Research and analysis

Systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping: Interaction with the asylum system

Published 11 December 2025

Applies to England

Foreword 

This report has been produced as part of the Systems-wide Evaluation of Homelessness and Rough Sleeping. The aim of this innovative evaluation is to identify opportunities to improve the way that the homelessness and rough sleeping system works to ensure it is delivering the best possible outcomes for those who need to make use of services and value for money for the taxpayer.   

This report builds on the first interim report and complements other reports from the evaluation on policy areas that influence homelessness and rough sleeping, including the criminal justice system, supported housing and social housing allocations. It focusses on the interaction between the asylum and homelessness and rough sleeping systems, drawing on qualitative insights from across England. It identifies factors that can increase the risk of homelessness throughout the transition of refugees from the asylum estate, from preparing for transition to integrating into the community. It also highlights opportunities to build on good practice by some local authorities and diaspora organisations.   

We would like to thank the Centre for Homelessness Impact and their partners for their expertise and continuing hard work to deliver this ambitious programme of research, local authority staff and other stakeholders who participated in the research, and the analysts at MHCLG and the Home Office who provided input to the research materials and reviewed the outputs.   

Most importantly, we are hugely grateful to the individuals with lived experience of homelessness who participated for giving us their time and sharing their experiences with the research team.  

The findings in this report build on a substantial evidence base published by MHCLG which informs the new Cross-Government Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy. This evidence base, summarised in the strategy’s Analytical annex, demonstrates MHCLG’s commitment to identifying the causes of and solutions to homelessness and rough sleeping, and to ensuring that policy and practice are grounded in robust analysis.  

MHCLG will continue to develop the evidence in this area, including through the Test and Learn programme, and work collaboratively to fill remaining gaps. MHCLG’s plans for improving data and evidence on homelessness and rough sleeping are set out in Section 5 of the Analytical annex.  

Stephen Aldridge 

Director for Analysis and Data & Chief Economist 

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Executive summary

This report outlines the findings from an exploration of how some current elements of asylum policy and practice are impacting on homelessness and rough sleeping. It also includes a consideration of the role of diaspora organisations in supporting those at risk of, or experiencing, homelessness. In addition to outlining the evidence obtained during fieldwork, the report contains recommendations from the evaluation team on ways in which asylum policy and practice can be adapted to better prevent homelessness and rough sleeping.

The report has been written by RSM UK Consulting LLP in partnership with the Centre for Homelessness Impact and Cordis Bright.

Scope and purpose

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has commissioned the Centre for Homelessness Impact, in consortium with RSM UK Consulting LLP and Cordis Bright, to conduct a systems-wide evaluation of the homelessness and rough sleeping system in England. This element of the evaluation explores how some elements of asylum policy and practice influence the homelessness and rough sleeping system.

The research specifically aims to enhance the government’s understanding of the impact the transition process for refugees moving out of asylum accommodation in England can have on housing outcomes. It also examines the role of diaspora organisations in supporting this transition, as well as the influence of current policy around family reunions and eVisas. By identifying the factors that increase the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping, this research aims to support the government in determining potential ways of preventing homelessness and rough sleeping.

This research was concluded in April 2025. It therefore does not reflect any changes in policy or practice since that time.

Background

A person seeking asylum is someone who has applied to be recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention because they fear persecution in their home country. Their claim must be formally lodged and considered valid under UK Immigration Rules. A person granted asylum has had their application approved after the Secretary of State determines that they meet the definition of a refugee under Article 1 of the Refugee Convention. This means they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, and they are not considered a danger to UK security or the community.

Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Home Office is required to provide accommodation and subsistence support to all destitute people seeking asylum whilst their asylum claims are being decided. A person is destitute if they do not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it, or if they have adequate accommodation but cannot meet their other essential living needs.

At the point that someone receives a decision on their asylum claim, notice is issued by the asylum accommodation provider on behalf of the Home Office with an expectation that the person receiving the decision will exit asylum accommodation. Currently the notice period is 28 days from when an individual is deemed to have received a positive decision on a claim for asylum and 21 days in all other cases, including negative decisions.

Data suggests that those granted refugee status are often unable to secure alternative accommodation during the notice period and this is leading to both homelessness and rough sleeping. The number of households being accepted as statutorily homeless after leaving asylum accommodation increased significantly in 2023-2024.^{[footnote 1]} The monthly data release for December 2024 showed that 11% of people new to rough sleeping did so after leaving asylum accommodation.^{[footnote 2]}

Research methods

This research employed a qualitative approach to conduct fieldwork with representatives from six local areas across England and with regional and national stakeholders. As part of the fieldwork, researchers conducted 17 semi-structured group interviews involving 60 stakeholders, including local, regional, and national stakeholders across the statutory and voluntary sectors. Findings from these interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and triangulated to provide the findings presented in the report.

As with any methods, there were some limitations. The research relied on interviews with stakeholders from selected local areas, chosen for diversity in urbanisation and geography. However, the small sample size cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative. The research cannot provide viewpoints and perspectives specific to each regional area because views were sought from multiple stakeholders within each interview. This approach gathered diverse insights based on different roles and experiences, which made it challenging to attribute a singular perspective for each area or compare differences between areas. However, this approach provided a level of depth and richness in experiences and insights that would otherwise not have been captured. Given the importance of context in influencing individual or organisational experiences, the findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

Summary of findings

Preparing for transition out of the asylum system

Research participants from local, regional, and central government, as well as third sector organisations reported that people leaving asylum accommodation do receive support from Home Office (and commissioned partners) as well as local authorities. This included from Migrant Help’s Move-On Service. Commissioned by the Home Office to assist individuals transitioning from asylum support, whether they have received a positive or negative asylum decision. For those with a positive decision, the service is commissioned to provide guidance on accessing eVisas, opening bank accounts, applying for benefits, accessing healthcare and finding housing. Outside of the contract, and only where the individual consents, Migrant Help can also make a referral to the local authority for support with housing through agreed protocols. All support is provided in the appropriate language. For those who receive a negative asylum decision, Migrant Help can provide guidance on legal options, appeals, and other appropriate advice.

There were concerns raised, however, about the effectiveness of the support provided, and a more overarching concern about a lack of alignment of priorities and responsibilities across central government departments. Research participants reported that the main Home Office-commissioned support service provides mostly standardised information and guidance via leaflets and over the phone. This has been bolstered by the relatively recent provision of asylum move-on liaison officers to support local areas with high numbers of units of asylum accommodation. The support made available by the Home Office was viewed positively but generally perceived as insufficient, with interviewees noting issues with both accessibility and effectiveness. It is too early to assess the impact of this additional support.

Some local authorities reported working proactively to offer, or commission, services to support people seeking asylum while they were still in asylum accommodation and awaiting their decision. However, this support was at the discretion of each individual local authority, creating regional disparities, and often not present or inadequate in terms of capacity. A formal review of the current offer of move-on support, including what is working well and less well, could help address these gaps and ensure long-term housing stability.

Local and national stakeholders noted conflicting objectives between government departments, and a lack of clarity on the extent of responsibility of the Home Office and MHCLG to provide move-on support for refugees. Policy priorities across government departments could be better aligned with the goal being to avoid one department’s priority, clearing the asylum backlog, conflicting with the wider governmental ambition to prevent and end homelessness.

Determining eligibility for housing assistance

Interviewees described the process that local authorities undertake to determine eligibility of refugees for housing assistance. Local stakeholders outlined the need for timely and holistic homelessness assessments, the barriers that hinder this and opportunities for improvement. Research participants also detailed how the application of priority need determinations and local connection rules to refugees seeking local authority support for housing can act as a particular barrier for this group in accessing housing and shared potential ways to improve the accessibility of housing assistance for refugees and reduce risks of homelessness and rough sleeping.

Timeliness of homelessness assessments: Local authority representatives described the challenges experienced in securing accommodation for refugees during the notice period they are given after receiving an asylum decision. The notice period given by the Home Office to those who have received a positive asylum decision was temporarily extended in December 2024 from 28 days to 56 days (for a period running until June 2025). While this change was welcomed, research participants expressed doubts about its effectiveness in the absence of wider system changes to improve how and when a local authority is notified about refugees leaving the asylum system. One barrier related to the delays and incomplete information sharing between Home Office (or their commissioned providers) and local authorities. It was suggested that including the Home Office and their commissioned asylum support providers under the Duty to Refer legislation could improve data sharing and homelessness prevention. Alternatively, tighter monitoring of the contractual obligation of asylum accommodation providers to provide relevant information to local authorities in a timely manner could be explored. Timely notification and data sharing is crucial to enable help local authorities conduct assessments at an earlier stage and deliver effective preventative activity. Additionally, local authority officers were uncertain about whether they were allowed to use this data for homelessness and rough sleeping prevention activity, which suggests an opportunity for legislative change or issuing guidance to clarify the issue.

Enabling refugees to demonstrate their priority need for housing assistance: Representatives from non-governmental organisations highlighted that refugees often find it challenging to prove that they have a ‘priority need’ under the homelessness legislation. This was said to be because homelessness assessments were not holistic enough and  often did not take the specific histories (including experiences of trauma) or circumstances (lack of usual documentation of housing and medical history) of refugees into consideration when assessing priority need. It was suggested by local and national representatives of non-governmental bodies that revising the priority need guidance to encourage assessors to consider the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of refugees would increase the likelihood that vulnerable refugees qualify for the support they are entitled to under the Housing Act 1996. A limited number of stakeholders went further to suggest that refugees could be given a blanket determination of priority need, similar to that offered to veterans, arguing that this, in turn, could reduce the administrative burden on local authorities and the legal system in terms of dealing with challenges to non-priority need homelessness decisions.

Application of local connection rules: Research participants explained that the current asylum dispersal policy means that people seeking asylum could be accommodated anywhere in the UK. It was reported that refugees often experience a mismatch between the area where they have a ‘statutory’ local connection (based on the location of their asylum accommodation) and the area that they feel might feel more connected to due to potential community links or work-related opportunities. The desire to join their diaspora communities, or to seek work, often motivates refugees to seek housing assistance from local authorities outside of where they have a local connection, which can both lead to requests for housing assistance being denied on the grounds of local connection and create an unequal pressure on homelessness and rough sleeping services in certain areas.

Accommodation and community integration

Research participants shared how the efforts of a refugee to get settled, securing safe and stable housing, gaining employment and reuniting with their family, is often thwarted by challenges with housing supply, insufficient funding, information sharing between Home Office and local authorities, and digital literacy levels.

Housing supply and funding pressures: Interviewees highlighted that the overall shortage of affordable housing strains efforts to provide stable accommodation for refugees as they leave asylum accommodation. For those refugees relying on benefits to pay for housing, Local Housing Allowance rates do not generally match market rental rates. It was noted that this is particularly the case with the Department for Work and Pension’s Shared Accommodation Rate, which is applicable for the large proportion of single refugees who are aged under 35. If not deemed to have a priority need under the homelessness legislation, this lack of affordable housing leads to an increased risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. Increasing Local Housing Allowance rates overall and either abolishing or creating an exemption to the Shared Accommodation rate for refugees may help with the affordability of the private rented sector as the likeliest type of move on housing being accessed by refugees, particularly those under 35.

Participants from local authorities reflected that clearly defined, and funded, resettlement programmes for people from certain countries (eg: Ukraine, Afghanistan) have helped them to help people settle and integrate locally. However, there is no dedicated funding or resource to improve transitions for those moving into the community from the wider asylum support system. Local authorities suggested a dedicated fund to support refugees would be beneficial, providing them with much needed financial support to enable them to extend good practice from the resettlement schemes that target specific nationality groups.

Reunion with families: National, regional, and local stakeholders described how the lack of communication between central government and local authorities places a strain on local authorities. At the time of the research, local authorities were often not informed by the Home Office when a refugee applies for, or has been granted, a family reunion visa, meaning they only became aware of the housing need when the family presents to them, sometimes at crisis point. This can result in an urgent need for family-sized emergency accommodation, which places further strain temporary accommodation budgets and on already limited housing resources in a local area.

Research participants also emphasised that the overall shortage of housing is a significant barrier to securing stable accommodation for refugee families. This challenge is further exacerbated by the fact that many refugee families require larger properties, which were described to be particularly scarce. The research suggests that central government should explore increasing the supply of family-sized affordable housing and particularly consider targeted investment in rural areas.

Introduction and use of eVisas: Interviews with national, regional, and local stakeholders highlighted several challenges associated with the transition to eVisas, including digital barriers, such as people lacking access to the required technology like smartphones or reliable internet, along with a lack of clear guidance and support which may mean people are not aware of what they need to do. It was noted that many refugees did not have access to the necessary technology, and support organisations had limited capacity to facilitate this, making it difficult to complete online applications.

