QMU Impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on Scotland’s Refugees: Sudden-onset isolation in a neglected population group
Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to the refugees and asylum seekers across Scotland who expressed interest in our study and kindly gave up their time to take part in online/telephone interviews to share their experiences and insights with us. We sincerely hope that the outcomes of this study will contribute positively to their lives and others like them who have faced the challenge of integrating into new communities while simultaneously being disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Their generous contributions made our research possible.
This study was enabled through the financial support of the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.
We would like to thank the Scottish Refugee Council, in particular, Gary Christie (Head of Policy, Communications and Communities), Elodie Mignard (Scottish Refugee Council Programme Manager) and Wafa Shaheen (Head of Services) for supporting our work and linking us with their network of refugees and asylum seekers.
We are thankful to the staff at the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), specifically Gayle Findley, Policy Manager, COSLA Migration, Population and Diversity Team, who connected us with other interested Local Authority Coordinators who promoted our research among their networks of resettled refugees: Jackie Kerr, Humanitarian Protection Co-ordinator, Protecting People Team, Dundee Council; Gail Ward, Housing Policy Officer (Welfare Reform, Housing Support
Services, Refugee Resettlement) Community Services, The Highland Council; Claudia Serra, Housing Support Officer, Housing Support Shetland; Morag Brown and Hannah Greening, Refugee Support, Argyll and Bute Council; Juman Almusawi, East Renfrewshire.
Finally we would like to give thanks to the staff at VoiceOver Interpreting Services founded by the Govan Community Project who provided valuable interpretation and translating services for our study as well as the following volunteers for transcribing our research interviews: Aishling Dempsey, Daphne Lola-Luz, Fiona Landin, Elise McHardy, Sara Pitkanen, Maja Fomin, Lauren Miller, Abigail Clifford, Amanda Kinnear, Joely Snedden, Emma Gwynne, Luis Robertson, Christine Myrillas and Joly Ghanawi.
Research Advisory Group
The implementation of this study was supported in numerous ways through the involvement of our research advisory group, particularly Sawsan Osso and Felician Francis, who gave their time expertise and shared stories of their lived experience with us to ensure that our research could be carried out successfully in a very short timeframe.
Executive summary
Project Background
This report presents findings from a study conducted by researchers from Queen Margaret University (QMU) and funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The main aim of this study was to better understand the impact of sudden- onset isolation, brought on by measures to combat COVID-19, on neglected population groups – specifically Scotland’s refugees and asylum seekers.
Introduced on 23 March 2020 in response to a surge in COVID-19 infection rates, the first UK-wide lockdown essentially closed most public and social life, with highly restrictive ‘stay at home’ orders issued by the UK government. Measures taken to reduce virus transmission (such as shutdown of public and workspaces, limited social interaction, mandatory physical distancing, quarantine, wearing masks and reducing social contact) were intended to delay the spread of infection and to bring the virus under control.
Over the months that followed the first lockdown, easing of restrictions took place, enabling more people to socialise together and allowing resumption of additional services and businesses. By August 2020 however, case numbers began to rise again, leading to reintroduction of restrictions in many areas of Scotland. The measures put in place, along with the ongoing cycle of easing and reintroduction of restrictions, have inevitably been extremely socially isolating experiences for many. Such isolation is expected to have considerable impact on wellbeing, especially for those who are already socially vulnerable in different ways.
Between the months of July and November 2020, the QMU research team conducted a study to examine the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland in navigating life under the pandemic and lockdown restrictions. To do so, the QMU research team sought data on the extent and quality of refugees’ and asylum seekers’ social networks during the pandemic restrictions, to explore the relationship between sudden-onset isolation, loneliness, mental health and wellbeing.
To accomplish this the study asked the following questions:
-
What social networks do refugees across Scotland have access to during the COVID-19 restrictions?
-
What impact is COVID-19 social isolation having on sense of wellbeing amongst refugees in Scotland?
- What is the relationship between sudden-onset isolation and Scotland’srefugee communities’ experience of loneliness and sense of vulnerability or resiliency?
The QMU research team conducted interviews with fifty-one asylum seekers and refugees living in Scotland. Interviews were held remotely via Zoom or WhatsApp and were supported by an interpreter as needed. Each interview lasted between 40 to 90 minutes and followed a semi- structured topic guide. The topics included in the guide were informed by members of a Research Advisory Group (RAG) which included people with lived experience as refugees and asylum seekers along with research partners; Scottish Refugee Council (SRC) and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA). Ethical approval was granted by the QMU Research Ethics Committee.
SRC, COSLA and members of the RAG shared invitations for volunteers to contribute to the study. Interviewees of 18+ years were then selected according to a sampling frame to broadly reflect the diversity of refugees resident in Scotland (immigration status; age, gender, location in Scotland, country of origin). Interviews were recorded and audio transcribed. The research team reviewed each interview independently before identifying themes and collating them across cases. This summary outlines key thematic findings from this study.
Thematic findings
Asylum seekers and refugees provided the QMU research team with their own accounts of the profound impact of the pandemic on their lives. All those interviewed were clearly actively seeking to mitigate the negative impacts, yet many were prohibited by situational, structural, and personal circumstances. This study identified four interconnected themes emerging from their stories. Key points from each are summarised below.
Connectivity and isolation
The pandemic narrative of many participants included the key ingredients of profound loneliness: a sense of being unacknowledged by others, a separation from intimate loving relationships, and a lack of opportunity to share and care for others. The refugees and asylum seekers interviewed experienced dramatic change to their level of connectivity. They also recounted critical changes to the quality of their connections with others.
Three broad types of connections were identified:
Casual connections: Almost half the participants experienced the reduction in frequency and quality of casual encounters as a major loss. For refugees and asylum seekers, casual encounters are a crucial means of resettling in a new place, practicing language skills, adapting to a new culture, and building a sense of belonging. For many, loss of opportunities for casual but valued human interactions made people feel anonymous and unwelcome, and particularly reduced opportunities to practice English. Many also found the ambiguity of the new way of interacting with strangers difficult to navigate and isolating.
Family and friends: Connecting with family and friends elsewhere was a huge support to some, but this was only possible for those with sufficient internet access. Even with adequate internet access, some felt they could not burden family in conflict zones with their own problems. For the vast majority, connections with family and friends within their own household became the only source of face-to-face interaction during the lockdown periods. However, these connections could act as either support or added stressors, or both. Tensions within the home were cited frequently by participants who felt overburdened by caring responsibilities. The accessibility of trusted support networks beyond the household (by virtual means) became a crucial factor for managing tensions. People in temporary accommodation such as hotels and hostels, and those who had been housed with other refugees previously unknown to them reported an acute sense of isolation and fear.
Formal social connections: Connections with services and support groups stopped abruptly, with some services resuming solely online, and others not at all. For those who faced language barriers and challenges with online communication, the lack of in-person dialogue meant they struggled to deal with practical day-to-day matters, adding to the stress of everyday life.
Stressors and mental health
Everyday stressors when combined with a stressful previous history and the additional challenges of the pandemic and lockdown restrictions have had a significant impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing. Fear of contracting COVID-19 was almost universal among participants, and many felt they did not have sufficient information of how the virus is transmitted or how they could protect themselves and their families.
The pressures of caring responsibilities, whether for children, extended family or shielding family members were overpowering for some. Finances caused anxiety for most of the participants. Many who were working prior to lockdown lost their jobs or had reduced hours. Asylum seekers and refugees dependent on benefits have struggled to cope when benefit delays or errors have occurred. The ‘no-cash policy’ of most shops prevented those without bank accounts from buying essential items. All these stressors contributed to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, worry, anxiety, and despair.
Rupture and being ‘in limbo’
The sense of being ‘in limbo’ which has been experienced across the wider population, is particularly acute for those who have already suffered major disruption and for whom their mental health and wellbeing depends heavily on sustaining hope for the future.
The disruptions of lockdown had a deep significance for asylum seekers and refugees. The experience of the pandemic restrictions as a ‘liminal,’ or ‘in-between,’ state when much of normality is suspended has been recognised across the entire population. However, for those currently in an insecure and unstable situation, the lockdown disruptions did not simply generate disappointment or frustration. They enforced a halt, or even reversal to the momentum of the urgent need to transition towards feeling settled and integrated.
Resilience and coping
Our findings showed a wide range of coping and support strategies used by participants to help manage life under the pandemic. These coping strategies offered several significant mental and emotional benefits that actively enabled participants to deal with the challenges brought about by the lockdown.
Some reported using the time for learning and strengthening skills and improving physical and mental fitness. Those with greater access to material resources were able to plan and manage the lockdown period more proactively – including by making purchases for recreation and work in the house. Those with access to Wi-Fi were able to reconnect with family and friends. Some also described the ways that positive beliefs including religious faith and their own inner narrative of positive messages to help themselves manage day to day stressors.
Supportive community and services made a substantial difference to the way refugees and asylum seekers experienced the lockdowns. Local initiatives such as phone check-ins from support workers, food vouchers, school assistance, food and clothes donations, school or recreational and leisure items for children gave much needed practical support and improved mental health, wellbeing, and sense of connection.
Discussion
The four inter-connected themes which emerged from our participants’ stories demonstrate the key challenges facing asylum seekers and refugees that were exacerbated by the pandemic. For the vast majority, the capacity to mitigate the negative impacts of the pandemic was constrained by situational, structural, and personal circumstances. In discussing these findings, this study focuses on the psychological impacts of the pandemic and the meaning of these impacts considering past and present experiences of refugees and asylum seekers.
