The Russian invasion of Ukraine has forced at least 12 million Ukrainians to flee their homes. Many of these refugees have moved elsewhere in Europe, including to the UK, where the government offered specialised visa routes and programmes. One was the Homes for Ukraine scheme, which matched Ukrainian refugees with British host families. Over 100,000 Britons registered their interest in hosting within a day of the scheme launching.
The latest figures show that over 165,000 visas have been granted and 127,000 Ukrainians have now arrived via the scheme.
In a new report, we explore the motivations behind this reaction, and whether host enthusiasm is enough to declare the programme a success. Our findings suggest that parts of the scheme could be replicated for other vulnerable groups. But its potential as a long-term solution to displacement needs serious rethinking for future scenarios.
A temporary solution
Homes for Ukraine was intended to provide temporary accommodation and support for six months, until people either returned to Ukraine or could support themselves. Those on the scheme were eligible for benefits, could enter employment and were permitted to remain in the UK for up to three years.
But a year and a half later, the war shows no signs of stopping, leaving some Ukrainians in the UK homeless or destitute. Many have struggled to find more permanent housing with reported homelessness rising significantly in recent months.
The key problem with the scheme was that it lacked a formal plan for moving Ukrainians into more permanent accommodation after hosting arrangements ended, or if the hosting relationship broke down.
Hosts we interviewed recognised very early on that six months would not be long enough for guests to settle, navigate all the systems and enter employment or education. Some also reported that they felt a sense of obligation to maintain hosting relationships for longer than the advertised period.
Problems in the housing market that affect the general UK renter population are also hurting Ukrainian refugees. A lack of local authority and private rented options, as well as landlords not wanting to rent to those claiming benefits, mean that there are few places for people to go if their hosts end the arrangement.
At the end of 2022, the government announced new funding to local authorities to provide longer term housing, as well as for hosts who continue to host.
But increasing financial incentives for hosts is unlikely to make hosting a long-term option for Ukrainians, or people affected by other future conflicts. Our findings show hosts were not motivated by financial incentives, but rather the emotional connection to victims.
Why do people host?
Hosts participated in the scheme for a number of reasons, including a sense of shared culture with the displaced people, and feelings of compassion and empathy towards their situations. Hosts described Ukrainians, especially women and children, as being displaced “by no fault of their own”. The scheme also appealed to hosts who had family history of displacement in other conflicts, or of hosting the displaced during the second world war.
Many were motivated to participate due to continuous media coverage of the conflict. The imagery and narratives of vulnerable women and children and heroic male military volunteers made the conflict and its victims feel near and real to them.
This was a contrast to hosts’ understanding of other conflicts, which they described as more culturally “distant”. Hosts said they were not as able to engage or empathise with the displaced in other cultures and conflicts, such as in Syria, as much.
Their comments speak to the power of the media and government messaging in influencing the public’s willingness to assist. This paints a somewhat bleak picture, suggesting that the success of hosting schemes is dependent on potential hosts feeling culturally connected and empathetic for the victims of a conflict.
There was also a practical element, in that hosts felt they had the space and resources to open their homes to a single refugee or family. For some, the financial cost incurred was negated by payments from the government, but most families were economically stable enough that hosting did not overextend their resources. In the cost of living crisis and as mortgage payments increase for many homeowners, this generosity may have a limit.
Future schemes
Ukrainians are just one group of vulnerable people arriving in the UK in need of safe accommodation and support. The hosting of migrants in hotels and on barges is proving to be an unsustainable system, as well as a physical and mental health risk.
There are elements of the Homes for Ukraine scheme that were a clear success, and could be introduced again for future populations. The offer of a safe and legal visa route to the UK meant that Ukrainians were not making dangerous or clandestine journeys.
Allowing hosts to match with guests meant they could become familiar with each other before the arrangement began. And giving Ukrainian refugees the right to work meant they could participate in the community and avoid becoming financially dependent on their hosts.
With the right structures and systems in place, hosting schemes could be a short-term solution for those seeking refuge in the UK. It would require vocal lobbying from hosts who had a positive experience, and would be willing to participate again. The government would also need to reassure hosts about the length of their commitment – some felt the government was taking advantage of their hospitality by not planning for long-term accommodation for Ukrainians.
The biggest remaining question, as our report shows, is how to entice people to host populations they may not feel as familiar with. Surveys have shown that the British public has warmer attitudes towards Ukrainian migrants compared to other groups. And the government’s current rhetoric framing refugees as a burden and invasion is unlikely to help.
Kate Garbers received funding from Commonweal Housing to undertake this research through the University of Nottingham's Rights Lab.
Audrey Lumley-Sapanski was paid through the research funds the Rights Lab received via Commonweal to undertake research on the HfU scheme.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
