Refugee Youth, Social Inclusion and Health

REFUGEE YOUTH, SOCIA L INCLUSION AND HEALTH

KAREN BLOCK

BVSC (HONS); BA (HONS); MPH

SUBMITTED IN TOTAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

NOVEMBER 2012

MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF POPULATION HEALTH

FACULTY OF MEDICINE, DENTISTRY AND HEALTH SCIENCES

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

PRODUCED ON ARCHIVAL QUALITY PAPER

ABSTRACT

In recent years, refugees settling in Australia have come predominantly from countries that have experienced protracted conflict and consequent displacement of populations. Ensuing disruption to education and to family and social networks results in particular barriers to social inclusion for young refugees and there is a corresponding need for evidence-based policies and practices to support successful settlement for this population. Social inclusion is a key social determinant of health.

Accordingly, this PhD research addresses the question: How can policy-makers and services promote positive resettlement experiences and social inclusion for refugee-background youth in Australia? Its overall aim is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth in Australia, and provide policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision for this population. This aim and research question entails the following further objectives:

 To review the existing evidence relating to issues of social inclusion, social connectedness, employment and education opportunities for young refugee settlers;  To bring the voices of refugee-background young people themselves into the knowledge constructed around them;  To use theories of social inclusion and social capital to inform understanding of their experiences;  To assess the impact of a support program for recently arrived refugee youth on their resettlement experiences.

The project comprised mixed methods evaluation research with young people aged 16 to 24 from refugee backgrounds, who were participating in an innovative intervention called Ucan2, designed to improve settlement outcomes for this group. The research focus is on experiences of resettlement; the mediating role played by social connections; education and employment experiences, aspirations and outcomes; and the impacts of program participation.

Theories of social inclusion and social capital - along with Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework for understanding integration - are used to frame the investigation. Research methods included participant observation, social network mapping, demographic and wellbeing surveys, focus groups and individual interviews. Research findings indicate that young humanitarian entrants to Australia are generally resilient but face threats to wellbeing and inclusion associated with poverty, separation from family and difficulties encountered within unfamiliar education systems. The findings make a contribution to conceptual understandings of settlement experiences and demonstrate a compelling rationale for providing targeted and intensive support such as that offered by the Ucan2 iii

program to young people during the early years of resettlement. They also add weight to recent calls for more flexible and expanded family reunion policies.

DECLARATION

This is to certify that

I. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where indicated in the Preface, II. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other materials used, III. the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

Signed ______

PREFACE

This PhD project was nested within a larger evaluation of the Ucan2 program carried out by a research team from the McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health. The team included Dr Lisa Gibbs (Project manager and my primary supervisor), Dr Deborah Warr (Research manager and co-supervisor), Elisha Riggs (Research Fellow primarily responsible for evaluation of the Ucan2 partnerships), and myself (Research Fellow and PhD candidate responsible for evaluation of the participant experience of Ucan2). Additional researchers affiliated with the project were Dr Dean Lusher (social network analyst) from the School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne, Lisa Gold (health economist) from the Health Economics Unit, Deakin University, and Maryanne Tadic (Master of Public Health student from La Trobe University who investigated the experiences of volunteers in the program). The PhD project comprised an exploratory research component of the evaluation to examine the experiences of the young refugee-background program participants and the impact of the program on those experiences. The Ucan2 program and the relationship between this study and the evaluation are described in detail in Chapter 4.

The contribution of other researchers to the quantitative data analysis is also described in Chapter 4 as follows. Dr Dean Lusher carried out the statistical analyses of quantitative social network and subjective wellbeing data for this project. Dr Melanie Davern and Rosie Ashbolt (both from the McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health) provided additional advice and assistance with statistical analyses. Development of the quantitative method for social network mapping (in which I took a leading role) was a collaborative process involving the whole evaluation team, which drew primarily on my interpretation and knowledge of the relevant theoretical literature and understanding of circumstances and practical constraints in the field, and Dr Lusher’s knowledge of social network analysis. A similar process was used to plan the analyses. I was solely responsible for all data collection, data entry and presentation of results and primarily responsible for interpretation of the findings. Apart from supervisory guidance and advice, the qualitative components of this research (including development of methods, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting) comprise my own work.

Chapter 5 comprises a reflective analysis of ethical and methodological challenges - anticipated and unanticipated - encountered in the field, and explains the changes to methodology and methods that were made in response to these. The second section of the chapter is a summarised version of a multi- author journal article published in the Journal of Refugee Studies, entitled: Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: reflections from the field (Block, Warr, Gibbs, & Riggs, 2012). As first author, I wrote the complete first draft of the paper based on the work I conducted for this PhD. The other authors contributed to the project design (as v

part of the broader evaluation); to discussions concerning adaptations to the methodology; and to shaping the final structure and wording of the article.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge all those people who have participated in, supported and encouraged me in this PhD project.

Firstly, I would like most of all to thank the Ucan2 students who participated in the research. The courage, patience and humour with which many of these young men and women lead their lives is truly inspiring and it has been my absolute privilege to spend time with them and to share a little of their laughter, their tears and their hopes for the future.

I am indebted and thankful to the Ucan2 staff for welcoming and facilitating this research and sharing their time, their collective wisdom and insights. Teachers, principals and support staff from schools and adult language programs, youth workers and managers from the Centre for Multicultural Youth, and Ucan2 project workers from Foundation House have all made valuable contributions to the project. Special mention must be made of the unflagging interest and input from Chris Pierson, Gillian Kerr, and Katherine Cooney of Foundation House. Their contribution of knowledge and expertise, during many hours of project meetings, classroom activities and informal discussions, as well as willingness to take up new ideas and embrace theoretical perspectives, have enriched my understanding of the field enormously and taught me the value of a genuine research partnership.

I am immensely appreciative of the guidance and support of my supervisors Lisa Gibbs and Deborah Warr. Each has provided opportune and invaluable input and advice exactly when needed, while allowing me to find my own way when appropriate. I am also grateful for the encouragement to take up other opportunities that have arisen throughout the research journey and enriched the experience. I would also like to thank Tony Lamontagne for his help and input as the Chair of my Advisory Committee and Therese Riley and Julie Green for their early contribution to the project during the Confirmation process. Additional thanks are due to the many colleagues from within the McCaughey Centre and broader University community from whom I am always learning and who have provided support and encouragement throughout. I am particularly grateful to Dean Lusher, Melanie Davern, Elisha Riggs, Rosie Ashbolt, Colin Gallagher and Britt Johnson and to colleagues and fellow students in the McCaughey Centre post-graduate student group, writing workshops, Migration Studies group and Researchers for Asylum Seekers.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family – especially my fabulous partner and daughters, Chris, Rachel and Naomi - for their unwavering interest, care and support; not to mention reminders to continue to engage in life beyond the PhD!

vii

This doctoral research was funded by scholarships from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Sidney Myer Foundation. The broader evaluation project was funded primarily by a private philanthropic trust.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... III

DECLARATION ...... IV

PREFACE ...... V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IX

LIST OF FIGURES ...... XII

LIST OF TABLES ...... XIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... XIV

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ...... XV

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ...... 1

PROJECT RATIONALE AND AIM ...... 1

PROBLEM STATEMENT: SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND YOUTH...... 2

SCOPE AND SETTING FOR THE RESEARCH ...... 5

OVERVIEW OF THESIS ...... 6

CHAPTER 2 : REFUGEE SETTLEMENT LITERATURE ...... 9

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE ...... 9

BACKGROUND: REFUGEE MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA ...... 10

FACTORS INFLUENCING INCLUSION AND WELLBEING ...... 16

EVIDENCE FOR INTERVENTION ...... 34

CONCLUSION ...... 37

CHAPTER 3 : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS ...... 41

SOCIAL EXCLUSION ...... 42

SOCIAL INCLUSION ...... 44

SOCIAL CAPITAL ...... 50

THE LINK BETWEEN SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION ...... 61

CONCLUSION ...... 65

CHAPTER 4 : RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 67

RESEARCH AIMS ...... 67

METHODOLOGY ...... 68

RESEARCH SETTING: THE UCAN2 PROGRAM ...... 73

METHODS ...... 78

CONCLUSION ...... 99

CHAPTER 5 : ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 101

ETHICS APPROVAL ...... 101

METHODOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH ...... 102

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THIS PROJECT ...... 106

CONCLUSION ...... 114

CHAPTER 6 : RESULTS – SOCIAL NETWORKS AND WELLBEING ...... 117

THE QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE ...... 117

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 121

SOCIAL NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 126

FINDINGS FROM WELLBEING SURVEYS ...... 136

CONCLUSION ...... 150

CHAPTER 7 : RESULTS – QUALITATIVE FINDINGS FROM FOCUS GROUPS, INTERVIEWS AND PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION ...... 153

FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ...... 154

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS ...... 156

IMPACT OF PRE-ARRIVAL EXPERIENCES ...... 157

DOMAINS OF INCLUSION ...... 159

SOCIAL NETWORKS ...... 160

EDUCATION AND LEARNING ENGLISH ...... 173

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS ...... 182

SAFETY, STABILITY AND MENTAL HEALTH ...... 189

CONCLUSION ...... 199

CHAPTER 8 : DISCUSSION – ‘EVEN IN HEAVEN, IT’S TOO HARD ALONE’ ...... 203

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND WELLBEING: BONDS, BRIDGES AND LINKS ...... 204

