4. THEMES EMERGING FROM THE RESEARCH

The following is a brief descriptive review of the key themes arising from the literature contained in the annotated bibliography. As stated above, the bibliography and review focus specifically on material that relates to some aspect of longer-term settlement of quota refugees (i.e. those who have been accepted offshore through the UNHCR for resettlement by a host country). Readers who are interested in more general debates (for example, on migrant settlement, integration and social cohesion, data collection or the implications of the use of particular terminology in relation to long-term settlement) are directed to the range of literature reviews and bibliographies listed in the footnote on the first page of the introduction.

Section A of the review focuses on the various ways in which the terms 'integration' and 'social cohesion' have been explored in relation to refugees.

Section B presents an overview of the main methods of researching refugees.

Section C reviews research that explores the role of identity and citizenship in the longer-term settlement of refugees. This includes a discussion of the role of cultural and ethnic identity, citizenship and the transnational links that refugees bring with them or develop in the host country, as well as the factors that affect these elements.

Section D presents themes arising from research on community and social networks including on factors that facilitate or act as barriers to the formation of networks and on the contribution they might make to feelings of belonging or accessing employment opportunities. Highlights from the research on the role of the host community are also included.

Section E considers research that discusses various aspects of social exclusion, including racism and humiliation.

Section F briefly presents findings concerned with dispersal policies, while sections G, H, I and J respectively present research relating to the importance of education and training, employment, health and housing in facilitating long-term settlement and on the barriers and facilitators that may be involved with these aspects.

Section K is an overview of the findings specific to demographic categories of refugees, namely women, older refugees, children and youth (including the 1.5 generation) and refugees with disabilities.

A. Integration and social cohesion

The arrival of refugees in a receiving country is the first step in a long journey to successful settlement. Their arrival impacts both individual refugees and their families and the communities in which they settle. The Newcomer Settlement Continuum developed as part of New Zealand's Settlement Knowledge Base project sets out a non-linear pathway that focuses on three phases of settlement as a basis for gathering information about the experience of newcomers (including refugees) to New Zealand:

• Pre-arrival - the period leading up to the move to New Zealand.
• Arrival and settling - a period post arrival in New Zealand when there is high settlement-focused activity for both newcomers and New Zealand communities.
• Integrated/settled - by which stage newcomers can access all mainstream services should they wish to and do not require targeted settlement services to do so. They ideally understand their rights, have equal access to opportunities and have choices and social connections. They have transitioned from being newcomers to feeling accepted, having a sense of belonging and being part of New Zealand communities. The outcome is facilitated through an inclusive society with responsive services and a shared respect for diversity.^[10]

A number of terms have been used to describe long-term settlement, including integration, assimilation (including segmented assimilation and structural or functional assimilation), acculturation, adaptation, incorporation, inclusion, exclusion, insertion, settlement, social cohesion, citizenship and a race relations approach (Castles, Korac, Vasta and Vertovec 2002 [A24]).

In recent years, the terms 'integration' and 'social cohesion' have become the most favoured and the most debated. They are, at times, used interchangeably, but the way these terms are used and how they may be measured remains fraught.

Feelings of being settled or of belonging are two of the concepts that are discussed in relation to definitions of integration and social cohesion (for example, Hedetoft 2007 [A11]; European Commission 2005^[11]). For example, the Refugee Council of Australia^[12] suggests that, in recent years, there has been much discussion of what constitutes 'settlement' and about the length of time it takes to feel 'settled' in a community. They state that it is agreed that tangible factors such as income support, housing, employment, education, healthcare and family reunion are essential but suggest that less tangible factors also play a vital role in the settlement process. These less tangible factors include being able to feel safe and secure, restoring a sense of self-worth and dignity, regaining a sense of control over one's life, resolving guilt and processing grief about the loss of self and country.

There is, however, no single agreed understanding of the term integration (Castles, Korac, Vasta and Vertovec 2002 [A24]) and it is a highly complex issue (Atfield, Brambhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]) and a contested concept (Zetter, Griffiths, Sigona and Hauser 2002 [A18]; Atfield, Brambhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]). One of the main difficulties with the term 'integration' is that it has often been used in popular discourse to mean 'assimilation'. Many popular attitudes and policies are based on the assumption that integration is a one-way process (Castles, Korac, Vasta and Vertovec 2002 [A24]). Peace, Spoonley, Butcher and O'Neill (2005) [A33] note that the discourse on integration upholds notions of uniformity and compliance. That is, the onus is on immigrants or refugees to adapt to society, while the receiving or host society does very little, if anything in the way of accommodation.

A definition by Matikainen (2005)^[13] overcomes this problem, in that it recognises that integration requires adaptation on the part of the host society as well as the newcomers and that both the host society and migrant groups are heterogeneous. He defines integration as:

The processes by which individual and groups of immigrants are incorporated into various social arenas and segments of the new host society. Integration is a two-way process whereby both the immigrants and the host society adapt new features as a result of their interaction. Interaction may also have transnational dimensions.

Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole (2007) [D1] similarly focus on integration as a two-way process, while also adding two other aspects to their definition. For them, integration is conceived of as:

• a two-way process - it involves adjustment and participation on the part of the host society as well as the newcomer
• a non-linear process - integration may be fractured, and integration experiences in one area can sit alongside continued exclusion in other areas
• a subjective process - perceptions are central to the process of integration, and therefore, it is important to explore refugees' own experiences of the integration process.

According to Castles and Miller (2003),^[14] integration can take place in three different ways. Some migrants can and will merge with the general population, some will form ethnic communities, and some will form ethnic minorities. The last group tends to include the most disadvantaged people who share experiences of racism, weak legal status and segregation from mainstream society.

Matikainen (2005)^[15] suggests that integration has three dimensions: cultural integration, structural integration and political integration. Migrants and the host community may present or experience more opportunities and constraints in one of these areas than another, which reinforces the view that integration is inevitably an uneven and uncertain process. This is particularly likely to be the case for refugees and other involuntary migrants, who have had less choice over whether to migrate and where they would like to settle.

Other authors have also conceptualised integration in a similar fashion. One model describes normative, functional and pragmatic integration:

• 'Normative' integration expects immigrants to accept and internalise the host country's norms and values in the public sphere, at work and in their private lives.
• 'Functional' integration emphasises the importance of active citizenship and civic participation.
• 'Pragmatic' integration focuses on immigrants finding jobs and fending for themselves (Hedetoft 2007 [A11]; Zetter, Griffiths, Sigona and Hauser 2002 [A18]).

Models of integration also vary from one host country to another and within countries. For example, in the United States, the main focus is on economic integration, while the focus in Europe seems to be more on linguistic and cultural integration. Within Europe, countries have different national models of citizenship and nationhood that impact on the integration model they choose to adopt (Martiniello 2004 [A4]; Noll and van Selm 2003 [A15]; Zetter, Griffiths, Sigona and Hauser 2002 [A18]). In each country, variables such as the degree of independence afforded to refugees, the timing of integration measures and eligibility for support mediate the process in significant ways.

The literature suggests that each country needs to develop a model that suits its economic, social and cultural mix and that it might also be beneficial to allow different regions within each country to develop different models, methods and organisational practices to promote integration at the local level (Berg 1997 [A22]).

Regardless of the model of integration that countries adopt, the literature suggests that the two-way process is rarely synchronised. In almost every case, refugees have to make more adjustments in the early stages, usually in a pragmatic way, while the host community responds later and to varying degrees by making normative and cultural adjustments to the newcomers (Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007 [A9]; Joppke 2007 [A14]). The process depends to some extent on how much the state intervenes to protect migrants' own language and culture, supports them to find work and promotes anti-discrimination laws and policies. Integration can take a long time and may never be fully achieved, even after several generations. The longer it takes, the greater the risk that refugees may retreat into their own communities (Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007 [A9]; European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2005 [A1]).

One view expressed in the literature reviewed for this bibliography is that integration describes the process that takes place when refugees are empowered to achieve their full potential as members of society and to contribute to the community (Home Office 2005 [A28]). Social cohesion is seen as the outcome of this process by some authors (Beirens, Hughes, Hek and Spicer 2007 [D2]).

In the New Zealand context, social cohesion is a component of government and policy debates. One aspect of this work has included developing indicators of social cohesion, by drawing on the work of Peace, Spoonley, Butcher and O'Neill (2005) [A33]. Under this framework, social cohesion is framed according to the dimensions of social cohesion identified by Canadian social theorist Jane Jenson.^[16] Jenson notes that the term 'social cohesion' is used to describe a process rather than a condition or end state. It is seen as involving a sense of commitment and the desire or capacity to live together in some harmony. She defines it as "the ongoing process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians". The five dimensions of social cohesion identified by Jenson are:

• belonging (as opposed to isolation)
• participation (as opposed to non-involvement)
• inclusion (as opposed to exclusion)
• recognition (as opposed to rejection)
• legitimacy (as opposed to illegitimacy) (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]).

Another report identifies six variables related to social cohesion: pride in country; sense of belonging; interpersonal trust; social values; social networks; and voting (Soroka, Johnston and Banting 2007 [E13]). A third suggests that:

• cohesive societies have high levels of participation, respect and trust among their members
• social cohesion is concerned with issues of inclusion and equal opportunities of access
• all groups have a sense of belonging, participation, inclusion, recognition and legitimacy
• high levels of social cohesion are associated with healthier populations, safer communities, safer communities and employment opportunities (Butcher and Hall 2007 [A23]).

