Local Authority Support to People with No ... - Islington Council

Local Authority Support to People with 

No Recourse to Public Funds – 

Reflections on the Past, Looking to the 

Future 

15 th June 2011 

Conference Report 

NRPF Network/British Red Cross Conference Report June 2011 

2

Contents 

Introduction 3 

Aims & Objectives of the Conference 3 

Key Issues 4 

Presentation Summaries 5 

Nick Scott-Flynn – Head of Refugee Services, British Red Cross 5 

Jonathan Price – Policy and Communications Officer, NPRF Network 5 

Hugo Tristram – Development Officer, Refugee Services, British Red Cross 6 

Hugh Ind – Regional Director, London and South East, UKBA 7 

Sue Willman – Partner, Pierce Glynn Solicitors 7 

Chris Spencer – Chair of ADCS/ADASS Asylum Taskforce 9 

Questions and Answers 10 

Workshops 11 

Adam Weiss, The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) – A8 

Nationals and the End of the Interim Arrangements 

Jo Clarke, Eaves Housing – Sojourner Project and Support to Victims of Domestic 

Violence 

Henry St Clair Miller, NRPF Network/Islington Council – NRPF Connect 12 

Anca Andreopoulos, Refugee Action – Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes 13 

Participant Feedback 14 

NRPF Network/British Red Cross Conference Report June 2011 

2 

11 

11

Introduction 

The Local Authority Support to People with No Recourse to Public Funds – Reflections on the Past, 

Looking to the Future conference, held at the Assembly Hall, Islington on June 15 th 2011 was cohosted 

by the NRPF Network and the British Red Cross and addressed specific issues relating to 

support for destitute people from abroad with no recourse to public funds (NRPF). This report 

summarises the presentations and workshops, and outlines the key issues that emerged during the 

conference. 

The purpose of the conference was to evaluate past successes and failures of support to people with 

NRPF and look forward to what new challenges are facing the different sectors in regards to this 

support. This is with the intention of identifying emerging solutions to the current and future 

challenges in this area of work. 

The conference was attended by 123 delegates from a range of sectors and organisations: 42% from 

local authorities, 38% from the community and voluntary sector, 8% from NHS departments, 6% from 

Local Government representative bodies, 4% from central government and 2% from other agencies. 

Presentations were given by a panel of experts: 

� Nick Scott-Flynn, Head of Refugee Services, British Red Cross 

� Jonathan Price, Policy and Communications Officer, NPRF Network 

� Hugo Tristram, Development Officer, Refugee Services, British Red Cross 

� Hugh Ind, Regional Director, London and South East, UKBA 

� Sue Willman, Partner, Pierce Glynn Solicitors 

� Chris Spencer, Chair of ADCS/ADASS Asylum Taskforce 

Workshops were led by: 

� Adam Weiss, The AIRE Centre 

� Jo Clarke, Eaves Housing 

� Henry St Clair Miller, NRPF Network/Islington Council 

� Anca Andreopoulos, Refugee Action 

Aims and Objectives of the Conference 

The event aimed to: 

� Bring together professionals working with NRPF individuals and families from local 

authorities, the voluntary sector, central government and other agencies to promote 

cooperation and understanding 

� Reflect on the developments in the support provided to people with NRPF in recent years 

� Identify new challenges facing local authorities and the voluntary sector in regards to support 

to NRPF individuals and families 

� Explore solutions to emerging issues 

� Increase awareness and understanding of policy and practice regarding support to people 

with NRPF 

NRPF Network/British Red Cross Conference Report June 2011 3

The objectives of the event were to: 

� Consider issues arising from the destitution of asylum seekers, refused asylum seekers and 

other migrant groups 

� Discuss the implications of changes in trends of support to the client group 

� Consider the impact of the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) 

� Provide legal updates in the area of support to people with NRPF 

� Consider the impact of legal aid cuts and cuts in local authority funding on local authorities 

and the voluntary sector 

� Explore routes to providing support to EEA nationals 

� Provide information on the Sojourner Project for victims of domestic violence on spouse visas 

� Provide details of the process of voluntary return and what support is available to those 

embarking on the process of return to their country of origin 

� Discuss good practice in recording, monitoring and reviewing local authority-supported NRPF 

cases, developing policies and procedures in dealing with cases to ensure an efficient startto-end 

process and working in partnership with other organisations to facilitate the resolution 

of NRPF cases 

� Look at the future management of NRPF cases with the aims of ensuring safeguarding, 

accountability and secure sharing of data and information 

Key Issues 

Key issues highlighted at the event included: 

- Local authority duties to people with NRPF are complex and require effective communication 

between local authorities, the UKBA and the voluntary sector. There needs to be sharing of 

policies and good practice between local authorities to facilitate the consistency of approach 

across the UK. NRPF Connect (more information below) will be a mechanism to facilitate 

communication between local authorities and the UKBA in order to help resolve cases and 

manage NRPF cases securely and effectively. 