Both the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions reported taking steps to improve the situation for refugees and minimise the negative impact of the eVisa rollout. The UK Visas & Immigration Service Resolution Centre has been in place throughout the roll out of eVisas, along with an Assisted Digital service to support those that needed additional assistance. However, some local stakeholders reported that there were still delays in transitioning to eVisas. These challenges were said to impact the ability of refugees to create bank accounts, receive welfare benefits in a timely manner, and even access statutory homelessness services. For some, it was felt that the eVisa transition may even jeopardise existing housing or employment. It should be noted that eVisas are a recognised identity document, but this was not universally understood at the time of research.

Early integration of people seeking asylum: Actively encouraging people seeking asylum to volunteer whilst awaiting their decision was suggested as a potential way of improving well-being and improving employability after asylum is granted. It was also reported to potentially cement a person’s connection to the area in which their asylum accommodation is located, making it more likely that those who go on to be granted asylum will remain in dispersal areas, reducing internal migration.

The role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees’ transition

Research participants from local, regional, and central government, as well as organisations commissioned to provide support, highlighted both benefits and limitations in the support provided by diaspora organisations to those transitioning out of asylum accommodation. These organisations were defined as groups formed by individuals from a common country or cultural background living abroad, that exist to support their community through cultural, social, economic, or advocacy activities.

Positive contributions of diaspora organisations: Research participants highlighted the positive role that diaspora organisations can play in supporting refugees at risk of or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. It was suggested that a key role relates to diaspora organisations’ ability to offer culturally sensitive assistance, foster community trust, and bridge gaps in support linked to the limited offer made by statutory or commissioned services. Some of the ways in which diaspora organisations were said to have made an impact is in the provision of essential services such as food, clothing, mental health support, housing advice, and employment-related assistance. These sources of support are well received by refugees because they are more culturally aligned and trusted than statutory or commissioned services. Consequently, interviewees concluded that diaspora organisations are well placed to assist both people seeking asylum and refugees in gaining the skills and information they need to navigate the system during and following their transition from asylum accommodation. This can reduce the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly for those who do not have a priority need for local authority housing.

Limitations of informal support: Certain barriers were also highlighted by research participants that limit the effectiveness of the support provided by some diaspora organisations. While it was suggested that good collaboration between the diaspora organisations and local authorities is beneficial for improving refugee outcomes, interviewees shared that this was sometimes challenging due to the varying structures and levels of formality amongst the organisations.

The research also suggested that there can be an overreliance on diaspora organisations to provide support that participants felt should be commissioned and provided more formally. This overreliance was reported to have created service gaps and inconsistent housing support for refugees and engendered a perception by some diaspora organisations that refugees may not be eligible for local authority support.

Diaspora organisations were said to face challenges in navigating the complexities of housing policy and statutory services, which can impact their ability to assist refugees effectively. Stakeholders also described how diaspora organisations frequently face funding constraints, which can limit their ability to provide consistent support services. Furthermore, diaspora organisations face geographical limitations in the support they can offer refugees as they might not be located where refugees are dispersed, leading to inward migration into areas where services and communities exist.

Finally, participants highlighted while they provide vital support, diaspora organisations may not meet the needs of all refugees. Some groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, may feel uncomfortable seeking help from some diaspora organisations due to cultural attitudes and fear of discrimination.

Opportunities for improvement: The research emphasises the crucial role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees but notes that smaller grassroots organisations face barriers in accessing the financial support they need to operate effectively. Capacity-building support and flexible funding models were suggested as necessary to help these organisations continue to function positively in this policy space. However, some concerns were raised about the potential impact of increased funding for diaspora organisations leading to a reduction in the feeling of accountability for the well-being and housing needs of refugees within mainstream statutory provision.

Further, there was a suggestion about increasing the availability of specialist legal advice and leveraging grassroots organisations more effectively to enhance support. It was noted that this may require some monitoring on the part of local authorities and much improved service coordination. The provision of education, training and awareness raising for diaspora organisations on housing legislation and refugee rights was viewed as necessary to improve their support for refugees

Policy insights

The research presented in this report provides valuable insights into how elements of asylum policy and practice are influencing homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees. The findings, informed by the insights of local, regional and national stakeholders, highlight several areas where the government could consider taking action to improve outcomes. These insights are set out below:

Operational policy insights:

Policy insight 1: Explore the impact of the temporarily extended 56-day notice period for refugees needing to leave asylum accommodation after a decision. This research found the recent extension of the notice period from 28- days to 56-days was welcomed although research participants expressed doubts about its effectiveness in the absence of wider system changes to improve how and when a local authority is notified about refugees leaving the asylum system. Central government could evaluate the impact of the change to 56-days could provide insights into whether it has improved housing and other outcomes, whether it is feasible to secure accommodation within this timeframe, and the pathways refugees follow post-decision.

Policy insight 2: Review the application of the Shared Accommodation Rate to examine the impact on housing accessibility. This research found that the overall shortage of affordable housing strains efforts to provide stable accommodation for refugees as they leave asylum accommodation. For refugees relying on benefits to pay for housing, Local Housing Allowance rates do not generally match market rental rates. It was noted that this is particularly the case with the Shared Accommodation Rate, which is applicable for the large proportion of single refugees who are aged under 35. Central government could review the application of the Shared Accommodation Rate to refugees to examine the impact on housing accessibility and explore potential adjustments for this group to better align with rental costs. Any changes would need to be considered in the context of wider homelessness and rough sleeping pressures and funding priorities to ensure a balanced approach across different groups.

Policy insight 3: Explore opportunities to support the early integration of refugees via work, volunteering and training opportunities. This research identifies that person’s ability to assimilate into local community depends on the security of their accommodation as well as opportunities to live in a place they have personal connections with, work, volunteer and gain skills. Central government could assess the potential benefits and challenges of enabling people seeking asylum to engage in structured integration activities, such as volunteering, work, or skills training, while awaiting a decision on their claim. This could improve their integration and increase their connectedness to the local area in which they are placed. This in turn could reduce the likelihood of internal migration following a decision on their claim being made, which risks homelessness and rough sleeping if they are deemed not to have a local connection and increases pressure on desirable areas.   

Policy insight 4: Review access to specialist legal advice for refugees leaving asylum accommodation. This research found refugees who have had positive decisions often face challenges claiming priority need for housing due to poor documentation or local authority practices that are not trauma-informed or culturally competent. With specialist solicitors in this sector facing high demand, additional resourcing could be considered to support service provision. At the same time, refining the coordination between generalist advice services and specialist legal professionals could help ensure that refugees receive accurate guidance rather than being signposted between multiple services. Strengthening pathways for legal referrals could improve access to timely and appropriate support for those facing housing challenges.

Policy insight 5: Review the effectiveness of nationally and locally commissioned services supporting refugees leaving asylum accommodation. This research suggests that there is a reliance on local authorities and third sector organisations to fill gaps in nationally provided support for refugees leaving asylum accommodation, which may lead to inconsistent levels of support across different regions, creating a postcode lottery.  A review could build on the findings from this research which suggest that the existing move-on support service commissioned by the Home Office is not fully meeting needs and is focused on short-term information provision rather than securing long-term housing stability. Local support to supplement the national service is not consistently provided.

Policy insight 6: Ensure the eVisa processes and support provided to provides equitable access to services and administrative barriers are kept to a minimum. This research highlighted several challenges associated with the transition to eVisas, including digital barriers, such as people lacking access to the required technology like smartphones or reliable internet, along with a lack of clear guidance and support which may mean people are not aware of what they need to do. Training and digital support mechanisms could be reviewed to assess how refugees can navigate the eVisa processes and system to improve accessible and reduce confusion.

Policy insight 7: Assess the feasibility of a dedicated and equitable refugee integration or support fund for local authorities. In this research participants reflected on the lack of dedicated funding or resource to improve cohesion and integration for communities transitioning from the asylum system. They reported that the clearly defined resettlement programmes for certain groups of refugees, such as those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, helped improve integration of people into the local communities.  However, it was noted that such formal programmes or pathways do not exist for people coming through the general asylum system and that the funding available is therefore not comparable. Assessing the feasibility of a integration/support fund for local authorities could take lessons from nation-specific resettlement programmes while allowing local authorities to respond flexibly to the needs of all refugee populations.

Policy insight 8: Explore offering targeted funding or support for diaspora organisations engaged in supporting refugees to integrate. This research highlighted that diaspora organisation can play an important role in supporting refugee communities but that some need more support. There were differing views on whether this should be achieved through greater investment in diaspora organisations or strengthening statutory services. To support better collaboration between diaspora organisations and local authorities, central government could review funding mechanisms, encourage inclusive commissioning, and engage with a broader range of diaspora-led organisations. Additional investment could focus on long-term capacity building, helping diaspora organisations strengthen their governance, skills, and sustainability, improving clarity of housing advice and improve messaging around housing entitlements.

Policy insights for system change:

Policy insight 9: Learn from what is working well and less well in the asylum move-on liaison officer role. This research suggests that it may be too early to conclude the effectiveness of this role, and a formal evaluation may yield valuable insights. Efforts could be made to learn from what is working well and less well in the asylum move-on liaison officer role and to standardise best practice across regions to help ensure that all refugees receive meaningful support as they transition from asylum accommodation to settled housing. If found to be effective, the government could assess opportunities to expand the resourcing of asylum move-on liaison officers.

Policy insight 10: Improve the experience of refugees seeking support from local authorities under housing and homelessness legislation. This research found that refugees often find it challenging to prove that they have a ‘priority need’ under the homelessness legislation. This was said to be because homelessness assessments often did not take the specific histories (including experiences of trauma) or circumstances (lack of usual documentation of housing and medical history) of refugees into consideration when assessing priority need. Central government could consider amending the homelessness guidance issued to local authorities to ensure it accounts for the specific circumstances a refugee may face. In the meantime, local authorities can and should take steps to improve the cultural competency of homelessness assessments and priority need determinations. Central government could further support this by developing a standardised training framework in consultation with local authorities, refugee organisations, and housing professionals.

Policy insight 11: Increasing investment in affordable housing, including in larger properties. The overall shortage of affordable housing is an issue for people leaving asylum accommodation. A specific potential approach would be to consider targeted investment in rural areas to expand housing availability and ease pressure on high-demand urban locations. Any investment strategy would need to consider both existing housing availability and employment opportunities to ensure that solutions are practical and sustainable.

Policy insights for improved information and data sharing:

Policy insight 12: Clarify data-sharing restrictions for local authorities to effectively use asylum data for strategic planning and homelessness prevention. Improve communication flows about asylum decision-making to enable local authorities to have enough time to prevent homelessness. Research participants described restrictions that preclude local authorities from sharing data internally across their housing teams or to use it to take early action to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping for refugees in their area. A clearer national framework or exemption under GDPR could enable providers within the asylum system to legally share relevant data with local government or establish a shared system. If the perceived restrictions do not exist, it suggests a misunderstanding of the data protection rules by some local authorities and this needs to be tackled to enable more effective use of information gathered already. At the time of research, local authorities also reported challenges including delayed and incomplete data sharing and notification to local authorities about refugees leaving the asylum system. One option would be to require asylum accommodation providers to use the statutory Duty to Refer system to notify local authorities when a risk of homelessness is identified following a positive asylum decision. Another would be for the Home Office to more closely monitor, and performance manage, their contracted providers to meet existing targets to share information with local authorities in a timely manner. Either approach could support local authorities to take earlier action to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees.

This report

This report sets out findings from research undertaken as part of the second phase of the systems-wide evaluation of homelessness and rough sleeping. It focuses on four aspects of refugee policy and practice in England. This includes preparing for the transition from asylum accommodation, determining eligibility for housing assistance, accommodation and community integration, and the role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees transition out of asylum accommodation. For each part of a refugee’s journey transitioning from asylum accommodation and integrating into the local community, key issues were explored. These areas were based on the key drivers of homelessness and rough sleeping emerging from a rapid evidence assessment as well as consultations with expert advisors and government policy colleagues.

Chapter 1 introduces the research, its intended scope and objectives, outlining the research questions that the research set out to answer. It provides some context of how these aspects of asylum policy and practice can influence homelessness and rough sleeping outcomes, and an outline of the policies in place to support those at risk of experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. This chapter also presents the approach taken to the fieldwork and how evidence was synthesised and analysed.

Chapters 2-5 uses the output from fieldwork (group interviews with local, regional and national stakeholders) to outline how asylum policy and practice acts upon homelessness and rough sleeping systems. The report focuses on preparing for the transition from asylum accommodation, determining eligibility for housing assistance, supporting accommodation and community integration, and the role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees transition out of asylum accommodation. Each chapter also includes an outline of potential levers the government could use to effectively influence improvements and wider insights to be considered for implementing change.

Chapters 6 brings together the learnings from this research to outline key lessons on how factors surrounding asylum policy and practice can influence homelessness and rough sleeping. The content in this chapter is organised thematically based of different categories of levers and opportunities.

Chapter 7 presents a series of policy options building on the findings and learnings presented in Chapters 2-5.

