Research and analysis

Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s resettlement schemes: Summary of early integration outcomes

Published 26 September 2025

Executive summary

Introduction

The Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) was launched in 2014, and expanded in 2015, with the aim of resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees displaced as a result of the civil war in Syria. The Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) was launched in 2016 to resettle up to 3,000 ‘at risk’ refugee children and their families from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Both schemes closed to new arrivals in February 2021 and were superseded by the new UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS).

The aims of these schemes were to bring vulnerable refugees to safety in the UK and to provide them with the infrastructure and support they need to rebuild their lives and integrate into British society. This summary report outlines the extent to which the schemes achieved their aims by reporting on refugees’ progress towards full integration into British society.

Methodology

Due to similarities in how the VPRS and VCRS were administered, the Home Office used a mixed-methods approach to monitoring and evaluating both schemes together. Evaluation comprised a 3-year longitudinal qualitative study, undertaken by external research partner Ipsos MORI, the outputs from which were published in March 2023 (Home Office, 2023a), and quantitative data collection on early refugee outcomes, undertaken by Home Office analysts between 2016 and 2021.

Quantitative data collection was based on the ‘Indicators of Integration framework’ (Home Office, 2019). Data was collected via local authorities (LAs) and community sponsorship groups biannually, starting in autumn 2016 and ending in autumn 2021. LAs and sponsors were asked to return data on refugees at 2 time points, once they had been in the UK for approximately half a year (ranging from 3 to 9 months), and a year (9 to 15 months)^{[footnote 1]}. In terms of response rates, 2 data points were received for 82% of the population in scope, while for a further 12%, just one data point was received, meaning that data was missing for 6% of the population. Further information was missing at an individual variable level.

This report summarises findings from the quantitative data collection exercise, broken down by key subgroups such as sex, age, region and arrival period. Where relevant, it also draws on selected findings from the longitudinal qualitative study.

Key findings

Safe and legal route to the UK

Under the VPRS, 20,319 refugees were resettled – exceeding the stated aim of resettling 20,000 refugees, and a further 1,838 refugees were resettled under the VCRS. Half of these refugees were children (aged 17 or under), and nearly half were female (48%).

Housing

All resettled refugees were provided with housing on arrival. The average household comprised 4 people. After around half a year in the UK, over half (55%) were living in LA, housing association, or council private sector leasing accommodation, while 41% were renting privately.

Education and training

Around half a year since arrival, nearly all (98%) of those aged 15 and under were attending school, and most 16- and 17-year-olds (87%) were attending college or further education. Around half of 18- to 21-year-olds were in education or training.

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision

Most adults (aged 18 and over) had low levels of English language skills – nearly two-thirds (63%) were at pre-entry or below formal assessment level around half a year after arrival. Only 5% were at Entry level 3 or above, which is considered ‘job-market ready’ English. English levels were higher for those who had been in the UK for around a year, with 8% having ‘job-market ready’ English, and 48% being at pre-entry or below formal assessment level.

The vast majority (90%) of refugees aged 16 and over were attending some form of ESOL provision at around half a year in the UK. For most (85%) of these, formal ESOL training had started within the first 2 months of arrival. About a third of those aged 18 and over (32%) had improved their English sufficiently to progress by at least one formal ESOL level within their first year in the UK.

The most common barrier to attending language classes for both men and women was reported as physical or mental health issues. However, for women, childcare or pregnancy were also common reasons.

Economic status

Around a year after arrival, the main economic status of most resettled refugees aged 16 to 64 was ‘unemployed and looking for work’ (55%). A further 17% were looking after family and home, 13% were in study or training, and 9% were sick or disabled. While 4% were employed, most were working part time. Of those who were unemployed, 27% reported they were volunteering.

There were noticeable differences in main economic status by gender. The main economic status of nearly a third of women was ‘looking after family and home’ (32%, compared with 2% of men). Men were more likely than women to be unemployed and looking for work (63% men versus 48% women) or in employment (8% men versus 1% women).

Health

While most reported their health as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ (72% around half a year after arrival), 22% reported health limitations that affected their day-to-day activities in some way. Nearly half (46%) of resettled refugees reported that their health had improved since arriving in the UK, while 8% reported that it had worsened, and 46% reported no change.

Social connections

Most resettled refugees aged 16 and over (around 92%) agreed that their area was ‘a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together’, and most (85%) said they had engaged in a community activity at least once since arriving in the UK.

Over a quarter of resettled refugees aged 16 and over (29%) said they had undertaken some form of volunteering since their arrival in the UK. The likelihood of having undertaken volunteering was much higher for those who were in employment (50%), compared for example, with those who were looking after family and home (11%).

Conclusions

The UK government achieved the primary aim of the VPRS, which was to bring at least 20,000 refugees to safety in the UK^{[footnote 2]}. On arrival, VPRS and VCRS refugees were provided with leave to remain, housing and caseworker support, which enabled access to services to facilitate their integration, including education and healthcare, ESOL, and support to find employment.

Refugees on these schemes were eligible for resettlement based on their high level of vulnerability and most arrived with little or no English language skills. Since language is key to integration, it is not surprising that for most resettled refugees, medium- and longer-term integration goals such as employment were not realised within the first year or so following arrival. However, most of these refugees were actively engaged in English language development, and many were involved in other community-related activities and volunteering.

It will be important to monitor refugee outcomes over the longer term, so the Home Office has partnered with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on an administrative data-linking project – the Refugee Integration Outcomes (RIO) study (ONS, 2022; 2023a; 2023b). This will allow for investigation of longer-term outcomes through data collected by other government departments, relating, for example, to health, housing and employment.

1. Introduction

In January 2014, in response to the ongoing civil war in Syria and mass displacement of Syrians, the UK government launched the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS). In September 2015, the scheme was expanded with the aim of resettling 20,000 Syrians by 2020, and in July 2017 the scope of the scheme was extended to include other nationalities who had fled Syria due to the conflict. The Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) was launched in 2016 to resettle up to 3,000 ‘at risk’ refugee children from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including their families. In the same year, the UK government also launched the Community Sponsorship Scheme, enabling local community groups to welcome and support refugees.

Once in the UK, these schemes aimed to support refugees with suitable housing, access to healthcare, education and English language training to help them rebuild their lives, become self-sufficient and integrate into UK society.

The resettlement schemes were aimed at those in greatest need of assistance, including people requiring urgent medical treatment, survivors of violence and torture, and women and children at risk. Delivery of the schemes involved close collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to identify refugees in need of resettlement and whose needs could only be met in other countries, such as the UK.