FOUNDATIONS AND FACILITATORS OF INCLUSION ...... 210

MARKERS AND MEANS OF INCLUSION ...... 214

SOCIAL INCLUSION: THE NEED FOR TARGETED INTERVENTION AND IMPACT OF THE UCAN2 PRORAM ...... 217

STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 220

SUMMARY ...... 223

CHAPTER 9 : CONCLUSIONS ...... 225

REFERENCES ...... 229

APPENDICES ...... 244

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW PROMPTS ...... 244

APPENDIX 2: UCAN2 PARTICIPANT DATA ...... 253

APPENDIX 3: ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WELLBEING AND REGION OF ORIGIN (ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL TABLES) ...... 255

APPENDIX 4: DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS AND RELATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION OUTCOMES ...... 267

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3-1: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK DEFINING CORE DOMAINS OF INTEGRATION (AGER & STRANG, 2008) ...... 64 FIGURE 4-1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHD RESEARCH AND UCAN2 EVALUATION ...... 74 FIGURE 4-2: UNINTERRUPTED PATHWAY THROUGH THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM ...... 75 FIGURE 4-3: PATHWAY EXPERIENCED BY MANY REFUGEE-BACKGROUND YOUNG PEOPLE ...... 75 FIGURE 4-4: POSITION OF UCAN2 PROGRAM IN SUPPORTING TRANSITION TO MAINSTREAM EDUCATION, TRAINING OR EMPLOYMENT ...... 76 FIGURE 4-5: SOCIAL NETWORK MAP ...... 84 FIGURE 5-1: TYPICAL COMPLETED SOCIAL NETWORK MAP ...... 108 FIGURE 6-1: FLOW DIAGRAM DEPICTING METHOD OF DATA INCLUSION FOR CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES .. 120 FIGURE 6-2: ORIGIN OF PARTICIPANTS ...... 121 FIGURE 6-3: MOST COMMON LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY UCAN2 PARTICIPANTS ...... 124 FIGURE 6-4: SOCIAL NETWORK MAP ...... 126 FIGURE 6-5: NUMBER OF IMPORTANT FAMILY MEMBERS LISTED BY PARTICIPANTS AS LIVING OVERSEAS (N=195) ...... 128 FIGURE 6-6: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA WHO WERE BORN IN AUSTRALIA (N=195) ... 128 FIGURE 6-7: NUMBER OF FRIENDS BORN IN AUSTRALIA AT T1 AND T2 (N=102)...... 129 FIGURE 6-8: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA WHO WERE BORN OVERSEAS (N=195) ...... 129 FIGURE 6-9: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, BORN OVERSEAS AT T1 AND T2 (N=102) .... 130 FIGURE 6-10: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING OVERSEAS (N=195) ...... 130 FIGURE 6-11: NUMBER OF UCAN2 STAFF LISTED AS IMPORTANT AT T1 AND T2 (N=102) ...... 131 FIGURE 6-12: NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE LISTED AS IMPORTANT AT T1 AND T2 (N = 102) ...... 132 FIGURE 6-13: SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION ADVICE FOR PARTICIPANTS INDICATING ADVICE FROM ANY DOMAIN (N=118) ...... 133 FIGURE 6-14: SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR PARTICIPANTS INDICATING SUPPORT FROM ANY DOMAIN (N=164) ...... 134 FIGURE 6-15: COMPLETED SOCIAL NETWORK MAP EMPHASISING THE LACK OF AUSTRALIAN-BORN FRIENDS ...... 135 FIGURE 6-16: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND (N=167) AND NON REFUGEE- BACKGROUND (N=48) UCAN2 STUDENTS ...... 141 FIGURE 6-17: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO REGION OF ORIGIN – MIDDLE EAST (N=62); BURMA (N=63); AFRICA (N=43); OTHER (N=47) ...... 143 FIGURE 6-18: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF TIME IN AUSTRALIA 1TO 6 MONTHS (N=72); 7TO 12 MONTHS (N=66); 13TO18 MONTHS (N=25); 19 TO 24 MONTHS (N=22); 25+ MONTHS (N=30) ...... 146 xii

FIGURE 6-19: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO WHETHER ANY PARENTS ARE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA – NO PARENTS (N=79); ONE OR BOTH PARENTS (N=116) ...... 148 FIGURE 6-20: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO WHETHER ANY OTHER FAMLY ARE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA – NO OTHER FAMILY (N=43); OTHER FAMILY LIVING IN AUSTRALIA (N=151) ...... 149

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1: HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS IN VICTORIA BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24 FROM 2006- 2011 ...... 5 TABLE 2-1: TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF BIRTH OF HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS TO AUSTRALIA FROM 2001 TO 2011 ...... 11 TABLE 2-2: YEARS OF PRIOR EDUCATION REPORTED BY HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS IN VICTORIA BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24 FROM 2006-2011 ...... 24 TABLE 4-1: UCAN2 SITES WHERE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING STUDENTS 2009-2011 ...... 81 TABLE 6-1: NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING STUDENTS AND TIMING OF DATA COLLECTION AT EACH SITE (N=215) ...... 118 TABLE 6-2: NATIONALITY REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS (N=215) ...... 122 TABLE 6-3: REFUGEE BACKGROUND AND GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS (N=215) ...... 123 TABLE 6-4: RELIGION OF UCAN2 PARTICIPANTS (N=215) ...... 124 TABLE 6-5: FIRST LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME (N=215) ...... 125 TABLE 6-6: PARTICIPANTS’ PARENTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA (N=195) ...... 127 TABLE 6-7: NUMBER OF UCAN2 STAFF LISTED AS IMPORTANT (N=195) ...... 131 TABLE 6-8: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES FOR ALL UCAN2 STUDY PARTICIPANTS (N = 215) COMPARED WITH AUSTRALIAN MEANS FOR 18 TO 25 YEAR OLDS ...... 137 TABLE 6-9: T1 AND T2 PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES (N=102) ...... 139 TABLE 7-1: NUMBER AND SIZE OF FOCUS GROUPS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOOLS (ELS) AND ADULT SETTINGS (AS) ...... 154 TABLE 7-2: SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS (N-26) ...... 155 TABLE 7-3: THE ‘TOP FIVE’ THINGS CHOSEN AS IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO SETTLE AND LIVE WELL IN AUSTRALIA ...... 159

xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMEP: Adult Migrant English Program AMES: Adult Multicultural Education Services CALD: Culturally and Linguistically Diverse CMY: Centre for Multicultural Youth (formerly CMYI: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues) CSWE: Certificate in Spoken and Written English DEECD: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development DIAC: Department of Immigration and Citizenship EPP: Employment Pathways Program ELC: English Language Centre ELS: English Language School ESL: English as a Second Language HSS: Humanitarian Settlement Services IHSS: Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy NPELS: Noble Park English Language School OH & S: Occupational Health and Safety REPP: Refugee Education Partnership Project SEKN: Social Exclusion Knowledge Network SGP: Settlement Grants Program SPP: Special Preparatory Program TAFE: Technical and Further Education UNHCR: United Nations High Commission for Refugees VCAL: Victorian Certificate of Applied Learning VCE: Victorian Certificate of Education VET: Vocational Education and Training VFST: Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture (Foundation House) VicHealth: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation VU: Victoria University WELS: Western English Language School WHO: World Health Organisation

xiv

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

ASYLUM SEEKER

An asylum seeker is a person who is outside his/or her country of origin and whose claim for recognition as a refugee has not yet been definitively evaluated (UNHCR, 2011).

MAINSTREAM

Used here to refer to services and institutions that cater for the wider community rather than provide specialist services for refugees and migrants or CALD communities (See for example Toure, 2008).

REFUGEE

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) definition of a refugee is a person who:

owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country...

(Article 1, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, UNHCR, 1979)

REFUGEE (OR “REFUGEE-LIKE”) BACKGROUND

The term refugee-background is preferred to refugee for describing the participants in this research as, having been accepted as permanent residents in Australia, the latter term no longer provides an appropriate description of their identity. For the purposes of this thesis, the term refugee-background is used to describe all those who have entered Australia through its humanitarian program as well as those who, based on their country of origin and date of arrival, are likely to have had similar prior experiences although they may have entered Australia under a different visa category. This classification strategy follows that of the research partners (See also: DEECD, 2011).

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital can be conceptualised as existing at a community and/or an individual level. While there is no one commonly accepted definition the term is generally used to refer to the benefits associated with social connectedness. The following definition captures the way in which social capital is understood for the purposes of this project: Social capital comprises ‘a range of thinking xv

around norms and networks; the values and resources that both result in, and are the product of, socially negotiated ties and relationships’ (Cheong, Edwards, Goulbourne, & Solomos, 2007:25).

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH

The World Health Organization defines health as ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, October 2006). The social determinants of health are:

the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. The social determinants of health are mostly responsible for health inequities - the unfair and avoidable differences in health status seen within and between countries (WHO, 2013a).

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

‘Social exclusion refers to the societal and institutional processes that exclude certain groups from full participation in the social, economic, cultural and political life of societies’ (Narayan, 1999:4). Social exclusion links concepts of social capital to material deprivation and poverty and focuses on processes through which marginalisation occurs (Baum & Ziersch, 2003). The World Health Organisation recognises social exclusion as a key social determinant of health consisting of:

dynamic, multi-dimensional processes driven by unequal power relationships interacting across four main dimensions - economic, political, social and cultural - and at different levels including individual, household, group, community, country and global levels. It results in a continuum of inclusion/exclusion characterised by unequal access to resources, capabilities and rights which leads to health inequalities. (WHO, 2013b)

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Social inclusion has been defined in a number of ways. A working definition for the purpose of this thesis, is that put forward as part of the Australian Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda:

A socially inclusive society is one in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in our society. Achieving this vision means that all Australians will have the resources, opportunities and capability to:

 Learn by participating in education and training;

xvi

 Work by participating in employment, in voluntary work and in family and caring;

 Engage by connecting with people and using their local community’s resources; and

 Have a voice so they can influence decisions that affect them.