Annex 1 describes the qualitative methods used in support of this research. The chapter further outlines the approach taken to the fieldwork and how the research output was synthesised and analysed. The chapter concludes with a summary of the limitations of the methodology used in this evaluation.

The report concludes with a list of references.

1. Introduction and context

1.1 Aim of the research

The aim of this research is to enhance the government’s understanding of how the transition of refugees out of asylum accommodation, and into stable housing, can be better supported to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping. The research also aims to enhance understanding of the role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees as they transition out of asylum accommodation, and of two specific aspects of policy considered to be currently impacting the homelessness and rough sleeping system – family reunion and eVisas. These areas of policy and practice were chosen based on a rapid evidence assessment as well as consultations with expert advisors and government policy colleagues The goal of this research is to provide government with deeper insights into the system dynamics and identify factors which can be leveraged to better support refugees leaving asylum accommodation and at risk of experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping.

1.2  Asylum policy and practice and its influence on homelessness

People seeking asylum are individuals who have fled their home countries due to fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Upon arrival, people seeking asylum must apply for asylum to be recognised as refugees and receive protection. The process involves a screening interview, followed by a detailed asylum interview with a caseworker. While awaiting a decision, people seeking asylum are typically not allowed to work but may receive support in the form of housing and a small cash allowance.

Those arriving in England as refugees are individuals identified by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as particularly vulnerable, such as those fleeing conflict or persecution who are then selected by the government to relocate directly from refugee camps or host countries and are granted refugee status.

In 2024, 108,138 people claimed asylum in the UK, relating to 84,231 cases. 47% of the initial decisions granted those seeking asylum the leave to remain in the UK. But 124,802 people were awaiting an initial decision on their asylum applications as of December 2024. This demand on the asylum system has increased, with the number of people seeking asylum almost doubling since 2021.

Asylum policy and practice plays a key role in housing outcomes. Policy and practice around the transition from asylum accommodation, the role of diaspora organisations in supporting refugees, and emerging issues such as how family reunion policies and the transition to eVisas are managed can influence whether individuals secure stable housing or face homelessness and rough sleeping.

1.3 Overview of methodology

1.3.1 Data collection

This study used a qualitative approach, conducting fieldwork in six diverse local authority areas selected to capture a mix of urban, rural, and metropolitan contexts. A total of 17 semi-structured group interviews were held with 60 stakeholders from national, regional, and local levels, including government representatives, local authority staff, third-sector organisations, housing providers, and individuals with lived experience. Topic guides were co-designed with the Centre for Homelessness Impact and MHCLG to address the research questions, focusing on asylum policy and practice in relation to homelessness and rough sleeping. Group interviews were conducted virtually via MS Teams, lasted up to 90 minutes, and were transcribed using the platform’s automated service.

1.3.2 Synthesis and Analysis

A framework-based thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s principles (2006), was used to examine the data. A deductive approach enabled the identification of key themes and patterns aligned with the research questions.

Triangulation workshops and roundtable discussions with MHCLG and Home Office stakeholders helped validate the findings, incorporate diverse perspectives, and refine the messaging to ensure insights were actionable and policy relevant. This collaborative approach strengthened the rigour of the analysis and enabled a detailed understanding of how asylum policy and practice intersects with homelessness and rough sleeping.

1.3.3  Limitations

The research relied on interviews with stakeholders from selected local areas, chosen for diversity in urbanisation and geography. However, the small sample size cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative. The approach aimed to gather in-depth insights through open-ended questions as opposed to using closed questions with a predetermined set of answer options. This enables a more thorough understanding of participants perspectives but makes comparing responses by area or any other characteristic more challenging.  Given the importance of context in influencing individual or organisational experiences, the findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations. Qualitative data is inherently subjective, meaning there is a risk of bias affecting both the views expressed by participants and the interpretation of evidence by researchers. This risk has been mitigated through sampling a diverse range of participants, extensive review of analytical findings, and triangulation of findings wherever possible. It is made clear where it has not been possible to verify claims made by participants throughout the report.

2. Preparing for the transition from asylum accommodation

2.1 Introduction

A person seeking asylum is one who has left their country and moved to the UK to seek protection from persecution and/or serious human rights violations. The Home Office has a statutory duty to accommodate people seeking asylum who would otherwise be destitute while their application for asylum is being considered. If the Home Office is satisfied that the person seeking asylum appears to be destitute or will be destitute in the next 14 days, the person may be provided with temporary emergency support under Section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is either in the form of full board at a Home Office hostel or hotel or financial support in the form of a pre-paid card if the accommodation is self-catering. Once their asylum claim is being processed, and they continue to satisfy the destitution test explained above, the person seeking asylum is supported under Section 95. This support could be in the form of accommodation (provided under Section 98 or as dispersed accommodation in a different part of the country) or subsistence only depending on the circumstances.  

While they are within the asylum system waiting for a decision, individuals are typically not allowed to work or to access the benefits system. If they have been waiting for over 12 months for a decision, they may apply for permission to work via the immigration salary list (previously called the Shortage Occupation list) if the wait is not deemed to be their fault. As per section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971, if a person claims asylum while on an extant visa that allows work rights, they are able to retain those rights even after their original visa expires until the asylum claim is determined.

A person’s claim for asylum can take from several months to over a year to be assessed and decided upon. As of December 2024, over half of those still awaiting an asylum decision had been waiting for more than 6 months.^{[footnote 3]} A positive decision means the person is granted refugee status and a number of associated rights, including the right to work and claim welfare benefits. A person with refugee status can rent accommodation from a private landlord and receive homelessness assistance from local authorities. However, when individuals are granted refugee status, they are given a short notice period to leave the asylum accommodation. This notice period was 28 days, but in December 2024 it was extended to 56 days for a trial period until June 2025.^{[footnote 4]} This increase in notice period was intended to provide individuals and local authorities with more time to facilitate a planned move from asylum accommodation during a period of increased asylum decision making. This change was welcomed by those who were interviewed.

“I’m really happy to see the equity that [the refugees] have now got [with the extension to] 56 days, notice period now the same as everybody else has when they leave their accommodation.” – Local Authority representative.

It was too early for local authority representatives to report the effectiveness of the lengthening of the notice period. However, many research participants speculated that this change alone would not resolve the challenge that local authorities face in supporting refugees to access housing. Other aspects of the system contribute to the problem and would need to be addressed alongside the change to the notice period itself. This included information sharing, availability of housing stock, and funding for integration support, which are discussed in later sections in detail.

If a person receives a negative decision, they are not allowed to access public funds, and their asylum accommodation and support will end unless they submit an appeal to the decision. Post a negative decision, they may be able to apply for continued accommodation and financial support under Section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Once appeals’ rights have been exhausted, a person may be subject to removal.

There has been a notable increase in the homelessness and rough sleeping levels of people leaving the asylum system. Compared with the previous year, 2023/24 saw a 114% increase in those owed a prevention duty and a 252% increase in those owed a relief duty amongst those required to leave asylum accommodation (MHCLG, 2024a). Similarly, there was a 133% increase between Q2 2023/24 and Q3 2024/25 in the estimated number of people experiencing rough sleeping over the course of the month who had left asylum support in the last 85 days (MHCLG, 2024b).

This chapter discusses the statutory support commissioned by the Home Office for people transitioning out of asylum accommodation and opportunities to increase its effectiveness. It also discusses the support offered by some local authorities and third sector organisations outside of what is statutorily provided. Finally, it discusses the alignment of priorities across government departments and improvements that could support better system working.

2.2 Home Office commissioned sources of support during the move-on period

Individuals granted refugee status receive a grant of asylum letter which includes information and guidance on next steps. The Home Office also offer move on support to all individuals through Migrant Help and their partner organisations.

Following the official letter, refugees are also contacted by an organisation commissioned by the Home Office with a standardised offer of support. This typically involves a phone call to go through six key touch points for refugees transitioning from the asylum system. The primary purpose of this support is to reiterate that the refugee’s accommodation and asylum support will be coming to an end once the notice period is completed. The organisation reinforces information in the Home Office leaflet and signposts the newly granted refugee to various sources of further external advice, guidance and assistance. This includes how to apply for Universal Credit, how to apply for housing support from the local authority, how to obtain a national insurance number, how to access Job Centre Plus work coaches and information about how to reach out to the Citizen Advice Bureau for further support and guidance. The person is also informed about the necessary documentation they would need for each process, and about the importance of setting up a bank account to receive Universal Credit. Following a positive decision being made, refugees are also provided with digital status to enable access to support.

Overall, research participants from central government and commissioned organisations did not believe that the support during the transition period was sufficient. One local authority representative believed that “the transitional support [is] a little flimsy.” Similarly, a representative from central government commented, “[the leaflet] is good for information, but it is not necessarily motivating or enabling people to be a bit more self-sufficient.” The leaflet was also described as “intimidating” and “uninviting” due to its official nature, use of technical language and references to unfamiliar systems. In addition, the leaflet is only available in English so people who do not speak or read English fluently would struggle to understand it even if were presented in a more accessible way.

The telephone support aims to ensure that refugees understand the steps they need to take and the support available to them as they transition out of the asylum system. However, both local and national stakeholders highlighted concerns about how well the information is received by refugees and how it can risk inaction and homelessness and rough sleeping.

These findings suggest some simple steps could be taken to improve the accessibility of the information provided, such as making it available in different languages, to mitigate against these risks.

More recently, in an attempt to improve the support provided, the Home Office put in place new asylum move-on liaison officers. This initiative both expands upon, and replaces, the previous provision of Home Office Liaison Officers, which were embedded within asylum accommodation rather than being community-based. At the time of writing, asylum move-on liaison officers are officers working in 40 of the local areas with the highest levels of need to ensure that people recently granted refugee status better understand next steps, as outlined in the leaflet and telephone support, and have all the information they need to take up their new entitlements. These officers can escalate specific cases or work to remove barriers to integration. For instance, in a case where a family has been allocated accommodation that is not immediately available, the asylum move-on liaison officer might be able to reinstate temporary asylum accommodation to prevent the family from experiencing homelessness while they wait for their accommodation. However, capacity constraints mean that these officers can only support a limited proportion of those in need, on a case-by-case basis and in a limited number of areas.

Research participants acknowledged the work of the asylum move-on liaison officers as positive but felt it was too early to know their impact. There was expressed hope from research participants that more resource would be invested so that the liaison officers could support more people, and in more areas, than currently possible. It was also noted that to ensure their effectiveness, the liaison officers would need to have in-depth knowledge of the services in the areas they covered and to establish relationships with the housing and homelessness teams, and with other services such as job centres and local charities. This would provide a meaningful and consistent bridging service for refugees as they move from asylum accommodation to settled housing.

2.3 Local sources of support during or before the move-on period

Current funding given to local authorities to support asylum seekers within their area is awarded to enable the provision of support up to the point of decision. Local authorities are expected to spend the grant in line with the expected outcomes, which are minimising public service pressures and supporting asylum seeker wellbeing, mental health and community cohesion. Within overall pressures on funding and capacity, local authorities have some flexibility in how they choose to use this funding to respond to the needs of asylum seekers and in how to prepare them for a possible grant of status.

Several of the local authorities that took part in this research have commissioned their own support services to bridge the limitations they perceive in the support commissioned by the Home Office. They explained how they were seeking to prevent homelessness by proactively working to reach out to people before they receive a decision on their asylum claim as well as those who are exiting from it.

 Local authorities are not statutorily required to undertake any support work before they received notification of someone’s asylum decision, but participants felt taking steps to do so improves their ability to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping. This pro-activity was felt to be necessary because local authorities do not always receive timely notifications after a decision is made (this is further elaborated in later sections in this report). The need for this response from local authorities highlights a potential misalignment between Home Office commissioned services and the broader needs of refugees at risk of homelessness and rough sleeping and suggests that local authorities understand that earlier support is necessary to prevent homelessness.

One example of this proactive support came from the combined authority in Greater Manchester who described setting up support services to visit people in asylum accommodation and hosting Citizenship Awareness Sessions to talk about basic skills such as how to rent and seek accommodation, how to seek employment, how to write a CV, etc. The same authority also commissioned Mustard Tree (a charity working to combat poverty and prevent homelessness and rough sleeping) to host an engagement hub for refugees in the area, to provide information about where to get food, clothing, furniture and provide English language classes and other support.

It should be noted, however, that this work on the part of local authorities is not typical. In the absence of consistently funded support, a central government representative described the current situation as creating a “lottery depending on where you are, what the local challenges are, what the local resources are and what the local appetite to help is.” This research indicated that there is an increasing reliance on local authorities and third sector organisations to fill support gaps that they are not funded to provide. This suggests an opportunity for central government to explore opportunities to formally commission local authorities to provide these services so that there is a standard offer across the country.

For move-on support to be commissioned effectively at the local level, local authorities suggested that central government would also need to take steps to address a range of barriers. These include the time, information, tools, financial support and affordable housing stock required to provide settled housing.