- It is common that individuals and families with NRPF wait too long for decisions on 

immigration applications to the UKBA. Furthermore, if a negative decision is made, return to 

country of origin rarely takes place. As a result of this process, people are left in limbo and 

face destitution. Local authorities and the voluntary sector in some circumstances are 

required to fund support to those who are destitute. More financial support and a greater 

strategic approach to sustainable returns including removal of cases where all rights are 

exhausted and continued investment in voluntary returns is needed. 

- There are concerns regarding the future of provision of legal aid, and cuts in local authority 

funding for voluntary and community services 

- The landscape of NRPF has shifted hugely over the years. There have been important 

changes in case law and government policies, which have resulted in a shift from support to 

adults to support provided by local authorities to children & families. 

- The UKBA must see local authorities as a stakeholder and should prioritise local authoritysupported 

cases in the same way as those on asylum support so that they do not get left in 

limbo. 


Presentation Summaries 

Nick Scott-Flynn – Head of Refugee Services, British Red Cross 

Nick highlighted the importance of bringing together local authority, central government and voluntary 

sector organisations to reflect on developments in support to people with NRPF, identify emerging 

issues and explore solutions to new problems. Nick explained that this conference would specifically 

focus on the following current issues: 

� Impact of the Case Resolution Directorate (CRD) 

� Community Care/Community Mental Health post-M v Slough [2008] 

� Impact of the Birmingham City Council v Clue case and the increase of support to children 

and families with NRPF 

� EEA nationals – homelessness, domestic violence and restrictions to support 

� Destitution of asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers 

� Voluntary return 

� Managing NRPF cases – ensuing safeguarding, accountability and secure sharing of data 

and information 

� Impact of cuts in local authority funding on voluntary and community services to the NRPF 

client group 

Nick gave examples of successes in addressing the problems in this area of work, for example the 

Sojourner Project and the CRD. However despite the successes, the numbers of destitute people 

with NRPF has increased and there is a growing amount of work with children. 

The slides from this presentation are available on the following webpage: 

http://www.islington.gov.uk/community/equalitydiversity/refugees_migrants/nrpf_network/events.asp 

Jonathan Price – Policy and Communications Officer, NPRF 

Network 

In order to provide context, Jonathan Price presented the NRPF Network 2011 research report Social 

Services Support to People with No Recourse to Public Funds: A National Picture’. This report 

outlines issues and emerging trends in the area of local authority support to people with NRPF as 

well as providing data on the numbers and types of NRPF cases supported by local authorities 

across the UK. 

The research found that NRPF is an area of work that has evolved greatly since the first report was 

published by the NRPF Network in 2006. Fifty-one local authorities identified for inclusion in the 

research provided data. Costs in 2009/10 to local authorities in supporting approximately 6,500 

people with NRPF came to over £46.5m. Of these people, there were approximately 1,750 families 

with 3,000 dependent children. The report notes that there has not been a significant change in the 

numbers of people with NRPF supported by local authorities since the NRPF Network published its 

last report in 2008, but this is in spite of a number of developments, including the Case Resolution 

Directorate (CRD), a higher threshold to support for single adults post-M v Slough and the 

establishment of the Sojourner Project, all of which resulted in a reduction of local authoritysupported 

cases. This means that a new client group is emerging. This is predominantly families who 


have overstayed their visas, have submitted an Article 8 ECHR application to the Home Office and 

are homeless. Case law has established that in such circumstances there is likely to be a duty on 

local authorities to support these families under Section 17 Children Act 1989 1 and this can go on for 

years whilst a decision is being made by the UKBA on their immigration claim. 