Overall, this review found relatively little research on the long-term resettlement of refugees. Some countries do not take a particularly long-term view of resettlement. In the United States, refugees are expected to find work within six months and cease receiving financial benefits soon after that. Other countries, like the Netherlands and Denmark, require refugees to spend a considerable time becoming familiar with the norms and values of the host society. However, they do not require host country citizens to become as accepting of values, traditions and experiences of refugees, and this has been identified as a reason for refugees feeling separate from the host society (Ives 2005 [A2]).

These different approaches affect not only the nature of integration but also refugees' perceptions of the receptiveness of the host country, their sense of belonging and/or the belief that they will be able to belong one day (Hudson, Phillips, Ray and Barnes 2007 [A42]; Ives 2005 [A2]). Some research suggests that, from a refugee's perspective, developing a sense of belonging may be equally or more dependent on an absence of racism or discrimination than on pragmatic factors like economic participation, for example, through employment (Ager and Strang 2004a [A19]; Ager and Strang 2004b [A20]; Rutter, Cooley, Reynolds and Sheldon 2007 [A45]; Pittaway and Bartolomei 2001 [E8]). Obviously, refugees value structural integration, through gaining employment and education, but this does not always come with a sense of cultural integration or feeling accepted.

In a British study of refugees, for example, the authors identified six facets of integration:

• Psycho-social contentment - fulfilment, a sense of security, the absence of anxiety and feelings of welcome and belonging.
• Interaction between members of a household and the wider society.
• Participation in civil society institutions, in public institutions, the workplace and in political life.
• Equality of access, equality of treatment and progress towards equality of outcome.
• Respect for the rule of law and the liberal values that underpin society.
• The possession of social, civil and political rights (Rutter, Cooley, Reynolds and Sheldon 2007 [A45]).

These priorities are reflected in other research that has found that both refugees and non-refugees see relationships as the core mechanism for securing integration. Refugees, in particular, value peace/absence of war, political/religious freedom and living in a multiethnic and multicultural country (Ager and Strang 2004a [A19]; Hickman, Crowley and Mai 2008 [A41]; Yu, Ouellet and Warmington 2007 [A8]). Some interviewees accept absence of conflict as an indication of a well-integrated community. Others aspire to more active mixing of groups, acceptance of diversity and difference, friendliness, participation in shared activities and equality of access to services. For some, a sense of belonging means having close ties with strong family members, committed friendships within and across the groups making up the community and a sense of shared values.

Recommendations for integration policy stress the importance of government and refugee organisations acknowledging the familial and inter-generational aspects of integration and communicating the two-way nature of integration to the whole population (Rutter, Cooley Reynolds and Sheldon 2007 [A45]). Policy interventions need to tackle fears of change and remove barriers to participation, including racial harassment and negative media reporting. The literature proposes that this is best achieved by establishing a joined-up and coherent mechanism for mainstreaming issues that cut across all aspects of integration, such as age and gender and equity of access, developing responsive public services, building the capacity of new communities and encouraging civic participation (Nontapattamadul 2000 [A44]).

Integration/social cohesion: indicators and models

Extensive work has been carried out on developing indicators of integration, not only for refugees, but for all migrants. Appendix C provides six examples of indicator frameworks that have been developed over the past ten years.

Coussey and Christensen (1997) [A26] suggest, for example, that a range of qualitative and quantitative measures can be used to "show over time the extent to which immigrants participate in economic life, and the extent of interaction with the receiving society. The measures would vary according to the activity; for example whether the aim is proportionality of access or relations between groups, or the provision of special facilities and compensatory schemes."

Some authors suggest that, while integration can be measured for individuals, families or households, social cohesion always refers to a relationship or a collective phenomenon (European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2005 [A1]; Shelley 2001 [D7]). Others authors disagree, arguing that social cohesion is no less measurable and tangible than integration (for example, Butcher and Hall 2007 [A23]).

Overall, the research recognises the difficulties in gathering data, agreeing on interpretations and definitions, and deciding on how information might be used in planning, policy development and for funding. Coussey and Christensen (1997) [A26] set out some principles for the development of indicators. These include that data should be capable of being aggregated and disaggregated and this grouping of data should provide a hierarchy of measures. They also suggest that data should be available at institutional levels where appropriate, as well as regional or national levels and that it should enable identification of gaps between the distribution among particular groups and the majority, and the change in distribution over time. To facilitate comparing 'like with like', data on other characteristics such as age, sex, educational attainment and income need to be collected. They also suggest that there is a need for qualitative data to assess changes in the perceptions and experiences of the majority and minority populations, particularly from a sector or institutional perspective. (For further discussion, see Phillimore and Goodson (2008) [A34].)

The need for each country to conceptualise its own indicators and align them with other local frameworks is highlighted in the literature. While this makes comparisons between countries more difficult, it does or should reflect the various models of integration currently in use within a country.

Key indicators are discussed under the sections that follow (for example, for economic participation, health, housing and so on), and Appendix C provides a list of indicators and their source.

The conceptual framework of integration developed by Ager and Strang (2004b [A20]; 2008 [A21]) in the United Kingdom has been widely used by researchers and policy makers. The framework is structured round ten domains grouped under four headings:

• Means and markers [of integration] - employment, housing, health and education
• Social connections - social bonds, social bridges and social links
• Facilitators - language and cultural knowledge and safety and stability
• Foundation - rights and citizenship

Phillimore and Goodson (2008) [A34] assessed the value of this framework through considering the usefulness of the indicators in the light of available data from four studies conducted in the Birmingham region. They concluded that:

• employment is central to economic advancement - it helps to establish social roles, develop language, cultural understanding, social connections and a sense of security
• housing is a fundamental need (i.e. shelter as in Maslow's hierarchy) and that finding a home symbolically marks the end of a journey - the absence of secure housing inhibits partaking in education, training or employment, healthcare or social groups
• education was the third most important indicator, but if English learning is included, it becomes the most important factor to aid settlement
• health was primarily a concern for refugees with health problems.

Appendix C includes a brief overview of the gaps they identified. In brief, they suggested including a refugee marker in a variety of surveys conducted with the general population (for example, the General Household Survey and Census), more robust data collection techniques at the institutional level, and longitudinal data on how refugees are integrating into the labour market. They also emphasise the value of a qualitative approach to understand the interactions between indicators and the experiential side of integration and suggest that consideration be given to ways of exploring the level of adaptation by the host community and institutions.

The New Zealand literature on social cohesion and integration in this bibliography focuses mainly on developing an indicator framework for measuring the impact of settlement policies. It explores current conceptual debates about social cohesion, including discussion of shared values, participation and inclusion, systemic and individual barriers, spatial separation and exclusion and the role of social capital. Papers propose indicators covering belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, legitimacy and ethnic diversity (Peace, Spoonley, Butcher and O'Neill 2005 [A33]; Spoonley, Peace, Chapman and Young [A35]; Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]). The Ministry of Social Development's publication Diverse communities - exploring the migrant and refugee experience in New Zealand also acknowledges a lack of New Zealand data on many topics including outcomes for second and subsequent generations, outcomes at regional and local level, host and migrant/refugee perceptions and interactions and comparisons with overseas experiences (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]).

Definitions of refugees and implications

Under the current UNHCR model, designations or categories, and the mandates flowing from them, determine the response of the UN system to humanitarian needs. Yet much of the literature subsumes refugees under the broader class of migrant. Several authors argue that refugees are vulnerable to imposed labels and when the line between migrant and refugee blurs, so does the distinction between migration control and refugee protection. Where refugees are seen as little more than a subgroup of irregular migrants, the control of their movement is likely to take precedence over meeting their protection needs. Another consequence is the growing unpopularity of refugees because of fear that they will take jobs, commit crimes or simply stay too long (Feller 2005 [A47]; Zetter 1991 [A48]).

A smaller group of researchers opposes this distinction, arguing that refugees should be seen as part of a broader diaspora (for example, Crisp 1999 [C15]).

In two papers, written 16 years apart, Zetter has explored the concept of refugee labelling. In the first, he noted that, when stereotyped identities are translated into bureaucratically assumed needs, the refugee label takes on a selective meaning (Zetter 1991 [A48]). The literature also describes how bureaucracies can create different categories of refugee in order to prioritise need and assign limited resources. This process creates distinctions between one 'type' of refugee and another and between refugee and non-refugee. He argues that implications of such definitions should not be ignored nor should the powerlessness of refugees in these processes. In the later paper, Zetter contends that patterns of forced migration are much more complex than in the past, and governments, rather than NGOs, are the pre-eminent agency in the process of transforming the refugee label. The refugee label has become politicised by embedding the prevailing political discourse of resistance to migrants and refugees (Zetter 2007 [A49]).

B. Methods used to conduct research with refugee populations

The Department of Labour's interest was primarily on factors involved in the long-term settlement of quota refugees; however, it was often difficult to find material that specified length of residence in the host country or that focused solely on those who had the equivalent of quota refugee status. Nevertheless, there is clearly a body of research focused on the experience of refugees beyond their initial settlement. Such research has been commissioned by governments and pan-national bodies with an interest in refugee outcomes and been undertaken in academic settings by researchers and postgraduate students, or by researchers within refugee communities, service provider groups or educationalists.

