Ethnicity, Social Networks and Poverty BTR Ref Group 5 July 2013 (Philimore & Gilchrist)

1. Ethnicity, social networks,
poverty and inclusion
TSRC Below the Radar conference
5th July 2013
Jenny Phillimore & Alison Gilchrist
Local-Level.org.uk

2. Overview of presentation
• Some working definitions and concepts
• Description of two research projects - scope
and methods
– Refugees integration - Jenny
– Social networks, poverty and ethnicity – Alison
• Q and As
• Key findings and implications
• Discussion

3. Definitions
• Poverty: when your income doesn’t allow you to obtain
the things you need
• Ethnicity: broadly defined –
race, culture, faith, origin/nationality, heritage and
homeland
• Refugee – the Home Office defined
• Integration – Ager & Strang’s integration indicators
• Social networks: connections with others, based on
trust and participation/exchanges
• Social capital: web of associations comprising interpersonal networks, norms and trust
• Networking – establishing, maintaining and using these
links and relationships

4. Research Questions
• What are refugees’ integration priorities?
• What types of social network and social
capital do refugees possess?
• What is the relationship between different
types of network and capital and other
indicators of integration?
• What types of social network and social
capital are most beneficial for refugee
integration?
4

5. Methods and profile
• Re-analysis of SNR – 5600 refugees 2005-2008
• E-survey of integration priorities to support
index development
• Refugees from >100 countries
• 49% Muslim, 40% Christian
• The majority of refugees were under the age of
35 (70%).
• 31% in UK less than 6 months, 22% over 5 years
• 21% living with spouse

6. Integration Priorities
Means and
Markers
Social
Networks
Facilitators
Foundation
Employment
8.61
Housing
9.29
Health
Emotional 8.85
Physical 8.42
Friends 8.42 Family 8.16
Co-national or ethnic groups 7.49
Religious groups 7.74
Other organisational out-groups 7.61
English Skills
Safety and stability
Speaking 9.11 Reading/writing
Absence of verbal or
8.69
physical attack 9.5
Rights to family reunion 8.75 Citizenship 8.21
Volunteering 7.092
6

7. Purpose of JRF research project
To investigate the links between social
networks, ethnicity and poverty
• How are networks established and maintained?
• How do they help people cope with poverty?
• How do people use networks to move out of poverty
?
• What other factors come into play?
– education, affordable credit, housing, cultures and racial
discrimination?

8. Research methods
• Birmingham, Liverpool and Cumbria
• Recruitment and training of 8
community researchers
• 91 interviews with community
members
• 30 counties of origin: ‘established
communities’
• 28 agency interviews
• 4 scoping meetings with communities
• 3 social media workshops
• Observation sessions and visits
• 3 community feedback workshops
and 1 policy seminar

9. How people benefit from networks
GETTING BY
• Emergency help
• Finding work
• Getting accommodation
• Sharing children’s clothes,
toys
• Access to affordable food
• Short-term informal lending
• Skills exchange – brokering
and bartering
• Emotional support/comfort
• Help with interpretation of
official documents
GETTING ON
• Recruiting staff
• Business promotion
• Supply chains and potential
markets
• Access to expert advice and
trades people (cheap or free)
• Savings and loans systems for
investment
• Role models and mentoring
• Training and learning
opportunities

10. Barriers and limitations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Language – vitality of English – and legal status
Racism – prejudices and discrimination
Xenophobia – feeling rebuffed or uncomfortable
Cost of networking (travel, presents, socialising)
Lack of time and energy – shifts, childcare, etc.
Lack of confidence, self esteem
Tendency to stay within own community –> lack of
access to well-paid jobs and good opportunities
• Peer and family pressures, duties and businesses
• Family ties cost money – dowries, remittances, visits

11. Networking motivation and methods
• Strategies for finding the ‘right’ (useful)
people
• Maintain cultural identity and conventions
• Being pro-active in keeping networks open
and growing
• Maintaining profile and credibility
• Getting and checking reliable information
• Providing a comfort zone, a ‘safe place’
• Enjoyment and affection

12. Individual characteristics
• Ambition
• Hope and positive attitudes
• Character/ethos/orientation
– joy of giving and helping others
– Commitment to family/community
•
•
•
•
Spirit of independence
Confidence and friendliness
Stepping ‘outside immediate comfort zones’
Personal resources (time, money, skills)

13. Any questions ?
• About what we did rather
than what we found out
• Findings and implications
come next

14. Shared Findings 1
• Importance of family and friends
• Importance of voluntary, community and faith groups
• Agencies are not networking as effectively as they could be
to reach/serve minority ethnic communities
• The complexity of negotiating systems and the culture of
those systems
• Links between networks and informal employment processes
– Equalities issues
• Inclusive and exclusive aspects of networks
• Levels of trust and reciprocity shape how networks operate
and how accessible they are for different individuals and
communities

15. Shared Findings 2
• Importance of ESOL: language and ‘space to
network’
• Lack of social networks associated with poor
health
• Bonding capital for emotional support and
survival
• Bridging and linking capital/’weak ties’ for
‘getting ahead’
• Level of education in country of origin: linked to
nature and range of networks

16. Shared Findings 3
• Stereotypes of communities were misleading – many
exceptions, but shared values and traditions were
important
• Impact of ‘network disruption’: divorce, loss of long term
employment/workplace; moving home
• Cultural characteristics of networks: reflect social
identities - ethnic, class or gender differences, personal
interests and family histories
• Networks are not the only (or most important?) factor in
moving out of poverty or enabling integration
• Other factors – access to funds and assets, education,
language skills, discrimination, fiscal policy, impact of
welfare reform

17. Key Differences 1
• Refugees do not prioritise networks although
evidence suggests they are essential
• Few gender differences in networks but
differences in outcomes
• Safety and security and impact of harassment
“negative networks” greatest impact on
integration
• Clear negative impact of dispersal on integration
and types of network
• Living with children associated with poorer
health

18. Key Differences 2
• Social Media Focus: ethnic difference in social media
(QQ/ Nasra Klasa):E-bay and online trading – Made in
Cumbria, R&J store – Filipino goods
• Age, class and network awareness
• Digital disadvantage (rather than a clear ‘digital
divide’)
• Rural focus: Scattered BME populations:
isolation, stress: lack of ‘critical mass’ for organising
ethnic specific community activities
• Agency focus: macro-policy issues more important
than networks in addressing poverty (impact of
cuts, welfare reform etc)

19. Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
Improve access to quality language training
Encourage development of all kinds of networks
Support NGOs to work with refugees
Protect from anti-integrative attacks
Look at mechanisms to place asylum seekers near
friends and family
• Prioritise support for women and Muslims
• Support family reunion

20. Recommendations
• Access to face to face advice
• ESOL: addressing language barriers and ensuring
space for inter-cultural networking
• Promote digital fluency and access to internet
• Volunteer opportunities as a way into employment
• Mentoring and peer support
• Role of community based organisations:
commissioning for ‘social value’
• Access to ‘vertical’ connections via agencies’
networks

21. Discussion
• Do these findings and recommendations
seem right?
• What are the implications for policy and
practice?
• What more do we need to know?
• What is happening already to implement
some of these ideas?
• How can the issues raised be addressed?

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

23. THANK YOU!
For further information or Research Team
discussion please
• Angus McCabe
contact Angus McCabe
Third Sector Research Centre
• a.j.mccabe@bham.ac.uk
• 0121 415 8561
• Alison Gilchrist
Independent Consultant
• Asif Afridi
BRAP
• Paul Kyprianou
Praxis CIC
• Kevin Harris
Local Level