The report makes several recommendations to the UKBA, including: families who have overstayed 

their visa with outstanding Article 8 ECHR applications should be eligible for Section 4 Immigration 

and Asylum Act support from the UKBA. This would give the UKBA a greater incentive to make 

quicker and more timely decisions on these cases. The UKBA should make it official policy to 

prioritise local authority-supported cases in the same way as cases who receive asylum support; and 

they must ensure an effective start-to-end process by funding voluntary returns and carrying out 

enforced removals where appropriate. 

Local authorities are advised to record, monitor and review their NRPF cases. Policies and 

procedures within local authorities should be developed to ensure statutory duties to people with 

NRPF are met. A coordinated approach is needed across local authority departments and locality 

teams, and between local authorities and external organisations to facilitate the resolution of NRPF 

cases. 

The report ‘Social Services Support to People with No Recourse to Public Funds: A National Picture’ 

can be accessed on the NPRF Network website: 

http://www.islington.gov.uk/DownloadableDocuments/CommunityandLiving/Pdf/equalitydocs/NRPF_ 

national_picture_final.pdf 



Hugo Tristram – Development Officer, Refugee Services, British 

Red Cross 

Hugo summarised the findings and recommendations from the 2010 British Red Cross Report ‘Not 

gone, but forgotten’. The report is based on a survey of 101 destitute refused asylum seekers. The 

report argues that there is an urgent need for a more humane asylum system in the UK. 

Specific ‘client groups’ identified in the report include: refused asylum seekers, new refugees 

(becoming destitute when support is withdrawn after 28 days of a positive decision), those 

experiencing bureaucratic delay in accessing asylum support and other vulnerable migrants with 

NRPF such as victims of trafficking or domestic violence. Impacts of destitution include poor physical 

health and malnutrition, homelessness and ‘sofa surfing’ (69%), vulnerability to abuse and severe 

anxiety from living in limbo. 

Hugo explained that Section 4 support is not sufficient for families and children (who comprised 24% 

of cases in the sample) because of the level of support provided and because it is administered in 

vouchers rather than cash. 

Hugo discussed the issue of destitution arising as a product of the asylum system and what local 

authorities and the voluntary sector can offer to people in this situation, particularly when legal aid is 

diminishing. He argued that a start-to-end asylum support process was needed, that asylum seekers 

1 Clue v Birmingham City Council [2010] 


and failed asylum seekers should be permitted to work and entitled to free healthcare, until an 

applicant is removed or granted leave to remain. 

Hugo highlighted concerns for the future including the potential for a new backlog of unresolved 

asylum cases, a decrease in existing asylum support and the negative impact of government cuts to 

local authorities and the voluntary sector. 

The report ‘Not gone, but forgotten’ can be accessed on the British Red Cross website: 

http://www.redcross.org.uk/Aboutus/News/2010/June/~/media/BritishRedCross/Documents/Archive/GeneralContent/N/Destitution%20r 

eport%20Not%20gone%20but%20forgotten.ashx. 



Hugh Ind – Regional Director, London and South East, UKBA 

Hugh’s presentation focused on: the importance of the UKBA working in partnership with other 

organisations to tackle this complex area of work and seek solutions; progress made by the UKBA in 

this area; and the future priorities of the UKBA. 

Hugh argued that resolution for NRPF individuals and families can only be made on a case-by-case 

basis, which requires communication between and within organisations and agencies. 

Communication and information sharing between local authorities will also provide a coherent 

national picture which subsequently will ensure the NRPF profile is raised politically. Lack of 

feedback from local authorities for the recent NRPF Network report was a missed opportunity in this 

sense. This may partly be explained by the fact that the UKBA is more effective in engaging with 

local authorities with regards to support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. 

The development of Local Immigration Teams (LITs) across the UK has given local authorities a 

point of contact in the UKBA and enabled the facilitation of discussion on local authority-supported 

cases. A relationship of cooperation with local authorities needs to be nurtured within the LITs. An 

example of how LITs can help local authorities is by notifying local authorities of the immigration 

status of people subject to immigration control. 

Hugh noted that the UKBA works closely with local authorities on difficult issues such as the removal 

of former looked-after children. However, removals are often difficult to carry out when cooperation 

fails between the UKBA and the individual/family, or if legal barriers to removal are put in place. 

The UKBA foresees an increase in the number of family cases, in accordance with the NRPF 

Network report, so the future strategy of the UKBA needs to develop with this. Hugh noted that the 

UKBA recognises that the NRPF Network is vital. 