Data from our study provide a glimpse into some of the extremely stressful events refugees and asylum seekers have experienced. Many have already faced unimaginable trauma in their home countries, during the journey to reach the UK and even post-settlement as they navigate the complexities of integrating into new surroundings. That these experiences have significant psychological impacts and implications has been well-established by research on the refugee experience. Of particular significance is how these experiences undermine the mental and emotional wellbeing of refugees and asylum seekers as well as their social connection and sense of self. The pandemic has compounded these impacts in several diverse ways. These are summarised below.
Multiple losses and the impact on resilience
Loss underpins the refugee experience in social, economic, and profoundly personal ways. In fleeing their homes, refugees leave behind many if not all close personal relationships, their communities, and their wider social networks. This loss of connection with family members, relatives, friends and the larger extended network of familiar people and acquaintances has a marked impact. It is likely to leave them emotionally distressed, worried about those they have left behind and feeling vulnerable, neither known by others nor cared for. The loss of social relationships and connections has implications for accessing support, guidance, and assistance with virtually all aspects of life. For example, people draw upon their social networks for childcare and other caring responsibilities, financial and material resources, access to information or services, job-seeking and informal labour arrangements. In resettling, refugees must re-establish relationships and support networks to manage the regular demands of life.
Poverty – both acute and chronic - is commonly part of the refugee experience. Many asylum seekers and refugees also experience discrimination, prejudice, indifference and in some cases acts of open hostility, further impacting upon and depleting their resilience and resources.
Isolation, loneliness and mental health
The lockdown resulted in widespread reduction in social contact and a concurrent increase in social isolation for many groups. Asylum seekers and refugees were already an isolated and vulnerable group prior to the start of the lockdown measures. This study shows that the lockdowns exacerbated this situation. In many ways, lockdown multiplied losses already experienced – severing social contact, limiting access to resources and services, and setting back efforts to re-establish themselves and build community. In turn, the re-experiencing of these losses heightened their sense of isolation and a concurrent loss of agency.
Deprived of opportunities for social interaction and connection, asylum seekers and refugees felt especially isolated and deprived of possibilities of being seen, heard and affirmed. Some described their lockdown circumstances as ‘being alone’, without the comfort and stimulation of regular contacts and connections. Concern about the possibility of being forgotten or deprioritised by policymakers and service providers was evident – and in many cases, their experiences resonated with this concern, for instance in having inadequate support to navigate online classes or in curtailment of telephone translation services during council or surgery appointments. Not being seen or heard in a way that matters or makes a difference to community can generate a keen sense of alienation and loneliness and deep emotional distress and anguish, with serious implications for mental health and wellbeing. The lack of connectivity along with the loss of these opportunities during the pandemic creates a sense of isolation which can profoundly impact mental health and loneliness.
Impacts of liminality
Several of the participants in this study shared difficult stories of lives interrupted. Findings demonstrate that disruption to the stages of integration have caused the most setbacks to the wellbeing of asylum seekers and refugees. Whilst it is yet unclear how the prolonged delays and disruptions caused by the lockdown might shape opportunities and the timeframe for integration and settlement in the future, it was a source of great distress and worry for almost all participants. Its heightened impact comes from the sudden interruption to everyday lives which would otherwise be in process of being rebuilt.
For asylum-seekers and refugees, the lockdown measures had the compounded effect of delaying their longed-for settlement. It appears that the gradual cumulation of integration factors (e.g. adequate language fluency, functional and stable accommodation, strong social networks, a means of livelihood etc) was disrupted by the lockdown, thereby stalling participants’ sense of momentum through this liminal phase. Coming from a history of forced displacement and profound loss, this raised powerful feelings that seemed especially hard to suppress and manage.
The findings of the study and the discussion above point to four key elements of positive mental health and wellbeing for asylum seekers and refugees that were significantly impacted by the lockdown measures. These include a) a sense of affirmation or being ‘known’, b) having the ability to act on and shape one’s life-choices or rather a sense of agency, c) a sense of momentum in order to sustain hope for the future, and d) re-establishing a sense of home and belonging.
As the lockdowns disrupted the opportunity to build connections and networks, relationships and social interactions, they also disrupted the many ways in which asylum seekers and refugees come to know – and be known to – people in their local communities. Deprived of these opportunities, many reported feeling alone and were concerned that they might be (yet once again) forgotten, neglected or deprioritised in the new crisis. At the same time, difficulties with accessing the internet and mobile data meant that several asylum seekers and refugees in the study also struggled to keep contact and connection with family and friends during the lockdown. This further limited opportunities for members of this vulnerable group to be seen and heard by those who care for and about them.
Implications
This study has shown that though refugees and asylum seekers have experienced the same negative effects as the broader population, their stressors are increased and the ability to cope is limited by personal, situational and structural circumstances. Key potential impacts of the pandemic on refugee mental health, wellbeing and independence are identified:
- Understanding the important role that even casual encounters can have to encourage mutually supportive neighbourhoods would benefit asylum seekers, refugees and their neighbours. Migrants often bring a culture of community connectedness which could benefit settled communities where there may be material and emotional resource, but little expectation of sharing it.
- The mitigation of the damaging effects of pandemic restrictions requires an approach that recognises the particular needs of neglected populations such as refugees and asylum seekers. Where emotionally supportive social networks are weak or absent, it must be high priority to enable meaningful connections with other trusted human beings. Loneliness can cause serious long-term damage to mental and physical health.
- Where service providers have acted quickly to ensure asylum seekers and refugees have sufficient access to communications technology, this has generally been used very effectively to beneficial emotional and practical effect. However, online group-work, courses and advisor services are not generally providing sufficient emotional support, or building confidence. Creative approaches to enabling neglected populations to feel emotionally connected are urgently needed.
The Study
Project Background
QMU studies demonstrate the effects of sudden-onset isolation, whilst challenging assumptions that isolation inevitably results in loneliness and poor mental health (Sagan & Miller, 2017). In this study, we focus on the neglected case of refugees with sparse social networks (Strang & Quinn, 2019), and interrogate the relationships between isolation and loneliness among refugees across Scotland experiencing the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020. We extrapolate principles of vulnerability and resilience applicable to other marginalised groups. Through remote interviewing between July and November 2020, we investigated people’s lived experiences during the first COVID-19 restrictions which began in March 2020, to identify coping, resilience and effective support mechanisms.
Mitigating loneliness through social connections has been identified as a priority in the Scottish Government’s Connected Communities strategy. Within this context, refugee social connections are known to be particularly critical for wellbeing and integration in that they provide access to social, practical and material support (Ager & Strang 2008; Strang & Quinn, 2019; Hobfoll, 2014). Sudden- onset isolation, as that imposed by measures taken to combat COVID-19, are designed to reduce face-to-face contact between people. For refugees, this can significantly impact not only their sense of wellbeing and mental health but also their integration journeys. It therefore becomes important to gain a sense of how refugees cope during sudden-onset isolation and how these experiences impact their social connections.
Aims and research questions
This study set out to better understand the impact of sudden-onset isolation, brought on by measures to combat COVID-19, on neglected population groups – specifically Scotland’s refugees and asylum seekers. We gathered information on the extent and quality of refugees’ social networks during COVID-19 restrictions, to explore the relationship between sudden-onset isolation and loneliness, mental health and wellbeing by investigating the following questions:
- What impact is COVID-19 social isolation having on sense of wellbeing amongst refugees in Scotland?
- What is the relationship between sudden-onset isolation and Scotland’s refugee communities’ experience of loneliness and sense of vulnerability or resiliency?
Literature Review
The COVID-19 lockdown response in Scotland
Introduced on 23 March 2020 in response to a surge in COVID-19 infection rates, the first UK-wide lockdown essentially closed down most public and social life, with highly restrictive ‘stay at home’ orders issued by the UK government. People were permitted to go out only to buy food, exercise outdoors once a day with members of the same household, and (later on in the lockdown) to seek safety in cases of domestic violence. Schools, colleges, playgrounds, community services such as libraries and community centres, non-essential workplaces and businesses were closed and, apart from those providing key services (BBC Scotland 2020), people were instructed to stay at home. Those with the illness or potentially exposed to the virus were required to quarantine or self-isolate for a period of 14 days. Major events and private gatherings (including weddings and funerals) were cancelled. These measures were intended to delay the spread of infection and to bring the virus under control. On 11 May 2020 in Scotland following a sustained decrease in the number of new cases, the lockdown was relaxed slightly to allow for exercising outdoors to more than once a day. On 21 May 2020, a four-phase route map (Scottish Government 2020a) to easing lockdown measures was outlined by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and the first Phase of this route map was introduced on 28 May 2020, with restrictions on business and services easing gradually over the next weeks. Scotland introduced the move to Phase 3 of the route map on 09 July 2020.
Over the next months, further easing of restrictions took place, enabling more people to socialise together and allowing resumption of additional services and businesses. Early August however saw rising cases lead to the first reintroduction of restrictions in Aberdeen, later extended to other regions in Scotland. By end of September, temporary restrictive measures (Scottish Government 2020b) to drive down COVID-19 outbreaks and rising infection rates were re-introduced across many areas of Scotland. These stopped household visits indoors, limited the number of people meeting up outdoors, limited economic activities and restricted travel. A new five-level strategic framework (Scottish Government 2020c) was introduced on 23 October 2020, with Level 0 corresponding to Phase 3 of the route map and, allowing the government to apply protective measures proportionately across different regions of Scotland. Most local authorities remained at Levels 3 and 4 throughout November, with considerable restrictions still in place for most communities (Scottish Government 2020d).
