The Community Sponsorship Alliance (CSA) were represented at King’s College London (KCL) on Tuesday 16th July at their joint conference presenting their draft policy framework for Safe Pathways. Over the last few months, the CSA and KCL have collaborated in creating a safe pathways policy to take to government, hosting workshops and a conference, encouraging contributions from other national refugee resettlement organisations and individuals with lived experience of seeking sanctuary.
The day started with an interactive workshop, discussing three of the key areas of focus within the policy: 1) Sanctuary mechanism and eligibility 2) Naming and matching 3) Welcome and inclusion.
The recurring points made were how expanding safe routes should not be a replacement to the already existing schemes; the benefits of empowering local and resettled communities in being able to name and be a part of the matching process; and to emphasise that regardless of route taken or status, integration is for everyone and the government need to be working with local authorities to create an equitable offer to all resettled communities.
Moving forward, we discussed some key next steps summarised below:
Unified Voice & Initiative Mapping: Recognising the importance and legitimacy of presenting a unified voice to our government. By mapping out existing initiatives and forming a cohesive group, we can strengthen our collective impact and ensure consistency in our actions and approach.
Engaging Stakeholders & Legal Experts: Involving legal experts and expanding our outreach will broaden the participation and perspective whilst supporting us with legal complexities.
Focused Goals & Government Proposals: Identifying achievable goals for parliamentary investment and creating a focused proposal for the government will support the sector in concentrating on a few impactful objectives: building a stronger foundation for our efforts in the future.
Communication & Collaboration: Enhancing communication and resource sharing across the sector is essential for collaboration and coherence in our objectives.
Working Groups: Creating working groups across the network, focusing on different areas of the framework, to draw upon a wider range of expertise, working more efficiently and effectively.
Presenting the Framework: Considering the example set by the Climate sector, agreeing on a basic set of principles across the network and then unifying our proposals, presenting a well-structured and cohesive plan will strengthen our position.
The afternoon was a public sharing of the policy framework, presented by Leonie Ansem De Vries, Jonathan Birtwell, Aqeel Abdulla and Lucy Kneebone with King’s College London. Followed by panel speakers: Tetyana Hnatyuk (Migration Yorkshire), Hannah Gregory (Pathways International) and Susannah Baker MBE (CSA & Pickwell Foundation).
Aqeel Abdulla shared his case for safe pathways, emphasising that it extends beyonds physical safety; it also involves addressing emotional and mental well-being. Integration should be a two-way street where both migrants and hosts/sponsors/volunteers learn from each other, enriching the community. Moving from a ‘deficit-based approach’ which focuses on filling gaps, to an ‘asset-based approach’ which highlights the strengths and contributions of sanctuary seekers, offering a sense of purpose and belonging. This sustainable and respectful method helps overcome deficits more effectively. Aqeel reflected on how collaboration projects like applied theatre can emphasise shared humanity and significantly reduce loneliness and isolation, empowering individuals to make meaningful and lasting contributions to their new communities.
Tetyana Hnatyuk considered the barriers of the matching process between hosts and guests for the Homes of Ukraine scheme. While organisations in Poland collaborated with the UK to match hosts and guests via questionnaires and spontaneous facebook groups, some potential hosts were overlooked by local authorities. The decision making process for applying to the scheme was time consuming and very generalised. To improve future schemes, a dedicated organisation should coordinate the process, ensuring that it is thorough and considers cultural similarities to establish a more welcoming environment.
Hannah Gregory shared her learnings from community led welcome and emphasised that there is a huge amount of untapped resources in the community. With 1 million newcomers, there are millions of potential welcomers, demonstrating great diversity in hospitality: ‘ordinary people doing extraordinary things’. A fundamental aspect is ‘naming’, giving people and organisations the power to choose who they welcome, tapping into those otherwise invisible connections. For example, in Italy, a women’s cycling team connected with an Afghan women’s cycling team and were able to welcome them over a shared passion. Furthermore, people favour controlled immigration systems which sponsorship and other safe routes offer alongside compassion which we have seen increases public support. Finally, a reflection that the UK has been at the forefront for the global protection system, second only to Canada, with initiatives like Community Sponsorship, Homes for Ukraine and Communities for Afghans. This presents the opportunity for the UK to further embrace and lead on the global stage, continuing to innovate and grow these systems.
Susannah Baker completed the panel discussion by sharing advantages and disadvantages of naming and matching. The CSA wholeheartedly stands by the introduction of naming and matching - ‘positive integration stories lead to more positive integration stories.’
The advantages include personalised support and better integration through cultural and language compatibility, tailored assistance, enhanced community engagement with increased commitment, and building stronger bonds. Additionally, these mechanisms improve efficiency in resource allocation by ensuring optimal use of resources and targeted support services. However, disadvantages include the complexity and potential resource intensity of the administrative process, data privacy concerns, potential mismatches and discrimination, unintended exclusion, and the risk of reinforcing biases. There are also challenges with unrealistic expectations, which can lead to conflicts or dissatisfaction. Overall, the success of these mechanisms depends on careful design and implementation, effective monitoring, continuous evaluation, and adaptive strategies to maximise benefits and mitigate disadvantages. The CSA believes it can be done well, and there are already mechanisms that exist that provide an excellent foundation upon which we can build.
The day’s workshop and discussions highlighted the urgency to improve existing routes and to offer additional safe pathways to those that need it most. Using the momentum of a new government, collaborating strengths and expertise across our networks and empowering our communities with opportunities to welcome, we are set to create a sustainable and safe framework for those seeking sanctuary. Sharing more stories of welcoming and successful community integration to create a more positive narrative of refugee resettlement.
Comments