Sue Willman – Partner, Pierce Glynn Solicitors 

Sue provided a summary of recent legal developments in regards to support to people with NRPF 

and support for migrants more generally. 

The end of the Worker registration scheme saw A8 nationals become equal to EEA nationals in 

terms of eligibility for mainstream benefits and access to the labour market. Prior to May 2011, 70% 


of A8 applications for social security had been refused based on a decision of no right to reside, 

indicating a need for legal advice. 

Legal aid is proposed to be removed for social security and debt issues but retained for community 

care. It will available where a case involves housing issues and will be retained for asylum 

applications but not for most immigration cases. Sue explained that the gateway to community care 

law advice will be over the telephone in the future and outlined the limitations of such a system, 

including the difficulties in communication if there is a language barrier. Sue gave warning on the 

dangers of cutting legal aid; she predicts it to be a false economy, as social services will end up 

providing support when insufficient or incorrect legal advice is given in the first instance e.g. on 

housing, immigration and benefit issues. The issue of domestic violence and legal aid was 

highlighted – [SW note: this has since been overturned by effective campaigning and threat of legal 

action so domestic violence cases should still be eligible for legal aid] 2 . 

Sue summarised the Law Commission’s recommendations for the reform of social care. It is 

proposed that Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 will be retained as a safety net for 

those with a need for care and attention that is not otherwise available to them. But Mental Health Act 

aftercare support is recommended to become a gateway provision rather than a stand-alone statute, 

which may have implications for the ways in which accommodation is provided and funded. 

Various significant case law judgements were highlighted. Case law and legislation regarding EEA 

nationals was also discussed. Key outcomes of the case law include: 

- the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children including in decisions regarding 

removal (TS v Secretary of State for Home Dept and Northamptonshire CC) 

- the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in making the proportionality 

assessment under Article 8 as to whether to return to country of origin, stressing nationality 

as a ‘particular importance’ (ZH (Tanzania) case, Supreme Court) 

- assistance from a local authority should not be refused if that would have the effect of 

requiring a person to leave the UK who has an outstanding Home Office application, except 

in hopeless or abusive cases (Birmingham v Clue) 

- in giving reasons for decisions on eligibility for support under Section 17 Children Act, oral 

disclosure is sufficient to inform a decision to return to country of origin (Glover v Haringey 

LBC) 

- the parent(s) of an EEA citizen child dependent will have a right to work and access benefits, 

if their dependant requires them to have these rights in order to enjoy their EU citizen rights 

(Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi) 

- EEA nationals lose worker status (and cannot claim income support) if not employed in the 

late stages of pregnancy (Sec of State for Work and Pensions v JS) 

- the right to reside will be lost if self-employment is given up Tilianu (Court of Appeal), but 

retained whilst seeking self-employment even if no work is found (Sec of State for Work and 

Pensions v AL) 

- the scope for care and attention of disabled adults is defined as a need for ‘looking after’, 

which is defined as “doing something for the person being cared for which he cannot or 

should not be expected to do for himself” (M v Slough). The threshold has been debated in 

court and the implications of the case discussed in regards to physical and mental health 

needs. Needing to be kept an eye on does not amount to being “looked after” (L v 

Westminster). However, this case is back in court (SL v Westminster) [Stop press: Judgment 

due in week of 8 th August 2011] 

2 Legal aid for DVR applications will NOT be cut as a result of recent policy changes 


- the Supreme Court decided that an asylum seeker with outstanding representations for 12 

months or over has a right to work under the EU Reception Directive (ZO (Somalia)). 

However the UKBA limits this right to ‘shortage’ occupations. 

- the decision to restrict eligibility for adult care services to critical needs only (under Fair 

Access to Care criteria) was unlawful because no due regard for disability equality duty or 

assessment of likely adverse impact on those with substantial needs (R (W) v Birmingham 

CC)) 

- a cut to the Roma Support Group and other voluntary organisations was unlawful – the 

equality due regard requirement is higher where vulnerable people are involved (Harjula v 

London Councils). 

Sue argued that the UKBA decision to slightly increase the subsistence support given under Section 

95 was welcome but this increase was not applied to Section 4 support. Sue referred to the Asylum 

Support Appeals Project (ASAP) report ‘No credibility: UKBA decision making in Section 4 support’, 

highlighting that the UKBA often fails to take into account all evidence surrounding a case and thus 

poor decision making occurs which has the potential impact of leading to destitution. The report 

found that 82% of decisions on support applications were overturned on appeal. 