The two most commonly employed methodologies have been a) use of interviews and focus groups and b) analysis of government statistical databases (for example, Census and labour market data) where refugee-specific information is available or can be derived. Some studies combine these methodologies in order to provide complementary information on the self-reported experience of refugees and those involved with them with how they fare in comparison with other groups as measured in official records. Other methods of substantiating findings have been to study the experience of refugees from one source country/group in multiple host country settings and/or refugees from multiple source countries in one host country. Within these broad methodologies, there are many variations, including the use of existing or specifically designed scales and tests as part of interviews or combining interview methodologies with ethnographic research such as participant observation. Studies vary in their scale, comprehensiveness and purpose, with some research clearly focused on exploring and identifying factors involved with the refugee experience, and other research focused on measuring this experience in comparison with other groups.

C. Identity and citizenship

Citizenship

Entitlement to and applications for citizenship are an indicator of a country's willingness to accept refugees and of a refugee's commitment to the host country. Voting rights may work particularly well for establishing social cohesion because they are universal egalitarian policies, implemented to put other citizens on an equal footing with majority groups (Hickman, Crowley and Mai 2008 [A41]).

However, the relationship between application for citizenship and belonging is not straightforward, given that some countries allow dual citizenship while others do not. Issues of political incorporation or naturalisation may have less to do with migrants and refugees than with their reception in the host country (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]; Bloemraad 2003 [C1]). For some groups, citizenship is tied to security, particularly where people are made refugees on the basis of their ethnicity rather than their cultural or national identity (Gozdziak and Shandy 2002 [C10]). Others prefer the option of dual citizenship as a strategy to maximise social and economic capital and personal and collective security (Um 2006 [C18]).

Ethnic identity

Central elements of ethnic identity include a shared history and a subjective sense of belonging, often experienced through religion, shared values, type of community and language. Refugees may share a common ethnicity but not feel that they belong to a particular 'ethnic community' as perceived by the host society. Differences in class, place of origin, religion and aspirations make such assumptions inappropriate. Identity processes are mediated by the groups refugees belong to or aspire to belong to. A more enduring and substantial identity reconstruction seems to depend on successful socioeconomic integration, which opens the possibility of new desirable social roles and memberships (Colic-Peisker 2003 [C7]).

Retaining ethnic identity contributes significantly to refugee wellbeing and is vital for refugees' successful adaptation into a new society. It enables refugees to cope with many adversities and function as normal human beings. The literature routinely stresses the importance of host country members understanding the different cultural aspects that inform adaptation processes, particularly cultural scripts relating to families, marriage, gender and gender roles (Engebritsen 2007 [C9]).

Social relations within one's own community facilitate cultural retention and transmission, while relations with other communities broaden horizons. Over time, some aspects of the original culture are likely to be retained, others are modified and, increasingly, the host country language becomes adopted as a medium of communication (Debski 2008 [C8]).

Studies have found that a majority of New Zealanders agree that migrants (including refugees) should retain their original culture while also adopting New Zealand culture (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]). As the discussions on social community and social networks and social exclusion below illustrate, this view is not always honoured in practice.

Language maintenance

A small number of articles include findings relating to the maintenance or development of refugees' mother tongue (or heritage language).

Zhou and Bankston (2000) [K24] found that Vietnamese language classes and other programmes featuring ethnic culture enhanced the scholastic performance of Vietnamese school children, while Hek (2005) [G5] found that the presence of specialist teachers who speak their first language and have skills in addressing specific learning needs was one of several factors that helped young people settle in school.

Ward (2008) [K20] notes that migrant youth have a strong orientation towards their heritage culture, and this largely remains stable across generations as evidenced by strong ethnic identity and frequent contact with ethnic peers. Nevertheless, ethnic language use and proficiency decrease over successive generations. Similarly, Hyman, Vu and Beiser (2000) [K14] found that youth expressed respect for their parents' values and a desire to maintain the language and way of life. However, they were also attracted to sometimes incompatible Canadian values and practices. Many were ambivalent about their ethnic identity. Some were conscious that other Canadians viewed Vietnamese in a less than sympathetic light.

Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen (2008) [E12] found that a lack of language retention was one of several significant issues that contributed to New Zealand-based migrant and refugee youth not feeling settled or socially included.

Boyd (2003) [G11] also notes that there is a trend in Nordic countries towards a less generous policy towards immigrant minority languages in favour of an emphasis on integration (equated with assimilation) and learning the majority language. She suggests, however, that bilingual educational practice does have benefits when it has the following features:

• The goal of instruction is bilinguism or multilinguism, not only learning the majority language or integration.
• The initiative comes at least from participants and/or the community, and they are locally run projects that aim to involve the local community in decision making.
• They involve members of the community as bilingual or multilingual teachers, which means that children see that skills in their languages are valued and the languages can be used as languages of instruction.
• All the programmes teach other subjects, in addition to language, in other languages than the host country language (Boyd 2003 [G11]).

Transnationalism, global links and diaspora

Transnationalism refers to various kinds of global connections between people sharing some form of common identity (i.e. they are based on place of origin and cultural or linguistic traits (Vertovec 2001 [C21]). The literature suggests that refugees have such friends and contacts locally, nationally, in other countries of exile and in their country of origin. Separation by distance is less of an issue than ease and cost of contact (Tseng 2004 [D11]). One author suggests transnationalism "needs to involve a significant number of people engaging in sustained social contacts over time with more than just occasional trips and activities across national borders".^[17] Others distinguish between transnational 'activities' and transnational 'capabilities' (for example, Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001a [C13]).

Transnational 'activities' can be observed and measured and may be political in nature (for example, lobbying), economic (for example, remittances and investment), social (for example, promotion of human and other rights) or cultural (for example, articles in newspapers) and may take place at the individual level (through family networks) or through institutional channels (for example, through community or international organisations) on a formal or informal basis (Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001b [C14]).

Transnational 'capabilities' encompass the willingness and ability of migrant groups to engage in these activities. Capability is influenced by the extent to which individuals or communities identify with the social, economic or political processes in their home countries and by practical factors, such as available skills and resources. These factors are, in turn, influenced by length of time and opportunities in the host country, the internal organisation of migrant or exile communities and the level of motivation to maintain group solidarity. Uncertainty about legal status and the right to permanent residence in the country of refuge, financial instability, language problems and lack of employment are factors that limit refugees' ability to get involved in transnational activities with the home country. Another factor is whether the 'home' they knew still exists (Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001b [C14]). One of the most significant developments has been in the cost and ease of computer-mediated communication, which has facilitated communication through social networking sites, blogs, chat rooms and websites devoted to the identity of a particular community (Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001a [C13]).

One author suggested transnational identification and activity tends to lessen with increasing length of residence (for example, Jayaweera and Choudhury 2008 [A43]), while other authors have found that transnational activity can increase (for example, Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001a [C13]).

Another author argues that refugees should not be treated as special cases because of their forced migration. Instead, asylum seekers, refugees and refugee networks should be considered as an integral part of the new migrant diaspora. Their reasons are that a) it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary population movements and b) many refugees in Western Europe live alongside compatriots and co-ethnics who are part of the broader diaspora/transnational community but not necessarily refugees (for example, Vertovec 2001 [C21]). In addition, some authors have presented evidence challenging the assumption that the transnational activity of refugees is primarily political as opposed to the economic, social and cultural involvements of 'non-forced' migrants (for example, Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001a [C13]).

Some literature suggests that maintaining or developing transnational links can play an important part in refugees maintaining their cultural identity in the new country. Contributing to their home countries through remittances or investments in the country of origin can be a source of status. Such status is not always available to them through traditional avenues such as employment in the host country. Negative effects on status may arise where refugees experience pressure to contribute financially when they have no or few resources to do so. This may lead to some refugees deciding not to maintain links with their country of origin (Um 2006 [C18]; Al-Ali, Black and Koser 2001a [C13]).

The Refugee Voices research (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) found that 83 percent of refugees who had been in New Zealand around five years had already gained citizenship. The New Zealand literature suggests that retaining cultural and ethnic identity is important to those who have settled here as refugees. Around 80 percent of longer-term refugees interviewed for the Refugee Voices project thought it was very important to learn about New Zealand culture, but also they valued knowing about their own culture. They sought to maintain that culture through eating traditional food, practising religion and speaking their language. Forty-three percent of established refugees met regularly with members of their ethnic group. These meetings occurred through religious observance, at cultural meetings and celebrations and through informal visits to family and friends (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]).

Work by Bihi (1999) [C5] among the Somali community in New Zealand also concluded that retaining cultural identity contributed significantly to refugee wellbeing and was vital for refugees' successful adaptation to their new society. A small study of refugee women in Wellington (Debski 2008 [C8]) came to similar conclusions. The women retained some aspects of their culture, modified others and adopted English as the medium of communication with the new culture. Another New Zealand study found migrant youth have a strong orientation towards their heritage culture. This orientation largely remains stable across generations as evidenced by strong ethnic identity and frequent contact with peers; however, ethnic language use and proficiency decrease over successive generations (Ward 2008 [K20]).

