No recourse to public funds: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to outlines the findings of the first qualitative evidence synthesis of empirical research on the impact of the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) rule which prevents most temporary migrants from accessing social security benefits in the UK. Design/methodology/approach The review used the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol guidelines. Data were analysed by using Thomas and Harden’s (2008) thematic synthesis methodology. An initial 321 articles were identified from 13 databases, of which 38 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings The key insights were that NRPF causes destitution and extreme poverty and has a disproportionate impact on racialised women. Studies found that support services were underdeveloped, underfunded, inconsistent and had a culture of mistrust and racism towards migrants. Migrants were often fearful of services due to concerns around deportation, destitution and state intervention around children. Research limitations/implications The review focussed on qualitative research. Future empirical and theoretical research is needed in the following areas: NRPF as a practice of everyday bordering, the role of the Home Office in creating and sustaining the policy; differing gendered experiences of NRPF; and a broader geographical scope which includes all four UK nations and takes an international comparative approach. Originality/value Despite an estimated 1.4 million people in the UK with NRPF (Citizens Advice, 2020), there is little policy or theoretical discussion of the experience of having NRPF or the implications of the rule. This lack of analysis is a significant gap in both our understanding of the landscape of poverty in the UK, and the ways in which immigration policies create extreme poverty. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first systematic qualitative review on NRPF, bringing together the research evidence on how NRPF negatively affects outcomes for migrants, local authority and voluntary sector responses to NRPF and theoretical perspectives on NRPF.

Children and families with no recourse to public funds: Learning from case reviews

“…Also, the reviews do not include situations where abuse or neglect did not result in death or serious harm or situations where death or harm was not caused by abuse or neglect, and so are not representative of all children with NRPF. However, the experiences of living with NRPF as described in SCRs were often very similar to the experiences of other families with NRPF (Jolly et al, 2022).…”

How does ethnicity affect presence of advance care planning in care records for individuals with advanced disease? A mixed-methods systematic review

“…In the UK, the impact of financial constraints is more ambiguous due to a largely accessible and freely available National Health Service. However, PPI contributors emphasised that, financial constraints do play a part, particularly for people who have No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) [ 74 ].…”

Who counts in poverty research?

“…In seeking to quantify (dis)advantage, the wider adoption of these approaches across the social sciences functions to re-marginalise the privation experienced by many men, women, ethnic minorities, displaced and mobile populations, migrants, and people experiencing limiting health conditions or disabilities. The hidden forms of social violence and injustice experienced are effectively surfaced through post hoc surveys and qualitative research (Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Edmiston et al, 2022a; Fitzpatrick et al, 2020; Jolly et al, 2022). However, the methodological and substantive insights from such work do not always sit comfortably within or even alongside prevailing data practices and government reporting on low incomes.…”

“…That said, qualitative research on financial hardship illustrates how hyper-marginalised groups on the periphery of institutional recognition and support – such as those affected by homelessness or No Recourse to Public Funds – are often poorly accounted for, or missing, in distributional analyses and policy evaluation (e.g. Edin & Shaefer, 2015; Jolly et al, 2022; Pinter et al, 2020). If a considerable number of this ‘missing minority’ are more likely to experience (deep) poverty – and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they do – non-coverage rates relative to the whole population may initially appear minor, but as a proportion of the low-income population these gaps in data become cumulatively quite significant.…”

“…Specifically, there has been growing concern that mainstream poverty analysis and government reporting on low incomes is failing to capture the living standards of the lowest-income groups worst affected by socioeconomic upheaval and welfare state recalibration across late capitalist contexts (Edmiston et al, 2022a). Recent work that attempts to address this has proven instrumental for highlighting some of the shortcomings with contemporary poverty research internationally (Gaisbauer et al, 2019;Jolly et al, 2022). However, conceptual and methodological advancements across distinct subfields often remain siloed off from one another; inadequately integrated to effectively scrutinise the social politics underpinning economic marginality (Du Toit, 2009).…”