To determine whether the schemes delivered their aims, officials in the Home Office Analysis and Insight (HOAI) Directorate designed and implemented a mixed-methods programme of monitoring and evaluation. This report summarises key findings from the quantitative data collection element of the programme, focusing on early integration outcomes achieved by refugees in their first year or so in the UK. Where appropriate, this report also draws on findings from the qualitative strand of the evaluation programme (Home Office, 2023a).

2. Methodology

This chapter outlines the VPRS and VCRS monitoring and evaluation programme, which was underpinned by the Home Office’s Indicators of Integration framework. It summarises the methodology used to collect, analyse and report on quantitative data relating to refugee needs and early integration outcomes.

As set out in ‘The UK Government’s Approach to Evaluating the Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes’ (Home Office, 2018), the design of the evaluation of the schemes drew upon the Home Office Indicators of Integration (IOI) framework 2019 (Home Office, 2019). This report is structured around the key integration domains set out in the framework.

The IOI framework aims to promote a common understanding of integration and provide an evidence-based approach to inform the planning, monitoring and evaluation of integration projects. The original framework (published in 2004) was structured around 10 key domains, later expanded to 14 in the 2019 version (see below), accompanied by a range of suggested indicators. As such, it provides a clear structure to support more consistent data collection, to enable better comparisons and continuous improvement in understanding what works in integration.

Indicators of Integration (IOI) framework (Home Office, 2019)

Headings	Domains
Markers and means	Work; Housing; Education; Health and social care; Leisure
Social connections	Social bridges; Social bonds; Social links
Facilitators	Language; Culture; Digital skills; Safety; Stability
Foundation	Rights and responsibilities

The original monitoring and evaluation plan for the VPRS and VCRS (Home Office, 2018) identified 7 main integration domains of interest:

• employment
• education
• social bridges and bonds
• security and safeguarding
• secondary migration
• health
• English language

Over time, these evolved to reflect the updated version of the IOI framework.

The monitoring and evaluation programme adopted a mixed-methods approach. This report summarises findings from the quantitative collection of monitoring data on resettled refugees’ needs and early integration outcomes, with selected findings from the qualitative evaluation where they provide additional information or context to the quantitative data.

2.1 Quantitative monitoring data

The first element of the programme, and the main focus of this report, involved the regular collection of monitoring data on early outcomes across a range of integration measures.

Data was requested from LAs and community sponsors, covering all refugees who were resettled via the VPRS and VCRS between September 2015 and February 2021. Data was collected biannually, starting in autumn 2016 and ending in autumn 2021. For each refugee, data was requested at 2 time points – once they had been in the UK for between 3 to 9 months, and between 9 to 15 months. In this report, these 2 time points are referred to as ‘half a year’ and ‘a year’ post-arrival, respectively.

The data collection process comprised a Microsoft Excel form, pre-populated with a list of people being supported by the LA or community sponsor group (based on Home Office operational data), which recipients were asked to review and complete before returning to the Home Office. The form comprised several fields split between 2 sections: the first section to be completed by the LA or community sponsor group based on locally held management information, and the second ‘self-completion’ section to be administered to refugees themselves. LAs could administer the self-completion questionnaire to clients using their preferred method, and translations of the questionnaire and a privacy information notice (PIN) were made available in the most common languages among the cohort. Any personal data was shared between partners using the Home Office’s secure file transfer platform MOVEit.

In total, 11 rounds of data collection were scheduled. Data from Round 1 in autumn 2016 has been excluded from analysis as it served primarily as a pilot exercise, and the variables collected changed significantly after the first round. This report therefore relates to refugees who arrived from 1 January 2016 onwards, and excludes 1,337 pre-2016 VPRS cases, or 6% of the total VPRS and VCRS population^{[footnote 3]}.

Furthermore, Round 8, timetabled for spring 2020 did not take place due to the extraordinary circumstances at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. To make up for this missing data, in subsequent rounds a third time point (15 to 21 months, or ‘one and half years’ after arrival) was introduced, so that for nearly all cohorts, 2 different data points were requested. Due to the relatively small number of responses, findings for this exceptional third time point have not been included in this report.

In terms of response rate, at least one data point was received for 20,434 resettled refugees, representing 94% of the 21,819 refugees who were in scope. Additional levels of missing data vary by variable, and for this report, we highlight any instances where data is missing for more than 20% of the cohort. These findings should be treated with greater care as the level of missing data introduces more uncertainty around the robustness of these statistics.

2.2 Qualitative research

In addition to collecting quantitative data to monitor support provision and integration outcomes, a 3-year qualitative process evaluation was undertaken by Ipsos MORI, with fieldwork taking place 2018 to 2020. This included:

• interviews with key stakeholders from local government, central government and the third sector
• online forums with refugee caseworkers
• case studies with 5 LAs and 2 community sponsorship groups (with a further 2 added in the third and final year of research)

Reports from the study have now been published, along with a summary of good practice (Home Office, 2023a). Selected findings from the qualitative study are included in this report, where they provide further detail or context to findings from the monitoring information.

2.3Administrative data linking

To explore longer-term integration outcomes, the Home Office has partnered with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on an administrative data-linking project, the Refugee Integration Outcomes (RIO) study. An initial pilot, using Home Office data on VPRS and VCRS refugees, was undertaken (ONS, 2022), which has led to a full-scale project including additional cohorts of refugees who have been granted asylum (ONS, 2023a; 2023b). This study will allow for investigation of longer-term outcomes through data collected by other government departments, relating to health, housing and employment, for example.

2.4 Other research

As set out in the evaluation plan, Home Office researchers explored the potential for social media analysis to identify changes in sentiment towards resettling refugees in the UK as a proxy measure for social integration and community cohesion. While the pilot served as a proof-of-concept of how social media data in the public domain might be used to explore public attitudes towards refugee resettlement, it was not progressed past the pilot stage.

Additional research undertaken included the evaluation of a pilot of the Global Mental Health Assessment Tool (GMHAT), which is a computerised clinical assessment tool developed to allow for rapidly assessing and identifying mental health problems in a range of settings. The pilot was a collaboration between the Home Office, Public Health England (PHE) and the International Organisation for Migration (IoM), and involved 200 Syrian refugees being processed through the VPRS (Home Office and PHE, 2019).

In 2018, Home Office researchers also carried out an evaluation of the pre-departure cultural orientation sessions that are delivered by IoM to refugees about to be resettled to the UK through VPRS and VCRS. The resulting report, for internal use, was used to inform further development of cultural orientation sessions provided to refugees.

3. Profile of arrivals

This chapter outlines numbers of arrivals over time, key characteristics of the resettled refugee cohort, and the geographic spread of resettlement across the UK.