(Australian Government, n.d.)

SOCIAL INCLUSION BOARD

Established in May 2008 by the Rudd Labor Government, The Australian Social Inclusion Board consists of community leaders from the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. Board members are appointed by the Minister for Social Inclusion for up to three years and provide advice to Government on ways to achieve better outcomes for the most disadvantaged in our community (Australian Government, n.d.).

SOCIAL NETWORKS

Social networks refer to the formal or informal ties or connections between individuals or groups and comprise the structural element of social capital. Resources which flow through networks are affected by characteristics such as whether they are bonding, bridging or linking, their size, density and whether they are open or closed (Baum & Ziersch, 2003).

YOUTH

Youth is defined differently in different contexts and may include some or all of the ages between 12 and 30. The concept of youth also has culturally determined connotations, often implying a state of transition, a tendency towards certain behaviours, a particular life stage, or family role. Some of the young people in this research come from cultures which may have very different concepts of youth; or even no concept of youth as comprising a stage between childhood and adulthood at all (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a). For the purpose of this thesis, the term youth refers to young people of post- compulsory school age matching the target age range for participants in the Ucan2 program, which provides the study setting. Ucan2 is tailored for young people aged 16-24, although in practice, this target age range for the program was loosely applied, and research participants ranged from 15 to 32.

xvii

xviii

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

PROJECT RATIONALE AND AIM

In October 2007 the coalition government’s Liberal Party Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, announced that Australia would reduce its humanitarian intake from Africa because young people from those communities, the Sudanese in particular, were not integrating well into Australian society (Hoerr, 4 October 2007). Coming from a government already under fire from refugee advocates for its perceived retreat from supporting multiculturalism and hostility to asylum seekers, Andrews’ comments were construed by many as racist, and attracted considerable criticism. Bodies such as the Refugee Council of Australia (January 2009) (re)asserted the principle that settlement of refugees should not depend on their perceived ‘integration potential’. In the midst of this criticism, many commentators acknowledged that very real barriers to integration existed for these young people, and emphasised the need for settlement services to respond appropriately (Dhanji, 2009; Pittaway, Muli, & Shteir, 2011).

Shortly after making those comments, in November 2007, the minister lost his portfolio during an election bringing a Labor government to power. Part of the new government’s platform was an agenda for Social Inclusion (Gillard, 2007). More recently, the government reaffirmed a commitment to multiculturalism with the release of a new multicultural policy, The People of Australia (DIAC, 2011c). This document explicitly aligns its multicultural policy with the Social Inclusion Agenda, stating:

The Australian Government is committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society where everyone can participate in the opportunities that Australia offers and where government services are responsive to the needs of Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (DIAC, 2011c:5).

This doctoral project engages with these issues. If we accept there is a genuine policy intention that refugee-background young people should be able to ‘participate in the opportunities that Australia offers’, yet are currently experiencing barriers to participation and inclusion, the question arises: How can policy-makers and services promote positive resettlement experiences and social inclusion for refugee-background youth in Australia? Social inclusion is recognised as a key social determinant of health, understood as ‘a state of 1

complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, October 2006). Access to resources, capabilities and rights reflect position on a continuum of inclusion and exclusion, which leads to health inequalities (WHO, 2013b).

The corresponding aim of this research therefore is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth in Australia, and provide policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision for this population.

This broad aim and research question entails the following related objectives:

PROBLEM STATEMENT: SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND INCLUSION FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND YOUTH

Social exclusion stems from the complex interaction of multiple factors, including poverty and disadvantage, poor health, cultural marginalisation and restricted spatial mobility (Pierson, 2004; Vinson, Brown, Graham, Stanley, & Working, 2009). Obstacles faced by young refugee-background settlers in Australia are conceptualised for the purposes of this research as dimensions of exclusion requiring a response that promotes inclusion. Refugees settling in Australia come from diverse backgrounds but face a common need to deal with experiences of loss, family disruption, time spent in refugee camps and trauma associated with having to flee their homes. Following resettlement, in order to establish new lives in Australia, they also have to negotiate a new culture, new language, and new health, welfare and education systems (Duncan, Shepherd, & Symons, 2010). Studies suggest that asylum-seekers and refugees living in industrialised countries experience many problems of

social exclusion arising from poverty, poor housing, poor access to services, limited English language support, isolation and few supportive social networks (Davies, 2005; Pierson, 2004).

The Australian Federal Government’s webpage outlining its Social Inclusion Agenda avows that:

The Australian Government’s vision of a socially inclusive society is one in which all Australians feel valued and have the opportunity to participate fully in the life of our society. Achieving this vision means that all Australians will have the resources, opportunities and capability to:

 Learn by participating in education and training  Work by participating in employment, in voluntary work and in family and caring  Engage by connecting with people and using their local community’s resources and  Have a voice so that they can influence decisions that affect them (Australian Government, n.d.) Advantages of a social inclusion approach for this research thus lie in its broad scope and political currency. The term has also been criticised however, for a lack of precision (M. Daly & Silver, 2008; Silver, 1994). There is often a great deal of slippage in the literature between this term and others dealing with related concepts such as social cohesion, social capital, social engagement and participation, social justice and human rights (Popay et al., 2008). Several commentators have stressed that social inclusion and human rights based approaches have much in common as well as potential synergies. Former Australian Human Rights Commission president Catherine Branson, for example, has argued that:

Social Inclusion reminds us that if ... rights are to be enjoyed by all, it is important that we address multiple and persistent disadvantage, and that we recognise when intervention and assistance to individuals or families is critically required. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 23 November 2009)

The implications and critiques of a social inclusion approach are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

In its first Annual Report, Social Inclusion in Australia: How Australia is Faring, the Australian Social Inclusion Board (2010b) outlined indicators for assessing social inclusion. Although for most of these indicators, data was not disagreggated to the extent that outcomes for refugee-background and non-refugee-background migrants can be distinguished, it nonetheless highlights a number of areas of concern. It reports, for example, that ‘a relatively high proportion of recent migrants from a refugee background were in receipt of long-term income support in the last five years’ (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2010b, p. 27:27). People ‘born overseas and not proficient in English’ were 3

also identified as at increased risk of exclusion in a number of domains. These included social participation; material and economic resources; health and disability; education and skills; social resources; community and institutional resources; and personal safety (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2010b).

A review of Australian research suggests that refugees may face additional dimensions of social exclusion not experienced by the rest of the community. These include exclusion from entitlements associated with certain visa categories; lack of citizenship; lack of English; and experiences of racism and discrimination (J. Taylor, 2004). In the case of asylum seekers, they must first overcome government attempts to exclude them physically from reaching our borders. Moreover, researchers have argued that exclusion is intensified by neoconservative government policies, which suppress data on this population. Failure to count asylum seekers - yet to receive refugee status and associated residency rights - within population health statistics effectively renders the social inequalities they suffer all but invisible (Correa-Velez & Gifford, 2007).

Currently, approximately 3,500 to 4,000 humanitarian entrants settle in Victoria each year and a large proportion of these are children and youth (Paxton, Smith, Win, Mulholland, & Hood, 2011). Young people from refugee backgrounds face the challenge of dealing with the trauma that precipitated their migration and the considerable stresses of resettlement, potentially exacerbated by intergenerational friction. Australian research (Brough, Gorman, Ramirez, & Westoby, 2003) has found that young refugees experience anxiety about family and friends left behind, as well as tension between belonging to and potentially betraying their culture of origin and the need to be included in the dominant culture. In this context, education and the school environment may be experienced as an additional strain (Brough, et al., 2003; National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Refugee Trauma Taskforce, 2005).

Organisations providing education and support services for refugees and migrants admitted to Australia under humanitarian programs have identified particular needs for post-compulsory school age young people (aged approximately 16 to 24), who are often poorly served by existing educational pathways (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). In addition to a significant degree of physical and/or psychological trauma, many have spent long periods in refugee camps or first countries of asylum prior to arrival in Australia. This background means that these adolescents and young adults have experienced minimal or considerably disrupted formal education, resulting in low numeracy and literacy levels in their first language. This is compounded by limited vocational skills, work histories or experiences relevant to employment in Australia. Standard programs provide twelve months of English language tuition before placement in mainstream education and training systems, where a mismatch of age, educational level and experience leaves many individuals at high risk of 4

disengagement, dropping-out, and subsequent welfare dependency. Table 1-1 shows the number of humanitarian stream youth in this age range who settled in Victoria over the five years from 2006 to 2010. As this table indicates, while the numbers arriving each year are not large, approximately 4,000 young people in this cohort could be described as ‘recently-arrived’ (ie. having migrated within the last 5 years) at any one time.

TABLE 1-1: HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS IN VICTORIA BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24 FROM 2006-2011

Calendar year of arrival

Age on Arrival 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total 16-17 227 205 179 235 186 1032

18-24 709 657 625 793 501 3285

Total 936 862 804 1028 687 4317

(EXTRACTED FROM DIAC DATABASE 20/10/11, DIAC, 2011D)

There is little available data concerning the living conditions and family circumstances of this cohort. Some features can be extrapolated however, from a recently released compilation of data concerning young people of refugee background up to the age of 19: the Refugee Status Report: A report on how refugee children and young people in Victoria are faring (Paxton, et al., 2011). Based on data from the 2006 Australian Census, the authors of this report found that children and young people with a refugee-like background are far more likely to be living in households experiencing poverty compared with the Victorian average (50.1% vs 14.3%) and are more likely to be living in households where the adults are unemployed. While similar proportions of adults in these households have Year12 or higher education, 7.8% of adults in the refugee-like group have no previous education compared with only 1.1% of all adults in Victoria. Children and young people from refugee backgrounds are also more likely to be living in a flat or an apartment (rather than a house), more likely to be living in a household with no car (17% vs 2.9% for all Victorian children), and less likely to be living in a household with an internet connection (48% vs 77%).

