	Organisations commissioned by the Home Office to deliver the REP in the 9 regions of England.
Service users	Refugees accessing services provided by the REP.
Theory of change	A theory of change (ToC) is an explicit theory of how and why it is thought a social policy or programme activities will lead to the intended outcomes and impacts.

References

Department for Work and Pensions (2024) Work and health programme statistics to November 2023.

Triangle Consulting Social Enterprise Limited (2025a) What is the Outcomes Star TM?

Triangle Consulting Social Enterprise Limited (2025b) The Integration Star TM.

Zolberg, A.R. (1983) The Formation of New States as a Refugee-Generating Process. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 467: 24–38.

Zolberg A.R., Suhrke A. and Aguayo S. (1993) ‘Escape from Violence: Conflict and the Refugee Crisis in the Developing World’. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.