D. Community and social networks

Social capital and social networks

Much research on refugee integration discusses the role of social networks, which are seen as actively building social capital. This literature most commonly draws on the work of Robert Putnam^[18] and differentiates three forms of social connection:

• Thick exclusive ties (referred to as 'social bonds' or 'bonding social capital') within a community (based on ethnic, national or religious identity).
• Weaker ties with members of other communities (referred to as 'social bridges' or 'bridging social capital'), for example, between refugee communities and members of the host community.
• Links between individuals and access to forms of power (referred to as 'social links' or 'linking social capital'), for example, between individuals and organisations and agencies (Ager and Strang 2008 [A21]; Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]).

Putnam envisages social bonds as creating a situation where groups can 'get by' whereas creating social bridges enables groups to 'get ahead'. Atfield, Brambhatt and O'Toole, however, suggest that the relationship between social networking, capital formation and integration is complex:

It is not a linear process in which social networking inevitably generates social capital which inevitably results in integration. There are barriers that prevent this process... (Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole 2007, p61 [D1]).

These authors also suggest that refugees and asylum seekers have aspirations about integration that may be realised at different times, in different locations and that may be dependent on the achievement of other aspects of integration (i.e. a process that involves emotional as well as functional aspects). They found that the biggest barrier to refugees' achieving integration in their own terms was a lack of status, lack of English language and lack of acceptance. Social networking can only go so far in addressing these barriers, and no one type of network is better than others. Different types of networks may be used to meet different integration aspirations. Likewise, the development of different forms of social capital contributes to different aspects of integration (Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]).

Within-group social networks are important for recently settled refugees in meeting material and informational needs. Over time, they may be more useful for generating emotional or capacity-building resources (Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]). But they do not form easily or automatically. Research in Australia (Colic-Peisker and Walker 2003 [H12]), Finland (Zetter, Griffiths, Sigona and Hauser 2002 [A18]) and the United States (Peckham, Wallace, Wilby and Noble 2004 [A6]), for example, has found that, within-group formation can be hampered by political and religious controversies, events in the home country, the small size of communities, generational differences, subethnic or class differences and individual aspirations.

The literature distinguishes between formal and informal networking in refugee communities. Formal networks usually take the form of refugee community organisations (RCOs), which have long been assumed to play a positive role in integrating refugees. While RCOs can provide community leadership, social adjustment, cultural preservation, political empowerment and community building resources to their members, they can also restrict members of the ethnic community from full incorporation in society (Tseng 2004 [D11]). Some refugee groups are unwilling to formalise their networks. They see RCOs as perpetuating the marginality of the communities they serve and prefer to use informal networks for support, especially in the economic sphere (Zetter, Griffiths and Sigona 2003 [D13]). At the same time, while informal social networks can be extremely valuable, alone they are insufficient because they cannot fully counter the inequities and disadvantages associated with refugee status or the structural barriers that tend to trap refugee newcomers in poverty (Simich, Mawani, Wu and Nor 2004 [D9]).

Spatial dispersal policies put particular pressure on RCOs (Fair 2007 [F2]). A lack of resources means that RCOs are often limited in what they can do. Some argue that they are forced into differentiation, fragmentation and exclusion to protect their territory. On the other hand, some groups, particularly visible minorities like Somalis who are particularly disadvantaged, may place more importance on ethnic-specific community organisations to advocate for them (Hooghe, Reeskens and Stolle 2007 [A12]).

Overall, the literature suggests that social networks that include host country members provide most support for integration both socially (Kandola 2003 [A3]; Hudson, Phillips, Ray and Barnes 2007 [A42]; Yu, Ouellet and Warmington 2007 [A8]) and practically, through help with matters like employment (Rutter, Cooley, Reynolds and Sheldon 2007 [A45]; Potocky-Tripodi 2004 [H23]; Valtonen 2004 [H30]). One study cited the provision of references from Finnish friends to potential employers as an example of the crucial function of having access to mainstream connections (Valtonen 2004 [H28]).

So-called 'social bridges' (ties with members of other communities) can be developed in a number of ways, including through social contacts in neighbourhoods, childcare activities, attending ESOL courses and places of worship and engaging in voluntary activities (Atfield, Brahmbhatt and O'Toole 2007 [D1]). These network ties outside their inner circle enhance refugees' sense of national identity and belonging. This suggests that national identity is defined, in part, as aligning oneself with an ideal sense of an 'average' citizen (Lamba 2002 [H19]). Building and sustaining mainstream and home country resource networks can help to bridge barriers and build up ethnic community capacity (Tseng 2004 [D11]; Ager, Malcolm, Sadollah and May 2002 [E1]; Marginson 1999 [E6]). Barriers to participation and social networking are often due to the failure of host country and ethnic refugee communities to provide appropriate supports. The literature suggests that multiethnic communities need to work towards creating settings that are inclusive of all communities so that genuine interdependence can be developed (Goodkind and Foster-Fishman 2002 [D15]).

Role of host country

The need to strengthen cultural understanding among host country residents is a strong theme throughout the literature. Governments, politicians and their parties, the media and educational institutions all have a role to play in fostering understanding and solidarity, and ensuring accurate and balanced public information on refugee issues (European Council on Refugees and Exiles 2005 [A1]). The literature acknowledges that notions of social cohesion are often only applied to new settler communities, without recognising that host communities also need to adapt (Ager and Strang 2008 [A21]). Even the use of the term 'refugee' needs to be considered carefully. Judicious observation of how the label refugee is constructed is essential to avoid predetermined stereotypes, inappropriately applied models from other cultures and assumptions of dependency and powerlessness (Zetter 1991 [A48]).

Public bodies need to provide adequate services and information to new and established communities, including information in their own languages. Policies that support language training, affordable housing, job placement, vocational training, education and access to healthcare and other benefits are also important as are policies recognising the credentials of migrants and refugees. Public workers in all domains need to be sensitised to the specific needs and cultures of refugees (Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007 [A9]; Peckham, Wallace, Wilby and Noble 2004 [A6]; Ferris 2001 [D18]).

Both central and local government need to devise robust systems to promote tolerance, tackle racial harassment and counter negative media reporting. The media can be encouraged to offer more balanced portrayal of minorities in the media, for example, by including people who feel well settled and those who have a job or are educating themselves (Peckham, Wallace, Wilby and Noble 2004 [A6]; Fangen 2006 [C2]; Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]; Ferris 2001 [D18]).

Decisions about placement of resettled refugees can have a long-term impact. The receptivity of the host community needs to be taken into account. While volunteering is a practical way to establish connections between the host population and refugee families and communities, a Dutch study found that humanitarian commitment without political awareness can result in misunderstanding rather than more understanding. Motivation among volunteers in the study was driven by prior experience of migration or displacement either themselves or in their family, identification with refugees or being able to imagine what their situation might be like, humanitarian commitment and self-interest (i.e. wanting to give meaning to their lives) and an interest in intercultural contact. The impacts of direct contact included a move from constructed images towards more differentiated views of refugees, a risk of disillusionment given their preconceptions of the nature and circumstances of refugees and, for some, a growing awareness of differences in Dutch tolerance of refugees (Hollands 2001 [D20]).

The Refugee Voices research (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) sought information from established refugees on the ease they experienced in meeting people outside their ethnic group, the ways that they met people and on their membership of clubs or groups. Results indicate that language and age were factors in ease and motivation to meet people, and means of meeting people included through work, studying, school, the Refugee Services (formerly Refugee and Migrant Service) and ethnic and migrant groups. Findings also indicate that cultural factors and beliefs about the role of women influenced membership of the ethnic, sports and religious groups.

Higgins (2008) [K12], in her annotated bibliography of the literature on refugee and migrant youth, comments that research on social networks other than families is relatively sparse, although some work on peer relationships has been undertaken. She suggests that the basic social network to which most young people belong is their family, which may take multiple forms (including multigenerational extended families and overseas-born and New Zealand-born members). Refugee families may also be divided between countries. She describes the range of family forms identified in the literature and how children and youth may experience conflict in managing the interfaces between family, schooling and peer networks. Because young people may pick up the host country language more readily than adults, they may find themselves in the role of mediator between the family and wider society, and this can challenge traditional roles and relationships within the family.

E. Social exclusion

Social exclusion can occur in a number of settings. The sections on economic participation, health and housing below have identified that many established refugees have difficulty in obtaining suitable housing, face problems with new or existing health conditions, experience discrimination in finding work and, when they are employed, tend to work in a few industries or types of jobs, typically with poor terms and conditions of employment and low rates of pay and/or high levels of temporary or part-time jobs.

As well as the structural factors associated with employment, education and housing, social exclusion can be aggravated by conscious or unconscious racism and discrimination. Macro-racism is institutionalised in the barriers that nation states erect when controlling borders; micro-racism occurs in the everyday relations of people in the workplace or neighbourhood (Richmond 2001 [E11]). Institutional racism is embedded in organisational practices and procedures, which either inadvertently or deliberately discriminate against 'others' (Humpage 2001 [E5]). Manifestations of racism can be evident in refugee policy and gender discrimination sometimes evident in social structures (Pittaway and Bartolomei 2001 [E8]). The literature makes it clear that discrimination is common, particularly in employment.