3.1 Arrivals over time

Figure 1: VPRS and VCRS arrivals by quarter, 2014 to 2021

Source: Home Office (2023b) ‘Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2023’

As illustrated in Figure 1, when the VPRS was first launched in January 2014, it initially resettled a relatively small number of refugees. On 7 September 2015, then Prime Minister David Cameron announced the scheme would be expanded to resettle 20,000 Syrians in need of protection by 2020, with the first 1,000 by the end of 2015 (UKVI, 2021). Resettlement operations expanded rapidly in the final quarter of 2015, with 1,085 people resettled during those 3 months alone. In the first quarter of 2016, processes were revised in response to the rapid expansion, after which refugees arrived via the scheme on a relatively steady basis, averaging 1,126 per quarter (or 18,016 in total) during the years 2016 to 2019. In March 2020, the unprecedented restrictions and pressures caused by the COVID-19 pandemic meant the UK, alongside many other countries, had to temporarily pause the resettlement of refugees. Arrivals restarted in December 2020, and the VPRS commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees was met in early 2021. When the schemes closed to new arrivals in February 2021, a total of 20,319 refugees had been resettled under the VPRS^{[footnote 4]}, and a further 1,838 under the VCRS.

3.2 Eligibility and complexity of cases

The VPRS and VCRS were targeted at vulnerable refugees deemed most in need of support. Eligibility was assessed at case level by UNHCR, with most VPRS cases falling under the ‘legal and/or physical protection needs’ (LPPN) (41%) or ‘survivors of torture and/or violence’ (SOVT) (39%) criteria. VCRS cases were more likely to be eligible for a wider range of reasons, most commonly SOVT (32%) and ‘women and girls at risk’ (27%), but also LPPN (20%) and ‘medical needs’ (18%).

Cases were also assessed against additional ‘complexity’ markers by the Home Office. VCRS cases were more likely (51%) to be flagged as complex than VPRS cases (33%). Around 1 in 10 (9%) of cases on both schemes were flagged as having mobility issues, while VCRS cases were more likely than VPRS cases to be identified as having serious medical needs (23% versus 11%) or psychological needs (23% versus 13%). In addition, 12% of VPRS cases and 15% of VCRS cases were flagged as having special educational needs.

3.3 Nationality

Nearly all (99.6%) refugees on the VPRS were Syrian, with a small number (88) of other nationalities who all arrived after July 2017, when the scope of the scheme was expanded to include other refugees who had fled Syria but did not have Syrian nationality. The VCRS cohort comprised a range of nationalities from the MENA region, with nearly half being Iraqi (46%) and around a quarter being Sudanese (26%). Other common nationalities included Eritrean (5%), Afghan (5%) and Somali (4%).

3.4 Age and gender

The gender breakdown of resettled VPRS and VCRS refugees was almost evenly split, with 48% being female and 52% being male. This differs notably to those granted asylum over the same period, of whom 67% were male (Home Office, 2023b).

Figure 2: Population pyramid by age and gender for VPRS and VCRS

In terms of age, 49% of VPRS arrivals and 58% of VCRS arrivals were aged 17 and under. Most of the groups arriving via the schemes were families with children (particularly so for VCRS), and only 8% of cases comprised one person. There were very few arrivals of people aged 65 and over; this age group made up only 1% of VPRS arrivals, and less than 1% of VCRS arrivals.

3.5 Region

Around two-thirds (67%) were resettled via LAs in England, while 16% were resettled in Scotland, 8% in Northern Ireland and 6% in Wales. In terms of English regions, Yorkshire and the Humber saw the largest proportion of arrivals (11%), followed by the West Midlands (9%) and the South East (9%). A further 2% were resettled via community sponsor groups across the UK.

4. Housing

This chapter summarises data on how VPRS and VCRS refugees were housed in the UK. Data on housing was collected as accommodation has a fundamental impact on a person’s experience of integration. Housing conditions, as the IOI sets out, influence a “sense of security and stability, opportunities for social connections, and access to healthcare, education and employment” (Home Office, 2019). In our quantitative monitoring data, all information relating to housing was collected at the lead applicant level, except for information on secondary movement, which was collected for each refugee.

4.1 Household size

LAs and community sponsors were asked to report on resettled refugees’ household size, which was defined in the data collection tool as “the total number of people living under the same roof”. When measured around half a year after arrival, the mean average reported household size was 4.3 and the most commonly reported household size (the mode) was 5 (32%); 16% reported to have a household size of 6 or more, while the rest (52%) had 4 or less. As a point of comparison, the average (mean) household size for the wider population was 2.4 according to the 2021 England and Wales Census (ONS, 2021). Average resettled refugee household size varied between regions, ranging from 3.9 (Scotland) to 4.8 (South East). Compared with those resettled by LAs, those resettled by community sponsor groups had a larger average household size (5.3).

4.2 Housing tenure

As Figure 3 shows, around half a year after arrival, resettled refugee households were most commonly renting privately (41%), while 23% were renting from a housing association, 21% from a LA and 10% through a council private sector leasing (PSL) scheme. Small numbers were reported as being accommodated through other means (3%) or living rent free (1%). The distribution of housing tenure type was roughly the same after around a year. In the qualitative evaluation, stakeholders noted the “prevalent” use of the private rented sector (PRS) to house refugee families, which was reportedly “due to the shortage of suitable social housing and the need to house homeless families” (Pereira and others, 2023a).

Figure 3: VPRS and VCRS refugee housing tenure type, at around 6 months (household level)

4.3 Secondary movement

The majority (95%) of VPRS and VCRS refugees remained in the settled accommodation where they had originally been placed; 4% had moved within the same LA area, while 1% had moved elsewhere in the UK. After around a year, 11% had moved within the same LA area and 2% had moved elsewhere in the UK.

A wide range of reasons were given for why resettled refugees moved from their initial accommodation. The most commonly reported reason for resettled refugees moving within the LA area at the half-year point was ‘other’ (23%), indicating that the reasons may be complex or specific to particular cases. Other common reasons included:

• planned move as the initial accommodation was temporary (16%)
• refugees were unhappy with the quality of the initial accommodation (15%)
• refugees were unhappy with the community or area they were in (14%)
• mobility issues, which necessitated a change in accommodation (10%)

As part of the qualitative evaluation, it was noted that the scale of desire to move may have been higher than the volume of moves reported by LAs, as the researchers found that LA staff and caseworkers reported that “some families had asked to move, but alternative accommodation was not available” (Pereira and others, 2023a).

4.3 Discretionary Housing Payments

Refugees in receipt of benefits can apply for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) from their LA to help cover housing-related costs not fully covered by Housing Benefit or Universal Credit^{[footnote 5]}. Around half a year after arrival, 15% of resettled families had received a DHP from their LA. By around a year, 25% of families had received a DHP. Those who had the benefit cap applied were more likely to be receiving DHP than those who had not had the benefit cap applied (37% versus 8% at around half a year post-arrival). According to the qualitative evaluation, local practitioners reported that besides using DHPs, “local authorities had also used VPRS [and] VCRS tariff funds to top up housing benefit payments”, and that in some areas, “stakeholders were concerned that refugees would not be able to sustain housing costs should their eligibility for welfare support change” (Pereira and others, 2023a).