In early December 2020, the Pfizer/Biotech vaccine was authorised for use in the UK and first vaccinations in Scotland took place on 8 December 2020. Questions about the restrictions during the festive period continued to gather pace in December, with the final decision comprising that gatherings of not more than three households on Christmas Day itself were allowed. Travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK was banned from 20 December 2020, and Hogmanay celebrations were held online. Before the end of 2020, a second vaccine was authorised for use. However, with cases rapidly rising across the UK in the New Year, on 5 January 2021, Scotland along with the other countries in the UK went into a lockdown again, with legal provisions forbidding people from leaving their homes except for essential services (SPICe 2020).
COVID-19 Lockdown, isolation and loneliness
Social isolation and loneliness have been identified as a public health challenge, as there is evidence of strong association with anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicide attempts across the lifespan (MHFS 2017). Groups who have been identified as particularly at risk for loneliness include older people, people with mental and physical conditions, people in lower income groups, people who identify as LGBTIA+, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. Isolation has two components: a sense of emotional loneliness, where people are lacking close emotional relationships with at least one other person and social loneliness, which refers to the lack of integration into a wider social network (Morison and Smith 2018). The latter also has a political dimension to it, in that the lack of such a network renders an individual more invisible to others and hence unable to act together on issues of shared concern (Sagan 2018). Integration into a social-political network fosters a sense of belonging, public acknowledgement and affirmation and collective action.
In this sense, it is a misconception to characterise isolation and loneliness as characteristics purely of the individual. It has been argued that these are profoundly social processes which require bringing the wider social network in which individuals are embedded into frame and understanding the behaviour of the communities and structures to which people are connected. Thus, in understanding isolation in the context of COVID-19 lockdown measures, it is necessary to look at the social factors and structures that create conditions of isolation and loneliness along with establishing mechanisms to reduce sustained feelings of loneliness and promoting belongingness to protect against mental and emotional problems. In early December 2019, prior to the emergence of the pandemic, the Scottish Government introduced funding to tackle isolation and loneliness, enabling services such as wellbeing calls, befriending support, advice and volunteering.
Measures taken to reduce virus transmission (such as shutdown of public and workspaces, limited social interaction, mandatory physical distancing, quarantine, wearing masks and reducing social contact) are inevitably socially isolating experiences. Such isolation is expected to have considerable impact on wellbeing, especially for those who are already socially vulnerable in different ways. Earlier studies in relation to previous pandemics have indicated negative mental health effects rising from quarantine and self-isolation. A systematic review of existing literature on the mental health impacts of social isolation and loneliness on children and adolescents indicated higher rates of depression and anxiety associated with isolation and loneliness (Groarke et al. 2020). The risk continued to be higher even after the period of enforced isolation ended. The review also showed that the duration of loneliness, rather than its intensity, more strongly correlated with mental health problems. The paper emphasised the need to offer appropriate clinical services in order to prevent an increase in mental health problems and intervene where needed.
Recent studies on the early impacts of the pandemic measures indicate that feelings of isolation and loneliness were prevalent in the lockdown period; in one study 27% of the study population (n=1964) reported strong feelings of loneliness (Loads et al. 2020). Factors associated with higher levels of loneliness included being young adults, living alone, being separated or divorced, having pre-existing mental health conditions, struggling with emotional regulation and reduced sleep quality. One COVID-19 specific finding has been higher rates of loneliness amongst young adults (attributed to the enforced lack of social interaction due to school and college shutdowns and workplace closures). Apart from this, findings on rates of loneliness continue to be relevant in the COVID-19 context as well, suggesting the pre-existing vulnerabilities to loneliness are exacerbated in the lockdown. Researchers and mental health practitioners have called for measures to actively combat isolation amongst vulnerable groups in the COVID-19 lockdown context, such as social prescribing (NHS Scotland 2016) – the active encouragement of social measures to address isolation and loneliness as part of treatment, and a combination of video and telephone consultations and interactions to ensure people feel included and acknowledged (Razai et al. 2020).
COVID-19, wellbeing and mental health
Given the well-established principle that mental health protection is a critical component of management and containment of communicable and infectious diseases (Safran 2009), there were and continue to be widespread concerns about the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdown measures on the mental health and wellbeing of people in the UK and elsewhere.
It is recognised that the disease itself and resultant deaths as well as the subsequent restrictions on public, social and economic life would entail much suffering for many individuals, families and groups. In a position paper in Lancet Psychiatry published early on in the pandemic (Holmes et al. 2020), the authors note that the sudden disruptions to daily life and plans, limited access to services, prolonged social isolation from family and friends, enforced physical distancing, inactivity and the financial hardships stemming from widespread job losses and ceased economic activity all heighten the risks for the onset of mental health issues and significant emotional distress. The paper also highlights anticipated psychosocial impacts such as social disconnection, increases in substance abuse and gambling behaviours, relationship problems, lack of meaning, feeling burdensome, financial difficulties, homelessness, domestic violence and loneliness. Additionally, the illness and its risk of death have raised fears and anxieties about exposure to the virus, pain and worry for those who contract the virus and for their family members and friends and, where deaths have occurred, caused significant grief, loss, and bereavement for those who have lost loved ones.
A number of studies provide evidence for this position (Brooks et al. 2020). Authors have examined the possible psychological effects of social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pointing to previous studies conducted on people mandated to quarantine or to self-isolate in response to outbreaks of contagious disease, it has been noted that the association between experiences of quarantine/self-isolation and increased psychological distress can remain for several years even after the experience. Studies of those who had been quarantined in response to specific infectious outbreaks reported increased levels of irritability, boredom, frustration, stress, anger, depression, poor concentration and post-traumatic stress disorder (Cava et al. 2005; Sprang & Silman 2020).
There is evidence for the psychological impacts of other aspects of pandemics and disease- containment measures. Sufficient access to accurate information about the illness and transmission information, protective gear, emergency services and basic supplies such as food and water positively moderated people’s emotional reactions to mandatory quarantine (Wilken et al. 2017). Access to accurate and timely information is recognised to be a key element of public health response management in pandemics.
A number of studies have monitored emerging health, wellbeing and socio-economic issues stemming from the COVID-19 lockdown response. Through regular repeated online surveys of a representative sample of the UK population, the Mental Health Foundation Scotland has noted that those with low income and socioeconomic status are at greater risk of mental health issues due to the crisis (MHFS 2020a). This showed that unemployed and under-employed people are more likely to experience mental health issues such as stress, anxiety and depression. Additionally, those who live in deprivation are more likely to have existing health conditions thereby increasing their vulnerability to COVID-19 and the impact of lockdown measures. The report pointed to data that showed deaths per 100,000 due to COVID-19 was twice as high in the most deprived areas compared to the least. The findings from this dataset suggest that a large proportion of people – even in more secure full-time work – worry about their employment and are concerned about losing their jobs. Twice as many unemployed people reported not coping well and having suicidal thoughts and feelings compared to those in employment, and one in ten reported that nothing has helped them cope with stress brought about as a result of the pandemic. Indeed, the survey reveals that almost half of those unemployed had been concerned about having enough food for their needs in the past two weeks. Many people also reported worrying about finances, paying bills and debt management. Such concerns were unsurprisingly higher amongst people in lower socioeconomic groups. This finding is resonant with strong evidence that employment status has significant impact on mental health (Waddell & Burton 2006), with unemployment associated with decreased quality of life, social networks, social status, self-esteem and goal achievement along with increased feelings of shame, anxiety and stress (McDaid & Park 2014; Helliewell & Putnam 2004).
These employment conditions place additional mental and emotional stressors on families and individuals. Tensions within the family and household are likely to increase and potentially lead to relationship breakdowns, conflict and violence. Closures of schools and colleges have meant that children and young people have lost routine in their lives and are expected to continue their work from home. As a result, there is additional pressures on adults to support and provide educational guidance for children and young people during the lockdown period, whilst negotiating their own work-responsibilities and worries. These issues are more likely to be compounded for those living in crowded housing with limited access to the technological devices and broadband needed for online education (Sutton Trust 2020). Recognising that those in lower socioeconomic groups were more at risk for mental health issues both in general and in relation to the pandemic and lockdown measures, the Mental Health Foundation, Scotland recommends policy interventions to address and mitigate financial inequalities as part of the mental health response to the pandemic.
These factors underscore the inequalities of impact on mental health on different populations (Allwood & Bell 2020). Other groups that have been identified as being disproportionately vulnerable are people living with mental health problems whose access to services and support has been curtailed, people living with physical conditions whose treatment has been limited or delayed, women and children subjected to domestic violence during the lockdown, children whose families are affected by the lockdown measures in various ways, and people at risk of getting ill themselves and also more likely to lose partners and friends, such as older people and people with Black and minority ethnic backgrounds.
Studies have also indicated other groups that are at risk (MHFS 2020b): young people between the ages of 18-24 have reported higher levels of loneliness and suicidal ideation, and have expressed that they are not coping well with the lockdown citing interruptions to their education, diminished job prospects and economic opportunities and reduced contact with peers; single parents with young children and adolescents who carry the burdens of parenting, income generation and home- schooling single-handedly; women as a group who are overrepresented in frontline health and social care work, low-income and insecure work and who are more likely to have pre-existing mental health and financial problems whilst being responsible for a greater share of household and childcare, and LGBT+ and transgender people whose access to support systems may have hindered during the lockdown.
Because of the compounded nature of their circumstances spanning several of the factors identified above (insecure and lower income, unemployment and financial hardship, pre-existing mental and physical health issues, stigma and marginalisation, being of BME backgrounds, etc), refugees and asylum seekers have been identified as a high-risk group for disproportionate mental health impacts and are the focus of this study.