SCOPE AND SETTING FOR THE RESEARCH

This thesis begins with a review of existing evidence relating to the experiences of young refugee settlers and the development of a conceptual understanding of relevant theories of exclusion and

inclusion influencing those experiences. This is followed by an empirical case study exploring the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee youth in Melbourne within the context of a support program named Ucan2.

The case study is nested within a larger evaluation of the Ucan2 program carried out by a research team which included Lisa Gibbs, Deborah Warr, Elisha Riggs and myself from the McCaughey Centre; Dean Lusher from the School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne and Lisa Gold from the Health Economics Unit, Deakin University. Ucan2 is an intervention designed to provide psychosocial support and increase education, training and employment opportunities for recently arrived refugee youth. The PhD project comprised an exploratory research component of the evaluation to examine the experiences of the young refugee-background program participants and the impact of the program on those experiences. The Ucan2 program and the relationship between this study and the evaluation are described in detail in Chapter 4.

There were several benefits associated with this setting for the research. For the PhD study, the evaluation provided the opportunity to work closely with the organisations delivering the intervention and to benefit from their wealth of practitioner expertise. It also facilitated access to a potentially ‘hard-to-reach’ target population. For the evaluation, the PhD project extended its scope and contributed a deeper theoretical perspective on the complex issues being tackled by the intervention.

OVERVIEW OF THESIS

This first chapter of the thesis has provided the rationale for this project and a brief overview of the evidence that refugee-background young people settling in Australia face obstacles leading to social exclusion. It has also outlined the research question addressed, the aims of the study and the scope and setting for the research.

Chapter 2 comprises a review of the literature concerning refugee settlement in three sections. The first section provides background information about refugee migration to Australia and a critical discussion of the commonly used terms: ‘successful settlement’, ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’. The second section reviews the refugee settlement literature, focusing on factors influencing inclusion for refugee-background youth. These include the impact of trauma-precipitated migration on physical and mental health, and the effect of separation from family; English language acquisition and education; employment; housing; and additional factors such as religion, sport and recreation. The third section reviews the evidence for intervention. The chapter concludes by identifying the gaps in knowledge 6

revealed by this review and discussing evidence from the review pointing to relevant theoretical frameworks for guiding the research.

Having identified social inclusion and social capital as appropriate theoretical frameworks, Chapter 3 presents a critical review of these concepts, focusing on their implications for refugee settlement, health and wellbeing. The links between social capital and social inclusion are discussed; and Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework for understanding refugee integration is identified as a useful model representing the key issues informing the research.

Chapter 4 describes the research designed to address the gaps in knowledge discussed in the preceding chapters. The chapter sets out the aims of the research and the rationale for the critical ethnographic methodology adopted. It moves on to a description of the Ucan2 program as the research setting and explains the mixed methods approach adopted for investigating the experiences of its participants. Sampling, recruitment, data collection and analytic procedures are then described for each of the methods used: participant observation; social network mapping; demographic and wellbeing surveys; focus groups and individual interviews.

A number of ethical challenges were both anticipated and encountered in this research, justifying an extended treatment of their methodological repercussions. Chapter 5 therefore, focuses on ethical considerations. The first section briefly describes the ethical review process. The second considers the literature pertaining to ethics in refugee research, followed by a detailed discussion of the ethical challenges encountered in this project, their associated methodological implications and the strategies employed to address them.

Chapter 6 provides findings from the social network mapping and demographic and wellbeing surveys conducted with participants. It highlights the profound disruption to networks brought about by the refugee experience and explores associations between networks and wellbeing. The chapter begins by describing the demographic characteristics and employment status of the young refugee participants. The following section presents a quantitative analysis of the social network characteristics of participants as well as a qualitative analysis of ‘marginalia’ included by young people in their social network maps. The final section of the chapter describes findings from the wellbeing surveys and presents a quantitative analysis of associations between subjective wellbeing and demographic and social network characteristics.

Qualitative findings from focus groups, interviews and participant observation are presented in Chapter 7. This chapter explores participants’ lived experiences of resettlement including the meanings and implications for participants of the network structures described in the previous chapter. Findings are arranged thematically, beginning with a consideration of the impact of pre-arrival 7

experiences and an overview of the domains of inclusion considered important for settlement by participants. The discussion moves on to consider these domains in turn, under the broad headings of social networks, education, employment, safety and stability, citizenship, housing, and religion.

Chapter 8 integrates the findings from the preceding two chapters with the topical and theoretical literature concerning refugee settlement, social inclusion and the role of social capital. The chapter explores in detail the complex interdependency between the domains of inclusion and wellbeing identified as significant in previous chapters. It also considers the implications of these findings for policy and practice as well as the study’s strengths, limitations and indications for further research.

Chapter 9 concludes the thesis by briefly reviewing its key findings in relation to the study’s aims and summarising its methodological, theoretical and substantive contributions to understanding the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth. These findings indicate that young humanitarian entrants to Australia are generally resilient but face threats to wellbeing and inclusion associated with poverty, separation from family and difficulties encountered within unfamiliar education systems. They also demonstrate the value of the type of targeted and intensive support offered by the Ucan2 program and add weight to recent calls for more flexible and expanded family reunion policies for refugee-background settlers.

CHAPTER 2 : REFUGEE SETTLEMENT LITERATURE

The previous chapter presented the rationale for this study: that despite a policy context committed to an inclusive society in which services are responsive to the needs of those from CALD backgrounds, refugee-background young people face barriers to successful settlement and inclusion in Australia. The corresponding aim of this project is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth in Australia, and provide policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision for this population. This chapter responds by reviewing the literature on refugee settlement with a particular focus on the Australian context and on youth where appropriate.

Following a brief discussion of the review methodology and scope, the chapter comprises three main sections. The first provides background information about refugee migration to Australia and discusses the commonly used terms: ‘successful settlement’, ‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’. The second section focuses on key themes within the literature: the impact of trauma-precipitated migration on physical and mental health; separation of families; English language acquisition and education; employment; housing; and additional factors influencing inclusion such as religion and participation in leisure activities. The third section reviews the evidence for intervention. The chapter concludes by identifying the gaps in knowledge revealed by this review and discussing evidence from the review pointing to relevant theoretical frameworks for guiding the research.

LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE

As well as employing a variety of theoretical and linguistic frames, the literature concerning the settlement of refugees spans a number of academic disciplines. These include (but are not limited to) the academic fields of refugee and migration studies, sociology, education, psychology, geography, public health and public policy. There is also a considerable quantity of ‘grey literature’ comprising numerous reports and documents produced by agencies and government departments dealing with refugee policy and settlement.

The chosen approach for this thesis has been to review selectively from a broad range of literature pertaining to the resettlement experiences of refugees in developed countries, rather than focus narrowly on one particular theoretical or disciplinary approach. The review draws primarily on recent literature concerning the settlement experiences of refugees, concentrating on the Australian context in particular while also drawing on relevant examples from other developed countries. 9

Relevant literature was identified in the first instance by searching selected electronic databases (EBSCO, ProQuest, ISI, Elsevier); key websites (DIAC, UNHCR, DEECD, Joseph Rowntree Foundation); consulting expert contacts and research partners and their websites (Foundation House and CMY); and using search engines Google Scholar and Google. Search terms included refugee (or migra*) and settlement or integration or social inclusion or social exclusion or social capital or social connection or social network or participation. Searches were restricted to literature in English. Additional references were gathered through the reference lists of identified relevant articles and reports and citation searches of key references.

BACKGROUND: REFUGEE MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA

Over 700,000 people in need of protection have settled in Australia since the Second World War (DIAC, 2011a). Notwithstanding debates over government rhetoric concerning ‘deterrence’ of asylum seekers, Australia formally recognises its responsibility, as a member of the international community, to contribute to international protection of refugees. The international protection system includes preventive measures such as aid intended to ameliorate humanitarian crises; provision of temporary protection in countries of first asylum; and durable solutions that include voluntary repatriation, local integration in a country of first asylum, or resettlement to a third country. Australia’s humanitarian settlement program, established as distinct from the Migration Program in 1978, is an important component of its commitment to this system (DIAC, 2011e). In an international context however, Australia hosts a relatively small number of refugees – just 0.22% of the world’s total in 2009. At this time, 60% of the world’s refugees came from five countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma; and most remain within their regions of origin, predominantly within other poor and developing countries. Pakistan, Iran and Syria, for example, were each hosting over one million refugees in 2010 and many refugee-producing countries in Africa also host large numbers of refugees from neighbouring countries (Menadue, Keski-Nummi, & Gauthier, 2011; Refugee Council of Australia, March 2011).

Unlike Australia’s much larger skilled migrant and family reunion migration streams (approximately 84,000 and 49,000 people respectively in 2010), which fluctuate in size annually, humanitarian stream migration has been relatively steady over the past decade in terms of numbers of people (at between 13,000 and 14,000 places annually1). However, the source countries, which reflect the location of

1 In August 2012, the Australian Government announced an increase in the humanitarian intake to 20,000 people as one response to recommendations of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seeker, (Houston, Aristotle, & L’Estrange, August, 2012). 10

global conflicts and are determined by Australian policy and in consultation with the UNHCR, are constantly changing.