In addition, “the larger than average size of refugee families” may have been “compounding concerns around the sustainability of the housing costs” (ibid). It was observed that “larger households require properties with additional bedrooms, which have higher rents that are more likely to be affected by the benefit cap” (ibid). Indeed, our data shows that, while larger resettled families were more likely to have received a DHP, they were also more likely to have had the benefit cap applied.

PRS housing was also “commonly reported to be expensive and above the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates”^{[footnote 6]} with reports of LAs being “concerned about the stability of PRS tenures” (ibid). As Figure 4 shows, those renting privately were the more likely to have received a DHP than any other household tenure type.

Figure 4: VPRS and VCRS refugees that received a DHP, by time in country and by household tenure type (household level)

5. Education and training

This chapter summarises monitoring data collected on education and job-related training attendance for VPRS and VCRS refugees, recognising that “access to, and progress within the education system serves as a significant integration marker, and as a major means towards this goal” (Home Office, 2019). The analysis is presented by refugees’ ages at the time of data collection.

5.1 School attendance

LAs have a statutory duty to provide access to full-time education for all children of compulsory school age residing in their area. Similarly, with resettled refugee children in families supported by community sponsors, the sponsor group is expected to find a full-time school place within weeks of the family’s arrival.

Nearly all (97%) of resettled refugees aged 4 to 15 were reported to be attending some form of education around half a year after arrival. As the qualitative evaluation notes, school attendance was not only important for children but also their parents and guardians:

“[a]ll respondent groups recognised school attendance as one of the most important immediate outcomes of resettlement. It was considered integral for children, of course, but also for parents. Children’s enrolment in school provided socialising opportunities for parents and enabled them to attend other integration activities during the day, such as ESOL lessons.”

Pereira and others, 2023a

The data suggest that one possible barrier to attendance may have been health. Around half a year after arrival, 13% of school-aged (4 to 15) resettled refugees whose health was reported as being ‘limited a lot’ were not in education, compared with only 2% of those whose health was not limited.

5.2 Post-16 education

The majority (90%) of those aged 16 and 17 was also reported as attending some form of educational institution around half a year after arrival, most commonly described as ‘college/further education’ (48%) or a ‘school’ (37%). Only 10% were reported as not attending any kind of education or training.

In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, mandatory education/training currently ends at the school leaving age of 16, but in England, it is now compulsory for young people to be in some form of education or training until the age of 18. This may be reflected in educational participation for the 16 to 17 age group being highest in England (92%), compared with 85% in Northern Ireland, 81% in Scotland and 81% in Wales^{[footnote 7]}.

5.3 Further and higher education, and adult learning

As Figure 5 shows, among adult resettled refugees, those aged 18 to 24 were most likely to be in education after around half a year in the UK, with 39% attending some form of educational institution, most commonly ‘college or further education’ (23%). In this age group, educational attendance varied significantly by gender. While 48% of male resettled refugees aged 18 to 24 were attending some form of education or training at around 6 months after arrival, this was only the case for 31% of female resettled refugees aged 18 to 24. This difference was generally less pronounced for other age groups.

Figure 5: Proportion of VPRS and VCRS refugees attending education or job-related training, around half a year post-arrival, by age group (18 years and over)

Very few resettled refugees (less than 1%) aged 18 and over were reported as attending a higher education institution such as a university during their first year in the UK, potentially due to the length of time needed to apply and be accepted into course. However, other barriers to further and higher education may include a lack of English language skills and difficulties getting qualifications recognised. The latter was something that emerged as part of the qualitative evaluation, with resettled refugees reportedly facing issues around the lack of transferability of international education achievements, as well as a lack of documentation:

“Despite services such as the National Recognition Information Centre (NARIC), caseworkers reported ongoing difficulties in transferring young refugees’ qualifications across to the UK equivalent, especially as the refugees may not have physical evidence of these.”

Pereira and others, 2023c

5.4 English language support

LAs and community sponsors reported that most of those in education or job-related training were receiving English language support from the educational institution they were attending (for example, ESOL, EAL, EFL provision). This was the case for 88% of resettled refugees aged 4 to 11, and 92% of resettled refugees aged 12 to 15. This was also the case for 95% of 16- and 17-year-olds, and 90% of 18- to 24-year-olds, which was at odds with findings from the qualitative evaluation, which suggested there may be variability between institution types:

“[S]ome young adult refugees reported that the level of English language support provided in college was lower than the support younger children received in schools.”

Pereira and others, 2023b

6. English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision

This chapter presents key findings relating to VPRS and VCRS refugees’ English language learning and ability. The IOI framework identifies language and communication as a key facilitator of integration since “the ability to communicate is essential for all social connections including, crucially, with other communities and with state and voluntary agencies such as local government and non-government services, political processes and being able to perform civic duties” (Home Office, 2019). Measuring attendance and levels of language acquisition helps to identify the progress people are making towards integrating into their new environment.

6.1 English for speakers of other languages (ESOL)

English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision encompasses both formal and informal language learning. Formal ESOL provision refers to accredited courses that contain assessments and are delivered by certified teaching staff, while informal ESOL provision refers to non-accredited learning events which do not contain assessments and may be delivered by volunteers. The qualitative evaluation found that resettled refugees whose main aim was to improve their grammar and achieve accreditation (for example, for employment or training) were more interested in attending formal ESOL (Pereira and others, 2023b). Those who were more interested in practising to communicate and build their confidence favoured informal ESOL (ibid).

Nearly half (48%) had attended their first ESOL training (formal or informal) within a month of arriving in the UK, and 85% had begun their ESOL training within 3 months of arrival. When measured around half a year post-arrival, 90% of VPRS and VCRS refugees aged 16 or over were attending formal or informal ESOL (or both), and after around a year, 87% were doing so.

There were differences in attendance by age. While only 49% of those 65 or over were attending formal or informal ESOL, most resettled refugees aged 16 to 64 were attending some form of ESOL learning (ranging from 81% of those aged 50 to 64 to 93% of 16- to 17-year-olds).

Overall, across all age groups, around 70% were attending formal ESOL classes, both at around half a year and a year post-arrival. Take-up of informal ESOL learning opportunities was lower, with 44% attending when measured around half a year after arrival and 40% around a year after arrival.

The type of ESOL resettled refugees accessed differed by gender. Men were more likely than women to be attending formal ESOL classes (76% compared with 67% around a year after arrival), while women were slightly more likely to be attending informal ESOL training (42% versus 38%).