Local authorities can benefit from ensuring their staff are kept up to date about welfare provision and 

are ready to provide information to support applications for mainstream housing and benefit e.g. when 

entitlement to Section 21 support may change after grant of leave to remain. 



Chris Spencer – Chair of ADCS/ADASS Asylum Taskforce 

Chris Spencer's talk focused on the work of the newly created Independent Family Returns Panel 

(IFRP). The Panel consists of four independent safeguarding experts, a specialist GP and 

representatives from the Department for Education (DfE) and UKBA. The purpose of the Panel is to 

advise UKBA on the safe return of families to their country of origin when they have reached the all 

appeal rights-exhausted (ARE) stage and have therefore no rights to remain in the UK. Chris was 

clear about the Panel being independent of the UKBA and the role they were already playing in 

helping to change some of the practices within the agency, thus creating more family-friendly 

approaches which means that the final 72 hours that a family spends in the UK is as humane as 

possible. 

An outline of the new four stage process was presented to the audience. The UKBA are looking 

closely at decision making processes in relation to ARE families as the first stage of the new process. 

Next families are offered assistance – the "Assisted Return" stage – including money to help resettle 

if they determine to make their own way home voluntarily. This assisted voluntary return is offered to 

families on several occasions during the new process. If families refuse to go voluntarily then they 

progress to the next stage where they are served with ‘Self Check-in Removal Directions’ (SCIRDs) 

and they are expected to make their own way to a pre-determined airport at a particular date and 

catch a flight home. This "required" removal stage as it is called often does not work due to the 

family's non-compliance. SCIRDs are often issued on more than one occasion. Finally, an "Ensured 

Return" stage is entered as a last resort. This is where a family is arrested and can be held at the 

Pre-Departure Accommodation facility currently being prepared at Pease Pottage near Gatwick 

Airport or removed via another method. At this stage the UKBA regional teams have to create a plan 

for removal which the IFRP have to scrutinise and approve. The Panel does not have the power to 


stop the removal of families but it does have the power to make recommendations which would better 

serve the well-being and safety of the children involved in the removal process. In the event of a 

disagreement between the Panel the UKBA the decision is referred to the Minister for a final 

decision. 

Chris Spencer described some of the changes in practice which had already taken place within the 

agency as a consequence of the Panel's input. For example, the engagement of the children and 

young people themselves in the process which can be a totally disruptive experience for them if they 

have not been properly prepared for the event. UKBA have already begun to train specialist 

casework officers to deal more effectively with families by creating a positive relationship with them 

through more consistent contact. Chris felt it is a good thing that the UKBA have opened themselves 

up to independent scrutiny in this way so that they can learn from independent experts in the field of 

safeguarding. Chris also mentioned that the welfare services at the Pre-Departure Accommodation 

were being provided by the Barnado’s group who again will be offering their expert advice in how to 

prepare families for removal. The PDA facility will be available in August and will be the final part of 

the new process to be in place. 

The new process had not come into effect until March of this year and up to the point of the 

presentation just two families had been removed via the new process. This number is expected to 

grow when the PDA goes live in August. 

Questions and Answers 

Following the presentations, delegates were invited to ask questions relating to the issues raised. 

One delegate commented that they were aware of Libyan students in the UK that are becoming 

homeless because the UK government froze the Libyan government’s assets, from which student 

grants were given. Hugh explained that the UKBA had had some success in unfreezing assets for 

Libyan students in the UK and were continuing to work to unfreeze these assets 

One delegate raised the issue of clients being unable to pay for fees for Article 8 Human Rights 

applications. A legal representative explained that a waver of this fee should be available to people 

with NRPF but in practice this may be difficult to obtain. 3 

One delegate raised the issue of the lack of UKBA activity when an application for leave to remain is 

refused, leaving individuals and families in limbo. Hugh advised that LITs should be consulted to 

attain information on the stage of return for an individual or family. 