From the time of Federation in 1901 and until the abolition of the ‘White Australia Policy’, by the Whitlam government in 1972, migration to Australia was predominantly from Europe. In the post-war period until the 1960s, refugees settling in Australia came mostly from Soviet dominated Eastern Europe. In the 1960s and 70s, large numbers came from Chile and Czechoslovakia. Main source countries in the 1980s and 1990s were Bosnia and Herzegovina, El Salvador, Lebanon, East Timor, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos (DIAC, 2011e). Recent trends have seen an increase in migration from countries and regions described as having ‘protracted’ refugee situations and include a greater emphasis on resettling refugees from the Asian region. Table 2-1 shows the top ten countries of birth for humanitarian stream migrants from 2001 to 2011. During this time the number of humanitarian settlers from Iraq and Afghanistan remained relatively constant while the number from Sudan decreased and the number from Burma rose considerably.

TABLE 2-1: TOP 10 COUNTRIES OF BIRTH OF HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS TO AUSTRALIA FROM 2001 TO 2011

Arrived between 1 Jan 2001 and 1 Jan 2006 Arrived between 1 Jan 2006 and 1 Jan 2011 Country of Birth Number of Settlers Country of Birth Number of Settlers Sudan 16568 Iraq 11221 Iraq 9788 Burma 7975 Afghanistan 6640 Afghanistan 7276 Former Yugoslavia 3446 Sudan 6026 Iran 2792 Iran 2953 Ethiopia 1780 Thailand 2662 Sierra Leone 1721 Sri Lanka 2425 Liberia 1491 Dem. Rep. of Congo 2185 Australia* 1379 China 1914 Egypt 1368 Liberia 1616

(EXTRACTED FROM DIAC DATABASE 20/10/11, DIAC, 2011D)

*These are children born while their asylum seeker parents were onshore but prior to their visa being granted (Settlement Information Support Team, DIAC – personal communication 24/7/12)

Due to the protracted nature of conflicts in many of the regions represented by Australia’s humanitarian intake, a large proportion of recent entrants have spent many years, and in the case of 11

younger refugees, often much or even all of their lives, in countries of first asylum rather than the countries of origin of their families. This means that the concept of a ‘home country’ may have limited relevance. The large numbers of humanitarian entrants from Thailand, for example, are likely to describe their ethnic identity as Karen or Burmese and will often have lived their entire lives in refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. Similar divergence between ethnic identity and country of birth occurs for many refugee-background migrants from African countries where in some cases several generations have been displaced.

There are a number of different Humanitarian Program visa categories offering permanent protection in Australia. The controversial Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) category, under which applicants could be recognised as genuine refugees but denied permanent residency, was abolished by the Rudd Labor government in 2008. Humanitarian visa categories in 2011 included:

 Two categories of visa for ‘offshore’ applicants o Refugee visas – primarily for applicants who have fled persecution in their home country and are living outside their home country2 o Special Humanitarian Program visas for people with links to Australia who have been subject to gross human rights violation in their home country, and are living outside their home country. These visa applications must be supported by a proposer in Australia who is a permanent resident and who must help to organise and pay for travel to Australia, accommodation on arrival and early orientation.  Onshore protection for those seeking asylum after arrival in Australia and found to be genuine refugees (DIAC, 2011e)

All of these visa holders are eligible for intensive support during the first six to twelve months of settlement through government funded Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS). Services are offered through a case management approach. They include airport reception and transport; initial food provision; induction into short or long term accommodation; assistance with registration to receive a social security allowance and medical cover; enrolment with banks, schools and an Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provider; as well as support to access appropriate health services and appointments (DIAC, 2009). While the intensive support provided by the HSS generally ceases 12 months after arrival, humanitarian settlers may access a range of other settlement programs as well as services available to the general community beyond this period. The government funded Settlement

2 Refugee visas also include 1/In-country Special Humanitarian visas for applicants living in their home country who are subject to persecution; 2/Emergency Rescue visas for applicants who are living in or outside their home country and who are in urgent need of protection; and 3/Woman at Risk visas for female applicants and their dependants who are outside their home country without the protection of a male relative in danger because of their gender.

Grants Program (SGP), for example, provides a range of services to humanitarian entrants granted permanent residency within the previous five years along with migrants who have entered Australia under other schemes assessed as having additional needs. Services provided under the SGP include specialist youth services, ethno-specific programs, and provision of advice, advocacy or referral associated with education and training options, housing services, immigration assistance, banking practices, consumer rights, the police, and the law, the health system, and family, relationship, and social support issues (DIAC, 2011f).

A report commissioned by DIAC investigating the economic, social and civic contributions of humanitarian entrants to Australia notes that people coming to Australia under the humanitarian program are younger on average than non refugee-background migrants and the Australian population as a whole. They are also increasingly likely to settle in regional Australia rather than exclusively in the major cities. The report notes that these features of humanitarian immigration may help to alleviate the economic pressures of an ageing population and address labour shortages in regional areas. Moreover, while humanitarian entrants face a number of barriers to employment early in the settlement period (discussed further below), over time, workforce participation converges towards the Australian average. For some cohorts of refugee-background migrants, workforce participation rates and levels of education are higher for the second generation and those of the first generation who complete their education in Australia, than for the Australian-born population (Hugo, 2011).

‘SUCCESSFUL SETTLEMENT’, ‘INTEGRATION’ AND ‘INCLUSION’

There is no ideal concept or term for describing the processes involved in making a new home in a new country. Three of those most commonly used are (re)settlement, integration and inclusion. All have been criticised for their normative values as well as being vague, even ‘slippery’ and are often used by policy-makers, practitioners and researchers with a lack of precision.

The concept of successful settlement is frequently invoked in refugee research although less frequently defined. A Canadian study, the Refugee Resettlement Project (RRP) examined the resettlement experiences of South-East Asian refugees who arrived in Canada between 1979 and 1981. The researchers adopted a simple formula, which defined ‘successful people’ as those who were ‘currently working or had a good reason for not being employed.... [who] spoke at least some English and [rated] their health as good, very good, or excellent’ (Beiser, 2009:547). In its report concerning the integration of refugee young people in Australia, CMYI described conditions of good settlement as including adequate material conditions; meeting educational and occupational needs; providing a sense of wellbeing and connectedness as well as of agency, or a capacity to shape the future.

(O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006:16-17). The authors of this report also note the dependence of outcomes on wider environmental or structural factors such as economic conditions (including employment trends, housing costs and availability); social conditions (including community attitudes, discrimination and racism) as well as political conditions (such as government policies on multiculturalism and responses to international events) (O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006:17). The report identifies social capital as key to successful settlement and recommends support for strengthening ethno-specific bonds as well as interventions that have the potential to build bridging relationships (O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006).

The terms ‘successful settlement’ and ‘integration’ are often used interchangeably. Integration is itself however, a contested and controversial concept, criticised for implying an assimilationist agenda, or focusing critically on the attributes of individuals rather than social structures (McPherson, 2010). The Australian immigration policy focus on integration has been critiqued as stemming initially from xenophobia and fears of erosion of ‘Australian’ values. In more recent times, perceived threats to national security – particularly from unauthorised arrivals from the Middle East and particularly since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre – provide a further impetus to promote ‘integration’ (Northcote & Casimiro, 2009). Even outside the field of Australian migration and its associated politics, the term has critics. Silver, for example, (2010) contends that the notion of integration is ‘fraught with undesirable connotations’ emphasising ‘social order and legitimacy of the status quo ... with all the Foucauldian undertones of social control that implies. Integration reflects moral or normative assumptions about what a well regulated society should be’ (Silver, 2010:194).

Others argue that the term can usefully be conceptualised as following different models: assimilationist, pluralist and differential exclusionist. The latter category describes a situation where resettled refugees may be included in some sectors of society but remain excluded from others. Using the term integration in this way, scholars working in the area of refugee resettlement generally advocate a pluralist approach as necessary to promote a healthy and cohesive society (Ager & Strang, 2008; Castles, Korac, Vasta, & Vertovec, 2002; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a; O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006; Phillimore & Goodson, 2008; Valtonen, 2004).

In a pluralist framework, integration refers to the full participation of new arrivals without having to relinquish their identity and culture or simply be absorbed into the mainstream.… [It] can be contrasted to assimilation, which involves relinquishing cultural identity; separation or withdrawal, which requires a rejection of the new society while preserving or exaggerating the previous culture; and marginalisation, where individuals lose connections to both the original culture and the new society (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a, p. 11:11) 14

Similarly, seminal work by John Berry focusing on acculturation of immigrants (See for example: Berry, 1997, 2003, 2009; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006, 2010) defines ‘integration’ as an acculturation strategy of ethnocultural groups that seek both to maintain their heritage culture and participate in the larger society. This strategy is differentiated from ‘assimilation’, where migrant groups relinquish their heritage culture while seeking interaction with wider society; ‘separation’, where migrant groups retain their heritage culture while avoiding interaction with others; and ‘marginalisation’, where there is little possibility or interest in maintaining the heritage culture or in having relations with the wider society (Berry, 2009). Berry’s work also distinguishes between these acculturation strategies of ethnocultural groups and the equivalent strategies of larger society, which he terms respectively ‘multiculturalism’, ‘melting pot’, ‘segregation’, and ‘exclusion’ (Berry, 2009).

Several authors stress the importance of seeing integration as a multi-dimensional and dynamic process (Castles, et al., 2002; Daley, 2009; Scott Smith, 2008). Integration can only occur for incoming migrants and refugees if the host society enables access to employment, education, housing and services as well as equal political and legal rights (Castles, et al., 2002). At its most positive, integration implies an outcome ‘which benefits both the resettling refugee and the host community. At its most ‘sinister’, governments may use the ‘notion of “integration potential” as a criterion for selecting refugees for resettlement, thus placing the responsibility for successful settlement and integration on the shoulders of the refugees’ (E. Pittaway, et al., 2011:135).