There were some variations in ESOL attendance and ESOL levels between regions. Nevertheless, across all regions, most resettled refugees attended either formal or informal ESOL (or both). The proportion of resettled refugees attending any ESOL after around a year in the UK ranged from 80% in Yorkshire and the Humber to 93% in the East Midlands and Northern Ireland. In some regions, uptake of formal ESOL provision was higher, while in others, informal ESOL provisions were more likely to be used.

On average, those who were in formal ESOL around half a year after arrival were undertaking 9 hours learning per week. Those taking part in informal ESOL training were undertaking 5 hours learning per week. The qualitative evaluation highlights that informal ESOL provision “and volunteer-led language practice were key to overcoming barriers to formal ESOL learning, particularly for illiterate or older [resettled] refugees” (Pereira and others, 2023a).

Attendance at both formal and informal ESOL training dropped only slightly during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Of those who had been in the UK for around a year, the proportion attending formal ESOL was 2 percentage points lower (4 percentage points lower for informal ESOL) compared with the pre-COVID-19 period. Findings from the qualitative evaluation’s third year of fieldwork suggest that the necessary move to providing ESOL classes online during lockdown restrictions presented challenges for those who were less digitally literate (Pereira and others, 2023c). However, it appears to have helped remove barriers to attendance for resettled refugees with caring responsibilities and those living in rural areas. Nevertheless, resettled refugees pointed out that classes moving online in 2020 meant they had fewer opportunities to practise their English and their progress in learning the language had therefore suffered (Pereira and others, 2023c).

6.2 Barriers to attending ESOL classes

After around half a year in the UK, the most common barrier to attending ESOL training among those who could not attend was physical/mental health (31%), followed by childcare, pregnancy or looking after an infant (25%). A further 7% could not take up ESOL training due to caring for an elderly or disabled relative. The barriers to attending ESOL provision after around a year in the UK were broadly the same. However, while only 1% of those who could not attend ESOL around half a year after arrival stated this was due to employment, this proportion rose to 6% around a year post-arrival.

All of these were also highlighted as barriers in the qualitative evaluation, which also found that for the LAs taking part in the research, there was sometimes a lack of availability of language classes in their area – particularly at pre-entry and entry level, as these were oversubscribed (Pereira and others, 2023a). Furthermore, some resettled refugees said they would find bilingual tuition more accessible than classes taught entirely in English (ibid). The qualitative evaluation also noted that “low levels of literacy or prior education in [resettled] refugees’ first language”, and “experiences of displacement and trauma, impacting [resettled] refugees’ ability to concentrate” were barriers to accessing and progressing in ESOL (ibid).

6.3 ESOL levels and self-reported language confidence

Nearly two-thirds of resettled refugees (63%) were at pre-entry or below formal ESOL level around half a year after arrival. Only 5% were at Entry level 3 or above ESOL level, which is considered ‘job-market ready’ English (see Figure 6)^{[footnote 8]}. While 58% stayed at the same formal ESOL level between the 2 time points collected, 32% did improve their English enough to reach a higher ESOL level, and 10% of resettled refugees were at a lower ESOL level than they had been before, which may be an artifact of the data collection process. Around a year after arrival, the proportion of those with pre-entry or below formal ESOL levels had decreased to 49%, and the proportion of those with ‘job-market ready’ English had increased to 8%.

Figure 6: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ ESOL level, by length of time in country (18 years and over)

The proportion of resettled refugees who had reached ESOL Entry level 3 or above (‘job-market ready’ English) around a year after arrival ranged from 5% in the North East of England to 12% in the South West of England. This variability may be down to several factors, including variation in English language skills prior to arrival, the availability of ESOL provision and the existence of barriers to individuals being able to access them.

There were differences in ESOL levels by age, with younger resettled refugees more likely to have higher ESOL levels. After around a year in the UK, those aged 18 to 24 were the most likely to have ‘job-market ready’ English (15%), while those aged 50 and over were the least likely (3%)^{[footnote 9]}.

Besides measuring resettled refugees’ English language acquisition using formal ESOL assessments, refugees were also asked to indicate their perceived level of confidence in speaking English. After around a year in the UK, 8% said they were ‘very confident’ (an increase from 3% after around half a year in the UK). While ‘not very confident’ was still the most common response (24%) around a year after arrival, the proportion had decreased from 35% at around half a year. These improvements are slow but encouraging, particularly since qualitative evaluation in its first year found that where resettled refugees reported not being able or confident to speak English, they sometimes avoided venturing outside for fear of getting lost and not being able to seek help (Pereira and others, 2023a).

As with formal ESOL levels, confidence levels about speaking English were also strongly related to age (see Figure 7). Resettled refugees in the younger age groups were much more likely to feel confident in their English language use than older resettled refugees. While 64% of those aged 16 and 17 felt ‘very confident’ or ‘fairly confident’; this proportion steadily reduced with age, with only 3% of those aged 65 and over saying they felt ‘very confident’ or ‘fairly confident’.

Figure 7: VPRS and VCRS refugees English language speaking confidence, at around 12 months since arrival, by age group

7. Economic status

This chapter outlines monitoring data on the main economic status of VPRS and VCRS refugees aged 16 to 64. This relates to the IOI domains of Work and Education, which are both markers and means of integration. For instance, it sets out that “access to – and progress within – the education system serves as a significant marker of integration, and also as a major means towards integration, such as creating significant opportunities for employment, for wider social connection and mixing, for language learning and cultural exchange” (Home Office, 2019).

7.1 Main economic status

After around a year in the UK, the main economic status of 4% of VPRS and VCRS refugees aged between 16 and 64 was reported as being in employment, while 55% were available for work but not in paid employment. A further 17% were looking after family and home, 13% were in study or training, and the economic status of 9% was reported as sick or disabled.

Most resettled refugees who were in employment were working part time, equating to 3% of the overall cohort, while 1% of the overall cohort were in full-time employment. Almost two-thirds (64%) of those reported as employed after around half a year in the UK were also reported as being in employment after a year, while 23% had become unemployed. This may reflect the precariousness and seasonality of the type of employment refugees often initially undertake during their early years in the UK or a desire to gain employment in line with their skills and aspirations, or both. The qualitative evaluation revealed a ‘strong desire’ among resettled refugee participants to gain employment similar in nature or level to that previously undertaken in their country of origin or to match a previous level of academic or professional qualification (Pereira and others, 2023b).

Most (96%) were receiving a state benefit at around one year in the UK, which reflects the fact that most resettled refugees aged 18 to 64 were either studying or training, looking after family and home, looking for work or working part time. Of the small proportion (1%) of VPRS and VCRS refugees aged 65 years and over, 95% were receiving a pension or pension credits.