Refugees in Scotland
Scotland has a long history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers, many of whom have escaped conflict and persecution in their home countries. According UNHCR statistics, as of 2019, there were 133,094 refugees, 61,968 pending asylum cases and 161 stateless persons living in the UK (UNHCR 2019). In 2011, the Scottish Refugee Council estimated that there were about 20,000 refugees, asylum seekers and other individuals of concern to the UNHCR in Scotland (Shisheva et al. 2013). Since 2015, over 3000 individuals have been resettled throughout the 32 local authority areas of Scotland through the UK Government resettlement programme in collaboration with UNHCR All refugees and asylum seekers in Scotland are supported by the New Scots Strategy (Scottish Government 2018a).
The definition of refugees according to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (UNHCR 1951, p.14) is:
“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
Asylum seekers refer to those who flee their home country and make an application for asylum in another country. In the UK, asylum seekers have the legal right to stay in the country while they wait for a decision from the authorities. Asylum seekers, those who are awaiting UK government approval to gain refugee status, are under the direct support and governance of the UK Home Office. For the 12 months ending September 2020, there were 31,172 asylum applications in the UK, of which 49% were granted asylum or protection at the initial decision stage (Refugee Council 2021). Those whose application is refused can appeal, and in recent years more than 40% of appeals have resulted in the refusals being overturned. There are three tiers of tribunals for the appeals process1. Asylum can be refused at any stage. During this process, the asylum application may also be withdrawn.
Under the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999, the UK Government’s dispersal policy was created allowing for the distribution of people applying for asylum to be housed in local authority areas across the UK whilst their claim is being processed. Since this time, Glasgow has been the only asylum ‘dispersal’ area in Scotland.
The number of people in the UK waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim are currently at a record high. According to Home Office (2020) Statistics gathered for the year ending 2020, there were 60,548 people awaiting an outcome, most for over 6 months (Refugee Council 2020). Some applicants wait for more than 2 years for an outcome. Whilst awaiting an outcome, asylum seekers and their dependants do not have recourse to public funds and are generally not allowed to work.
They are supported by the UK government, with little more than £5 per person per day to cover their basic necessities. Under the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999 (UK Parliament 1999), asylum seekers are provided with temporary accommodation and support to meet essential living needs. Longer term accommodation and financial support is provided whilst awaiting their application decision. Support is available for those refused asylum but who may yet be unable to leave the UK2.
A positive decision to the claim of asylum results in a grant of protection or of other leave (to remain), the latter of which is granted on discretionary grounds or to unaccompanied refugee children. A grant of protection is provided in response to a successful claim for asylum or for humanitarian protection. If the claim is granted by the UK government, the person will then become a refugee and will be granted refugee status and five years’ leave to remain in the UK. They will then have 28 days to vacate their government granted temporary accommodation, apply for mainstream benefits and secure new accommodation. The extent and impact of these issues which often result in a period of destitution have been documented widely (Christie and Baillot 2020; Strang et al. 2016; Strang et al. 2017; Doyle 2014).
Protection is also granted to applicants under a number of different UK resettlement schemes, the most recent of which is the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS) for Syrians and the Vulnerable Children’s Resettlement Scheme (VCRS) for children affected by armed conflict in the Middle East. Other resettlement schemes include the Gateway and Mandate programmes as well as the Dubs scheme and community sponsorship scheme.
The current UK Government’s VPRS and VCRS, of which Scotland and its Local Authorities have played a leading role, have supported over 3,000 people to resettle throughout the nation since 2015 (Scottish Refugee Council 2020a). People arriving through resettlement are recognised by the UK Government as refugees and thus have refugee status on arrival and access to mainstream benefits and services (Christie and Baillot 2020). Provision of support differ across these different refugee groups, with the most comprehensive support package available to refugees settled under the VPRS and VCRS schemes.
Refugees and COVID-19 pandemic response
When the first COVID-19 lockdown began in March 2020, along with everyone else, refugees and asylum seekers too experienced the abrupt interruption to their daily social and public lives. However, this interruption also severed the everyday connections and actions that marked their ongoing efforts at integration. In addition, for those still in the process of seeking asylum, there were considerable disruptions to their everyday lives. For instance, most newly arrived asylum seekers along with those in existing serviced accommodation, were transferred to hotels in the centre of Glasgow.
In response to ongoing calls to address increasing destitution amongst asylum seekers, in late March 2020, the Home Office temporarily exempted asylum seekers from Section 115 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (UK Parliament 1999) which states that a person will have ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) following a decision on their asylum claim, confirming the continuation of providing asylum support to those whose claims are refused for an extended period of time in response to a call to ease the NRPF policy (UK Parliament 2020). Accommodation providers were asked to source extra accommodation, mostly in the form of ‘sole use, self-contained facilities’ to meet the increased demand. There were some concerns that shared facilities and communal living areas may undermine the social distancing guidelines.
Data on pre-existing and structural inequalities amongst migrant and ethnic minority groups, and amongst those in the most deprived communities in the UK, show a heightened risk of suffering serious illness or dying (OECD 2020; Race Equality Foundation n.d.) and initial data suggests that COVID-19 deaths are indeed higher amongst these groups (BBC 2020; Kluge et al. 2020). Commenting on impacts on migration within the context of COVID-19, Triandafyllidou (2020) raises the question of how non-citizens, including asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants, may be at risk of being overlooked or neglected by states. She reiterates the need for ensuring the continued right for asylum for people seeking security and protection and for refugees within state borders to be supported and provided assistance alongside citizens.
Refugees and asylum seekers are expected to be disproportionately impacted by the socio-economic consequences of the COVID-19 public health protection measures. This is based on data that reveal how legal status, poverty, housing, health and (lack of) connections intersect to compound and complicate anticipated COVID-19 impacts and consequences for this group (Pirie 2020). Migrant families, including refugees and asylum seekers, are more likely to live in overcrowded and/or substandard housing and temporary rented accommodation with poor ventilation which have been associated with higher levels of respiratory and lung illnesses (Caillaud et al 2018).
Studies show that refugees are more likely to be unemployed, underemployed or to be in precarious, low-paid employment with minimal job protections (Mulvey 2013) and therefore at greater risk of poverty and financial hardships, including possibility of eviction, as a result of lockdown measures. Because their legal status does not allow them to work, asylum seekers are especially vulnerable to poverty, and in some cases of destitution where they are not allowed recourse to public funds, relying heavily on charity and community organisations for survival (Saltmarsh 2020). COVID-19 lockdown measures have hindered the ability of the charity sector to deliver services and offer support to marginalised groups and individuals.
Language barriers have also been noted to compound difficulties for successful educational engagement for refugees and asylum-seekers (McBride et al 2018). At the same time, many refugee children are likely to be deprived of the positive benefits that they have been documented as gaining from attending school such as a sense of belonging, routine and one-one support (UNICEF 2018). There is a well-established association between lower educational attainment and living in deprived conditions and communities (Scottish Government 2019a). Because deprivations are likely to increase in the context of COVID-19 lockdown for many vulnerable groups, it is expected that stress and difficulties for refugee and asylum-seeking children and adults are increased in the immediate and short-term period as well as having an impact on their longer-term future circumstances and opportunities.
The lockdown is expected to delay services for asylum seekers and refugees. Research indicates that waiting is a highly affective time period for asylum seekers and those waiting for family reunion, resulting in high levels of anxiety, anticipation and frustration (Rotter 2016). Given the added stressors that refugees are often subject too, waiting was often described and experienced by asylum seekers as suspended, stagnant time. Closer ethnographic analysis indicated a number of ways in which asylum seekers sought to deal with delays and to translate such time into a productive and meaningful period by responding to and seeking ways to address or circumnavigate the delays. Nonetheless, it was still a period in which they experience their lives in limbo and await a time to rebuild their lives. As such, the delays brought about by the lockdown are likely to extend the period of waiting indefinitely.
Refugees, wellbeing and social connections
Much of the literature on immigrant and refugee mental health has focused on the inter- connectedness of loss, trauma, depression and anxiety (Hameed et al 2018). Studies of post- migration refugees have indicated that many witnessed and/or experienced a high number of traumatic events, including torture and loss of loved ones. The impact of these experiences can be compounded on resettlement. Indeed, new losses may be experienced during the adjustment to a new life. Other forms of loss may be more ambiguous like the loss of social connections, changes to financial status and in many cases, poverty, or the erosion of one’s identity.
Consequently, some experience emotional difficulties including post-traumatic stress, depression and anxiety which hinder their efforts at settlement ad integration. As evidenced by one such study in the UK, specifically, those who had higher levels of traumatic experience reported greater emotional distress which in turn were associated with difficulty in adapting, finding separation from family very difficult, reduced social support, and loss of culture and support (Carswell et al. 2009). Where the conditions in the receiving country provide the opportunity to establish a new life, there is the chance to recover from distressing past experiences and losses (Porter & Haslam 2005). However, most refugees and asylum seekers continue to experience great anxiety in their receiving country settings. Such anxiety is related to uncertainties about residency and ability to positively settle in the new country, difficulties accessing health and social care and benefits, being poor, difficulties finding employment or having no right to work, worry about the families at home and about separation from them, loss of culture and support including loneliness, isolation and access to familiar foods.
The asylum process has also been subject to criticism for increasing rather than ameliorating the emotional distress experienced by asylum seekers (Independent Asylum Commission 2008). Some of the concerns include the use of detention, poor decision-making on asylum claims and difficulties accessing support. More recently there have also been criticism around the lack of accountability for poor treatment of asylum seekers, and there have been calls to improve the process. In Scotland, one of the key concerns focuses on the limited authority and decision-making power of local authorities over the accommodation and support provided to asylum seekers, which are directly contracted to private companies (Scottish Refugee Council 2020b). For instance, in December 2019 there were urgent calls to halt the contracted company from carrying out planned lock change evictions of asylum seekers in Glasgow, which would have left them destitute and homeless (Scottish Government 2019b). For reasons such as these, it is not surprising that some studies indicate a worsening of emotional distress post-migration (Quinn et al. 2011), attributed to asylum-seeking and integration experiences in the UK as well as lack of family and support systems (Strang and Quinn 2014).
