Under the radar: Impact of policies of localism on substance misuse services for refugee and asylum seeking communities

Abstract

Drug services struggle to respond to the UK's minority communities. Despite some success, suspicion persists. The UK government has advanced localism as a mechanism for supporting communities in developing systems which will meet their needs. Drawing upon three research projects, this article examines the needs of asylum seekers and refugees, the formation of communities and the barriers which leave individuals unnoticed. It explores the potential of localism to engage and support drug users in new communities.

Refugee Mobility: Evidence from Phone Data in Turkey

“…Political factors have also been found to matter in other contexts. Researchers from various disciplines have been interested in measuring the impact of national policies on asylum seekers' health (Steele et al, 2002;Mills, 2012;Ziersch et al, 2017). A study from Greyling (2016) finds that government assistance, culture, economic factors, crime, refugee status, reasons for leaving the home countries, time spent and number of people staying in a house in the host country are all policies that affect asylum seekers in South Africa.…”

Community perspectives on substance use among Bhutanese and Iraqi refugees resettled in the United States

“…A growing body of research suggests that the combination of pre-migration trauma, comorbid psychological conditions, and post-migration stress places refugees at high risk for substance use problems (Mills, 2012;Sowey, 2005). Prevalence of substance use problems among refugees resettled in the US remains largely unknown.…”

“…Several barriers are believed to hinder refugees' utilization of available services. These barriers include limited knowledge about resources, lack of linguistically accessible care, incongruence between Western-centric care and indigenous health beliefs, fear of deportation, social stigma, and structural barriers to public health services (Mills, 2012;Morris, Popper, Rodwell, Brodine, & Brouwer, 2009). In the US, under the federal government's humanitarian resettlement program, refugees are entitled to a brief period of supportive services, including public health insurance.…”

Exporting Canadian immigration policy: a comparative analysis of private sponsorship methods in Canada, the U.K. and Germany

“…Local Authorities have the power to reject admittance of refugees on a number of grounds including pre-existing medical conditions and a lack of available schools in the area (Phillimore & Reyes, 2019). This echoes Mills's (2012) beliefs that refugees with special and particular needs are more affected by local agendas that do not support their inclusion into the community. Combined with the fact that the U.K. does not have a national framework regarding integration, community sponsorship groups and local authorities hold an incredible amount of responsibility over the families they sponsor.…”

“…Porteous (2013) defines localism as the "shift in power and resources away from centralized top-down government and decision-making structures to devolved democratic and collaborative community structures" (503). In the U.K. concepts of localism were apparent in the former Labour Party's administration and became enshrined in law with the Localism Act of 2011 passed under the coalition government and with the creation of a "decentralization team" in the Department for Communities and Local Government (Mills, 2012). Former Prime Minister David Cameron's "Big Society" initiative provided much of the early impetus behind the legislation.…”