It is important to bear in mind that refugees on these resettlement schemes were selected based on being exceptionally vulnerable, and most had low levels of English language skills. As a result, their employability on arrival was generally lower compared with refugees who arrive via the asylum route. The qualitative evaluation suggests it is likely that resettled refugees’ main focus in their first year(s) is often learning the language, settling into the new environment and culture, and registering with services (Pereira and others, 2023a). It is therefore unsurprising that in the first year(s) after arrival, levels of employment were relatively low. Additionally, data was collected on individuals’ main economic status; therefore, part-time working (for example, where the resettled refugee’s main economic status was student) may be under-reported.

7.2 Main economic status by gender, health and region

As Figure 8 shows, differences in main economic status were particularly pronounced by gender. At around a year post-arrival, men were more likely to be in employment (8%) compared with women (1%). This may be due to various factors such as family and home responsibilities, as well as levels of qualifications or work experience. Women were much more likely than men to be primarily looking after family and home (32% versus 2% of men). Men were also 1.6 times more likely to be primarily in study or training compared with women, likely with a view towards gaining employment.

Figure 8: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ main economic status, at around 12 months since arrival, by gender (aged 16 to 64)

The qualitative evaluation highlighted that “delivery staff in one area noted motivation to work among female [resettled] refugees was often related to their previous experience (or lack thereof) in the labour market” (Pereira and others, 2023b). Reports of cultural expectations around women earning money outside the home influencing motivation to find employment were also highlighted (ibid).

Those who reported ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ general health or who reported that they were ‘limited a lot’ by a health problem or disability were noticeably less likely to be employed. At around a year post-arrival, only 1% of those who described their health as ‘very bad’ were employed; by comparison, 7% of those reporting ‘very good’ health were employed. Those with a reported mental health need were more likely to have ‘sick or disabled’ reported as their main economic status compared with those without an identified mental health need (25% and 7% respectively after around a year in the UK).

In terms of regional variation, the South East (8%), South West (7%) and London (6%) saw higher rates of employment after around a year in the UK, which compared with 1% in the North East, and 2% in Northern Ireland and the East Midlands. Those supported by community sponsors appeared to have the highest rates of employment (10%)^{[footnote 10]}.

7.3 Main economic status by ESOL level and volunteering

Those with higher levels of English language ability were more likely to be employed or in study or training at both time points. At around a year post-arrival, 9% of resettled refugees with ‘job-market ready’ ESOL levels (Entry level 3 and above) were employed, compared with only 3% with pre-entry or below levels.

Figure 9: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ main economic status, by time in country and by ESOL level (aged 18 to 64)

Those who were unemployed or in study or training were most likely to be attending both informal and formal ESOL training. Most resettled refugees did not have ‘job-market ready’ English (see Chapter 6), which likely explains the relatively low employment rate over the short-term period that this evaluation monitored integration outcomes.

At both time points, resettled refugees who had volunteered since their arrival were more likely to be employed than those who had not (9% compared with 3% after around a year in the UK, and 5% compared with 1% by around half a year).

Figure 10: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ main economic status by time in country and whether refugee had done volunteering

It should be noted that 27% of resettled refugees who were unemployed were reported as participating in volunteering, indicating that being unemployed did not necessarily mean individuals were not gaining work experience. The qualitative evaluation stated that resettled “refugees particularly valued volunteering where it helped them build experience and skills aligned with their career aspirations” (Pereira and others, 2023b).

8. Health

This chapter presents key findings relating to VPRS and /VCRS refugees’ health and access to healthcare. The IOI framework identifies healthcare as a marker and means of integration, stating that “equity of access to health and social services and responsiveness of such services to the specific needs of the individual” are crucial. In addition, “good health enables greater social participation and engagement in employment and education activities” (Home Office, 2019). Our monitoring collection contains data on health provision and outcomes for all refugees resettled via the VPRS and VCRS^{[footnote 11]}.

8.1 General health

Close to 100% of resettled refugees were reported to be registered with a GP around half a year post-arrival (and likely much sooner)^{[footnote 12]}. As Figure 11 shows, 72% of VPRS and VCRS refugees reported that their general health was either ‘good’ (44%) or ‘very good’ (28%), after they had been in the country around half a year; 18% reported that their health was ‘fair’, while 10% reported that their health was either ‘bad’ (7%) or ‘very bad’ (3%). While there was some change in individuals’ self-reported general health around a year after arrival, the overall proportions remained the same. Across the various health indicators discussed in this chapter, there was little difference by gender.

Figure 11: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ self-reported general health, by time in country

When broken down by age group, reports of ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ general health were low among those aged 0 to 49 and much higher for those aged 50 and over. This suggests that many VPRS and VCRS refugees’ health problems were related to increasing age.

It is important to note that there may be cultural variation regarding what constitutes good and bad health and in what individuals feel comfortable disclosing. In particular, the extent to which mental health conditions are acknowledged, disclosed and seen as part of general health may differ between cultures. The qualitative evaluation reported that “[s]takeholders, caseworkers and [resettled] refugees highlighted challenges to discussing mental health, namely stigma and cultural barriers” (Pereira and others, 2023a). Self-reports of refugees’ general health should be interpreted with this in mind.

8.2 Health limitations and disability

At both time points, 9% of those resettled reported that their day-to-day activities were ‘limited a lot’ because of a health problem or disability which had lasted, or was expected to last, at least 12 months. A further 13% reported them being ‘limited a little’. As with reports of poor health generally, reports of health limitation and disability were linked strongly with age, suggesting age-related decline in health (see Figure 12). Overall, 31% of those who were of working age (16 to 64) reported some health limitations, compared with 79% of those above working age (65 and over).

Figure 12: VPRS and VCRS self-reported limitation due to long-term health problem or disability expected to last at least 12 months, at around half a year since arrival, by age group

Despite little difference between self-reported general health between time points, nearly half (46%) around half a year after arrival said that their health had improved since arriving in the UK. Reports of worsening health were more prevalent among those aged 50 and over, suggesting, again, a likely link to age-related health decline.

Figure 13: VPRS and VCRS refugees’ self-reported change in general health since arriving in the UK, around half a year post-arrival

8.3 Mental health

The qualitative evaluation reported that “local authorities across case study areas identified mental health support provision as a key challenge, particularly early intervention and preventative mental health support. This was despite stakeholders highlighting mental health support as key to refugee wellbeing and longer-term integration” (Pereira and others, 2023a). After around half a year in the UK, 8% of resettled refugees were reported as having an identified mental health need, similar for those who had been in the UK for around a year (9%)^{[footnote 13]}. However, the qualitative evaluation reported that “delivery partners noted that refugees rarely discussed mental health until they had built rapport with caseworkers. While refugees knew they could talk to their caseworkers about mental health, many had not done so” (Pereira and others, 2023b).