The term social inclusion avoids some but not all of the more negative connotations of integration. Given that social exclusion and inclusion have become policy concerns in many societies, it also has wider political currency. Australia’s Social Inclusion Agenda (discussed in the Introduction), also contextualises disadvantages faced by refugees within broader issues of social inequality. Castles suggests that inclusion is a useful concept for policy-makers because it more directly indicates areas for action by specific authorities – such as in employment, housing, education, health and social services (Castles, et al., 2002). For these reasons, I have chosen to use social inclusion as the central concept for this project in preference to the other terms. Notwithstanding these advantages however, social inclusion too has been criticised for its normative underpinnings – suggesting the imperative to ‘fit in’ with the existing community. This critique, addressed by distinctions made between a ‘strong’ and a ‘weak’ version of the social exclusion/inclusion discourse, will be discussed more fully in Chapter 4.

The following sections of this chapter focus on the broad areas for action outlined by Castles (2002): health, education, employment, housing, and services.

FACTORS INFLUENCING INCLUSION AND WELLBEING

This section of the literature review focuses on factors influencing settlement outcomes, social inclusion, and wellbeing. Broad themes identified in the literature include the impact of trauma- precipitated migration; the impact of family separation; and factors pertaining to social, economic and cultural participation: namely education, employment, and housing. Additional domains of inclusion identified as relevant to refugee settlement and wellbeing include religion and participation in sports and recreation activities.

For recently arrived refugee-background young people, English language acquisition and education are key settlement concerns and are therefore given particular attention. The sub-headings in this section are influenced by the setting for this research. The Ucan2 program comprises an intervention operating within on-arrival English language programs designed to provide psychosocial support and promote social connectedness with the aim of facilitating successful transition into further education, training and employment. I particularly focus therefore, on research providing a rationale for additional interventions to support this cohort; the link between psychosocial wellbeing, social connectedness and educational outcomes; and pathways for refugee-background students following on-arrival English language programs.

THE IMPACT OF TRAUMA-PRECIPITATED MIGRATION ON MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH

Both pre and post migration stresses are recognised as contributing to mental health problems in refugee-background migrants, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression and anxiety (Beiser, 2009; Fazel, Wheeler, & Danesh, 2005; Schweitzer, Melville, Steel, & Lacherez, 2006). The Victorian Refugee Status Report summarises details of pre-arrival exposure to trauma indicating that most refugee-background young people settling in Victoria have experienced some form of physical or psychological violence. Common experiences include dangerous flight; threats of harm to, separation from, and disappearance of, family members; being under combat fire; and witnessing violence, including seeing others killed. A large proportion of refugee-background young people have also lived in hiding or internal displacement, and/or lived in refugee camps, and experienced a lack of food, water or shelter. Higher rates of several infectious diseases reflecting the rates in countries of origin are reported as well as conditions such as anaemia, vitamin deficiencies and oral health problems (Paxton, et al., 2011). Young people from refugee backgrounds may also be vulnerable to problems associated with sexual and reproductive health (McMichael & Gifford, 2010). Research with African refugee-background settlers in Sydney found that participants reported good access to

physical health care services but barriers to accessing appropriate mental health services for which they recognised a pressing need (Pittaway, et al., 2011).

Researchers increasingly recognise that the settlement context can have as great an impact on long term mental health as pre-arrival experiences (Correa-Velez, Gifford, & Barnett, 2010; Porter & Haslam, 2005; Strang & Ager, 2010). Given the exclusion faced by many people of refugee background, in combination with trauma already suffered, it is hardly surprising that psychological morbidity among refugee-background populations has been found to be significantly higher than that of other populations (Fazel, et al., 2005; Thomas & Thomas, 2004). A commonly cited model describing phases of refugee adjustment, suggests that refugee settlers typically experience high levels of wellbeing and satisfaction on arrival in the country of resettlement. This is followed by a sometimes precipitous decline in satisfaction and mental wellbeing when the realities of resettlement – such as the challenges of securing accommodation and employment – are grasped. Following this phase there is potential for a positive trajectory of ‘negotiation’ and ‘integration’; or a negative trajectory of ‘alienation’ and ‘marginalisation’ if factors promoting successful settlement and inclusion are not present (CMYI, 2006; McDonald, Gifford, Webster, Wiseman, & Casey, 2008). The longitudinal Refugee Resettlement Project (RRP) conducted with South-East Asian refugees in Canada found that, consistent with this “disillusionment model”, participants had a high risk of depressive symptoms 10 to 24 months after arrival. Project results also however, challenged the assumption that a decline in mental health was inevitable, finding an increased risk for depression only for refugee-background migrants without personal and social supports. Those with a ‘significant other and/or a supportive like-ethnic community’ did not demonstrate this pattern of increased risk (Beiser, 2009:560).

The Refugee Status Report emphasises that, alongside the literature on the negative impact of trauma on mental health, many studies also point to the resilience of refugee children and youth. Some of these cited studies have found that following arrival in a new country, refugee-background young people may experience ‘fewer mental health symptoms than other groups’ and that evidence indicates social relationships are important for successful adjustment. (Paxton, et al., 2011:44). A significant amount of research exists to establish that social inclusion promotes recovery from experiences of trauma in refugee-background populations (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010; VICSERV, 2008). Strong social support networks associated with social inclusion provide a sense of belonging, which is linked, in turn, to wellbeing.

A meta-analysis of 56 studies published in 2005 found that children and adolescents of refugee background generally had better mental health outcomes than adults of a similar background. It also 17

identified post-displacement risk factors for adverse mental health outcomes which included lack of economic opportunities, institutional or temporary housing, and ongoing conflicts in countries of origin (Porter & Haslam, 2005). Unaccompanied humanitarian minors are considered to be at particular risk in terms of mental health, and high rates of mental health problems in young people held in immigration detention centres for protracted periods have been increasingly well documented. (See for examples: Bean, Derluyn, Eurelings-Bontekoe, Broekaert, & Spinhoven, 2007; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2004; Newman, 2013; Paxton, et al., 2011; Steel et al., 2004). Using client services data from the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Annual Reports from 2004 to 2008, the Refugee Status Report lists the major problems affecting clients between the ages of 0-17 years. The most prevalent identified issues included: significant concern for family overseas (affecting between 28% and 37%); social isolation (affecting between 25% and 33%); housing issues (affecting between 23% and 29%); and financial need (affecting between 21% and 24%) (Paxton, et al., 2011:24). Similar sources of stress were identified in a qualitative study conducted with young refugee-background settlers in Britain (McCarthy & Marks, 2010). Social interactions were described as the most effective way of coping with such stressors by young refugee- background research participants in Australia (Brough, et al., 2003).

Victorian research suggests that Australians of Muslim, Middle Eastern, African and Asian backgrounds experience high levels of racism and discrimination. This research also found that discrimination impacts on people’s lives in the areas of housing, health, education and employment, all of which are critical domains for ‘successful settlement’ (Paxton, et al., 2011:77; VicHealth, 2007). Refugee youth, particularly of African background, also report discrimination from police, although there is no available data to assess the proportion involved in the justice system (Gifford, Correa- Velez, & Sampson, 2009; Paxton, et al., 2011). Fear of police and other authorities, stemming from pre-arrival experiences of persecution and torture, can interfere with some refugee-background settlers’ capacity to form links with host-community institutions and services (Pittaway, et al., 2011).

FAMILY SEPARATION

The UNHCR recognises the central importance of keeping refugee families together and urges resettlement countries to facilitate and expedite family reunion wherever possible:

Maintaining the family unit is one means of ensuring a semblance of normality in an otherwise uprooted life. This is particularly important for uprooted children... Experience has shown that the family unit has a better chance of successfully

reintegrating in their homeland or integrating in a new country, than do individual refugees. (UNHCR, 1999:587)

Despite this, settlement policies of host countries, as well as the refugee experience itself, frequently result in family separation (McDonald-Wilmsen & Gifford, 2009; McMichael, Gifford, & Correa- Velez, 2011; Menadue, et al., 2011; Pittaway, et al., 2011; Refugee Council of Australia, March 2011; Rousseau, Rufagari, Bagilishya, & Measham, 2004). The Australian government’s split family provisions allow refugees resettled in Australia to apply to be reunited with immediate family members, although the narrow definition of immediate family excludes many3. This is especially the case given that the time taken to process applications means that proposers or dependants may turn 18 in the interim, rendering some who were eligible at the beginning of the process permanently ineligible by the end (Wilmsen, 2011). Other factors that reduce opportunities for family reunion include small numbers of available visas relative to demand; complex processes and language used in application forms coupled with lack of access to migration advice; and the impact of errors and omissions in offshore documentation. Of particular concern to many refugee-background settlers is that available places are linked to numbers settling through the onshore program. This means that whenever an onshore asylum seeker is accepted as a refugee for settlement, this reduces the quota of Special Humanitarian Program visas available. This last factor creates tension within some refugee communities because those already living here see their chances of reuniting with family diminished by ‘unauthorised arrivals’ seeking asylum (Refugee Council of Australia, March 2011). There are growing calls for making Australia’s humanitarian policies more flexible to allow greater potential for refugee families to be reunited. Proposed changes include broadening the definition of family, increasing the number of available places and ‘de-linking’ the onshore and offshore refugee settlement systems (Menadue, et al., 2011; Refugee Council of Australia, March 2011; Wilmsen, 2011).