European social surveys have found that the largest proportion of those with more hostile attitudes within the host population are among those who are permanently sick or disabled, discouraged workers, the unemployed and retirees, whereas young people and the higher educated are more open about ethnic minorities (Zimmerman, Kahanec, Constant, DeVoretz, Gataullina and Zaiceva 2008 [H29]).

Non-European (non-Western) migrants and visible minority groups are more exposed to discrimination in employment than others (Suzuki 2005 [D10]; Wrench, Jandi, Kraler and Stepein 2003 [E15]). A recent New Zealand study (Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]) found that the most significant issues for young migrants were racism, discrimination in access to work and other opportunities, and non acceptance often based on stereotypes and assumptions.

Social exclusion can also occur through having limited resources, few inclusive social services and limited opportunities to develop supportive social bonds and bridges (Fangen 2006 [E4]; Spicer 2008 [E14]). Lack of knowledge about or trust in social services, lack of language or lack of access to language classes can also exclude refugees from participating fully in society. Misunderstandings because of language and cultural difficulties, lack of knowledge of rights, stigmatisation, prejudice and racism can lead to disrespect, disbelief and humiliation (Fangen 2006 [E4]).

The literature uniformly calls for more effort to educate host societies about refugees' experiences, cultures and potential, and for reviews of policies and practices to reduce unintentional discrimination and racism. Suggestions include directing strategies at changing organisational environments, sensitising service providers and political institutions, empowering the community through community education and lobbying policy decision makers. Community education should be undertaken in collaboration with ethnic communities and be appropriately resourced (Marginson 1999 [E6]).

Both the Refugee Voices study (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) and a recent study of migrant and refugee youth (Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]) found that refugees' greatest dislike was discrimination. They reported discrimination at work or when looking for work, at school and while doing other study. Some had also experienced abuse by members of the public. Immigrants and refugees interviewed by Butcher, Spoonley and Trlin (2006) [E2] reported discrimination in the areas of employment, accessing goods and services such as education and housing and neighbourhood discrimination.

Chile (2002) [H10] argues that poverty, a heavy debt burden and lack of literacy skills exclude black African refugees from New Zealand society. The Diverse Communities report notes that visible ethnic minorities in New Zealand often bear the brunt of discriminatory action in New Zealand and found evidence of prejudice against Muslims, particularly Muslim women. The authors suggest that the discrimination some migrants and refugees experience in employment can damage their prospects of feeling included in society (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]).

F. Dispersal policies

The impact of dispersal policies on integration for refugees is widely discussed in the literature. Many countries, including New Zealand, have adopted dispersal policies. These usually aim to relieve pressure on overcrowded areas, spread 'the burden' of hosting refugees and provide social support for newcomers by placing them in areas where there are established ethnic communities.

The research suggests, however, that geographic dispersal may lead to tensions in community relations. The degree of anxiety is closely linked to economic deprivation. Other contributing factors are pre-existing tensions, media reporting, lack of information and consultation about the reception of newcomers, little experience of diversity and inadequate public services. While patterns of interaction are shaped in large measure by material resources, they are also affected by gender, age and migration histories (Hooghe, Reeskens and Stolle 2007 [A12]; Jayaweera and Choudhury 2008 [A43]).

Spatial proximity does not necessarily result in social interaction between ethnic groups. While ethnic tensions are likely to be higher in areas that are relatively homogeneous than in those that are already multicultural (Fair 2007 [F2]; Griffiths, Sigona and Zetter 2006 [F3]), an influx of refugees into economically deprived areas can lead to competition for scarce resources or to secondary migration in search of employment and social support. The research suggests that, to ensure cohesion, the impact of social and economic changes needs to be addressed, as well as how well people relate to each other.

The 'segmented assimilation' literature from the United States suggests location (along with other factors) is important in determining patterns of integration and the upward or downward mobility of refugee young people and their involvement with schooling. For example, if they are located in a deprived inner city area, young people may be drawn into the existing visible minority 'underclass' who are already disengaged with the education system and wider society (for example, Zhou 1997).[19]

G. Education and training

There is a remarkable level of agreement in the literature from the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada and New Zealand on education and training and, in particular, on the need for schools to provide better for students from diverse backgrounds. Acculturation difficulties have led many young refugees to lose motivation and even drop out of school and/or training (Alitolppa-Niitamo 2004 [G1]; Baffoe 2007 [G2]; Humpage and Fleras 2000 [K13]; Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]). There is a strong correlation between educational attainment, ethnicity and economic deprivation. These factors may compound or outweigh language difficulties. Access barriers include a lack of places in schools, frequent moves and poor housing conditions. Racism is also a problem. The literature argues for a modified curriculum, changes in teaching practices, specialist teachers, inclusive education, more language support and more support for parents to become involved in their children's education.

Consultation undertaken by the Victorian Settlement Planning Committee's Post Compulsory Education Working Group (2008) [G10] identified a range of key themes and principles for productive work with young people who fall between adolescence and adulthood (aged between 16 and 26) who have disrupted education, who have experienced difficult circumstances and who may or may not be literate in any language. The group recommends that agencies recognise that forced migrants may be living in newer or outer suburbs where housing is more readily available and affordable but where infrastructure may be poor (for example, no cheap and/or available transport). In addition, the population of migrants may be mobile and dispersed, and those delivering services may not have facilities or resources in the right places.

Some research explores the under-representation of refugees in higher education. In summarising findings from a Southeast Asian youth summit, Um (2003) [K19] identified the following barriers to educational advancement alongside social and economic constraints: little or no access to information; limited access to support; stereotyping, low expectations from educators about academic ability; a lack of bilingual paraprofessionals' teaching support staff and a lack of Southeast Asian teachers, language and history subjects; limited access to community resources; and racism.

An Australian study investigating the role of multicultural community organisations as surrogate English language and work skills learning organisations found that refugees preferred these settings because they are partly independent of government and more likely to be trustworthy, typically located in a public or community space, able to create a professional but culturally inclusive small-scale environment transcending the family and personal, and provide opportunities for refugees who have used a service to reciprocate by volunteering at the agency (Miralles-Lombardo, Miralles and Golding 2008).^[20]

Acquisition of host language and literacy

Host language proficiency is identified as vital for refugee integration, with some authors seeing the importance of a common language as a sine qua non of a cohesive society (Commission on Integration and Cohesion 2007 [A9]). Indicators of integration include 'language and cultural knowledge' as a key facilitating factor for the process of integration (Yu, Ouellet and Warmington 2007 [A8]), with residents being encouraged and supported to speak the national language of the country they live in as well as their own (Martiniello 2004 [A4]).

However, Ghorashi and van Tilburg (2006) [H15] warn that an emphasis on a lack of competence in the host language can be a manifestation of host country members' fear of cultural difference. They suggest that attempts to solve integration problems based on the assumption that language proficiency and education are enough to achieve integration will inevitably fail. They also suggest that language proficiency is in itself a questionable concept and describe shifting goalposts of 'acceptable' accents and modes of expression. In their view, the language skills of new migrants can never meet the expectations of host country organisations (Ghorashi and van Tilburg 2006 [H15]).

The literature is clear that a lack of proficiency in host country language is a major barrier to employment and to accessing training to improve or prove qualifications or courses designed to convert overseas qualifications to be acceptable in the host country (Charlaff, Ibrani, Lowe, Marsden and Turney 2004 [H8]). It can also be a barrier to making friends outside the ethnic community and to accessing health and other services (Mortensen 2008 [C4]). Women with young children and older people face particular challenges in accessing language classes. Refugee elders often face a sudden and severe loss of independence due to their inability to speak the language of the host country. They may remain dependent on help with even the smallest tasks and for transport.

Across all countries, refugees wanted more access to employment and language classes and wanted the public to have access to more information on the status of refugees in order to overcome prejudice among host country members (Ekholm 1997 [A27]).

The Refugee Voices research (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) reports that three-quarters of refugees who had been in New Zealand for around five years said they could not speak English well on arrival. By five years, 50 percent said they could speak English well and 27 percent said they still could not speak English. Similarly, nearly eight out of ten could not write English well when they arrived. Five years later, four out of ten could write English well. As other studies have found, more women than men had problems accessing English language training, mostly due to a lack of childcare, problems with transport or not being able to go out alone. While around a third of the established refugees in the Refugee Voices study had undertaken study or training in New Zealand, a number encountered difficulties in accessing study or training due to English language ability, health issues, cost or access to childcare.

A number of studies (Humpage and Fleras 2000 [K13]; Hamilton and Anderson 2000 [G4]) have identified systemic biases in the education system that affect the ability of young refugees to learn. Hamilton and Anderson (2000) [G4] and Hamilton and Farrigua (2006) [G3], for example, discuss second language concerns for refugee children, resilience, acculturation, school and teacher effects and conceptual and policy issues. Campbell (2003) [K10] concludes from research on refugees that arrived as children in New Zealand and their offspring that age on arrival has a marked effect on later educational success, although he acknowledges that this may have been partly due to the economic climate and social attitudes of that time (the mid-1940s). Seventy-seven of the 120 respondents had gained some sort of qualification since leaving school, and 90 percent of the second generation respondents had gained some form of tertiary qualification.

H. Economic participation

Economic participation is a key factor in settlement and goes beyond employment. It includes having access to an income that allows an acceptable standard of living and having access, equal to the host population, to goods and services, such as education and health.