2.4 Alignment of priorities and joint working across government departments

Research participants noted that MHCLG and Home Office priorities had previously been in conflict when clearing the asylum backlog which led to increasing levels of homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees as local authorities were not resourced to meet increased demand for homelessness assistance. Since asylum accommodation is not managed by local authorities, many feel that they lack the agency to prevent homelessness, particularly when they are caught between the two contrasting priorities.

“There was a complete lack of communication between the Home Office and MHCLG when they closed the hotel…and didn’t seem to anticipate that it was going to make everyone homeless at a time when MHCLG [is] on our case saying you need to stop people becoming homeless, but [another part of government is] directly contributing to that. So, I don’t see how we can end homelessness while they’re still making policy decisions to evict people from Home Office accommodation. It just is completely counter to that.” – Local Authority representative

This research also highlighted a need for greater clarity of policy remits and departmental responsibilities. It was suggested that stakeholders from both MHCLG and the Home Office felt that providing move-on support was the responsibility of the other department.

“I think there’s a lack of clarity about [which department] owns which part of the resettlement process and who is leaning in.” – Central Government representative

However, national representatives did report that there has been a notable improvement in joint working between MHCLG and the Home Office in the months prior to fieldwork being conducted Taken together, it suggests that the two departments could leverage the results from this research to deepen collaborative working relationships and collectively aim to address the concerns raised by local authorities and other stakeholders.

Since the absence of coordinated goals at the national level was said to reduce local authority effectiveness, interviewees suggested that homelessness and rough sleeping advisors could play a stronger role in advising the Home Office on policy decisions, ensuring they are informed by frontline homelessness and rough sleeping pressures rather than solely focusing on managing the asylum system. However, while they expressed interest in having a “seat at the table” for policy discussions, they also cautioned that this should not lead to additional policy responsibilities without the necessary resources and support also being provided.

3. Determining eligibility for housing assistance

3.1 Introduction

Local authorities in England are bound by legal duties established under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the Housing Act 1996. These frameworks define the responsibilities local authorities have in assessing whether a prevention or relief duty is owed to an applicant is experiencing homelessness or threatened with homelessness. The assessment process is the initial gateway into housing assistance and is central to the delivery of support to individuals in housing need. If an applicant is found to be eligible for assistance, experiencing homelessness, and in priority need, then the local authority is under an interim duty to provide temporary accommodation pending further enquiries. This obligation falls under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 and ensures that those in the most urgent need are provided with shelter while the full homelessness application is considered. However, if it is determined that an applicant does not have a priority need, then the local authority is not legally required to provide temporary accommodation, although other forms of support may still be available.

Eligibility for assistance is itself governed by immigration status and habitual residence, which limits access for some individuals, including certain categories of people seeking asylum (Shelter England, 2024). Once eligibility is established, the authority must assess whether the applicant is experiencing homelessness or threatened with homelessness within 56 days, and whether they are in priority need and unintentionally homeless. If these conditions are met and the individual also has a local connection to the area, then the main housing duty is triggered. Under this duty, the local authority must secure suitable long-term accommodation for the applicant. If the applicant lacks a local connection, they may be referred to another local authority where such a connection exists, unless they would be at risk of violence or abuse in that area.

It is important to recognise that even where the strict eligibility criteria for the main housing duty are not met, local authorities retain significant responsibilities to help people avoid homelessness. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 broadened the scope of local authority duties by requiring them to work with all eligible applicants, regardless of priority need, to prevent or relieve homelessness. This means that all individuals who are experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness are entitled to a personalised housing plan, and local authorities must take reasonable steps to help them retain or secure accommodation.

In practical terms, the first step in the process is a comprehensive homelessness assessment. This assessment must be holistic, considering the applicant’s personal circumstances, vulnerabilities, and support needs. It includes determining whether the applicant has dependent children, is pregnant, is fleeing domestic violence, or has mental or physical health conditions that make them more vulnerable if left homeless. The quality of this assessment is critical in determining the level of support to be provided and whether temporary accommodation is offered immediately.

This chapter explores the process of determining eligibility of refugees for housing assistance by local authorities. It outlines the need for timely homelessness assessments, the barriers than hinder this and opportunities for improvement. It also details the application of priority need thresholds and local connection rules to refugees seeking local authority support for housing, uncovering potential ways to improve the situation for refugees and reduce risks of homelessness and rough sleeping.

3.2 Timeliness of homelessness assessments for refugees

Refugees face a number of challenges when navigating the housing assistance process. One issue is the notice period and the timing of when eligibility for assistance occurs. Refugees are supported within the asylum system by the Home Office until a final decision on their asylum application is made. During this period, they may be housed in asylum accommodation and are not considered homeless on a statutory basis. Only once a positive asylum decision is made, and a decision letter is issued, does the notice period begin and a refugee becomes eligible to be assessed as homeless. This means that local authorities cannot begin the homelessness assessment until the notice period starts.

The notice period was extended in December 2024 from 28 days to 56 days on a trial basis. On paper, the longer notice period is aligned with the prevention duty timeframe under the general homelessness legislation. In practice, however, the issuing of an asylum decision (and consequently the ‘start of the clock’ on the notice period) does not automatically coincide with a notification to the local authority that the household is now homeless. Local authorities must rely either on self-referrals by refugees themselves or on notifications from the Home Office (typically through their contracted asylum accommodation providers) about asylum decisions and potential homelessness risks amongst newly granted refugees. This research highlights that there are delays with both mechanisms, as outlined below, and local authorities often effectively have shorter timescales to assess a person for homelessness assistance and support them with future housing needs so as to prevent homelessness.

Delays in information sharing

Research participants shared that administrative issues, such as sending the official decision letters by post, and often with a time lag, mean that refugees due to leave the asylum accommodation are themselves informed of this with an in-built delay. Refugees may also not understand the letter they receive outlining next steps and how to contact the local authority, linked to language barriers and literacy levels. These issues are likely to further delay the point at which the local authority receives a homelessness application. This in turn reduces the time local authorities have to conduct an assessment and provide suitable housing before the refugee is evicted from the asylum accommodation, increasing the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.

Home Office asylum accommodation providers must notify LAs within two working days of decisions being granted and to provide information relevant for homelessness assessments. However, the current process is hindered by delays in the transmission of information about positive asylum decisions and pending evictions. Local authorities reported that they often receive these notifications too late to intervene effectively, and the data they do receive is frequently incomplete. For example, notifications may lack critical information such as medical conditions, histories of trauma, or safeguarding risks, all of which are essential for a thorough and culturally competent assessment.  

To improve the process, research participants suggested that public services or commissioned providers working within the asylum system (such as asylum accommodation providers) could be included under the Duty to Refer guidance.

“Bearing in mind that we have a Duty to Refer system within the legislation, it is surprising that the national asylum support system [is] not part of that [Duty].” – Local Authority representative

If asylum accommodation providers were included under Duty to Refer, they would then be obligated to inform the local authorities when a risk of homelessness and rough sleeping was identified following the decision letter. This could help the local authorities offset some of the delays in receiving notifications and understand the upcoming demand for housing support at any given time. While this may increase the number of assessments that local authorities are required to conduct, there would be potential benefits in terms of more comprehensive information capture and a more streamlined assessment process from the asylum accommodation to the local authority before the end of the notice period. Any such changes would need to be piloted for relative costs and benefits before full-scale implementation.

An alternative opportunity to improve the flow of critical information post-decision would be to strengthen the obligations for Home Office contracted accommodation providers to collect and share the required information as per their contract. Closely monitoring this, and taking action to manage poor performance, could equally ensure that the providers are meeting their targets to provide local authorities with the information they need to prevent homelessness within two days of an asylum decision being issued. 

It should be noted that this research was not able to include representatives of the asylum accommodation providers or those in charge of inputting data to the portals used to make notifications to local authorities. It may be useful for future research to understand the barriers that currently exist that influence the reliability or quality of the data they provide, and what might be required to implement changes to better meet local authority needs. If changes are implemented to the information sharing requirements or systems, it would also be important to provide additional training to those inputting the data and monitor the impact.

The Home Office have recently introduced two new data sharing tools – the Place Based Visibility Tool, and the Discontinuation Prediction Tool. These are anticipated to help local authorities better plan resources based on expected decision making and cessations notices being served but do not address the specific issue around person level data being shared with local authorities so they can take proactive measures to support individuals. Further monitoring would be needed to understand if they are meeting local authority resource-planning requirements as promised.

One good practice example shared by a local authority demonstrates the value in receiving timely referrals of homelessness assistance. The local authority representatives from Greenwich explained that they had commissioned the Greenwich Inclusion Project, an independent third sector organisation, to support refugees who need housing support after exiting the asylum system. The service made referrals to the local authority customer access team about potential homelessness risks amongst the refugees they supported. The customer access team helped collect relevant information and documentation from the Project and then share them onwards with the team that was conducting homelessness assessments for a smooth referral process.

Data protection rules related to information sharing

More than half of the local authorities participating in the research reported that the data that is shared with them by the Home Office or their providers is shared with strict restrictions. These restrictions preclude local authorities from sharing data internally across their housing teams or to use it to take early action to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping for refugees in their area.

“We’re told that we can’t use that database for strategic homelessness prevention purposes because of the data sharing regulations around it. So, it’s heavily restricted in terms of who can access [the portal and] we’re not meant to obviously share that information, even just within our team or use it for those strategic purposes. [The portal is] meant to be like a sense check so that when people do come through, we can verify that they have been asked to leave the [asylum accommodation], which just seems like a wasted opportunity.” – Local Authority representative

However, there were mixed interpretations of the extent to which the data could be used to inform homelessness and rough sleeping prevention activity. For instance, one local authority representative reported having a designated staff member within their housing team who was using the Home Office portal in this very manner.

“[The designated staff member] would look at the portal and he would identify those who are about to be granted [asylum decisions] so that they can be earmarked as potentially approaching [the] housing [team] for assistance.” - Local Authority representative

Given the mixed interpretations, there is an opportunity for central government to clarify if there are indeed any restrictions on data sharing for local authorities to effectively use the information that they already have access to for strategic planning. If such restrictions do exist, then a clearer national framework or exemption under GDPR could enable providers within the asylum system to legally share relevant data with local government or establish a shared system. In contrast if the restrictions do not exist, it suggests a misunderstanding of the data protection rules by some local authorities and central government can tackle this misperception through guidance and targeted messaging to enable more effective use of information gathered already.

Using local and regional forums

Research participants described local and regional forums such as the Strategic Migration Partnerships as useful in coordinating and supporting national asylum and refugee programmes and regional migration priorities. Similarly, local authority representatives mentioned attending regular meetings as part of the Resettlement Local Authority Network, which was said to be another useful platform to share information, learnings and concerns on the issue of asylum policy and practice. However, there was also criticism expressed about how the Home Office and MHCLG did not make full use of these local or regional forums to cascade key messages or talk to local areas about the pressures they were facing. For example, one participant explained how this could create an operational and reputational risk for them:

“I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn when I say that even [the Strategic Migration Partnership] sometimes appear frustrated with the lack of communication from the Home Office and MHCLG we’re all …asking the same questions every 14 days that we never really get the answers to and or by the time that they [central government] do give us the answers, they land it on us at the same time as they land it on the general population. And so, we’re left in a predicament where we’ve got refugee organisations asking us questions that we haven’t got the answers to.”- Local Authority representative

Participants recommended that departments such as the Home Office and MHCLG could make better use of these established forums to deliver key messages to local stakeholders before they are publicly communicated. This approach would allow local authorities to prepare their staff for potential questions from the communities they serve.

It may be that central government do not believe these forums to be useful or appropriate to share official information at the national level. In this case, it may be useful to discuss this with those involved so as to clarify how central government departments may be better able to communicate with local authorities and regional bodies.

3.3 Priority-need thresholds and refugee vulnerabilities

A key part of homelessness assessments to determine eligibility for housing assistance is to establish if the person has priority need. However, the existing threshold for establishing priority need poses a significant barrier for many refugees. While certain groups clearly qualify, such as families with dependent children or individuals with severe disabilities, refugees from other groups, particularly single adults, may struggle to demonstrate that they meet the threshold. The current assessment process was said to often fail to consider the specific vulnerabilities of refugees, such as the psychological impacts of displacement and trauma. Furthermore, the expectation that applicants provide detailed medical or housing histories, with associated evidence, was deemed to be unrealistic for those who may have fled conflict zones or experienced homelessness and exploitation.

Research participants noted that local authorities have limited resources and housing options and people who are assessed as not meeting the threshold for ‘priority need’ are rarely given housing. For refugees, meeting the priority need threshold is made difficult by a lack of cultural competency and missing evidence of their needs. Interviewees from non-governmental organisations stated that the assessment of priority need by local authorities can also be “very regimented” in the way that it doesn’t always consider someone’s reasons for seeking asylum, the trauma caused by migrating as a person seeking asylum, or the particularities of a person’s history.