A review of mental health studies on refugees revealed that being older, female and/or coming from a rural environment was associated with higher levels of mental health problems (Porter and Haslam 2005). A driving factor for poorer mental health outcomes was that of the lack of social connections. However, the UK dispersal policy – which aims to spread the responsibilities of refugee support, especially away from London and the South East of England – dilutes the opportunity for refugees to locate close to people from the same background (Centre for Policy on Ageing 2016). Asylum seekers also have no choice over accommodation. Under these circumstances, the lack of shared language skills can exacerbate social isolation and loneliness and hinder integration.
Taking a multi-disciplinary and holistic approach to integration, the 2008 Indicators of Integration framework identifies ten domains through which to understand and analyse the process of refugee integration, distributed across four dimensions of markers and means, social connections, facilitators and foundation (Ager and Strang 2008). In 2019, the Home Office together with partner academics and practitioners produced an expanded version of the Indicators of Integration framework (UK Government 2019).
[figure 1 - Image]
As the framework demonstrates, social connections emerge as a crucial component of the integration process. The Indicators of Integration framework elaborates three key types of social connection: links, bridges and bonds. Links refer to contact with the hierarchies and institutions of society including access to services. ’Bridges’ are connections with members outside of one’s own community. ’Bonds’ refers to connections between members in the same community. Social interactions such as seeing loved ones, meeting friends, colleagues and acquaintances, engaging in the community, taking part in community activities and developing networks with a wider group of people in the community mitigate against social isolation and loneliness (BMA 2020). However, the lockdown measures impact precisely on the opportunities to interact. It is therefore important to understand the effects of social isolation brought about by the COVID-19 lockdown compounded by the impacts of ongoing isolation and loneliness experienced by refugees and asylum seekers.
This study brings together scholarship regarding the impacts of social isolation on mental health and wellbeing with the particular case of resettling refugees known to experience isolation whilst also subject to multiple further risk factors associated with poor mental health. We consider the case of asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland as an example of a potentially neglected population within the context of a global pandemic. The study has addressed the following questions:
-
What impact is COVID-19 social isolation having on sense of wellbeing amongst refugees in Scotland?
-
What is the relationship between sudden-onset isolation and Scotland’s refugee communities’ experience of loneliness and sense of vulnerability or resiliency?
By studying the experiences of asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland, we seek to throw light on the challenges experienced, the impacts and mitigating factors. The outcomes will be specific to the population studied, but key insights can then be tested with other neglected groups.
Methods
Overview
To enhance our understanding of the issues affecting asylum seekers and refugees during COVID-19 restrictions in Scotland, we sought to develop a research design that would allow us to explore the lived experiences of Scotland’s refugee communities’ and the impact of sudden-onset isolation on their social networks and relationships. Research design was informed by members of the Research Advisory Group (RAG), which included people with lived experience as refugees and asylum seekers, along with research partners; Scottish Refugee Council (SRC), the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA). Ethical approval was granted by the QMU Research Ethics Committee.
Ethical considerations
All research tools and activities were reviewed and approved by the QMU Ethics Committee including any arrangements necessary under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. In keeping with social distancing measures, engaging with refugees and asylum seekers across Scotland occurred remotely. Additional quality assurance and ethical issues were thus considered, largely concerning the consent process.
Informed consent was obtained from all participants of this study. A detailed verbal description was read to the participants by the researcher at the start of each interview. All participants were notified of their right to decline participation or withdraw from the study at any stage without the need to provide an explanation. Assurance of their anonymity and confidentiality was explained and guaranteed both before and after each interview. Further, as some of the issues discussed during the interview process may have been of a sensitive nature, participants were provided with contact details of an external network of support that they could approach at any time if needed. For example, one potential risk that was considered was whether participants would experience psychological stress from some of the discussions raised. Given the potential of raising sensitive topics such as experiences of hardship, it was important to be conscious of how to approach such issues during interviews in a way that wouldn’t cause emotional duress for the participants. This was managed by verbally assuring the participants that they were under no obligation to answer questions that they didn’t feel comfortable with and advising them that they could discontinue their participation at any time. Additional ethical considerations are discussed in regards to limitations of this research (Section 3.4).
Remote interviews
Between July and November 2020, fifty-one asylum-seekers and refugees living in Scotland (both those granted asylum after arriving in Scotland and those on the resettlement scheme) were interviewed remotely to gain insight into their experiences during COVID-19 restrictions (Appendix 1). All interviews were conducted via Zoom, WhatsApp, or telephone depending on participants’ preferences, supported by an interpreter as needed. Interviews followed a semi-structured topic guide inclusive of informed consent, and ranged from 40 to 90 minutes. The semi-structured topic guide along with other research tools was developed by our research team and shared with the RAG for input. Once feedback was received, our team agreed on a final version of the topic guide to be used with all interviews.
Sampling
Population of interest: asylum seekers & refugees in Scotland
There are no exact figures for the total number of asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland available. This is because there are different routes to becoming a refugee in the UK with data held differently about the various refugee groups. Whilst figures for successful asylum claims are published, those granted refugee status are not tracked systematically and comprehensive data on place of residence post success asylum claim is not recorded. For the purposes of this study, we have utilised available data from the UK and Scottish government websites as well as additional data published by refugee organisations. For the period between 2010-2020, statistics from the government indicate a total number of 264,943 asylum applications in the UK from adults (i.e. 18+ years and excluding UASC applications) (ONS 2020). This figure includes repeat applications on appeal following a refusal. UK Government datasets on asylum provide statistical details on age of applicants, sex, country of origin, decisions on application, asylum dispersal and resettlement.
Further data is also available on asylum applicants placed in different locations under the asylum dispersal policy and on refugees resettled in different local authorities. Using this data, as of end Dec 2019, the Home Office statistics indicate the following:
-
No: of hosted asylum seekers in Scotland3: 3,745
-
No: of hosted resettled refugees in Scotland (under VPRS & VCRS only)4: 3,441
Sample selection
The UK government datasets were used to break down the category percentages for age, sex and asylum status of applications based on the statistics provided by the Home Office on the overall UK refugee and asylum-seeking population. These percentages were then applied to the asylum and refugee population in Scotland. It is assumed there are no differences in distribution on these categories across the different countries of the UK. The estimates of demographic distribution of the asylum and refugee population were then analysed to provide an overview of the expected demographics and to better understand the breakdown of respondent demographics for this study.
Table 1: Asylum seekers
|
non-UASC 18+ asylum applications |
% |
% applied to Scotland's asylum seekers |
% applied to research sample size |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Asylum Seekers
|
264,943 | 3,745 | 26 | |
|
Sex/Gender
|
||||
|
Female
|
81,834 | 31 | 1157 | 8 |
|
Male
|
183,036 | 69 | 2,587 | 18 |
|
Other/unknown
|
73 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
|
Age
|
|
|||
|
18-29
|
133,884 | 50 | 1,889 |
13 |
|
30-49
|
114,873 | 43 | 1,621 |
11 |
|
50-69
|
14,515 | 5 | 205 |
1 |
|
Other/Unknown
|
39 | 0 | 1 |
0 |
|
Location of Scotland's asylum seekers |
|
|||
|
Glasgow |
99.99 | 3,741 |
26 |
|
|
City of Edinburgh |
0.1 | 4 |
0 |
Table 2: Resettled refugees
|
Resettled Refugees |
% |
% applied to Scotland's resettled refugees |
% applied to research sample size |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Resettled Refugees |
10,100 | 3,441 | 24 | |
| Sex/Gender | ||||
| Female | 5,137 | 51 | 1,750 | 12 |
| Male | 4,963 | 49 | 1,691 | 12 |
| Age |
|
|||
| 18-29 | 3,516 | 35 | 1,119 | 8 |
| 30-49 | 5,257 | 52 | 1,791 | 12 |
| 50-69 | 1,201 | 12 | 409 | 3 |
| 70+ | 123 | 1 | 42 | 0 |
| Not Known | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
Location of Scotland's resettled refugees |
2,770 | |||
|
City of Edinburgh |
444 | 16 | ||
|
Glasgow City |
85 | 3 | ||
|
Fife |
51 | 2 | ||
|
North Lanarkshire |
21 | 1 | ||
|
Dundee City |
193 | 7 | ||
|
Aberdeenshire |
190 | 7 | ||
|
North Ayrshire |
180 | 6 | ||
|
Renfrewshire |
163 | 6 | ||
|
South Lanarkshire |
156 | 6 | ||
|
Argyll & Bute |
114 | 4 | ||
|
Aberdeen City |
108 | 4 | ||
|
Clackmannanshire |
106 | 4 | ||
|
Inverclyde |
104 | 4 | ||
|
West Dunbartonshire |
96 | 3 | ||
|
Highland |
95 | 3 | ||
|
Dumfries & Galloway |
75 | 3 | ||
|
East Lothian |
66 | 2 | ||
|
West Lothian |
66 | 2 | ||
|
East Ayrshire |
61 | 2 | ||
|
Falkirk |
56 | 2 | ||
|
South Ayrshire |
45 | 2 | ||
|
Angus |
40 | 1 | ||
|
Scottish Borders |
37 | 1 | ||
|
Na h-Eileanan Siar |
34 | 1 | ||
|
Stirling |
33 | 1 | ||
|
Midlothian |
34 | 1 | ||
|
East Dunbartonshire |
21 | 1 | ||
|
Moray |
20 | 1 | ||
|
Orkney Islands |
18 | 1 | ||
|
Shetland Islands |
7 | 0 | ||
|
Perth & Kinross |
2 | 0 |
Consideration was also given to location. In order to better understand the circumstances of participants in the study, the different local authorities were categorised into three areas: urban, small town and rural areas. The definitions and categorisations of local authorities were primarily based on those provided by the Scottish Government (2018b), and where the majority of the population reside.