Long periods of family separation are recognised as interfering with people’s capacity to focus on settlement tasks. In addition to emotional distress caused by separation and anxiety, there are often associated economic pressures as many experience a cultural and moral obligation to send money back to family still overseas. At times this results in refugee-background families being unable to pay for their basic needs in the country of settlement (Lim, 2009; Pittaway, et al., 2011). The length of time during which families remain separated also impacts on their eventual reunion if it occurs. Family roles and relationships need to be renegotiated leading to heightened resettlement stress and an associated increased risk of conflict and family breakdown (Refugee Council of Australia, March 2011; Rousseau, et al., 2004).

3 The definition only includes a spouse; parents of applicants under 18 years of age; and dependent children or stepchildren - either under 18 or, if over 18, still dependant and not engaged nor married (Wilmsen 2011). 19

The Good Starts Study for Refugee Youth (Gifford, et al., 2009) followed 120 refugee young people in Victoria over a five year period to identify social determinants of wellbeing. All participants in the Good Starts Study had some family in Australia although few had intact families. Only 34% had both mother and father. Family was pivotal to the lives of the young people in this study and a key source of support, providing ‘a sense of belonging, shared understandings, guidance and designated roles’ (McMichael, et al., 2011:183). For participants in this study, ongoing family separation (which included a wider definition of ‘family’ than is considered by immigration policies) created ongoing stress and sadness (McMichael, et al., 2011; Wilmsen, 2011).

Even when families are relatively intact, the complexities associated with the role of refugee- background young people within the family and family structures merit attention. Many have responsibilities as carers, earners and interpreters. A tendency for young people to acculturate more rapidly than their parents also can cause tension between a desire to maintain traditional cultural values and integrate, with the potential for intergenerational conflict to result (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a; Pittaway, et al., 2011). While the Good Starts Study generally found high levels of attachment to family, for some participants, accumulated tensions associated with settlement challenges resulted in reduced attachment and support. These stresses included ‘changes in roles and responsibilities within the family, financial difficulties, under-employment or difficult working conditions, lack of affordable housing, language barriers, discrimination and racism’. It was also reported that trust between parents and children decreased over the first three years of settlement (McMichael, et al., 2011:186). Additional family pressures were created by children’s desire for increased independence and parents’ high academic expectations for their children despite disrupted schooling and difficulty with English. McMichael and colleagues concluded that family was both a risk and a protective factor for psychosocial wellbeing and that ‘supporting family is a key strategy for improving settlement outcomes for people with refugee backgrounds, and for supporting young people in particular’ (McMichael, et al., 2011:193).

Families are clearly critical for supporting the psychosocial wellbeing of refugee settlers and young people. It is therefore concerning that figures from DIAC Settlement Planning Updates (Settlement and Multicultural Affairs Branch, 2010, 2011) indicate that a large proportion of humanitarian stream migrants settling in Victoria consist of ‘single-person families’. Between October 2009 and October 2011, figures reported for each three-month period showed that between 34% and 79% of 3,739 people arriving on refugee visas4; 88% to 94% of 2,092 people with Onshore Protection visas; and 15%- 29% of 2,085 people with Special Humanitarian Program visas were in ‘single person families’.

4 Note that prior to October 2010, the category ‘Refugee’ included those who had received ‘Onshore Protection’. 20

Unsurprisingly, refugees accepted into Australia through the onshore program (which includes ‘unauthorised boat arrivals’) are particularly likely to come without other family members. Those coming on Special Humanitarian Visas are the least likely to be living here without family as this mode of entry commonly involves sponsorship by existing family in Australia in the first place.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND EDUCATION

Young refugee-background settlers and their families frequently arrive with extremely high educational aspirations and consequently may experience enormous pressure to ‘catch up’ as quickly as possible to their Australian-born peers. They may also have limited understanding of the variety of educational pathways that are possible or the potential for non-professional careers to provide rewarding employment (Atwell, Gifford, & McDonald-Wilmsen, 2009; Cassity & Gow, 2005; Olliff, 2010a).

Gaining host-language proficiency is a vital key to inclusion for resettled refugees (Colic-Peisker & Walker, 2003; Kilbride, Anisef, Baichman-Anisef, & Khattar, 2001; J. Taylor, 2004). English language skills as well as local cultural knowledge are vital for developing relationships within the Australian community as well as for participating in education and accessing services and employment opportunities, which in turn, affect opportunities to develop social connections (Ager & Strang, 2004a, 2008).

Research shows that immigrant adolescents and adults are likely to achieve conversational proficiency more rapidly than young children and that this generally occurs within two to three years of study (Olliff, 2010). Acquisition of academic language proficiency however, is far more complex and takes much longer, with adolescents being slower than primary school children to achieve this. Those over the age of 12 on arrival generally take six to eight years to attain the average competence of native speakers although this may occur more rapidly for adolescents with a good prior education and cognitive development in their first language. For refugee-background adolescents and young adults the challenges are likely to be significantly compounded, particularly when schooling has been disrupted and/or literacy in the first language is not established (Olliff, 2010a; Paxton, et al., 2011).

ON-ARRIVAL PROGRAMS

All permanent entrants to Australia who do not arrive with ‘functional’ English are eligible for intensive English language tuition. School-age young people are funded by the Australian Government’s English as a Second Language (ESL) New Arrivals Program (DEEWR, 2011) with humanitarian entrants generally receiving 12 months of tuition in intensive English Language Schools

(ELS), Centres (ELC) or units. Despite this being the recommended educational pathway for newly- arrived ESL students, approximately 20% and 15% of primary and secondary refugee-background students respectively enrol directly into mainstream schools without accessing this support. Reasons include distance from an ELS or ELC and family perceptions that their children will learn English more quickly if immersed in a mainstream setting (Paxton, et al., 2011).

For those over the age of 18, intensive English tuition is provided through the federally funded Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP). AMEP youth classes have also recently been made available for young people between the ages of 16 and 18. All AMEP clients are eligible for 510 hours of free English classes within the first five years of settlement, provided through TAFEs, state education departments, colleges and private providers. Humanitarian entrants under the age of 25 with limited prior education, or additional needs associated with traumatic pre-arrival experiences, are eligible for an additional 400 hours of classes through the Special Preparatory Program (SPP). Humanitarian entrants over the age of 25 may be eligible for an additional 100 hours (DIAC, 2011b). Supplementary programs are also available for AMEP clients to assist with transition to employment. The Settlement Language Pathways to Employment Program provides 200 hours of tuition which includes work experience and a focus on employment processes and occupational health and safety (DIAC, 2011b).

RATIONALE FOR ADDITIONAL INTERVENTION

A comprehensive report on the provision of language education through the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) to refugee-background youth with minimal or no schooling, entitled Opening the Door, was published in 2008 (H. Moore, Nicholas, & Deblaquiere, 2008). The authors of the report argued that although this group made up only a small proportion of the overall humanitarian intake, their needs are ‘distinctive, complex and urgent’ (H. Moore, et al., 2008:10). The report emphasises the slow rate of progress for students without prior literacy in particular and makes the point that students who come from predominantly non-literate or oral societies – such as some Dinka tribes- people for example - may be particularly disadvantaged. Despite high levels of commitment and enthusiasm for the course on the part of students, only ‘a very small minority’ of those who entered as ‘beginner learners’ completed their available English hours with a level of English ‘necessary for entry to preparation English courses for vocational training and/or semi-skilled employment’(H. Moore, et al., 2008:29). Another recent report, published by AMES, on the experiences of AMEP students described similar outcomes. Of the 73% of refugees and 32% of migrants who began the course with ‘no’ or ‘very limited’ English proficiency, most completed their entitlement ‘without reaching basic social English proficiency’ (AMES, 2011).

A Victorian report by the Refuge Education Partnership Project (REPP)5 (2007), examined the experiences of school age refugee-background students. It argued that while many refugee- background students achieved educational success, those with ‘minimal or no formal education pre- arrival, coupled with significant emotional and physical deprivations’ were often ‘failing to attain’ a level of education necessary to integrate successfully into the Australian community (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007:2). The report aimed to provide evidence for government policy that would improve support and promote wellbeing and educational outcomes for refugee-background students. The report draws attention to the consequences of protracted conflict in countries of origin for many recently arrived refugee-background students related to disruption of education, trauma and dislocation. Students frequently:

 have spent long periods in refugee camps or first country of asylum with minimal or no education  have had disrupted schooling due to movement within and between countries so that literacy skills are not consolidated in any one language  have low levels of literacy in English  may have come from a language background where writing is a relatively new phenomenon  may have lived in insecure societies where civil order and services have broken down  may have experienced extreme violence  may be suffering the after effects of trauma, and in some cases torture  may be affected by the loss of family and be without parental support

(Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007:10)

Table 2-2 shows the years of prior education reported by humanitarian stream settlers aged 16 to 24 arriving in Victoria between 2006 and 2011.

5 REPP comprised a partnership between Foundation House, The Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues, The Victorian Department of Education, the Department for Victorian Communities, VicHealth, Debney Park Secondary College and a private philanthropic trust. 23

TABLE 2-2: YEARS OF PRIOR EDUCATION REPORTED BY HUMANITARIAN STREAM SETTLERS IN VICTORIA BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 24 FROM 2006-2011

Years of prior education Number of humanitarian Percentage reported stream settlers aged 16-24 Not stated 901 21% 1-3 years of schooling 254 6% 4-6 years of schooling 645 15% 7-12 years of schooling 1978 47% 1-6+ years of Tertiary/Trade 425 11% Total 4203 100%

(Extracted from DIAC database 20/10/11, DIAC, 2011d)6

The table shows that 21% of this group report six or fewer years of schooling and the same proportion have ‘not stated’ how many years of schooling they have received. This figure almost certainly includes a number who have had no prior education. The standard of schooling received as well as cultural and social norms in the classroom will also have been very variable. It should not, therefore, be assumed that a year of education in a refugee camp (for example) is equivalent to a year of education in an Australian school (DEECD, 2008; Olliff, 2010a).