Employment is presented in the literature as a key component of integration. It gives refugees an income, the possibility of access to credit, a social context and identity and, in theory, an opportunity to step onto a career ladder. Respondents themselves identify access to employment as pivotal to the process of settlement and integration.

Most refugees want and need to find work on arrival in a host country and as a means to longer-term integration. A major study in Britain (Charlaffe, Ibrani, Lowe, Marsden and Turney 2004 [H8]) found that over a third of the refugees surveyed would like to find any kind of work, while 58 percent would like to find work that matched their skills and experience. However, the latter group are unlikely to fulfil their aspirations in the medium or even the longer term. The literature agrees that, while many refugees are well qualified and possess a broad range of technical and professional skills, these do not count for much when they arrive in a new country (Colic-Peisker 2005 [H11]).

Some authors argue that receiving countries across the globe are not only unwilling to recognise refugees' qualifications, they are also often poor at providing appropriate conversion courses or training that will allow refugees to prove their qualifications (Charlaff, Ibrani, Lowe, Marsden and Turney 2004 [H8]; Chile and Brown 1999 [H9]). This means that a majority of skilled and highly skilled refugees experience 'down adjustment'.

The successful transition from the early stage of 'self-inclusion' to the second stage, when real social inclusion on the basis of satisfactory employment and social interaction beyond the ethnic community should be achieved, is crucial but challenging (Colic-Peisker 2005 (H11). In one study, university-educated Bosnians who acquired a professional job gained membership in socially more positively valued groups than the groups of refugees to which they were originally confined (Colic-Peisker and Walker 2003 [H12]). Those who did not succeed in finding adequate employment, but were reluctant to accept a low-status job, seemed to live in relative social isolation, unable to integrate into mainstream society. They were also reluctant to get involved with the 'ethnic community' (Colic-Peisker 2005 [H11]).

Regardless of where they resettle, refugees are much less likely to be employed than other migrants. Those who do gain work tend to be employed in a few industries or types of jobs, typically with poor terms and conditions of employment and low rates of pay and/or high levels of temporary or part-time jobs (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]; Bloch 2002 [H3] and 2004 [H4]; Brahmbhatt, Atfield, Irving, Lee and O'Toole 2007 [H6]; Lamba 2003 [H18]; Shields, Rahi and Scholtz 2006 [H24]).

Local unemployment and employment rates significantly affect refugees' chances of obtaining employment. One study found that very high unemployment has taken place in areas of concentration of Vietnamese, Laotian, Khmer and Arabic-speaking persons in Sydney. In part, this is because of language difficulties and comparative newness of arrival, but it is also the result of job losses in the manufacturing sector (Burnley 1998 [H7]). The size of the local labour market was also significant in that refugees were more likely to find work in a bigger labour market because of the greater variation in number of jobs (even if there is more competition for jobs). Refugees are also more likely to find work in areas with lower general education and skill levels (Bevelander and Lundh 2007 [H1]).

Refugees' low economic participation rates are a concern (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]; Rutter, Cooley, Reynolds and Sheldon 2007 [A45]; Shelley 2001 [D7]). A study in Sweden found that refugees had substantially higher welfare participation rates when they arrived in Sweden compared to non-refugee immigrants, but they moved off welfare at a faster rate than non-refugee immigrants. However, the authors estimate that, even after 20 years, differences will still remain between Swedish natives and immigrants in rates of welfare use (possibly due to increases in the number of immigrants and changing labour markets) and suggest that more research is needed to find out the reasons for this (Hansen and Lofstrom 1999 [H17]).

A significant proportion of refugees find that their human capital has virtually no power in the new labour market and their networks cannot restore their former occupational status (Lamba 2002 [H19]). Those who socialise mostly with their compatriots are less likely to be employed than those who have wider networks (Potocky-Tripodi 2004 [H23]). Friends, particularly friends from the host community, are a good source of jobs and residential stability may increase opportunities to broaden the range of network ties instrumental in employment adjustment and advancement (Shields, Rahi and Scholtz 2006 [H24]). As ethnic communities became numerically stronger and more established, they may be able to develop networks that spread vital information, assistance and support.

Studies in the United States suggest that, over the longer term, residency, acculturation and community characteristics all have a relatively small effect on refugees' economic status. The determinants most strongly associated with economic status are education, disability, gender and household composition. These determinants are the same as for the population as a whole. While English proficiency is a desirable outcome in itself and obviously a prerequisite to obtaining higher education, it is clearly not sufficient for enhancing refugee economic status (Charlaff, Ibrani, Lowe, Marsden and Turney 2004 [H8]; Potocky-Tripodi 2001 [H21]; Potocky-Tripodi 2003 [H22]; Ugbe 2007 [H26]).

Other experiences of discrimination also interfere with positive employment outcomes, particularly for visible minority refugees (Lamba 2003 [H18]; Shields, Rahi and Scholtz 2006 [H24]; Chile 2002 [H10]). Middle Eastern and African refugees are much less likely to be employed than East Europeans (Bevelander and Veenman 2006 [H2]; Bevelander and Lundh 2007 [H1]). In New Zealand, studies of Somali refugees have found that gender constraints on socialising and religious implications concerning food inhibit socialising and employment with New Zealanders of European descent (Guerin and Guerin 2002 [H16]).

In some countries among refugee groups, having citizenship is positively correlated with employment rates and wages for women but not necessarily for men (Bevelander and Veenman 2006 [H2]; Potocky-Tripodi 2004 [H23]), but it is not clear whether this is because refugees become more acceptable as employees or because they feel more integrated into society. Chile (2005 [E3]) suggests that transition from refugee to citizen is not just about obtaining the passport of the host country but is about rights and responsibilities that relate to the active productive participation in the life of one's community and society. In his view, high levels of unemployment among refugees perpetuates their status as non-citizens.

A number of reports argue that the voluntary sector has a weak record in supporting employment as a result of low, precarious and inconsistent funding (Brahmbhatt, Atfield, Irving, Lee and O'Toole 2007 [H6]; Valtonen 2001 [H27]). They suggest that service providers can supply refugee networks with appropriate and useful knowledge about the labour market and its structural restrictions. They can also help build an extensive range of ethnic group-based resources ranging from help in caring for dependents to opportunities for career advancement (Lamba 2003 [H18]). Social workers need to establish links with institutions such as the labour market and its agencies so that they can support their clients (Valtonen 2001 [H27]).

Researchers agree that, because refugees' economic status does not improve simply as a function of time, active intervention is needed (Potocky-Tripodi 2001 [H21]). Suggestions include greater provision of protective employment legislation, language tuition, skills training, partnerships between agencies to access jobs and work experience (Valtonen 2004 [H28]) and greater collaboration between the professional bodies, the training institutions and accreditation authorities (Chile and Brown 1999 [H9]).

On the other side of the equation, the recurring phenomena of resistance and discrimination need to be addressed through state intervention. Resources need to be directed to achieving change in the receiving society, to complement the individual adjustment efforts of refugees (Valtonen 2004 [H28]; Zimmerman, Kahanec, Constant, DeVoretz, Gataullina and Zaiceva 2008 [H29]). General initiatives are necessary to create an institutional and social environment inhibiting discrimination and facilitating targeted action. Some authors argue that specific integration policies and positive action should be applied if institutional conditions, including discrimination, exclude refugees from the labour market (Zimmerman, Kahanec, Constant, DeVoretz, Gataullina and Zaiceva 2008 [H29]).

Butcher, Spoonley and Trlin (2006 [E2]) note that some immigrants and refugees, particularly those from visible ethnic minority groups and/or the most different cultural backgrounds, faced formidable barriers in gaining employment in New Zealand.

Other research shows that, in New Zealand, people born in predominantly refugee source countries have lower incomes on average than New Zealand-born people but incomes relative to the New Zealand-born population improve with time spent in New Zealand. For example, by 2006, Iraqi born migrants who moved to New Zealand between 1991 and 1996 had median incomes on par with the New Zealand-born population (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]).

The Refugee Voices study (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) had similar findings. Among established refugees (around five years' residence), 29 percent were working, about a third of them part-time. Seven out of ten had experienced difficulties in looking for work, particularly related to a lack of English language ability. They reported negative responses and discrimination from employers, such as being told that recently advertised jobs had been taken. More than half found jobs through friends, family or community contacts. Most were working in a different occupation to the one they had in their home country. The main source of income for 78 percent of established refugees was a government benefit, while 19 percent relied on a salary or wage. Many supplemented their wage with a government benefit.

I. Health and wellbeing

The Diverse Communities report (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]) suggests that the health status of individuals can impact on social cohesion by affecting a person's ability to work, find employment, meet new people and feel secure about interacting with family and friends and the wider community.

Both the act of migrating and the settlement process can impact on a person's health status and affect migrant health outcomes. (Abbott et al. 2000; Ministry of Health 2006; North et al. 2004).^[21]

The literature identifies a lack of evidence on migrant health outcomes, including for refugees (Johnson 2006 [I3]). Data rarely differentiates between asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, nor does it consider the needs of long-term settled ethnic communities (De Souza 2006 [I1]; Johnson 2006 [I3]). For example, Mortensen (2008) [C4] found that refugee groups are overlooked as social, cultural and linguistic citizens within New Zealand's health sector. Data collected on ethnicity in New Zealand's health sector generally does not identify individuals from refugee groups (who tend to be grouped in an 'other' category). This categorisation within a broader 'other' category means that their health needs are not identified, nor are they given priority in national or regionally based initiatives to reduce inequalities (which the author suggests is inequitable).