Around half a year after arrival, around three-quarters of those reported as having a mental health need were reported to have accessed a mental health service in the UK. Half of those with an identified mental health need were reported to have accessed an NHS service, whereas less than a quarter were reported to have accessed a non-NHS service, largely the same for those who had been in the UK for around a year. Of those who had an identified mental health need at the half-year time point but had not accessed mental health services in the UK, 41% were reported as being on a waiting list. The proportion reported as being on a waiting list fell to 24% for those who had been in the UK for around a year. In around 15% cases, the individual was reported as having been referred to services, but unable or unwilling to attend.

9. Social connections

This chapter presents key findings on resettled refugees’ social connections, such as the level of involvement in local groups and communities, as well as their views on social cohesion in their local area. The IOI framework identifies social connections as an important facilitator and measure of integration, recognising “the importance of relationships between people as key to both the definition and achievement of integration” (Home Office, 2019). It distinguishes between social bonds, which are connections with others with whom a sense of identity is shared, and social bridges, which are connections with people of a different background

9.1 Involvement in local groups, clubs and organisations

The qualitative evaluation found that “community activities served as a pathway for [resettled] refugees to engage in volunteering, helping them build skills (…) and take part in civic life” (Pereira and others, 2023b:56). Most refugees resettled via the VPRS and VCRS (85%) engaged in community activities that may have provided them with opportunities to form social bonds as well as social bridges; 70% had participated in community activities with people outside of their own national or ethnic group at least once, while 16% had only participated within their own national or ethnic group, and 61% had participated in groups both within and outside of their national or ethnic group.

9.2 Community activity during the pandemic

Reports of community activity involvement fluctuated over the years and was impacted by COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions. Data collected before the beginning of the pandemic (between 2017 and 2019) shows that almost three-quarters (74%) had been involved with groups and clubs at around 12 months after arrival. This dropped to less than half (47%) for data collected between 2020 and 2021, during the pandemic.

The qualitative fieldwork in 2020 also found that the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions created challenges to the social integration of resettled refugees in their local community, leading to a sense of isolation (Pereira and others, 2023c). In interviews, caseworkers and refugees put this down to a mix of factors including:

• social integration initiatives (such as sporting activities, community classes and events) being postponed or paused due to social distancing restrictions
• refugees being unable to obtain a driving licence, which intensified their feelings of isolation, particularly for those in rural areas
• perceived constraints on longer-term funding of social integration initiatives

This qualitative research also indicated that social activities moving online created new barriers for those lacking digital skills and access to digital devices or internet. To overcome these barriers, some LAs and community sponsor groups organised socials in parks and virtual events, and set up groups on social media to put resettled refugees in touch with each other. Initiatives run by LAs and community sponsor groups to foster digital literacy and access were greatly appreciated by refugees and those who supported them (Pereira and others, 2023c).

9.3 Community activity by gender, age and health

There were no major differences between women’s and men’s community activity, with 84% of women and 86% of men reporting having been involved with groups or clubs since arrival. However, men were slightly more likely to have participated outside of their national or ethnic group compared with women (72% men versus 67% women). Individuals aged 16 to 49 were more likely to have been involved with groups or clubs in the community (86%) than individuals aged 50 or above (72% of those aged 50 to 64 and 71% of those aged 65 and over). Unsurprisingly, those with health limitations were less likely to participate in community activities (see Figure 14). Resettled refugees who had a mental health need identified were also less likely to participate in groups and clubs – 63% had participated at around 12 months after arrival, compared with 69% of those without an identified mental health need.

Figure 14: Proportion of VPRS and VCRS refugees who had participated in community activity in the last 6 months, at around a year since arrival, by self-reported (physical and/or mental) health limitation (aged 16 and over)

9.4 Community activity by region

There were some regional differences in relation to community activity. The proportion of resettled refugees who had been involved with groups or clubs since arrival in the UK was highest in North West England (93%) and lowest in the East of England (75%). Reasons for regional variation in participation require further investigation, as it could be affected by several factors, such as differences in characteristics and needs of refugees in particular regions, as well as local practice and availability of groups or clubs. The qualitative research found evidence of geographic differences in social integration between refugees resettled in urban and those resettled in rural areas. In urban areas, resettled refugees had been more successful at forming connections with individuals with whom they shared a sense of identity (‘bonding’ capital). In rural areas, there was more evidence that resettled refugees had formed connections with people from backgrounds that differed from their own (‘bridging’ capital) (Pereira and others, 2023a; 2023b; 2023c).

9.5 Community activity by English language confidence

There were some regional differences in relation to community activity. The proportion of resettled refugees who had been involved with groups or clubs since arrival in the UK was highest in North West England (93%) and lowest in the East of England (75%). Reasons for regional variation in participation require further investigation, as it could be affected by several factors, such as differences in characteristics and needs of refugees in particular regions, as well as local practice and availability of groups or clubs. The qualitative research found evidence of geographic differences in social integration between refugees resettled in urban and those resettled in rural areas. In urban areas, resettled refugees had been more successful at forming connections with individuals with whom they shared a sense of identity (‘bonding’ capital). In rural areas, there was more evidence that resettled refugees had formed connections with people from backgrounds that differed from their own (‘bridging’ capital) (Pereira and others, 2023a; 2023b; 2023c).

9.6 Volunteering

Volunteering is another way that refugees can get involved in their local communities (Pereira and others, 2023a). Since their arrival in the UK, 29% of refugees resettled via the VPRS and VCRS reported having volunteered. Resettled refugees who had been in the UK a year were more likely to have compared with those who had been in the UK for half a year (22% versus 16%), which suggests a gradual process of refugees getting involved as they settle in. The qualitative research found that resettled refugees with lower levels of English language ability had taken up volunteering opportunities like gardening and cooking projects, while some with stronger English language skills found volunteering opportunities related to their previous jobs or in charity shops (Pereira and others, 2023a).

COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions also appear to have had a noticeable impact on volunteering levels. Data collected between 2016 and 2019 shows that 30% of resettled refugees reported having volunteered since arrival, which fell to 9% for data collected between 2020 and 2021.

Men were twice as likely to have volunteered, with 39% of men and 19% of women saying that they had volunteered since their arrival in the UK. This may be down to women being more likely to report having caring responsibilities (see Chapter 7). Around a year after arrival, resettled refugees who were looking after family and home (11%) were almost 5 times less likely to have volunteered in the previous 6 months compared with those in employment (50%).

As shown in Figure 15, health also impacted volunteering. After around a year in the UK, those reporting ‘very good health’ were nearly twice as likely than those reporting ‘bad health’ (29% versus 15%) and 3 times as likely than those reporting ‘very bad health’ (29% versus 9%) to have volunteered in the previous 6 months. Older resettled refugees were less likely to have volunteered than younger resettled refugees, with 4% of those aged 65 and over and 13% of those aged 50 to 64 reporting having volunteered, compared with 25% of those aged 18 to 49.