“I was absolutely astonished that someone having just been granted asylum was not in priority need de facto… Unless it’s someone who presents with children… or has a very obvious disability, they rarely determine that someone has priority need. There’s a lot of gatekeeping to prevent people accessing services, particularly when people have language barriers or mental health barriers. It’s just so difficult for them.” – Legal expert, third sector representative

“The council invariably will treat [single, male refugees] as not in priority need [because] they see them as fit young men. But many of these young men have been trafficked, have had terrible experiences and are high risk of being exploited in the future.”- Legal expert, third sector representative

The process for testing ‘priority need’ was said to not always allow for reasonable adjustments for refugees, such as language requirements, low literacy levels, or lack of digital access.

“We see time and time again that messages are being sent to people who are illiterate or people who don’t speak English… because it’s the standard way that housing solutions teams communicate… and they don’t make adjustments for language when communicating. They might do it in the meeting, but not when they follow up and then… after 56 days they close the case because someone hasn’t responded… But it’s really hard to talk about your needs if you’re not talking in your own language. Even people who do speak some English are not going to necessarily understand the nuances of psychological issues or things like that.” – Legal expert, third sector representative

Such practices make it more challenging for refugees to share difficult personal histories, such as being trafficked or exploited…the very experiences that may see them considered as being in ‘priority need’ for housing.

The interviewees also reported that refugees may not be able to evidence their medical history in a way that satisfies the usual processes used by housing options teams in local authorities. For instance, they may not have or able to access “long medical records with lots and lots of evidence of health problems for over [a number of] years” and such cases then require specialist legal advice to satisfy the requirement to prove ‘priority need’.

This means that those who may qualify as in priority need in the refugee community are less likely to be receiving assistance, which can increase the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping, particularly if wider needs are not also met.

With these challenges in mind, some legal experts and advocates suggested revisions to the statutory guidance related to priority need, so that refugee populations can benefit from more generous or even automatic recognition of priority need, similar to the approach taken for veterans. Their reasoning was that public funds were being spent by local authorities to test priority need for refugees, and then by solicitors who then contest these decisions, rather than focusing on using the time and resource to support refugees access housing. One interviewee from a commissioned organisation shared an example of a local authority that already treated refugees as having priority need automatically. However, this was not verified by the research team.

It should be noted that the suggestions for revising the priority need test were raised by participants from third sector organisations and law centres, working alongside local authorities in various parts of the country. However, these opportunities for change did not come directly from local, regional or central government. While this does not mean that the suggestions are any less relevant, they need to be treated with careful consideration. Practically, there may be a need to assess the relative costs and benefits or review case studies for insights from parts of the UK, such as Scotland, where the priority need assessment was removed.

Widening access to support, without increasing the availability of affordable housing, could simply increase demand on temporary accommodation (since more people would qualify for local authority assistance) heightening pressures for local authorities that are already stretched financially. Thus, any such reform would need to be accompanied by increased investment in housing supply to avoid overburdening the system and displacing other groups with equally legitimate needs. There may also be unintended consequences for community cohesion and raise tensions if one group were seen to be given greater rights to housing than others by virtue of their status as refugees.

It may be that cultural competency training for local authority housing staff could also help reduce barriers for refugees accessing statutory housing support, particularly in demonstrating priority need. Research participants described that there could be an opportunity to facilitate or mandate closer collaboration between refugee specialist teams and housing options teams within local government. This would encourage them to develop inclusive, trauma-informed ways of working with refugees facing housing difficulties.

Local stakeholders reflected a few internal ways of working that enabled positive outcomes for refugee housing and homelessness and rough sleeping support. One was the location of a specialist refugee resettlement team or officer within the housing options team in some local authorities. This team structure was said to be helpful as it allowed efficient knowledge sharing and led to the matrix management of resettlement housing officers. These staff had expert knowledge about the council’s powers and duties as well as deep understanding of the refugees they were serving. Another way of working that was said to be impactful was the establishment of a quarterly multi-disciplinary meeting of senior managers from across the council, including an expert on education, safeguarding, housing and resettlement.

Ensuring that staff are equipped with cultural awareness and knowledge of these challenges could improve frontline interactions and make the assessment process more inclusive. Additionally, clearer guidance on assessing vulnerabilities that may be prominent but perhaps not initially apparent with refugees, such as trauma, social isolation, and a lack of conventional documentation, could help ensure fairer decision-making in priority need cases. Adequate resourcing, along with consultation and planning, would be essential to ensure that training can be effectively implemented without diverting capacity from frontline housing services.

3.4 Applying the local connection rules for refugees

Refugees are disadvantaged by how local connection rules are applied. Under current regulations, a refugee’s local connection is assigned based on the location of their asylum accommodation at the point they get their asylum decision. The asylum dispersal policy of the Home Office means that people in the asylum system waiting on their decisions could be accommodated anywhere in the UK. Refugees are likely to have very little connection to the area where their asylum accommodation is located, particularly in the absence of active efforts from the government to better enable integration through supporting asylum seekers to access education, work or volunteering in the areas where they are accommodated.

The local area in which they are placed may also not be in a part of the country where they feel the highest connectedness due to the absence of diaspora groups or other cultural community networks. It also may not be a place where they feel safe or where they may have the best employment opportunities. These factors sometimes motivate refugees to seek housing assistance from local authorities outside of where they have a statutory local connection.^{[footnote 5]}

A local authority representative from London shared that they regularly receive housing applications from refugees leaving asylum accommodation in the north of England. People presenting to their local authority for support expressed an interest in wanting housing in London because of the opportunities for education and employment and its ethnic diversity and existing community networks. However, this is challenging as the receiving local authority is not responsible for offering housing to those presenting based on the local connection rules. This can leave refugees without recourse to local authority support in these areas. One participant reported that refugees may not have funds to return to the area where they do have a local connection, which can ultimately increase the number of people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping in certain areas that are in high demand.

As a result of the local connection rules, refugees face a difficult choice. On one hand, they may be able to access housing in an area they do not wish to live in and feel isolated or unsafe. On the other hand, they may move to an area where they feel more able to integrate culturally but be left with limited or insecure accommodation options, which increases the risk of experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping.

An option may be that local connection rules are adjusted to better reflect the realities faced by refugees. For example, rules could be amended to give refugees greater flexibility in choosing where to settle. This would not be without consequences, as such a policy shift could lead to increased moves to cities and towns perceived as more desirable, placing additional pressure on already stretched housing services in those area. It may also provoke perceptions of unfairness among other applicants, particularly those who are also experiencing homelessness but do not receive the same flexibility. Any reform to local connection rules would therefore need to be carefully considered in light of its broader social and operational impacts.

Another potential way to improve a person’s connection to a local area is by increasing the level of integration that is encouraged prior to asylum decisions being issued. This could include support with English language acquisition, volunteering opportunities, and early access to employment or training in the area where the person is accommodated. This would likely require coordinated efforts by both central and local government and commissioned support organisations, to invest in promoting and supporting integration opportunities. With increased engagement with local communities and institutions, refugees may be more inclined to remain in these areas, reducing the strain on high-demand regions and promoting more equitable distribution of housing support. This is discussed further in the next section.

4. Accommodation and community integration

4.1 Introduction

A person’s ability to assimilate into local community depends on the security of their accommodation as well as opportunities to live with their family, work, volunteer and gain skills. People with a positive asylum decision need to ‘transition’ out of their asylum accommodation and begin the process of accessing housing, benefits, or work. Some people may also choose to seek family reunion, bringing immediate family to join them in the UK. However, there are a number of factors that jeopardise integration for refugees which are discussed in this chapter.

Funding was described as one of the “biggest gaps” in preventing refugee homelessness by local authorities. The number of people seeking asylum and being granted leave to remain has consistently increased since 2010, but local funding has not kept pace (House of Commons Library, 2024). This has led to competing demands from refugees and others in housing need for the same limited supply of housing support and properties, making it difficult for local authorities to accommodate everyone with a housing need. Because the growth in the number of refugees outstrips the available funding and affordable properties, there is an increased risk of homelessness and rough sleeping for refugees.

This risk is enhanced when considering cases of family reunion, due to the need for larger sized properties to house all family members. Since 2015, the Home Office has approved an estimated 72,840 family reunion visas, with more than half of these granted to children (Home Office 2024). Family members joining their sponsors receive the same rights regarding work, study, and access to public funds.

A report from the British Red Cross identified that upon arrival, most reunited families struggle to find suitable accommodation, with 23% moving into their sponsor’s pre-existing housing. It further states that when local authorities start housing support before the family’s arrival, the time in unsuitable housing is significantly reduced, averaging 13 days compared to 38 days in other cases (British Red Cross, 2022). This evidence suggests that local authorities need to be working more proactively so they can explore housing options before the family’s arrival, having a better chance of avoiding extended stays in expensive emergency accommodation and hindering integration.

The ability to integrate also hinges on receiving an electronic Visa, known as an eVisa. This is part of the transition to a digital immigration system by the Home Office, with physical documents being replaced with an online record known as an eVisa. This system includes replacing biometric residence permits, biometric residence cards, passport endorsements, and vignette stickers (Home Office 2023).^{[footnote 6]}

The eVisa system aims to streamline immigration processes, enhance security, and simplify the verification of immigration status at the UK border and for employers or landlords (Cromwell Wilkes, 2025). The UK Visas and Immigration service provides support for setting up and managing these accounts, ensuring that users can navigate the system effectively (Home Office, n.d).

This chapter explores how the efforts of a refugee to prevent homelessness by securing housing for themselves and get reunited with their family with stable and safe accommodation options may be thwarted due to challenges with housing supply, insufficient funding, information sharing between Home Office and local authorities, and digital literacy levels. It concludes with a discussion of how integration could begin early, while people are in the asylum system awaiting decisions and what could be done to support this.

4.2 Housing supply and funding

Investment in housing supply

The challenge in accessing affordable housing faced by refugees is compounded by the issue of insufficient housing stock and reflective of the general housing crisis in the country. Even for those people who meet priority need requirements and have their benefits set up, local authorities find it challenging to find suitable and affordable housing options.

“I’m sure we’re not the only local authority who is going to say this, but we’ve declared a housing crisis… We’ve got a real bottleneck of people at a similar age with a similar need of similar properties… We didn’t have enough accommodation for the people who were already resident in [the local area], on top of the throughput that we see from the [asylum] accommodation.” - Local Authority representative

The challenge of insufficient affordable housing, which reflects broader pressures within the housing system, was a prominent theme in this research. Given these challenges, there is an opportunity for central government to explore ways to increase the supply of affordable housing, including investment in new housing stock. It should be noted that this is a long-term solution that would require substantial funding and political prioritisation to stimulate further building of affordable housing.

Some interviewees highlighted the need for targeted investment in rural areas, making them more viable settlement options by addressing barriers such as transport links and employment opportunities. One participant from a local authority highlighted the need for rural areas to be made more attractive and be able to absorb more pressures from more sought-after urban areas.

“I think there needs to be investment…so that actually these folks have the best chance of success and settlement across the country and to avoid some of these community tensions - as I call them - that stem from this massive change of [population] in a really small area.” - Local Authority representative

However, this research has also drawn out the importance of diaspora communities (see later sections) to well-being and people’s feelings of connectedness, and it could be that despite investment in rural areas, some refugees may still wish to travel to more towns and cities where they can be closer to people from their own community.

One local authority representative felt that local authorities were better placed to take on the responsibility for procuring and managing asylum accommodation and that this could support data sharing, service coordination and improved housing outcomes for refugees. However, such localised responsibility would need to be balanced by increased resourcing, both in terms of staff capacity as well as funding, at the local level.

Local Housing Allowance rates

For those seeking to use benefits to pay for their accommodation, Local Housing Allowance rates have not kept pace with market rates for private renting. A large proportion of refugees are single and aged under 35 and find it particularly challenging to afford private rented sector housing because of the Shared Accommodation Rate. The Shared Accommodation Rate limits the amount of housing support available through the benefits system for most single private renters under the age of 35 and is often not enough to cover the cost of renting a room in shared accommodation. Local authority representatives reported that they struggle to cover this shortfall for those in housing need, especially given the wider pressures around family homelessness.

One potential improvement, suggested by representatives of both local authorities and third sector organisations in different parts of the country, would be to increase the Local Housing Allowance rates to better reflect private rented sector rental costs – in particular, the rates applied to under 35s through the Shared Accommodation Rate. This could improve housing affordability and reduce the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. Creating an exemption to the Shared Accommodation Rate for those who have spent 12 weeks or more in asylum accommodation (matching the exemption that exists for those that have spent time in hostels or supported housing) was also suggested by some participants.

It should be noted that increasing the Local Housing Allowance rates could stimulate action on the part of private rental sector landlords, potentially leading to rent inflation. There is also a risk that increased demand for rental properties would still outstrip supply, exacerbating housing shortages in some areas. Therefore, any funding-related changes would need to be evaluated in the context of wider homelessness and rough sleeping pressures and potential unintended consequences on housing affordability and quality.