- Large Urban: Settlements of 125,000 people or more
- Other Urban: Settlements of 10,000 to 124,999 people
- Small Towns: Settlements of 3,000 to 9,999 people
- Rural: Areas with a population of less than 3,000 people
A participant sampling frame for interview participation was then derived from the actual and estimated figure available to ensure that our interviews reflected the diversity of refugee experience in Scotland as accurately as possible. For the final sample of the study, we aimed to select close to equal numbers for each group by status (asylum seeker, refugee, and resettled refugee), gender (women and men) and location (large urban, urban, small towns and rural.
Recruitment
Participants were recruited with support from the Scottish Refugee Council (SRC), the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and through referrals from members of the RAG.
At the outset of this project, our team collaborated with the SRC on the design of a survey which was distributed to its networks over the summer of 2020. The survey questionnaire included a question asking respondents if they consented to being contacted to participate in further research conducted by QMU researchers. All those who consented (n=129) were contacted via email and/or text message depending on their preference as stated in the SRC survey. An initial message, translated into Arabic, Farsi and Kurdish Sorani was sent to all 129 SRC survey respondents in their stated language of preference, first thanking them for their completion of the SRC survey and subsequently to notify them of our intent to recruit interview participants.
COSLA offices were also approached for support in linking with potential interview participants. The COSLA Migration, Population and Diversity Team, shared our written request for research support with each of the Local Authorities (LA). Of these, five LAs (Dundee, South Lanarkshire, Highland, East Renfrewshire and Argyll and Bute) responded with interest in the request to support our study and agreed to invite potentially interested refugee and asylum-seeker clients to interview with us as well as to distribute the link to our survey once this was available to share.
In this way, 51 people were recruited and participated in the study. Details of participants are provided in the tables below (Table 3; Table 4).
Table 3: Interview participants
|
Pseudonym |
Country of origin |
Status |
Gender |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Samir |
Sudan |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Ameena |
Afghanistan |
Asylum |
Female |
|
|
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Said |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Hakem |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Sadiq |
Nigeria |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Valerie |
DRC |
Asylum |
Female |
|
Esther |
Eritra |
Refugee |
Female |
|
Mirza |
Iran |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Sada |
Afghanistan |
Asylum |
Female |
|
Hafsa |
Syria |
Asylum |
Female |
|
Azim |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Sarabi |
Somalia |
Asylum |
female |
|
Hafeez |
Syria |
Resettled |
female |
|
Kashif |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Rajaa |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Karin |
Iraq |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Ayub |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Mehdi |
Iraq |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Safiya |
Iraq |
Refugee |
Female |
|
Ameena |
Afghanistan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Kareena |
Syria |
Refugee |
Female |
|
Said |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Hakem |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Omar |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Ahmad |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Mohsin |
Sudan |
Ayslum |
Male |
|
Maria |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Aisha |
Syria |
Refugee |
Female |
|
Ashraf |
Syria |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Baher |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Elyas |
N/s |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Fara |
Iraq |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Gafur |
Iraq |
Resettled |
Male |
| Ghanem | Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Hassan |
Syria |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Ihsana |
Iraq |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Hassan |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Kisan |
Syria |
Refugee |
Male |
|
Laiba |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Madrok |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Naima |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Malek |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Mazin |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Sahil |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Samia |
Syria |
Resettled |
female |
|
Syyid |
Sudan |
Asylum |
Male |
|
Shabana |
Iraq |
Resettled |
female |
|
Tahir |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Ibrahim |
Syria |
Resettled |
Male |
|
Saranda |
Albania |
Asylum |
Female |
|
Mariyam |
Syria |
Refugee |
Asylum |
|
Baglesh |
Iraq |
Resettled |
Female |
|
Ismail |
Sudan |
Refugee |
Male |
KareenaTable 4: Interview participants by gender and status
| Total | Female | Male | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Asylum | 15 | 6 | 9 |
| Refugee | 12 | 6 | 6 |
| Resettled | 24 | 7 | 17 |
| Total | 51 | 19 | 32 |
Data storage/management
Interviews were recorded with the participant’s permission simultaneously on two devices: 1) a digital voice recorder; and optionally 2) a transcribing application (Otter) which was uploaded to the data collectors’ mobile phones for the purposes of this research. Audio recordings from both devices and exported transcriptions from the Otter app, if used, were downloaded onto each respective data collector’s password protected laptop and subsequently sent to student volunteers for transcription. We decided to use the Otter app as a backup with the idea that given the tight timeframe of this study, having an automatically generated transcription obtained through the app could potentially shorten the transcribing time. For interviews which included use of the Otter app, volunteer transcribers were able to listen to each audio recording while following along with the app generated transcriptions, correcting errors along the way.
It was explained to participants at the start of each interview, that all interview data would be anonymised, given an identifying code and pseudonym and saved as digital files along with any corresponding notes. All files, with the exception of audio recordings from the Otter app which were immediately deleted following export, were saved onto the research team’s password-protected cloud-based Microsoft Teams file folder.
Data analysis
Data were analysed in accordance with Interpretative Phenomenological Approaches (IPA) (see for example Wertz 2011; Noon 2018; and Matua and Van Der Wal 2015).
- Step 1- Transcription
- Step 2 – Read and re-read the transcript
- Step 3 – Develop emergent themes
- Step 4 – Observe connections across emergent themes
- Step 5 – Group themes together as clusters
- Step 6 – Put themes in a summary
- Step 7 – Check accuracy of the summary
- Step 8 – Move to the next case
- Step 9 –Observe patterns across cases
During all interviews, the team employed ‘deep listening’ techniques to clarify and confirm meaning (Laryea 2018), consistent with (IPA).This involved careful listening, probing, and explicitly checking our understanding of what our research participants were trying to convey whilst in dialogue with them.
The series of steps outlined above combined with deep listening techniques allowed us to systematically examine the shared experiences of participants as described through their own personal accounts.
Limitations
Exact figures are not available for the estimated number of refugees currently resettled in the UK (See Section 3.3.1 for more information). Hence, it was not possible to have a more accurate understanding of the number or demographic details of non-resettled refugees (i.e. those granted protection under asylum or humanitarian grounds) as well as the number of those resettled under the Gateway, Mandate, Dubs or community sponsorship programmes. Similarly, because the data available on the number of refugees in local authorities across Scotland included only those on VPRS and VCRS, it was not possible to develop an understanding of the number or demographic backgrounds of other groups of refugees in Scotland, such as those resettled under other sponsorship programmes.
Whilst our partnerships with SRC and COSLA provided invaluable insights and access to research participants throughout the project, it does mean that our cohort of participants represent only those refugee families who were in receipt of support from at least one specialist NGO at the time of their participation. Our findings therefore do not represent the experiences of refugees and reunited families who have chosen not to engage with formal integration services or have been unable to do so.
Language and the use of interpreters also posed limitations. To minimise translation inconsistencies, we ensured that interpreters received a written briefing on interview format and purpose prior to the session and engaged only interpreters working professionally for an interpreting agency. However, as in any cross-linguistic and cross-cultural context, it is important to note that the participants’ words quoted in our analysis below have already been interpreted and may to some extent have been altered in the interpretation process.
Though most interviews were conducted through video calling, the lack of face-to-face in person contact posed additional limitations. In addition to technical issues, such as delays and disconnected calls, video and telephone interviews limit the ability to build rapport with participants given constraints to viewing body language. Further, remote interviewing may reduce the ability to offer comfort or reassurance to the participant when discussing distressing topics.
We further noted a disproportionate number of men in our resettled refugee sample (see Table 4), resulting in limitations to obtaining equal representation of female resettled refugees.
Impacts o fCOVID-19 restrictions on refugees’wellbeing
Four main themes emerged from refugees' accounts of their experiences of the COVID restrictions: 1) Connectivity and isolation; 2) Stressors and mental ill/health; 3) Rupture and liminality; and 4) Resilience and coping. These are described in turn below. Each reflects inter-related aspects of their experiences and the way these were impacting them.
Connectivity and isolation
The COVID-19 lockdown restrictions have had a huge overall impact on the global population. For many people worldwide, social distancing measures and stay-at-home orders have resulted in a sudden drastic reduction of levels of contact with family members, friends and services. For refugees and asylum seekers who have likely already experienced major trauma and disruption, social connections are an important lifeline for rebuilding their lives. However, with the onset of sudden isolation brought on by the pandemic, the participants we interviewed virtually all experienced a change to their level of connectivity to others, as well as a change to the quality of connections with others. This impacted on their lives in multiple ways, reducing support and impeding progress.
The first subsection (4.1.1) of this chapter examines the types of connection participants had before, during and after the COVID-19 lockdown and the values placed on them. The second subsection (4.1.2) of this chapter examines the participants’ experiences of language acquisition and how this was impacted by the lockdown, as well as potentially lasting effects. The third subsection (4.1.3) of this chapter discusses participants’ experiences and perceptions of various forms of isolation during lockdown, from physical to digital isolation.