A body of research has focused on the effects of trauma on health and wellbeing. Some research suggests worse health outcomes for refugees who may, as a group, experience higher levels of psychological disorders or direct physical consequences of torture, unrecognised or managed chronic conditions (for example, hypertension or diabetes), poor oral health, infectious diseases, and delayed growth and development in children (Royal Australian College of General Practitioners 2003).^[22]

Discrepancies in health and wellbeing status may also relate to conditions in the host country, for example, due to poorer housing, and position in riskier areas of the labour market where there is greater exposure to potential work-related illness or injury, and the effects of isolation and separation from family (Johnson 2006 [I3]; Guerin and Guerin 2007 [B2]; Guerin, Abdi and Guerin 2003 [I2]).

Swedish research suggests worse health outcomes and a greater probability of work-related ill health for migrants and refugees, primarily because of the low social support available to them (Johnson 2006 [I3]). Studies of migrant and refugee health in London indicate that migrants' needs change over time, the health status of migrants and refugees on arrival on average is not especially poor, disease problems are exacerbated by the conditions in which refugees live after arrival and there is little evidence of effective initial health assessment, screening, monitoring and referral (Johnson 2006 [I3]). Being unemployed, underemployed or experiencing a reduction in socioeconomic status have also been identified as risk factors, meaning refugees and migrants may be more likely to experience negative health outcomes (Abbott 1997,^[23] in Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]).

Some groups face particular health challenges: older people may experience depression not only as a result of a forced move but because of ongoing isolation in their new country (Connelly, Forsythe, Njike and Rudiger 2006 [K6]; Hugman, Bartolomei and Pittaway 2004 [K7]), young people may become disaffected and unwell due to discrimination and non-acceptance (Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]), and women may experience domestic violence that they are unwilling or unable to report (Marginson 1999 [E6]) or be socially isolated (Mortensen 2008 [C4]).

Important issues for refugees in terms of accessing healthcare have been identified. These include:

• a lack of culturally appropriate or sensitive services
• a lack of knowledge or clarity about what services can be accessed
• poor oral English language skills affecting communication with healthcare staff
• a lack of English literacy, which may limit participation in preventative screening programmes reliant on written information of communications
• a lack of availability of interpreters and use of children as interpreters
• cultural differences in assessment and treatment
• isolation of women
• payment for medical care (Guerin, Abdi and Guerin 2003 [I2]; Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]; Mortensen (2008 [C4]).

Possible policy interventions include: information and education for refugees, migrants and health professionals; better health assessments; proper recording of data; specialist service delivery facilities; links to and support for refugee community-based organisations; and inclusion in the workforce of health professionals of refugee and new migrant origin (Johnson 2006 [I3]).

The Refugee Voices research (New Zealand Immigration Service 2004 [A37]) found that 41 percent of established refugees said their health was better after five years' residence while 19 percent said their health was worse. Common reasons for worse health were having developed a medical condition such as asthma developed in New Zealand, concern for family overseas and emotional stress.

J. Housing

The literature suggests that refugee housing experiences are often characterised by instability and vulnerability. Outcomes are influenced by government policies, the limited resources of new migrants and refugees, the policies and practices of housing providers and the search for a safe, supportive environment (Phillips 2006 [J5]). The literature also identifies a lack of reliable data on the geographic mobility of refugees and new migrants and on the tenure and quality of their housing (Halango 2007 [J2]).

Secure housing is important to refugees. In one British study, they associated satisfaction with various aspects of housing with quality of life - the more their satisfaction with housing, the better the quality of life (Peckham, Wallace, Wilby and Noble 2004 [A6]). It is not just the physical aspects of housing that are important. In developing their indicators, Ager and Strang found that interviewees seldom focused on physical aspects of housing. Instead, they centred on the social and cultural aspects of housing including safety and security and the importance of continuity of relationships associated with being settled in an area (Ager and Strang 2004a [A19]; Ager and Strang 2008 [A21]).

A British study argues that the dispersal policy has produced significant challenges for housing providers, local residents and new migrants. Few areas have refugee housing strategies, yet these newcomers often need more support because of the trauma of forced migration, public hostility and lack of community support networks. The situation is particularly difficult for single refugees who may not have priority for social housing and may have trouble securing a private tenancy (Halango 2007 [J2]). Papers suggest that communities need a pro-active policy to smooth the transition to permanent accommodation and to reduce racist harassment (Phillips 2005 [J4]). Success will depend on a holistic approach, cultural sensitivity, expertise in new migrant and refugee issues, and provision of integrated and flexible services including legal advice, and recreational or interpreting services.

The Refugee Voices research (New Zealand Immigration Service [A37]) found that refugees had difficulty finding suitable housing due to cost, a lack of English language ability and problems finding large enough houses.

In a recent thesis, Halango (2007) [J2] demonstrated the links of housing to employment, education and health among the Somali community in Auckland. The challenges refugees faced included ethnocentrism, household composition, lack of English language skills, socioeconomic circumstances and lack of familiarity with institutional practices. Participants in Butcher, Spoonley and Trlin's study (2006) [E2] also reported that some landlords were reluctant to let to refugees and certain immigrant groups. As with Halango's research, language appeared to be a particular barrier.

K. Integration issues for specific refugee groups

Gender

Migrant women face the risk of dual discrimination. Some researchers argue that more attention should be paid to gender issues in resettlement (Pittaway and Bartolomei 2001 [E8]). Many people assume that refugees have no agency. Restrictive entry and reception policies are designed to protect society from bogus asylum seekers but have the effect that all refugees are seen as untrustworthy until otherwise proven. In the case of refugee women, the combination of gender and ethnicity makes the aspect of passivity and victimisation even stronger, for example, they may be seen as oppressed and traditional.

Women are often discriminated against in employment and are restricted to poorly paid segments of the economy such as personal care and domestic services, cleaning, catering, health and care. Some women also have issues with employers over the way they dress (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]). Cultural and religious factors may create barriers to participation in social, educational, physical and artistic activities.

Fewer studies have specifically examined factors for men, but these have generally focused on the negative psychological effects due to experiencing changes in status in employment or within the family and/or in response to meeting pressures to also provide for transnationally based family (Stoll and Johnson 2007 [K4]).

Older refugees

The literature concerning older refugees discusses the critical role older people play in settlement and integration. It makes the point that cultural perceptions of when old age begins and what being old entails vary from culture to culture. In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to define refugees as young as 50 as 'older people', given the challenges they face and the limited opportunities they may have to maintain their former role and status (Chenoweth and Burdick 2001 [K5]; Connelly, Forsythe, Njike and Rudiger 2006 [K6]; Hugman, Bartolomei and Pittaway 2004 [K7]).

The literature seeks greater recognition of older refugees in policy and practice, particularly in relation to changing family relations, the long-term effects of the refugee experience and in recognition that 'ordinary communities' are not available to them (Hugman, Bartolomei and Pittaway 2004 [K7]). Wong (2003) [K8] identified the main activities and services that older refugees in New Zealand had considered helpful for integrating into the community. These included family reunification, social interactions with family and friends of the same ethnicity, participating in a wide range of activities and having access to benefits, services and high-skilled employment. Barriers to accessing integration-related activities and services included segregated family and family reunification policies, a lack of access to or understanding of transport options, inability to speak or learn English, poor health, poor access to interpreters, financial limitation and access to networks and support. She also found that age at arrival, the ability of host communities to support the resettlement process and the length of time spent in a country of resettlement influences the level of integration felt by a refugee. The longer refugees spend in the new country, the more time and incentive they have to acquire language skills, establish families and become familiar with their new environment.

Youth

Several studies of migrant and refugee youth have been completed in New Zealand (Humpage and Fleras 2000 [K13]; Higgins 2008 [K12]; Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]; Ward 2008 [K20]). Their findings are similar to those reported in the overseas literature. The reports identify high levels of discrimination and racism against young people, some of it due to ignorance and prejudice and some to systemic bias and lack of willingness by the host community to accommodate different cultures. Young migrants and refugees in New Zealand experience similar cultural conflict to their overseas counterparts, particularly in the early years, and are at risk of ongoing intergenerational conflict in meeting parents' expectations.

A high proportion of migrant and refugee young people want to maintain their cultural heritage (Sobrun-Maharaj, Tse, Hoque and Rossen 2008 [E12]; Ward 2008 [K20]). At the same time, migrant youth increasingly orient themselves towards the host society, with an increase in national identity, an increase in national peer contacts and more frequent use of and greater proficiency in English or the host language over successive generations. Despite the trauma many young refugees have experienced, the literature suggests that they show considerable resilience in functioning and integrate relatively quickly (Rousseau and Drapeau 2003 [K17]; Ward 2008 [K20]; Wilkinson 2001 [K22]; Young, Spigner, Farwell and Stubblefield 2006 [K23]).