Dedicated refugee funding for local authorities

Research participants also reflected on the lack of any dedicated funding or resource to improve cohesion and integration for communities transitioning from the asylum system. They reported that the clearly defined resettlement programmes for certain groups of refugees, such as those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, helped improve integration of people into the local communities.

“[The funding has been] very effective. For the persons under the resettlement schemes, we don’t have any families who [are] experiencing homelessness and any issues [with] homelessness have been quickly resolved in collaboration with housing colleagues.” - Local Authority representative

However, it was noted that such formal pathways do not exist for people coming through the general asylum system and that the funding available is therefore not comparable.

Local authority representatives all suggested setting up a dedicated fund for local authorities to draw on to support all refugees coming through the asylum system. This would extend the learning from the good practice demonstrated by the Ukrainian and Afghan resettlement schemes. It was also suggested by a local authority representative that a joint pot of funding for local authorities to support all refugee populations, rather than for specific nationalities or groups, would be fairer and more equitable.

There is a risk that establishing a combined refugee fund to support housing and integration outcomes may reduce the positive impact seen for the specific groups that have had long-term targeted support so far. Any decisions to change funding structures at the local or national level would need to be taken while considering the relative costs and benefits across all refugee groups at risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.

4.3 Reunion with families

Refugees and individuals with humanitarian protection in the UK can apply for immediate family members, such as partners and children, to join them under the UK’s Immigration Rules and the European Convention on Human Rights. Applications can be made from within the UK or abroad, requiring proof of relationship and biometric data (Home Office, 2023).

Since 2015, the Home Office has issued an estimated 72,840 family reunion visas, with more than half granted to children (Home Office, 2024). Once reunited, family members are entitled to work, study, and access public funds. A new Family Reunion Integration Service has been set up by the British Red Cross to assist families by offering essential casework support, helping them access the welfare system and housing. However, the service is only operational in ten areas and to date has supported just 4,000 families.^{[footnote 7]} Relative to the number of family reunion visas, this means that support is limited.

The process of family reunion presents further strain on local housing systems. At the time of the research, the Home Office did not notify local authorities when a refugee in their area is granted a family reunion visa. As a result, they may only become aware of the housing need once the family arrives, sometimes at crisis point. This lack of advance notice can lead to urgent needs for emergency accommodation, exacerbating already severe pressures on housing services. Even when notice is given, stakeholders reported that the information provided was often insufficient. Without clarity on family size or specific accommodation requirements, local authorities find it difficult to plan proactively and provide appropriate support.

Moreover, a general shortage of housing, particularly larger properties needed for refugee families, remains a persistent barrier to long-term integration. One example of good practice was highlighted by a regional stakeholder, who described successful collaboration with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in providing accommodation for Afghan families:

“The Ministry of Defence has provided accommodation for our Afghan cohorts, which has worked well because the accommodation is large enough to match the needs of larger Afghan families.”- Regional Government representative

This collaboration enabled local authorities to access furnished, appropriately sized properties with tenancy management support. However, the three-year leases on MoD accommodation present challenges for long-term planning, with stakeholders expressing concern over what happens when these leases expire.

Without improved coordination and early planning, refugee families arriving via family reunion may continue to face precarious housing situations. Some families have experienced homelessness and tenancy breaches due to overcrowding, where sponsors’ pre-existing housing cannot accommodate new arrivals. Participants stressed the importance of improving information-sharing between central and local government so that local authorities are better prepared to meet housing needs before families arrive.

Research from the British Red Cross (2022) found that 23% of reunited families initially moved into the sponsor’s existing home. However, when local authorities had started housing support before the family’s arrival, the average length of time in unsuitable accommodation dropped from 38 to 13 days. This evidence underscores the value of proactive engagement and preparation in avoiding prolonged use of temporary accommodation and improving integration outcomes.

4.4 Introduction and use of eVisas

At the time of the research, interviews with national, regional, and local stakeholders highlighted several challenges associated with the transition to eVisas, particularly regarding digital barriers, a lack of guidance, and the impact on all refugees’ ability to access wider services. Some refugees did not have access to the necessary technology, such as smartphones or reliable internet, making it difficult to complete online applications.

“I did it by myself. It was a bit of a struggle, even for me, who had the technology and Internet. Many people don’t even have a phone… You don’t have Internet, you don’t have anything, and they just tell you, ‘Oh, you have to do it. You have to go and apply for the eVisa.’ Some people recently received a code and didn’t know what to do with it. The only help they can get is from charities, which are sometimes far from the hotels.” – Person with lived experience

Regional and national stakeholders also reflected that a lack of clear guidance can result in confusion, leading to administrative errors that delay applications and impact access to housing and financial support.

“The wrong address [was] sent too late, not arriving at all, and obviously this all kind of adding to the general confusion that people often kind of experience as they move after that positive decision.”- Central Government representative

Without adequate support in completing applications, refugees may struggle to access essential services such as housing, employment, and benefits, leaving them at increased risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.

“A lot of the mainstream bank accounts haven’t quite got themselves up to speed with what an eVisa is, and that actually that it can be used to open a bank account.” – Third sector representative

Without physical documents, refugees may struggle to open bank accounts, delaying access to financial support such as Universal Credit and affecting their ability to secure stable housing.

Efforts have been made to mitigate these issues, with the Department for Work and Pensions providing training to its staff to improve awareness of eVisas and the guidance has been updated. However, despite these efforts, local stakeholders reported that delays in processing eVisa applications remain, which could result in service disruptions. The Home Office are currently creating eVisas for refugees exiting the asylum system. However, at the time of the research, local stakeholders reported that some refugees with Biometric Residence Permits have yet to transition to eVisas and were concerned about whether they can continue accessing benefits and services during this period. If refugees are unable to receive Universal Credit in time, they may struggle to pay rent, increasing their risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.

Some local stakeholders also expressed concern that the transition period could be used to restrict access to housing support. Certain local authorities require refugees to verify their eligibility before accessing statutory homelessness services, but if a refugee’s biometric visa has expired, they may be told they need an updated eVisa before they can apply for assistance. Without immediate access to housing support, refugees, many of whom lack personal networks or financial resources, may risk experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping.

Providing clear, multilingual guidance on the eVisa process in both digital and physical formats could help improve accessibility and reduce confusion. Expanding access to technology, such as offering subsidised devices or providing digital support hubs where refugees can access Wi-Fi and receive assistance, could further bridge the gap. Some participants in this research acknowledged that training initiatives focused on digital literacy could help refugees engage with a range of essential services beyond the eVisa, including benefits, healthcare, and housing applications. By embedding digital skills within integration programmes, refugees may be better equipped to navigate UK systems independently over the long term.

However, there was an acknowledgement that expanding digital access may also introduce risks, such as cyber fraud and data misuse. Raising awareness of online security, strengthening authentication processes, and ensuring secure access to personal information could help mitigate these risks. Delivering these measures would require investment in infrastructure, staffing, and long-term support. A phased rollout, in partnership with local authorities and refugee support organisations, could help manage costs and ensure a targeted approach.

While many of the challenges associated with this transition were anticipated, evidence suggests that barriers remain, particularly in relation to accessibility, communication, and service coordination. The government has acknowledged these challenges and has partnered with various third sector organisations to assist individuals in navigating the eVisa system. For example, Noah is a commissioned charity that supports vulnerable people and those facing homelessness and rough sleeping with diverse services including immigration advice, casework and eVisa support (Home Office, 2025). Ensuring that support is both consistent and comprehensive is an important consideration, including making information available in multiple languages to improve accessibility. While local authorities have been preparing for the transition, the backlog of cases and potential service disruptions highlight the need for ongoing monitoring and adaptation. Addressing these factors could help local authorities provide more effective support and reduce the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping for refugees as they navigate the eVisa process.

Some local authorities face challenges in managing the additional workload associated with the transition. Providing multilingual support, addressing backlogs, and adapting to policy changes require sufficient resources and expertise. In areas where these resources are more limited, there is a risk of delays in service delivery, which could create inconsistencies in the level of support available across different regions. As a result, some refugees may struggle to access the assistance they need, while those in better-funded areas may receive more comprehensive support.

4.5 Early integration with local communities

Participants also explored ways to support early integration for people seeking asylum. At present, people within the asylum system feel disempowered and disconnected. As one participant noted: “They are relatively cocooned in the world of asylum. You’re given a house; you’re given towels and bedding and everything to use,” but people lack purpose or a sense of agency. Encouraging people to volunteer, seek work (where eligible), or participate in English language learning from early in the asylum process was seen as beneficial. These activities can provide people seeking asylum with valuable skills, increase their sense of independence and belonging, and prepare them for future employment opportunities. They can also increase the sense of connectedness to the local area, reducing the likelihood of a move to another part of the country post-decision.

One suggestion involved expanding access to work opportunities. While people seeking asylum can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting for over 12 months through no fault of their own, this process is not widely promoted. Stakeholders recommended that the Home Office and its providers should actively encourage and facilitate these applications, including issuing permissions by default where possible to reduce administrative barriers.

Another suggestion was to promote volunteering amongst this population. People seeking asylum are allowed to volunteer from the point they submit their claim, although this entitlement is not always well understood by staff within the asylum system or in local authorities. Volunteering can help individuals build confidence and establish a routine, potentially supporting a smoother transition from asylum accommodation in the event of a positive decision. One stakeholder reflected on past practice, where individuals in the asylum system were encouraged to volunteer and build on their existing skills, including, for example, qualified medical professionals. This early engagement improved their readiness to integrate upon receiving a decision and often supported better outcomes for local communities.

While these forms of engagement have clear benefits, they are not without complexity. However, volunteering is not a substitute for income generating opportunities. While it offers many non-financial advantages, it does not address the material hardship and financial insecurity faced during the asylum process.

One concern raised was that supporting early integration could offer false hope to those whose asylum claims are ultimately rejected, potentially exacerbating feelings of loss or exclusion.

4.6 Expectations of refugees and availability of consistent information at the local level

National, regional and local stakeholders all reflected that unrealistic expectations about housing, compounded by misinformation from unofficial sources, make it difficult for refugees to understand and accept limitations on the housing that was available to them. Stakeholders acknowledged that there is hope among refugees that, after their difficult journeys into the UK and after experiencing a period of shared occupancy within the asylum system, they may be able to “get a self-contained flat…with some more privacy or [their] own bathroom” through social housing or even a private tenancy. However, research participants reported that these were typically unrealistic expectations given the mismatch between current housing supply and Local Housing Allowance rates, particularly for the majority of the refugee population who were young, single men. One local authority representative shared an example of a family of seven that they were supporting to find accommodation.

“We were able to offer them a property with cooking facilities, but it only had one bathroom. And this property was rejected by the family because they were saying that it’s completely unacceptable to expect them to use a single bathroom between the family. But for us, that was our best possible property that enabled them to have cooking facilities. And we were trying to explain that that was a really good offer, but they saw that as a bad offer.” - Local Authority representative

Refusing potential housing offers due to poor expectation management can lead to people experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping or unsuitable temporary accommodation for longer periods.

To further manage expectations around housing, local authorities could adopt a locally led approach to supporting refugees by collaborating with asylum move-on liaison officers and community organisations. For example, in Hillingdon, authorities partnered with the charity REAP (Refugees in Effective and Active Partnership) to deliver workshops focused on managing refugees’ expectations regarding accommodation and affordable housing. This proactive engagement aims to help refugees be better informed about their housing options and foster realistic planning for their integration, contributing to more effective homelessness prevention.

Central government may also want to consider a broader strategy to ensure consistency across regions in communication and approach to minimise unintended consequences of a fragmented approach. Clear guidelines and best practice frameworks could be established to standardise support. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms could also be implemented to assess the effectiveness of locally led approaches. These measures have the potential to help refugees understand their housing options, including social housing, and contribute to long-term homelessness prevention.

5. The role of diaspora organisations

5.1 Introduction

Diaspora organisations can play an important role in supporting refugees at risk or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping in the UK. Government policies adopted by the last government, such as the New Plan for Immigration (Home Office 2022) and the Ending Rough Sleeping Strategy (MHCLG 2022), recognised the vulnerabilities faced by refugees in accessing stable housing and employment. At the same time as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 places a duty on local authorities to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping, diaspora organisations often operate in the same space, bridging gaps in support and accommodation, particularly for single people.

Diaspora organisations can be commissioned or non-commissioned organisations that are managed by members of a migrant community to offer support and services to others from that same group. Such organisations frequently emerge in areas where communities establish themselves. They are often established to meet community needs or serve as a social space for community members to gather. Diaspora organisations can receive funding from various sources, including central, regional and local government grants, charitable trusts or foundations, community fundraising efforts, and private donations. 