Two questions arose regarding support available to post-18 former UASCs leaving care following the 

test case SO v Barking and Dagenham. Sue explained that Section 4 Immigration and Asylum Act 

support cannot be considered by local authorities as ‘otherwise available’ and it falls on the local 

authorities to provide support under the Leaving Care Provisions. Jonathan explained that Leaving 

Care Provisions are excluded by Schedule 3 NIAA and if post-18 former UASCs fall into one of the 

excluded categories, a Human Rights Assessment must be carried out to determine whether support 

should be provided. 

One delegate raised the issue of inconsistencies of practice in the North West of England. Jonathan 

explained that often expertise on NRPF is centred in a local authority that provides advice and 

3 Fee waivers for immigration applications are only available to destitute people applying for ILR under the 

Domestic Violence Rule 


support regarding NRPF to surrounding local authorities. He explained that the NRPF Network is 

committed to developing regional networks to enable the capacity building of local authorities. 

Workshops 

Four workshops were held during the second half of the conference, aiming to explore practical 

solutions to current NRPF issues. 

Adam Weiss, The AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in 

Europe) – A8 Nationals and the End of the Interim 

Arrangements 

This workshop gave an overview of the legislation and case law that applies to A8 and A2 nationals’ 

access to benefits and social services, in light of the end of the transitional arrangements for A8 

nationals, which took place on 1 May 2011. The challenges still faced by A8 nationals and A2 

nationals were discussed and the ways to find solutions were explored. 

There are discrepancies between EU and UK law which cause difficulties in accessing support for 

EEA nationals but Adam stressed the importance to think creatively to provide a solution to A8/A2 

nationals facing destitution. Indeed Adam argued there is almost always something that they can do 

to demonstrate eligibility for support or advice given to clients to do something to make themselves 

eligible. This includes exercising EU Treaty rights such as looking for work, working or selfemployment, 

or demonstrating that they retain worker or self-employed status, showing permanent 

residence, showing they are a ‘family member’, showing they are ‘the primary carer of the child-ineducation 

of a worker’ or claiming that they are a victim of human trafficking. Where it appears that 

help will not be available, the AIRE Centre can provide assistance and legal advice. 

A number of case studies were looked at to highlight the complexities of EEA cases and how 

eligibility for support can be recognised or established. The issue of when an EEA national becomes 

a ‘worker’ or ‘jobseeker’ post-involuntary unemployment was discussed, and attention to the best 

interests of a child that has been trafficked was highlighted. 



Jo Clarke, Eaves Housing – Sojourner Project and support to 

victims of domestic violence 

This workshop covered the implications of the NRPF condition for victims of domestic violence and 

the support that is provided by the Sojourner Project. The Sojourner Project offers support and 

accommodation to people with NRPF who entered the UK on a spousal or partner visa and who are 

eligible to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) under the Domestic Violence Rule. The effects 

of domestic violence were discussed including fear of removal if the police are contacted, the stigma 

and vulnerability in leaving a marriage, and isolation as a result of language barriers and/or lack of 

knowledge of where and how to access support. 


Eligibility for funding from the Sojourner Project is restricted. Some groups fall out of the Sojourner 

remit, including failed asylum seekers and those on student visas. About 50% of applicants are 

ineligible; the project has had approximately 2000 referrals and of those around 890 have received 

the service, including men (from 30/11/09 – 15/06/11). 

Information sharing between local authorities and the voluntary sector was identified as an issue 

during the workshop. There needs to be greater awareness-raising with local authorities and 

voluntary sector organisations regarding the Sojourner Project, regarding who is eligible for support 

and how to apply for support from the service and how this interacts with eligibility for local authority 

support. 

Benefits of the project identified during the workshop included: reduced local authority costs and a 

quicker response to Domestic Violence Rule applications. It was recommended that organisations 

collect data on domestic violence cases they come into contact with but are not eligible for Sojourner 

funding, in order to help develop appropriate policies and procedures. 

When the Sojourner Project ends in 2012 and is replaced with limited access to public funds for 

victims of domestic violence in this group, careful planning will need to take place to ensure local 

authority support is received instantly upon fleeing abusive situations. 

NB. The length of funding under the Sojourner Project is 50 working days, not 40 as stated on the 

information pack and Eaves Housing website. A person is entitled to 30 working days of 

accommodation and support to enable them to submit a Domestic Violence Rule application and 20 

working days post-submission. 