Figure 15: Proportion of VPRS and VCRS refugees who had volunteered in the last 6 months, by self-reported general health and by time in country (aged 16 and over)

Levels of volunteering also differed by region, with refugees in Scotland most likely to have volunteered (39%) and those in Yorkshire and The Humber the least likely (21%). Reasons for regional variation in volunteering are unclear, as this could be affected by several factors, such as differences in characteristics and needs of refugees in particular regions, as well as local practice and availability of volunteering opportunities.

9.7 Views on social cohesion

When asked around a year post-arrival in the UK, most resettled refugees (92%) agreed their local area ‘is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together’. More than half (54%) said that they ‘definitely agree’ with this statement, while more than a third (38%) said they ‘tend to agree’. Levels of agreement did not vary noticeably by gender or over time. However, levels of agreement slightly declined with age.

There was some variation between regions although levels of agreement remained high, ranging from 87% in Wales to 94% in Scotland and 96% in London after around a year in the UK^{[footnote 14]}. While it is encouraging that most resettled refugees agreed with this statement, it is important to note that there was a small proportion who said that they ‘tended to disagree’ (6%) or ‘definitely disagreed’ (3%). The qualitative evaluation found that some resettled refugees, particularly in less affluent areas, reported concerns about a perceived increase in hostility and hate crime^{[footnote 15]} against them (Pereira and others, 2023c), although the evidence from the monitoring data suggests such experiences were not widespread.

10. Conclusions

The UK government achieved the primary aim of the VPRS, which was to bring at least 20,000 refugees to safety in the UK. On arrival, VPRS and VCRS refugees were provided with leave to remain, housing and caseworker support, which enabled access to services to facilitate their integration, including education and healthcare, ESOL and support to find employment.

Refugees on these schemes were eligible for resettlement based on their high level of vulnerability and most arrived with little or no English language skills. Since language is key to integration, it is not surprising that for most resettled refugees, medium- and longer-term integration goals such as employment were not realised within the first year or so following arrival. However, most of these refugees were actively engaged in English language development, and many were involved in other community-related activities and volunteering.

It will be important to monitor refugee outcomes over the longer term, and to that end, the Home Office has partnered with the ONS on an administrative data-linking project, the Refugee Integration Outcomes (RIO) study (ONS, 2022; 2023a; 2023b). This will allow for investigation of longer-term outcomes through data collected by other government departments, relating, for example, to health, housing and employment.

References

Home Office (2018) ‘The UK government’s approach to evaluating the Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes’ (viewed on 27 August 2025)

Home Office (2019) ‘Home Office Indicators of Integration framework 2019’ (viewed on 27 August 2025)

Home Office (2023a) ‘Qualitative Evaluation of the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS)’ (viewed on 27 August 2025)

Home Office (2023b) ‘Immigration system statistics, year ending March 2023’ (viewed on 27 August 2025)

Home Office and PHE (2019) ‘The Global Mental Health Assessment Tool (GMHAT) pilot evaluation: Final report’. Home Office and Public Health England (viewed on 28 August 2025)

ONS (2021) ‘Household and resident characteristics, England and Wales: Census 2021’. Office for National Statistics (viewed on 27 August 2025)

ONS (2022) ‘Refugee Integration Outcomes (RIO) data linkage pilot’. Office for National Statistics (viewed on 28 August 2025)

ONS (2023a) Early integration outcomes for refugees resettled in England and Wales: 2015 to 2021

ONS (2023b) Refugee integration outcomes data-linkage pilot: Census 2021 linkage methodology update

Pereira, I, Peel, C, Rennick, K, McKeown, A and Porter, L (2023a) ‘VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 1 Report’. Ipsos’s Social Research Institute for the Home Office (viewed on 28 August 2025)

Pereira, I, Peel, C, Rennick, K, McKeown, A and Porter, L (2023b) ‘VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 2 Report’. Ipsos’s Social Research Institute for the Home Office (viewed on 28 August 2025)

Pereira, I., Peel, C., Rennick, K., McKeown, A. and Porter, L. (2023c) ‘VPRS and VCRS Qualitative Evaluation – Year 3 Report’. Ipsos’s Social Research Institute for the Home Office (viewed on 28 August 2025)

UKVI (2021) ‘Vulnerable Persons and Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Schemes Factsheet, March 2021’. UK Visas and Immigration (viewed on 27 August 2025)

1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision was taken to cancel Round 8 of the biannual data collection exercise, which was scheduled to take place in spring 2020. ↩

2. Due to the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the end of the schemes were delayed beyond 2020, with the final refugees arriving in the UK in February 2021. ↩

3. Except for ‘Chapter 3: Profile of arrivals’, which is based on published statistics and operational data for the entire VPRS and VCRS cohort, comprising 22,157 people. ↩

4. Including 239 who had been resettled before the scheme was upscaled and were not included in the 20,000 commitment. ↩

5. A Discretionary Housing Payment is a payment that may be allocated by a local authority, to help those in need with housing-related costs. It can be applied for by those currently receiving Housing Benefit or the housing element of Universal Credit. In Northern Ireland, the payments are administered through the Housing Executive. ↩

6. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates are used to calculate Housing Benefit for tenants renting from private landlords. LHA rates relate to the area in which you make your claim. These areas are called broad rental market areas (BRMA). A BRMA is where a person could reasonably be expected to live, taking into account access to facilities and services. LHA rates are based on private market rents being paid in the BRMA which can differ from advertised rents. Valuation Office Agency (VOA) rent officers collect the rental information from letting agents, landlords and tenants. ↩

7. Please note that for the Wales figure, data was missing for 24% of respondents, so should be treated with caution. ↩

8. Please note that for the formal ESOL levels statistics, data was missing for 21% of respondents, so should be treated with caution. ↩

9. Data was missing for 21% of respondents aged 18 to 24, and 26% of those aged 50 and over, so these statistics should be treated with caution. ↩

10. Data was missing for 21% of respondents supported by community sponsors, 28% of those in London, and 38% of those in Northern Ireland, so these statistics should be treated with caution. ↩

11. For children under 16, this information was requested from their caseworker and parent or guardian. ↩

12. Thirty-one resettled refugees were reported as not registered. The reasons for this are unknown. ↩

13. No further information was collected centrally on the type of mental health need or how, by whom or when this need was identified. ↩

14. Data was missing for 40% of respondents in London, so these statistics should be treated with caution. ↩

15. It is not possible to identify hate crimes committed against refugees specifically as data collected on hate crime does not enable such a detailed breakdown. ↩