Currently, a range of diaspora-led services provide support to people seeking asylum and refugee communities at risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. Organisations such as the Refugee Council and Refugee Action provide commissioned support including housing advice, legal aid, and emergency accommodation for those at risk or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. Non-commissioned organisations may provide the same support but often operate on a smaller scale, without formal funding, and may not even be officially registered as a charity. These organisations often rely on community support and volunteer efforts to carry out their activities. 

Some diaspora organisations work closely with local authorities to ensure that refugees and people seeking asylum receive tailored assistance, such as housing advice, legal aid, and emergency accommodation. By partnering with local authorities, they can help refugees navigate the housing system more effectively. Funding constraints and immigration policies can limit their ability to offer long-term solutions, highlighting the need for more robust support and resources (University of Reading, 2024). For instance, the No Accommodation Network has highlighted the significant increase in homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees and those with no recourse to public funds, emphasising the need for targeted support (NACCOM 2024).

Research participants highlighted the positive role that diaspora organisations can play in supporting refugees at risk of or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. They can offer culturally sensitive assistance, foster community trust, and bridge gaps in statutory services. As a result, this can reduce refugees’ vulnerability to housing instability. However, participants also described some concerns that certain factors might inadvertently hinder efforts to support people at risk or experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping to find stable accommodation. This section first examines the positive influences of diaspora organisations and then discusses the barriers they may experience in delivering effective support. Finally, the chapter summarises the opportunities to strengthen the offer and effectiveness of support from diaspora organisations.

5.2   Positive contribution of diaspora organisations

Diaspora organisations can play an important role in supporting all refugee communities by providing essential services such as food, clothing, mental health support, and housing advice. They also offer life skills and employment training, helping refugees navigate daily life and secure work. By fostering social networks and engagement, these organisations can contribute to community cohesion, which is suggested to help reduce the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping.

“Many non-commissioned services do really specific, really good work helping refugees and people seeking asylum with employment, accommodation, community engagement, and language skills. They bring people into the community. I think that’s real community cohesion.” – Central Government representative

As part of diaspora organisations more widely, faith-based organisations were highlighted by participants as providing significant support. However, some participants felt that their contributions are not always widely recognised.

“I think the role of faith groups is underrepresented and untapped. They bring a real sense of community, cohesion, and engagement, providing huge amounts of support, including accommodation, private rented sector support, voluntary work, and language skills.” – Local Authority representative

Refugees may turn to diaspora organisations for support for their housing needs, as they are often perceived to be more culturally aligned and trusted than statutory services. Some local stakeholders reflected that where mainstream services may lack cultural competence, refugees could be more likely to seek assistance from diaspora groups. This highlights both the trust these organisations hold within their communities and the influence they have in directing people towards services, advice, and guidance.

Migrant Help provides a good example of how smaller grants can be used to empower local organisations to deliver targeted support. Expanding this model could enhance the reach and impact of services, particularly for communities with specific linguistic or cultural needs. However, to ensure sustainability and effective service delivery, robust monitoring frameworks must be in place to track how funding is used and measure the success of interventions.

5.3 Barriers that hinder diaspora organisations to effectively support refugees

While diaspora organisations provide vital support, they do not meet the needs of all refugees. Some groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals, may not always feel comfortable seeking help from their own community due to cultural attitudes. A regional stakeholder described how this can leave gaps in provision, stating that some refugees may avoid community-based support if they fear discrimination.

In some cases, strong community networks can also mask levels of housing insecurity, as informal support prevents individuals from engaging with homelessness services. Participants suggested that overreliance on diaspora organisations may lead to refugees living in overcrowded or inadequate housing due to not knowing where to seek statutory support.

“It would be rare for us to come across a homeless Afghan national. They just wouldn’t [come to us]. They’d be taken in by people in the community. Similarly with Somalia. But there’s others that are newer communities where there isn’t that kind of network and support.” – Local Authority representative

Interviews with regional and local stakeholders highlighted how the diversity of diaspora organisations, including their varying structures, geographic spread, and levels of formality, can make it difficult for local authorities to engage effectively. The concentration and capacity of diaspora organisations vary widely by area, which leads to inconsistencies in support. One regional stakeholder described efforts to improve coordination:

“We’ve often tried to invite more organisations into the forums that we’re having to speak about this group, to try and share learning, break down those barriers, and improve trust.”- Regional Government representative

This research has suggested that there can be an overreliance on diaspora organisations to provide support. Interviews with local stakeholders shared that this reliance has led to service gaps and inconsistent housing support for asylum refugees, including the perception that they may not be eligible for support.

“Obviously, there’s a lot more reliance on [diaspora organisations] to provide a lot of services that should probably be provided as a statutory requirement.”- Local Authority representative

While community trust and shared cultural understanding are vital in delivering housing support, they must be integrated into a broader, more inclusive system to ensure that all refugees receive the help they need to find and maintain stable housing.

Many stakeholders described how diaspora organisations frequently face funding constraints that limit service provision. For example, ESOL classes often reach capacity quickly. Organisations supporting refugee groups outside of formal resettlement schemes struggle particularly with sustainability.

“For the big cohorts through resettlement schemes, like Ukrainians, Afghans, and Syrians, the Home Office provides funding. But for other groups, there isn’t funding available, and those charities … struggle.” – Local Authority representative

National and local stakeholders described organisations feeling overwhelmed by demand.

“Some [diaspora organisations] have felt quite overwhelmed with people accessing their services and being given limited money to be able to provide those services.” – National Government stakeholder

There were differing views on how funding should be allocated. Some argued for greater investment in diaspora organisations, while others suggested strengthening statutory services. A good practice example highlighted how Migrant Help provides grants to smaller diaspora organisations to support grassroots initiatives.

5.4 Opportunities to strengthen the offer and effectiveness of support from diaspora organisations

This research highlighted opportunities to strengthen collaboration between government and diaspora organisations. Collaboration between diaspora organisations and local authorities can help improve access to housing support. Commissioned services often benefit from stronger links with statutory agencies, thus facilitating better coordination. However, smaller grassroots diaspora organisations, which play a key role in providing community-based support, may be less connected to formal networks. An example of effective collaboration can be seen in Newham, where a weekly one-stop shop centralises support services for refugees.

“People seeking asylum can come to the library and get support on Universal Credit applications, register for ESOL, and access housing support. The way they’ve structured it, bringing everything into one place, is really effective. Having dedicated officers and resources in one space has led to many successful outcomes.” – Regional Government Representative

By consolidating services in a single location, this initiative has described improved accessibility and streamlined support, demonstrating how coordinated approaches can enhance refugee integration and housing stability.

Participants described how local authorities could implement effective referral procedures that connect diaspora organisations with statutory services and third sector support. Strengthening collaboration through dedicated liaison roles or community forums can build trust, improve communication, and ensure that refugees receive timely assistance before their situation reaches crisis point. Local stakeholders interviewed shared that commissioned services, such as the Greenwich Inclusion Project and the Greenwich Islamic Centre, offer good practice examples of community-led support. The Greenwich Sanctuary Project provides Arabic-speaking support staff, language-specific services, and tailored school support for families via the resettlement route. Support workers within these organisations, fluent in Arabic, play a key role in assisting Syrian refugees by understanding and addressing their cultural needs.

A less resource intensive suggestion was to implement an email communication system where they could access “the latest updates on Ukraine, Afghan resettlement, Syrian resettlement, or refugees in general” could be beneficial. This approach could reduce the need for multiple meetings while ensuring accurate and timely information is available. Additionally, some participants raised concerns that smaller diaspora organisations may struggle to keep up with structured approaches and data-sharing mechanisms, leading to unintentional exclusion. Furthermore, enhanced data-sharing mechanisms must balance privacy and security considerations to maintain trust among refugees accessing services.

Interviewees described challenges in establishing effective collaboration between diaspora organisations and local authorities. The varying formality of these organisations complicates coordination efforts. A mapping exercise of smaller, less formal diaspora organisations could help identify gaps and engage them in coordination and training efforts.

This research highlights the need for structured education and guidance on housing legislation and refugee rights. Stakeholders noted that many diaspora organisations lack formal structures, training, and confidence to provide accurate housing advice.

“Knowledge and understanding is quite patchy, so it’s a postcode lottery. Many of our contacts were really quite terrified of giving incorrect advice, so their role was really limited to signposting [to housing support].”- Central Government representative

Structured training, informational resources, and referral pathways could help diaspora groups better understand housing processes, assessments, and support mechanisms. This would align their advice with statutory requirements, manage expectations, and reduce misinformation. However, there is a risk that only well-established organisations will benefit from these initiatives unless outreach is expanded to include smaller groups.

There is an opportunity for central government to ensure that funding is equitable and targeted. This may include reviewing funding mechanisms, encouraging inclusive commissioning, and engaging a broader range of diaspora-led organisations.

A challenge is that smaller grassroots organisations often lack the capacity to meet funding requirements such as financial oversight and governance. Central or local government could provide capacity-building support, training in financial management, and introduce flexible funding models (e.g. small grants with phased support) to help these organisations scale sustainably.

However, some stakeholders expressed concern that increasing funding for diaspora organisations could inadvertently reduce statutory services’ accountability. There is a risk that those entitled to formal support might be diverted to community groups. Additionally, stakeholders cautioned against short-term funding, recommending instead long-term capacity-building to ensure funding has a lasting impact and complements statutory provision.

6. Learning related to different forms of homelessness

Understanding how various factors within asylum policy and practice impact different forms of homelessness can be helpful in designing more effective interventions and policies. This section explores how delays in housing support, competing demands on resources, issues with information sharing, and priority need assessments can contribute to different forms of homelessness and rough sleeping. By identifying the mechanisms through which these factors operate, it may be possible to inform government strategies aimed at preventing and addressing homelessness and rough sleeping.

This analysis is based on insights from national, regional, and local level interviews with key stakeholders, including government representatives, third-sector organisations, legal support groups, and others involved in asylum policy.

Some refugees may have a priority need for housing assistance but may not approach local authorities for support. This research identified several barriers preventing refugees from seeking help, including mistrust of authorities and misinformation about their rights. In some cases, refugees may believe they are ineligible for support due to these misconceptions. As a result, some refugees turn to their communities for housing support, relying on social networks rather than formal housing services. However, participants in the research highlighted that these informal solutions may be precarious, overcrowded, or unsuitable for refugees’ specific needs. In such cases, refugees may not be visibly homeless but are instead experiencing hidden homelessness, living in environments that are not stable or appropriate, but where they are unable to access formal housing support.

Participants described how some refugees, despite having a priority need and a statutory right to housing in one area, may choose to move to another area where their diaspora and community ties are stronger. They explained that the need to be near a familiar cultural community often outweighs the need for formal housing support. In these situations, participants noted that refugees may end up in precarious housing options, relying on overcrowded or unsuitable living conditions within their networks. Participants described the underlying factor as the local connection rule. By choosing to live with their community, participants explained that refugees may find themselves without the formal support they are entitled to. This dynamic highlights the complex nature of homelessness among refugees, where personal choice and the desire for community support can lead to hidden homelessness, even when statutory housing entitlements exist.

Another factor that emerged from the research was the difficulty some refugees experience in proving they have a priority need for housing. Participants described how, in these cases, access to housing is delayed, further exacerbating the risk of homelessness and rough sleeping. This delay can result in refugees living in precarious, hidden environments, relying on overcrowded or unsuitable living arrangements.

The evidence base described that when people experience hidden homelessness, their social networks can be finite. This suggests that refugees may exhaust their options for places to stay in the longer term. Participants reflected on how this could ultimately lead to periods of rough sleeping, once these informal housing options are no longer available. Acknowledging this progression is important, as it highlights the potential for hidden homelessness to eventually lead to rough sleeping when network support is no longer sustainable.

7. Policy insights 

The research presented in this report provides valuable insights into how elements of asylum policy and practice are influencing homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees. The findings, informed by the insights of local, regional and national stakeholders, highlight several areas where the government could consider taking action to improve outcomes. These insights are set out below: 

Operational policy insights: 

Policy insight 1: Explore the impact of the temporarily extended 56-day notice period for refugees needing to leave asylum accommodation after a decision. This research found the recent extension of the notice period from 28- days to 56-days was welcomed although research participants expressed doubts about its effectiveness in the absence of wider system changes to improve how and when a local authority is notified about refugees leaving the asylum system. Central government could evaluate the impact of the change to 56-days could provide insights into whether it has improved housing and other outcomes, whether it is feasible to secure accommodation within this timeframe, and the pathways refugees follow post-decision.  

Policy insight 2: Review the application of the Shared Accommodation Rate to examine the impact on housing accessibility. This research found that the overall shortage of affordable housing strains efforts to provide stable accommodation for refugees as they leave asylum accommodation. For refugees relying on benefits to pay for housing, Local Housing Allowance rates do not generally match market rental rates. It was noted that this is particularly the case with the Shared Accommodation Rate, which is applicable for the large proportion of single refugees who are aged under 35. Central government could review the application of the Shared Accommodation Rate to refugees to examine the impact on housing accessibility and explore potential adjustments for this group to better align with rental costs. Any changes would need to be considered in the context of wider homelessness and rough sleeping pressures and funding priorities to ensure a balanced approach across different groups. 