Henry St Clair Miller, NRPF Network/Islington Council – NRPF 

Connect 

This workshop provided an overview of the NRPF Network’s project to deliver a national database for 

NRPF cases. The work is funded by the NRPF Network and the UKBA. A steering group with local 

authority and UKBA representation is in place to inform system development. The database will be 

operational amongst the local authorities involved in the pilot by February 2012 with national-roll out 

to follow. 

The limitations of not having a centralised database have been known for many years. Better 

partnership work between the UKBA and local authorities is needed in order to identify and resolve 

cases more effectively. Secure data exchange will facilitate this working partnership and help monitor 

outcomes. 

The workshop began by canvassing opinion on what people thought the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of a 

database for NRPF cases might be, participants were asked to provide one ‘positive’ and one 

‘negative’ comment each. 

In terms of the negatives, it was felt that people’s right to private life would be breached in relation to 

privacy and data protection; it was raised that information held ‘would only be as good as the 

commitment of the people who input the data’; maintenance, ownership and costs were also raised 

as concerns. 

In terms of the positives, comments included ‘creating a common language and understanding’, 

transparency, ‘keeping people individual cases ‘alive’ and moving on’ and improved communication 

between organisations leading to ‘resolution of status’. From a strategic point of view, providing 


‘consistency in recording data’ would build a stronger understanding of the issues and would help 

resources to be targeted. 

Tackling these complex areas of concern is integral to the successful implementation of NRPF 

Connect. The workshop went on to address current Network activities in delivering the database 

before asking participants to think about what the benefits might be for their organisation and to 

provide suggestions as to how possible problems could be best addressed. One of the resonating 

issues that arose was that NRPF is not always about cases supported by local authorities under 

children or community care legislation, therefore the database should cater for other areas of service 

provision, such as people on hospital wards. 



Anca Andreopoulos, Refugee Action – Assisted Voluntary 

Return (AVR) Programmes 

This workshop covered the Assisted Voluntary Returns Programmes which has been delivered by 

Refugee Action since April 2011. Refugee Action has 30 years of expertise in advising, informing and 

assisting individuals on their return to country of origin. The programme is named Choices to reflect 

the client-centred non-directive approach. 

Anca explained what AVR is, how the service is delivered, who is eligible and who cannot apply, and 

gave a breakdown of the three programmes. She explained what Refugee Action London cannot 

offer (for example, legal advice) and gave contact details for accessing the service. The benefits of a 

voluntary return as opposed to a forced removal were explored, including the difference in choice of 

when and where to return, the nature of the return in terms of security (no security guards, no 

handcuffs), the planning of the return and reintegration support. 

Since April 2011, 350 cases have been approved for the AVR programmes, with each application 

taking around one month to process. 

Discussions centred on the requirement for individuals to voluntarily return and the importance of 

outreach work in informing individuals of the programmes and offering advice for those deciding to 

return. The value of partner organisations in the reintegration and rebuilding of lives in countries of 

origins was discussed. Several in-country partner organisations have already been identified and 

Refugee Action is working to increase links overseas to build reintegration and monitoring 

frameworks. 

Problems accessing Section 4 support whilst awaiting voluntary return was highlighted as an issue. 

Another problem that was highlighted was the need for individuals to pay for medication in the 

country of return themselves and then claim the expenses back. Furthermore, not all receipts are 

accepted – this has been identified by Refugee Action as a problem but receipt criteria are set by the 

Returns Fund. Terminal illness cases were discussed regarding the time taken in processing these 

cases, however the nature of the process is such that a waiting period is inevitable to enable the 

gathering of travel documentation and liaison with embassies. Refugee Action prioritises all medical 

cases. 




Participant Feedback 

Feedback on the conference was very positive. Many delegates considered it an excellent opportunity 

for sharing expertise and networking. 85% of delegates said that the conference had met their 

expectations and the remaining 15% said that the conference had partly met their expectations. 

Delegates found both the panel presentations and workshops to be useful. Some participants 

however would have liked the issues to have been covered in more detail and for similar conferences 

to be held more frequently. 


Copyright © NRPF Network 12 th August 2011. All rights reserved. 

For further information please contact: nrpf@islington.gov.uk 

or tel. 020 7527 7107 

NRPF Network c/o Equalities, Refugee and Migrant Service 

Islington Town Hall, Upper Street, London N1 2UD 

www.islington.gov.uk/nrpfnetwork

Local Authority Support to People with No ... - Islington Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?