Types of valued connection
Casual encounters
The sudden disruption to casual encounters caused by lockdown has been widely experienced. Yet the impact of this on participants depended on the varying degrees of value they placed on these casual encounters before lockdown. A large minority of participants experienced the disruption and reduction in casual encounters as a major loss, whilst others did not mentioned it. A common observation, made for example by Saleem, a resettled refugee from Syria, was that without casual encounters, there is little opportunity to practice language skills, as well as a loss of general informal social interaction.
Before COVID-19 I can meet people on the street and have a conversation. Now, when I go on to the street I see people go off your route. They skip in front of you (...) But I need to communicate, I need to speak with them (Saleem, male resettled refugee).
People valued bumping into neighbours, meeting people in the library, on public transport, at church, at university or college, and at the gym. The most frequent reference was to seeing neighbours and people in nearby streets and parks, and on communal staircases to flats. The frequency, variety, and quality of these interactions were noted to have changed during the lockdown period due to people adhering to social distancing measures and avoiding others out of fear. Hafeez, a male resettled refugee from Syria noted a change in the friendliness of others during lockdown.
Any time you’d ask something from [people before the pandemic], they’ll jump to help. But during the lockdown it all changed. When you ask people for something, they’re very hesitant and quiet... like reluctant to step forward to help because of the COVID-19 (Hafeez, male resettled refugee).
Kashif, a male resettled refugee, also from Syria, found the ambiguity of the new forms of social interactions with strangers difficult to navigate.
People meet each other and start to shake hands and then you’re like why are you shaking hands? But then people if you don’t shake hands with them, they start to think, like doubt you, why is he not shaking hands? (Kashif, Male resettled refugee)
Several participants emphasized the fact that even as lockdown has eased, these encounters are not the same as before due to the continuation of social distancing measures and general risk- management behaviours of people towards each other. While showing understanding, this seems to unsettle some. Kashif perceptively refers to people’s encounters with each other as ‘diluted’.
Friends and family
Perhaps not surprisingly, it emerged that the primary connections for most participants during lockdown were with whomever they were living at the time; flatmates, parents, partners, and children. For many, these connections became virtually the only source of face to face interaction participants had for the lockdown period. Whether these connections acted as stressors or coping aids – or both – varied hugely. Karim, a resettled Iraqi refugee living in Dundee, was glad to have the
It is good because [it] gives me more time for speaking [with my family] (...) I [ask] my wife, 'Can you make me a sandwich? Can you give me tea?’ It is good [laughs]. She [does] the same...She tells me '[Karim], can you hold my son?' or 'give me tea'...I think sometimes it is good, sometimes it is not good (Karim, male resettled refugee).
extra time with his family but portrayed it in both senses, somewhat jokingly expressing reluctance at having to reciprocate domestic tasks.
Participants who had caring duties for family members often seemed overburdened if this was their main source of face to face connection. Many participants were living with family members with poor mental and/or physical health and had to manage the household whilst simultaneously trying to maintain their remote studies. Hafsa, a Syrian asylum seeker living in Glasgow and a mother of four, grappled with her children to get them studying during the lockdown as they struggled with the online material, and was falling behind with her own studies due to the difficulties of her education moving online.
I was studying at the college. The teacher sent us a lot of exams, a lot to listen, and it was so different, so difficult, I can’t solve this on my own, I need help. That was so hard (...) [And] my children, [it] is a big responsible to study at home, it’s very difficult for them (Hafsa, female asylum seeker).
Most other social connections, for instance with friends and friendly neighbours, were cut or moved online. Most participants were in touch with friends and family, either in Scotland or abroad, via phone, WhatsApp groups, video calls and other remote means. These connections were of great importance to some. A few were largely alone bar infrequent remote connections with distant friends or family and had to find other means to cope with the stressors involved with lockdown, with their situation, and with their isolation. For others still, those with whom they lived were primarily a source of stress or worry, either because of friction or because of difficult responsibilities which had to be balanced with other aspects of their life, such as online classes.
Formal social interactions
The quantity, variety and quality of formal social connections with refugee services, education, support workers, volunteering work and other forms of formal connection varied between participants. However, almost all reported a decline in quantity, variety, and quality of their connections during lockdown. Many relationships simply stopped most others moved online, which posed additional difficulties to the participants due to language barriers to online communication.
Some participants made great use of the services that were still available online; Karim in particular, was in frequent contact with various remote refugee services available in Dundee, and was on a first name basis with service providers across several organisations who would help him with job opportunities, applications, and form filling. In addition, some organisations continued to run essential services, such as delivering food parcels. One pertinent example is a local mosque in Glasgow, which having been alerted to a hotel that failed to alter mealtimes to accommodate Ramadan, delivered meals to its tenants. Mehdi, an asylum seeker living in the hotel expressed how thankful he was for this, exclaiming that he and the other Muslims in the hotel would have ‘died starving’ if not for them.
Tahir, a resettled refugee from Syria felt frustration with the unavailability of services and had to put several matters on hold. For example, his home was in need of several repairs, but service delays meant he was unable to get these fixed.
We couldn’t receive enough services [...] Everything is stopped. Even in terms of services of council we had people contacting us [to schedule repairs] [...] but at the moment, these all stopped. These are all negative impacts (Tahir, male resettled refugee).
However, the issues participants discussed most frequently were the difficulties of online education due to language difficulties and a lack of face-to-face cues. Online modes of communication included video conferences/classes, online content/class material, online conversations and support, and one-way support such as translated government Coronavirus.
Language
Participants frequently spoke about the language difficulties of online communication. Most participants were taking language classes or attending college or university before lockdown started, all of which moved online when the pandemic struck. Online studies mainly took the form of written homework and online classes, which each have their own difficulties due to the lack of rich social interaction and feedback one gets from face to face dialogue. Baher, a resettled refugee from Syria living in Dumbarton, explained how challenging this was for him and his wife.
I don’t understand anything through Zoom. It is the same for my wife, even more difficult (...) I can’t do anything online and the council sends me bills with arrears and I [can’t] go to the council [in person] and sort it out (Baher, male resettled refugee)
Baher indicates, other difficulties included speaking with utility companies, filling out forms and making medical appointments. The disruption to language classes had a knock-on effect on participants’ ability to engage in interactions with services of this kind due to the difficulties of these going completely online. Azim, a Syrian resettled refugee living in Inverurie, recognised and met this challenge with hard study so he could resolve a utility issue for himself and his sister.
I started trying to improve my language and then I managed to contact [the utility companies], and I sorted out the problem with them. Even I helped my sister, she also had a similar issue with the gas and electricity company (Azim, male resettled refugee).
However, Azim later expressed – in a way emblematic of general feeling on this point – worry that the lockdown might have a lasting impact on his language acquisition.
My perspective, my understanding of the course is only 50...but when I am at home it is really dropping down to 25%. I hope this won’t be remaining the way it is, this is more my concern (Azim, male resettled refugee).
Other participants, especially those who were younger or had been in Scotland longer, were familiar enough with English to navigate these interactions with services more easily. But these participants tended to then be responsible for helping family members navigate formal interactions. This is the case for Ameena, a university student from Afghanistan who lives with her parents. Both she and her father are asylum seekers who arrived in Glasgow to join Ameena’s mother who has been granted refugee status.
Language acquisition was perceived as the crucial aspect of their lives most impacted by the lockdown. Participants recognise that progress in language learning is essential to the top priority goals of accessing employment and navigating British society. The following account from Ashraf, a resettled refugee living in Ayr, demonstrates the knock-on effects that a lack of practice may have on language acquisition and therefore on making social connections and pursuing personal goals. He bemoans the lack of opportunity to speak English even prior to lockdown, which he attributes to his location and to inadequate language classes. In this sense his case differs from the norm as most experienced a distinct disruption to language acquisition. Ashraf recounts what he is missing.
Language is a tool to socialise with others and there is not much chance to learn English here. The opportunity is almost zero, and so we are very limited in our ability to make relationships, build connections and make friends here (Ashraf, male resettled refugee).
Isolation
Isolation emerged as a strong but often implicit theme among participants. With the resettled refugees in particular, a sense of the isolation which participants were experiencing over the lockdown period gradually emerged over the course of each interview. The full extent of their isolation was evidenced by the scarcity of social connections, infrequency of leaving the house and meeting others outdoors, and accounts of lack of friendly contact with neighbours during lockdown. Saranda, a resettled refugee from Albania explained that she often tries to greet her neighbours when passing in her building’s communal areas, but they ‘don’t speak’.
Others spoke of quite explicit physical isolation. Partly this came up as isolation from family members still living abroad in countries of origin, but some rather pertinently were very physically isolated either as a direct result of lockdown measures, or due to where they had been previously resettled. Pertaining to the former, Mehdi was one of the asylum seekers forced to stay in temporary hotel accommodation in Glasgow during lockdown with dozens of others in his situation. This constituted an intolerable isolation from the outside world, even if he was surrounded by more people than most participants.
It seems clear that those in the hotels were very isolated, even if surrounded by others because they were unable to help one another due to keeping with social distancing measures. Mehdi explains the low moods he experienced while staying in the hotel and the powerlessness he felt knowing that everyone around him was likely also dealing with their own personal problems.
Most of the time I was obviously stuck in the room and doing nothing, I mean I was that low (...) to be honest no one has come forward [to] speak about emotions...While we were in the hotel everyone had their own problems, everyone had their own situations(...) I did my bit and I have been trying to help as much as I could but there are things that I am not in charge and I don’t have that power to obviously support the friends that needed my support (Mehdi, male asylum seeker).
Geographic isolation also caused considerable challenges. A few participants had been resettled on the Orkney or Shetland islands and struggled to get the provisions they required during lockdown. Hafeez who lives in Orkney with his wife and two children shared his troubles along this vein.