1.5 generation and second generation

The literature agrees that there is a lack of data on many topics, including outcomes for second and subsequent generations (Ministry of Social Development 2008 [A5]; Zimmerman, Kahanec, Constant, DeVoretz, Gataullina and Zaiceva 2008 [H29]). In particular, there are few intergenerational measures of integration. A relevant issue is the question of how long a person should be considered or identified as a refugee. As one author notes, labels create their own momentum, especially where transitory situations become protracted, and the use of labels may affect entitlement or service provision (Zetter 1991 [A48]).

Some reports suggest that racially distinct minorities remain less confident that they fully belong (Soroka, Johnston and Banting 2007 [E13]; Ward 2008 [K20]). One study showed that the bonding social capital based on family and kinship, traditionally strong among Somalis, was undermined by conflicts between the first and second generations in the diaspora (Alitolppa-Niitamo 2004 [G1]). Interestingly, second generation migrants report more behavioural problems and poorer school adjustment than their first and 1.5 generation counterparts (Ward 2008 [K20]).

One focus of research has been the possibly distinct language acquisition needs of those that arrive in a country as refugee children or adolescents. For example, it is suggested that English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) courses taught at United States secondary schools have been developed for students already literate in their first language. This is not always the case for the 1.5 generation refugee adolescents who may have acquired good verbal language skills at high school in their home country and, on that basis, been put into mainstream English classes in their host country. However, students may either not get access to university or flounder at university level because they find their written language is not strong enough to meet academic standards (Um 2003 [K19]).

Campbell (2003) [K10] found differences in educational success based on age at arrival and by generation. A higher proportion of refugees who were aged between 11 and 14 when they arrived in New Zealand had left school with no formal qualifications than a younger group. The author acknowledges that, for some (as this study included refugees that arrived in the 1940s), this may have been due to economic climate and social conditions of the time. Sixty-four percent of the first generation refugees gained a postschool qualification, compared with 90 percent of the second generation.

RCOs may benefit from the consolidation of ethnic communities. One study found that the children of immigrants or individuals who came at a young age rather than those that arrived as adults were better placed to maximise policy, coalition and funding networks given their greater linguistic and social integration into the host country^[24] (Bloemraad 2005 [D3]).

Refugees with disabilities

Ward, Amas and Lagnado (2008) [K9] note that the literature on refugees and asylum seekers with disabilities has tended to have a mental health focus. They suggest that little is known about the experiences, needs and ability to access services of refugees with other forms of disabilities. Their study reinforces earlier findings by Robert and Harris (2002)^[25] that disabled refugees have complicated entitlements to social welfare services that sometimes confuse those delivering the services; there is a lack of accurate demographic data on disabled refugees and asylum seekers; and barriers to accessing services include linguistic difficulties, mobility and cultural issues and a lack of knowledge. In addition, they found that RCOs and other non-government organisations were providing support. Some barriers to care and support were identified as likely to be shared with other disabled ethnic minorities including language, stigma and culturally determined attitudes towards disability and the treatment of disability, extra hardship experienced by women, isolation and lack of understanding about rights and entitlements. Additional disadvantages include a lack of interpreters, including sign language interpreters, and a lack of social networks to rely on for informal support, perhaps because of dispersal policies.

Conclusion

This annotated bibliography and thematic review together present an overview of the research literature published since 1997 relating to factors involved with the longer-term settlement of refugees. Over the past decade, there has been an acceptance that successful settlement is a two-way process involving refugees and host communities adapting to each other. These processes are commonly referred to as integration or social cohesion. A body of research has resulted in the development of frameworks and measures for defining, describing and assessing the extent to which integration or social cohesion has been achieved.

Other research has focused on particular aspects of settlement:

• Identity (ethnic identity, language maintenance), citizenship (both legal and informal understandings of what it means to be a citizen).
• The value and role of social networks, including transnational links.
• Economic participation and employment.
• Education and training.
• Health and wellbeing.
• Housing.
• Issues for particular demographic groups - women, men, children/youth/adolescents, older refugees and those with disabilities and refugees of particular ethnicities.

As has been outlined, the outcomes and experience of long-term settlement have been studied in two main ways. The first way is through analysis of official datasets (at the national, subnational or institutional level) to compare the position of refugees with those of the host population. In some instances, however, these datasets do not identify an individual as having entered the country as a refugee, and proxy measures (such as nationality of country of last residence) have sometime be used in their place. Many of these studies recommend that identifiers be included in these datasets to further advance research on refugee-related areas. There may, however, be an issue in doing so, in that continuing to ask people to identify themselves as a refugee some years after their arrival may be counter to the integration process.

The second main method has been to ask refugees themselves about the factors that have been important to them in settling in a host country, most often through interviews or focus groups, but also through ethnographic methods (such as participant observation) and through written surveys. The views of those working in agencies that provide services to refugees have also been canvassed, and at times, information has been sought on host attitudes (for example, through public opinion surveys).

The process of compiling this annotated bibliography found that only a small amount of literature specifically focused on the long-term settlement of refugees (as distinct from the early resettlement phase). Similarly, many papers did not distinguish between migrants and refugees and tended to discuss refugees and asylum seekers together. This meant that it was often difficult to isolate the long-term settlement experiences and outcomes that might be unique to quota refugees.

It was, however, apparent from the literature that governments, academics and researchers of several other countries that receive quota refugees are considering similar issues, sometimes as part of a wider region (for example, the European Union or Nordic States) or at a subnational level (for example, particular states within Canada or Australia). This is evident in the range of research over the past decade aimed at describing the experience of refugees and/or host country members and identifying indicators of integration or the factors that act as barriers or facilitators to long-term settlement, integration or social cohesion.

The following table presents an overview of the nature of barriers and facilitators identified in the course of undertaking this review. Please note that, in some instances, these items have been identified through recommendations made in the research as well as from findings.

BARRIERS TO:	FACILITATORS OF:
Integration generally
Difficulties in communicating verbally and in writing and in understanding host country language. Unemployment or underemployment. Discrimination or other forms of social exclusion. Insecurities about legal status or housing. Unfamiliarity with systems and processes. Not having health (including mental health) or disability needs attended to. Isolation. Dispersal to areas with poor housing stock away from services and transport limits employment and social opportunities. Being older and less able to learn the language. Not having the time or income to participate socially, train or retrain, be involved in children's school because of immediate need for income. Host country citizens and institutions not understanding how people become refugees or appreciating cultural differences.	Being able to communicate in host country language at the level one needs to - including for higher education and in professional settings. Having a sense of belonging and contributing to host country society - paying taxes. Employment helps with making progress economically and provides a context in which to develop language skills, networks and understanding of host country culture. Being employed and employed at a similar level as in source country. Feeling safe and secure. An absence of discrimination or other forms of exclusion. Housing is important for 'feeling at home'. Being located with others from the same ethnicity can help build links. Location of housing is important for accessing employment, education and training and other services. Having access to good infrastructure - transport etc.
Economic participation - employment and income available to households
Low fluency in host country language or not at a 'professional level'. Local labour market conditions (for example, in dispersal area.) Poor infrastructure (for example, affordable public transport). Lack of social networks/ethnic community. Lack of information about how systems work. Lack of recognition of qualifications. Lack of time/income to attend language classes/vocational training/retraining in original field. Personal factors such as poor health or having a disability. Experiencing discrimination. Repaying of settlement costs. Meeting the needs of family overseas through remittances.	Fluency in host country language at the level required in employment role. Buoyant labour market and good infrastructure. Good employment brokerage. Established of ethnic community/social networks. Ability to get work that doesn't require host country language. Contacts from same background in professional field. Absence of discrimination. Experience in voluntary sector.
Language acquisition/ESOL
Being older makes language acquisition more difficult. Being unemployed - having the time but not money for transport etc. Having no time to attend classes because of having to work/family commitments. Poor access to tuition. Lack of transport. Inappropriate level of tuition or the duration and timing of classes. Concerns about the quality of tuition or tutors. Lack of childcare. Women concerned about attending classes alone.	Being younger or in employment/school/training makes language acquisition easier. Having access to transport to get to classes is important. Suitable timing and duration of courses and level of host country tuition is important.
Education and training
Inadequate host country language skills (especially written language for higher education and language). Economic pressures - lack of time/income to attend language classes/vocational training/retraining in original field or for parents to participate in children's education. Age at arrival. Experience of discrimination.	Age at arrival. Appropriately pitched host country language tuition that addresses written as well as oral language - particularly important for studying at tertiary level or for returning to employment of the same status as held in source country. Access to heritage language and history classes or to educators or guidance staff from the same former nationality or ethnicity.
Health and wellbeing
Inability to communicate in host country language and a lack of appropriate translators/interpreters. Knowledge of how to access health services. Gender/attitude of healthcare staff. Distress on behalf of overseas family. Experience/witnessing of traumatic events. Experience of discrimination in host country. Having experienced physical harm and/or long periods without adequate food, medical or dental care. A lack of understanding about preventative healthcare (for example, diet/exercise) and/or management of chronic conditions that leads to longer-term poor health. Poor housing can lead to new health issues (such as asthma). Higher levels of workplace injury due to position in labour market. Social isolation of refugee women in particular.	Ability to communicate in host country language. Access to appropriate translators/ interpreters. Sympathetic gender/attitude of healthcare staff. Family reunification. Trauma/mental health support. Addressing of long-term medical/dental needs.
Housing
Discrimination by landlords limits access to housing. Income affects ability access to quality housing and furniture.	Having good social networks helps with accessing good housing.

---