Policy insight 3: Explore opportunities to support the early integration of refugees via work, volunteering and training opportunities. This research identifies that person’s ability to assimilate into local community depends on the security of their accommodation as well as opportunities to live in a place they have personal connections with, work, volunteer and gain skills. Central government could assess the potential benefits and challenges of enabling people seeking asylum to engage in structured integration activities, such as volunteering, work, or skills training, while awaiting a decision on their claim. This could improve their integration and increase their connectedness to the local area in which they are placed. This in turn could reduce the likelihood of internal migration following a decision on their claim being made, which risks homelessness and rough sleeping if they are deemed not to have a local connection and increases pressure on desirable areas.    

Policy insight 4: Review access to specialist legal advice for refugees leaving asylum accommodation. This research found refugees who have had positive decisions often face challenges claiming priority need for housing due to poor documentation or local authority practices that are not trauma-informed or culturally competent. With specialist solicitors in this sector facing high demand, additional resourcing could be considered to support service provision. At the same time, refining the coordination between generalist advice services and specialist legal professionals could help ensure that refugees receive accurate guidance rather than being signposted between multiple services. Strengthening pathways for legal referrals could improve access to timely and appropriate support for those facing housing challenges.  

Policy insight 5: Review the effectiveness of nationally and locally commissioned services supporting refugees leaving asylum accommodation. This research suggests that there is a reliance on local authorities and third sector organisations to fill gaps in nationally provided support for refugees leaving asylum accommodation, which may lead to inconsistent levels of support across different regions, creating a postcode lottery.  A review could build on the findings from this research which suggest that the existing move-on support service commissioned by the Home Office is not fully meeting needs and is focused on short-term information provision rather than securing long-term housing stability. Local support to supplement the national service is not consistently provided. 

Policy insight 6: Ensure the eVisa processes and support provided to provides equitable access to services and administrative barriers are kept to a minimum.This research highlighted several challenges associated with the transition to eVisas, including digital barriers, such as people lacking access to the required technology like smartphones or reliable internet, along with a lack of clear guidance and support which may mean people are not aware of what they need to do. Training and digital support mechanisms could be reviewed to assess how refugees can navigate the eVis  processes and system to improve accessible and reduce confusion.

Policy insight 7: Assess the feasibility of a dedicated and equitable refugee integration or support fund for local authorities. In this research participants reflected on the lack of dedicated funding or resource to improve cohesion and integration for communities transitioning from the asylum system. They reported that the clearly defined resettlement programmes for certain groups of refugees, such as those from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, helped improve integration of people into the local communities.  However, it was noted that such formal programmes or pathways do not exist for people coming through the general asylum system and that the funding available is therefore not comparable. Assessing the feasibility of a integration/support fund for local authorities could take lessons from nation-specific resettlement programmes while allowing local authorities to respond flexibly to the needs of all refugee populations.  

Policy insight 8: Explore offering targeted funding or support for diaspora organisations engaged in supporting refugees to integrate. This research highlighted that diaspora organisation can play an important role in supporting refugee communities but that some need more support. There were differing views on whether this should be achieved through greater investment in diaspora organisations or strengthening statutory services. To support better collaboration between diaspora organisations and local authorities, central government could review funding mechanisms, encourage inclusive commissioning, and engage with a broader range of diaspora-led organisations. Additional investment could focus on long-term capacity building, helping diaspora organisations strengthen their governance, skills, and sustainability, improving clarity of housing advice and improve messaging around housing entitlements.  

Policy insights for system change: 

Policy insight 9: Learn from what is working well and less well in the asylum move-on liaison officer role. This research suggests that it may be too early to conclude the effectiveness of this role, and a formal evaluation may yield valuable insights. Efforts could be made to learn from what is working well and less well in the asylum move-on liaison officer role and to standardise best practice across regions to help ensure that all refugees receive meaningful support as they transition from asylum accommodation to settled housing. If found to be effective, the government could assess opportunities to expand the resourcing of asylum move-on liaison officers.  

Policy insight 10: Improve the experience of refugees seeking support from local authorities under housing and homelessness legislation. This research found that refugees often find it challenging to prove that they have a ‘priority need’ under the homelessness legislation. This was said to be because homelessness assessments often did not take the specific histories (including experiences of trauma) or circumstances (lack of usual documentation of housing and medical history) of refugees into consideration when assessing priority need. Central government could consider amending the homelessness guidance issued to local authorities to ensure it accounts for the specific circumstances a refugee may face. In the meantime, local authorities can and should take steps to improve the cultural competency of homelessness assessments and priority need determinations. Central government could further support this by developing a standardised training framework in consultation with local authorities, refugee organisations, and housing professionals.  

Policy insight 11: Increasing investment in affordable housing, including in larger properties. The overall shortage of affordable housing is an issue for people leaving asylum accommodation. A specific potential approach would be to consider targeted investment in rural areas to expand housing availability and ease pressure on high-demand urban locations. Any investment strategy would need to consider both existing housing availability and employment opportunities to ensure that solutions are practical and sustainable. 

Policy insights for improved information and data sharing: 

Policy insight 12: Clarify data-sharing restrictions for local authorities to effectively use asylum data for strategic planning and homelessness prevention. Improve communication flows about asylum decision-making to enable local authorities to have enough time to prevent homelessness. Research participants described restrictions that preclude local authorities from sharing data internally across their housing teams or to use it to take early action to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping for refugees in their area. A clearer national framework or exemption under GDPR could enable providers within the asylum system to legally share relevant data with local government or establish a shared system. If the perceived restrictions do not exist, it suggests a misunderstanding of the data protection rules by some local authorities and this needs to be tackled to enable more effective use of information gathered already. At the time of research, local authorities also reported challenges including delayed and incomplete data sharing and notification to local authorities about refugees leaving the asylum system. One option would be to require asylum accommodation providers to use the statutory Duty to Refer system to notify local authorities when a risk of homelessness is identified following a positive asylum decision. Another would be for the Home Office to more closely monitor, and performance manage, their contracted providers to meet existing targets to share information with local authorities in a timely manner. Either approach could support local authorities to take earlier action to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping among refugees.

Annex 1: Methods

A1. Data collection

This research employed a qualitative approach that included fieldwork in six local areas: Fenland, Greenwich, Leicester, Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole, Manchester and Southend. These areas were selected in collaboration with MHCLG to represent local areas with a range of urban, rural, and metropolitan characteristics.

As part of the fieldwork, researchers conducted 17 semi-structured group interviews with 60 stakeholders, including local, regional, and national stakeholders across the statutory and voluntary sectors. Topic guides for group interviews were developed through a co-design method with the Centre for Homelessness Impact and MHCLG and questions were designed relating to each research question. Qualitative data collection involved group interviews conducted via MS Teams, lasting up to 90 minutes, with transcriptions using the automated MS Teams service.

Of the 17 group interviews including the insights of 60 participants directly focused on asylum policy and practice. These included:

• 10 group interviews with regional and national stakeholders that included insights from 35 participants; and
• 7 group interviews with local stakeholders, including local authority representatives, which included insights from 25 participants.

Findings from these interviews were analysed using thematic analysis and triangulated to provide the findings presented in the report. The research findings were shared in the form of triangulation workshops with MHCLG stakeholders in February 2025.

A2. Synthesis and analysis

Researchers collected and analysed findings descriptively from the qualitative group interviews. Findings were mapped and collated using deductive thematic analysis which identified key themes and patterns across the sources. This process was guided by employing a framework-based approach aligned with Braun and Clarke’s principles (2006). Triangulation workshops with the research team and roundtables were conducted with representatives from MHCLG and Home Office to validate findings, explore different perspectives, and refine key messages. These collaborative sessions were integral to ensuring that the analysis was robust, actionable, and aligned with stakeholder priorities. By combining these methods, the research team developed a nuanced understanding of the relevant asylum policies and how different factors can influence homelessness and rough sleeping. This structured approach to the analysis ensured the findings were both credible and grounded in the evidence collected.

A3. Limitations of the methodology

The research was rich in qualitative detail and relied on interviews with stakeholders from across selected local areas. Although these areas were chosen to provide diversity in urbanisation and geography, the small sample cannot fully capture the experiences across England and is not representative. While the aim was to recruit local authorities from areas that have high asylum pressures, it was not always possible given their availability.

Furthermore, this study does not seek to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions delivered to provide housing guidance or support and alleviate the risk of an individual experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping. This means that while the report provides a comprehensive overview of how the system interacts, including interventions delivered to support refugees transition out of asylum accommodation, it does not assess the impact or success of specific interventions.

This research was not able to provide a singular viewpoint or perspective specific to each regional area because multiple stakeholders with diverse views were interviewed within each area. By engaging with a variety of local stakeholders the research was able to gather diverse insights based on their different roles and experiences. Whilst this approach provided a broad view of how asylum policy and practice affects the risk of individuals experiencing homelessness and rough sleeping, it also introduced variability, making it difficult to capture a singular perspective for each area. This means the research cannot compare differences between areas and approaches. However, this provided the research with a level of depth and richness in experiences that would otherwise not have been captured.  

The analysis and synthesis stages combined findings using a framework-based thematic analysis, which enabled triangulation across data sources.^{[footnote 8]}: However, data interpretations are influenced by the perspectives of participants and researchers. While efforts were made to mitigate bias through triangulation workshops, the findings reflect the contexts and experiences of those engaged in the research. Given the importance of context on influencing individual experiences, findings may not be fully generalisable to other settings or populations.

References

British Red Cross. (2022). Together at last: supporting refugee families who reunite in the UK.

Centre for Homelessness Impact. (2024.) Homelessness, refugees and resettlement.

Cromwell Wikes. (2025). The Complete Guide to the UK eVisa.

Domiziana Turcatti, et al. (2024). University of Reading, Policy Briefing Paper: Migrant and refugee organisations in the UK as spaces of care.

Greenwich Inclusion Project (n.d). The Greenwich Sanctuary Project.

Global Diaspora Summit. (2022). Outcomes Document: A Future Agenda of Action for Global Diaspora Engagement.

Fulfilling Lives in Islington and Camden. (2018). Peer Mentoring Evaluation.

Home Office. (2022). New Plan for Immigration: legal migration and border control.

Home Office. (2023). Family Reunion.

Home Office. (2023). Guidance Online immigration status (eVisa).

Home Office. (2024). Immigration system statistics data tables: Family Reunion.

Home Office. (2025). Guidance: List of organisations.

Home Office (n.d). Get access to your online immigration status (eVisa).

Home Office (n.d). Indefinite leave to remain (permission to stay as a refugee, humanitarian protection, Discretionary or Section 67 Leave).

Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.

House of Commons Library. (2024). Research briefing: Asylum statistics.

MHCLG. (2024a). Statutory homelessness in England: financial year 2023-24.

MHCLG. (2024b). Rough sleeping data framework, December 2024.

MHCLG. (2022). Policy paper: Ending rough sleeping for good.

NACCOM. (2024). A data briefing from the NACCOM network: Understanding destitution and homelessness in the asylum and immigration system.

Refugee Council. (2018). A bridge to life in the UK: Refugee-led community organisations and their role in integration.

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (n.d). Supporting refugees and people seeking asylum.

British Red Cross. (2022). The importance of refugee family reunion.

Home Office. (2023). Asylum support: What you’ll get.

Migration Observatory. (2023). Digital Immigration Status and the move to eVisas.

Phillimore, J. (2020). Migrant integration and social networks: Understanding the role of diaspora organisations.

Refugee Council. (2019). Refugees without refuge: Findings from a survey of newly recognised refugees.

Shelter England. (2024). Homeless applications: Immigration and residence [Accessed 22 May 2025].

---

1. Statutory homelessness in England: financial year 2023-24. ↩

2. Monthly MHCLG Rough Sleeping Dashboard - Feb 25. ↩

3. Asylum-summary-dec-2024-tables.ods - Asylum and resettlement datasets. ↩

4. This was announced by the Home Office to local authorities and third sector organisations via a letter on 9 December 2024. This has been reported by the BBC here: Home Office doubles time given to refugees to find accommodation. ↩

5. Anyone applying to local authorities for homelessness assistance may be required to establish a connection to the local authority area. A person’s local connection is assessed on the basis of normal residence, employment, family association, special circumstances or leaving care. In the case of refugees, local connection is usually established on the basis of the location of their dispersed accommodation. ↩

6. A vignette is a sticker that is placed in your passport and confirms your right to enter the UK including entry clearance or visa vignettes. ↩

7. Family reunion integration service. ↩

8. The framework analysed participant responses to research questions. This allowed thematic coding of responses to be completed across all participant groups to find similarities, differences and create comparison. The framework included the full verbatim response from each participant when asked each question. Trained researchers then grouped these responses per theme. ↩