The reason why we feel unsettled and unhappy now, because we’re Muslims...and the local supermarket used to cater for us by bringing some halal products in for our halal diet. But they don’t do that anymore because of the COVID crisis, because shipping costs are very, very high (Hafeez, male resettled refugee).
Others felt isolated from family members abroad. Saranda, whose extended family is still in Albania worried for their safety during the pandemic as she was not in contact with them and had heard that many had contracted COVID-19.
I have my sister, my brother, my niece, my cousin, everyone with COVID-19 and I don’t know what is happening there, I don’t know how their situation is (Saranda, female asylum seeker).
Some felt isolated from family who were nearby despite seeing them regularly. Ashraf is his parents’ primary carer but had problems visiting them during the pandemic when his parents’ neighbours caused difficulties for him. The unfriendly contact with the neighbours created additional stress for him during his daily visits to his parents.
I had daily responsibilities for them even before the lockdown. So I used to go just for a short while to do the necessary things for them. A few times, the neighbour called the police...People do not understand that we are an extended family, even in terms of care. I was their only carer but unfortunately I had trouble with the police (Ashraf, male resettled refugee)
One partial remedy for social isolation came in the form of digital connections, which acted as a lifeline between people and their friends and families elsewhere. However, for those with little or sporadic access to Wi-Fi or data, a further isolation was experienced in the form of digital isolation. These participants would have to turn to more creative ways of coping and spending their time. It should be noted that for the majority, this digital connection was crucial. Sarabi, an asylum seeker from Somalia and single mother with 3 children shared her struggles.
So, at the time when the lockdown set in, I just had the mobile phone. We had no data, we had no internet and it was very difficult not only for me but especially for the children now that they are not in school. And I didn’t have anything to kind of keep them at least connected with the internet or something like that (Sarabi, female asylum seeker).
Although nearly all participants experienced a change to their connectivity during lockdown, the extent to which the remaining social connections or lack thereof acted as a stressor or coping mechanism to participants depended on the situation of each person and the nature of the connections. The next section discusses stressors and the mental health of participants in more detail.
Stressors and mental health
The refugees and asylum seekers we interviewed mentioned several challenges which posed a great deal of stress to their daily lives. The first subsection (4.2.1) of this chapter examines the stressors people went through and the ways in which the COVID-19 lockdown contributed to these or exacerbated those which were already present. The second subsection (4.2.2) discusses their experiences with mental ill/health; that is, the extent to which these challenges contributed to manifestations of problematic mental ill health, or conversely mental health and wellbeing.
Stressors
Health fears
Fear of contracting COVID-19 was almost universal amongst the participants. Many expressed concern not just for themselves but also for family members who were shielding or with other vulnerabilities. The uncertainty of how the virus is transmitted caused unease for many and posed a significant worry, in particular for those with vulnerable family members at home. Rajaa, a resettled refugee from Syria now living Dundee shared her concerns about her husband who has a heart condition.
...we couldn’t go out because of his health, so all the time it was very hard, very challenging (...) it is difficult as well because, all the time you have to have a mask on, you shouldn’t be near somebody you know, you’ve got the social distancing, also because there is a bit of uncertainty [and] we have somebody vulnerable at home.For example just a few weeks ago my son had a bit of cold so we had to [all get tested] because of my husband...everything so small causes problems for us (Rajaa, female resettled refugee).
The above quote aptly highlights the impact the pandemic measures can have on people’s day-to day-lives.Conscious about protecting her husband, Rajaa feels that even the smallest things bring difficulty while trying to avoid infection in her home.
Several participants shared that they were also very worried about their children contracting the disease. Again, uncertainty over transmission, particularly at the start of the pandemic, played a large part. Kashif explained his concerns.
Mainly at the beginning I was very concerned for the health of my children, because at the beginning we were not sure, how do people actually get the infection? Because some people were saying it’s in the air, some people were saying it’s by touching, by different ways. It looked like people were not really clear about the infection methods of this pandemic and that’s why I was very concerned that we might catch it, our kids might catch it without us even realising that (Kashif, male resettled refugee).
For most, fear of infection was even more worrisome given the difficulty of accessing GP surgeries during lockdown. For refugees and asylum seekers, routine health visits have been fraught with barriers even before the pandemic. Navigating an unfamiliar health system in a foreign language can be very daunting at the best of times. The closures at the height of the pandemic meant that face-to- face appointments were unlikely. Valerie, an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of the Congo living in Glasgow experienced several health problems at the start of lockdown but was too scared to see her GP.
You cannot meet, you cannot go to see your GP. Maybe you're scared to go [to] your GP. And you’re scared go out, meet people, talk with people face-to-face, maybe with two meters [apart from each other] but I'm scared. (Valerie, female asylum seeker).
Mirza has been in Glasgow for 14 years but his wife arrived from Iran just a few months before the start of lockdown. They are expecting their first child together but experienced delays in accessing pre-natal care. For them being able to see a doctor during pregnancy provides a necessary reassurance, but they did not have this. Though Mirza speaks English fluently, his wife does not. The lack of face-to-face visits, particularly in circumstances where partners are not allowed in to see the midwife caused an additional struggle for his wife. Additionally, they did not feel they could adequately explain their concerns over the phone.
...now she has just managed to get an appointment with the midwife. But with the doctor usually he cannot see her [and] we cannot see them. It is just through the call back in the house, but you cannot explain properly. You need sometimes to have piece of mind; you want the doctor to see the patient and find out exactly what’s happening (Mirza, male resettled refugee).
Health related fears brought about the need to calculate and weigh the risks of otherwise normal day-to-day activities. Sadiq, an asylum-seeker from Nigeria lives with a flatmate whom he does not know very well. They had only just met when the flatmate was placed to live with him just before lockdown. He explained the process of how he and his flatmate have to navigate simple activities to minimise their risk of exposure from each other, such as leaving their respective bedrooms to go to the kitchen.
We had to, you know, just be smart. We had to clean...you know, we had wipes everywhere. Everything you want to touch, you had to wipe it down...and then if I had to open my door, I had to open my door and see if there is someone in the corridor. Then once I’m in the kitchen I had to close the door, and if anyone wants to come in, the person has to knock and if someone is in the kitchen, the person has to go back (Sadiq, male asylum seeker).
Stressors related to people’s living situations, akin to what Sadiq experienced were mentioned by several participants. Valerie had a similar situation, explaining that she felt like a ‘prisoner in her own home’ while living her current housemate.
Stressors related to people’s living situations, akin to what Sadiq experienced were mentioned by several participants. Valerie had a similar situation, explaining that she felt like a ‘prisoner in her own home’ while living her current housemate.
I feel like we are enemies, but we share the same house, we can’t talk, I can’t touch anything she touches (Valerie, female asylum seeker).
Mehdi, who was abruptly uprooted from a flat in Glasgow to the hotel at the start of the pandemic felt he was in a dire situation. He explained that he felt unsafe in the hotel which was overcrowded with asylum seekers such as himself. Despite these conditions, the craving for social connection was strong and he and the other hotel tenants would try to interact as a way of empathising with each other despite these risks.
There were over 70 people in the hotel and like three or four people were using one bathroom at the same time (...) when we were sitting together or when we were talking together...we were sharing our stories (...) It did help a little bit to take our sadness away [but] you are stuck in with 70 people. That’s very unsafe...we knew it was dangerous (Mehdi, male asylum seeker).
Managing life alongside the pandemic
Even with the challenges brought on by the pandemic and lockdown, people still had to carry on with their day-to-day lives. Like much of the global population, this often meant facing even tighter budgets or losing much needed work hours. For refugees and asylum seekers who are already likely to be experiencing poverty and sometimes destitution, even the smallest change in routine can have detrimental effects. The move to a digital only lifestyle posed a great challenge for participants who could not afford to keep up mobile data or pay for internet. Further, the no-cash policy enforced by most shops as a safety measure created additional barriers for some. Saranda described the stress of not being able to use cash since she didn’t have a bank account, let alone access to credit or debit cards.
We are not allowed to open a bank account...maybe I can buy unlimited WiFi because we need it, but I don’t have a bank account and they don’t accept cash. Money things are settled in cash and money things are made by online payment or by card, but when they open the shops after lockdown, they don’t accept cash, but we don’t have a bank account. This is more stressful (Saranda, female asylum seeker).
Finances were a concern for nearly all of the participants. Many of those who were working prior to lockdown lost their jobs or found themselves with reduced hours. Mirza who runs a mobile phone shop described the precarity of his financial situation with the slowing of business during lockdown.
Karim poignantly described the direct connection between access to work and freedom of choice.
I am not free. When you work, you feel free. You can go and you can come (Karim, male resettled refugee).
He had been working as a mechanic in his hometown of Baghdad for several years but even with permission to work in the UK, he found that he was unable to re-join his trade without a national certification. He was about to start an internship to begin the certification process but the company suffered major setbacks during lockdown and went out of business.
Asylum seekers and refugees who were not yet able to work often struggled to make ends meet. Many who were having difficulty stretching the support received explained that this was sometimes the case even before lockdown, but had been exacerbated due to pandemic-related processing delays. Hafsa found it difficult constantly having to chase her family’s housing benefit.
It was difficult because we have to apply every three months to get a [housing] grant, then the housing benefit, to help us. Sometimes they sent them, sometimes they [didn’t] (...) Sometimes they covered just one month or just two weeks, but every time we had to apply, they would be late, and the council, or the city, or the company of the housing, sent us an email or letter you have to obey, you have to pay (Hafsa,female asylum seeker)