For those with minimal or no formal prior education, research suggests it will take seven to nine years to attain English proficiency – compared with five to seven years for those whose schooling has been intact. Moreover, these students also ‘need to become familiar with formal education, its aims and the culture in which it takes place’ (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007:19). Trauma associated with the refugee experience can also hinder students’ capacity to learn (DEECD, 2008).

EDUCATION, CONNECTIONS AND WELLBEING

Links between education and wellbeing are well recognised. Schools and other educational settings have the potential to provide a sense of community with which young people can identify and feel a sense of belonging – or ‘cultural citizenship’ (Cassity & Gow, 2005). A sense of belonging at school was found to be associated with lower rates of depression and higher self-efficacy in a study of Somali adolescents in the United States (Kia-Keating & Ellis, 2007). Education is associated with a

6 This data has been extracted using the DIAC settlement reporting facility, which notes that numbers may be underreported, as reporting is not mandatory for some of the selection criteria used to create the report. This probably explains why the total number of humanitarian settlers in this age group reported here is fewer than reported in the Introduction. 24

greater sense of control, higher levels of social support and social inclusion, improved economic conditions and overall improved psychological and physical health (Ross & Wu, 1995). In addition, schools and educational institutions are important sites for developing social connections.

The Good Starts Study for Refugee Youth discussed earlier (Gifford, et al., 2009) examined how participating young people made connections during the resettlement process to aid recovery from trauma and promote health and wellbeing. A key finding from this research was that experiences of social inclusion or exclusion had a significant impact on students’ subjective wellbeing (Correa- Velez, et al., 2010). Study participants repeatedly emphasised home and school as being the most important environments supporting their resettlement (Sampson & Gifford, 2010). For participants in The Good Starts Study, schools were critical in helping to develop a sense of safety and security. Building and restoring relationships was emphasised as integral to supporting recovery from trauma with the inclusive nature of the classroom promoting feelings of belonging (Sampson & Gifford, 2010). Schools can also act as a key link to support offered by the wider community through referral to appropriate resources and services (Craig, Jajua, & Warfa, 2009).

In an international comparison of educational attainment and emotional wellbeing, Sznitman and colleagues (2011) found that emotional wellbeing produced a reciprocal benefit in terms of educational attainment. Settlement concerns, such as anxiety about family and housing, affect students’ ability to focus on study as do gender-specific issues. The Opening the Door report notes that it is quite common for very young women from some cultures to have children and that young men often face intense pressure to achieve and to provide for others, including extended family still living overseas. Youth-specific classes are advocated to meet the specific needs of this age group and to enhance the potential for English language classes to enhance social connectedness (H. Moore, et al., 2008).

Despite the recognised importance of educational settings as important sites for promoting inclusion, schools are often under-resourced to meet the needs of refugee-background students (Paxton, et al., 2011). Identified challenges for refugee-background students include the difficulty of adjusting to formal education; financial pressures to gain employment; limited capacity of parents to support children and young people; demands to assist other family members with resettlement issues; effects of trauma on capacity to learn and adapt to the classroom; and discrimination (Bond et al., 2007; Olliff, 2010a). In research with African communities in Australia, Pittaway and colleagues reported that families were frustrated by an apparent lack of understanding by teachers of the impact of the refugee experience on children as well as a lack of information about the school system (Pittaway, et al., 2011).

A report looking at the experiences of adult refugees and migrants in on-arrival English programs in Melbourne found that refugees were less likely than other migrants to have family and friends living in Australia with 22% of refugees and 14% of migrants reporting that they did not know anyone when they arrived in Australia. Refugees were also more likely to rely on their English classes and other settlement services as sources of information. The report recommends that providers of English language classes look for ways to expand social connections for this group (AMES, 2011). A report by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER, 2008) advocates partnerships between schools and the community to build social capital for students, expected in turn to improve student outcomes (Howard, 2006). Multi-cultural community organisations have been identified as playing an important role in linking recently arrived refugee-background adult learners to a variety of other organisations. These activities help to build social connections and increased opportunities for informal learning (Miralles-Lombardo, Miralles, & Golding, 2008).

The Australian National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) investigated the development of social capital through education in a study that included CALD students. It showed that participation in adult literacy and numeracy courses resulted in highly valued ‘social capital outcomes’ for 80% of the students interviewed. Program impacts on quality of life usually resulted from a combination of social and human capital gains: increased literacy and numeracy; interpersonal and intrapersonal skills; and self-confidence and self-efficacy. The study concluded that ‘social capital outcomes were generally a prerequisite or a co-requisite for human capital gains, such as improved literacy and numeracy skills’ (Balatti, Black, & Falk, 2006:7). Connections gained were particularly highly valued and contributed to economic wellbeing even in cases where numeracy and literacy skills did not advance. The researchers examined both contextual and pedagogical components of the course experience that produced social capital outcomes. They described key features as a safe environment in which students could ‘redefine themselves and their relationships with others’ as well as a course design which encouraged ‘bridges between the course experience and students’ lives in the “real world” by welcoming knowledge exchange and network-building’ (Balatti, et al., 2006:30). Student networks and relationships with staff were both important. Other students became friends and in some cases, relationships with teachers who treated them with ‘respect’ led students to redefine their connections with educational institutions, with authority figures and as learners and members of society. Teachers also linked students to outside organisations and institutions (Balatti, et al., 2006). Balatti and colleagues emphasise the importance of recognising these ‘social capital outcomes’ of adult education as well as outcomes such as ‘increased self-confidence and self-esteem’ - seen as the most important impacts of adult literacy and numeracy courses by some teachers in their study. They also note that current measurement strategies mean that these and other intangible outcomes such as ‘young people becoming law-abiding citizens’ are never recorded. A lack of longitudinal data will 26

also miss potentially measurable outcomes such as employment where this is not immediate (Balatti, et al., 2006:37-38).

PATHWAYS FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND STUDENTS

The REPP report identifies transition from an on-arrival English language program in an English Language School (ELS) or English Language Centre (ELC) into mainstream education settings as a key point at which additional support for students is required. Levels of absenteeism increase and the potential for disengagement at this point warrants focused attention on student welfare and learning needs. There is however, a lack of systemic data ‘collected, analysed or reported... on the outcomes of transition, school retention and pathways for refugee students’ (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007:16).

The Good Starts Study also emphasised the difficulties many refugee-background students experienced in the transition between English Language School and mainstream schools with a decrease in wellbeing following transition. By the end of the 4th year of the study, 25% of the study participants had left school before completing their secondary education. The authors reported that facilitators of school engagement for refugee-background students included additional ESL support; supported transition from an English language school to mainstream school; an adapted curriculum taking into account the needs of students with disrupted schooling; and out of hours learning support programs (Gifford, et al., 2009). The REPP report also identifies a need for engaging families in the transition process as a priority. Parental involvement in schooling for refugee and other CALD communities in Australia is relatively low and parents often have limited understandings of Australian education systems. At the same time, families from newly-arrived refugee backgrounds may have unrealistic expectations for their children and limited capacity to advocate for and support their children’s learning (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007).

Arguing for increased coordination between educational institutions, service providers, communities and families and resources to support refugee-background students, a paper by Earnest and colleagues makes the point that while refugee students generally place a high value and priority on education, the current system in Australia is failing them. Reviewing a number of studies, they cite figures showing that 63% of African refugee students with more than two years of interrupted schooling and almost 90% of those with no prior schooling, failed to complete year 12 (Earnest, Housen, & Gillieatt, 2007).

The needs of students in the post-compulsory years are complex and merit special attention. Given the relatively short amount of time available for these students to ‘catch up’ with their peers, those arriving in Australia as teenagers with minimal or no prior education are at greater risk than children who arrive at a younger age (DEECD, 2008; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). Those 27

from new and emerging communities are also likely to be at increased risk due to fewer supportive networks (Olliff & Couch, 2005). Many refugee-background students complete on-arrival English programs without attaining the academic skills and literacy required for success at their age level in mainstream education. Research with service providers in Melbourne found divided views as to whether on-arrival English language programs should include an adequate level of English proficiency as an expected outcome, or whether the emphasis should be on providing and promoting suitable alternative pathways to mainstream academic courses (Olliff & Couch, 2005). The REPP report suggests that options with a vocational focus such as VCAL, VET and TAFE programs may be more appropriate than attempting the more academically demanding VCE, for those with interrupted schooling and low literacy. ‘Foundation’ or ‘transitional’ VCAL programs have been established at some secondary schools as well as TAFES and act as ‘bridging’ programs to assist students who need additional assistance to make the transition into these vocational courses (DEECD, 2008; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007).

While there is a lack of data for the education and employment trajectories of this group (Bond, et al., 2007), there is evidence for an association between lack of English and lack of education and long- term unemployment and disadvantage (Holden & Dwyer, 1992; Lamb & Rice, 2008; Olliff & Couch, 2005). Researchers in the United States demonstrated significant associations between failure to graduate from high school and welfare dependency; lower life expectancy and higher healthcare costs; lower lifetime earnings; reduced political and civic participation; and involvement in crime. This research also called attention to the economic and social costs to the whole community from these outcomes (Levin, 2005).

EMPLOYMENT

Research on settlement for adult refugees emphasises employment as a key factor in integration and inclusion along with education and English proficiency. Despite eagerness to participate in employment, refugee settlers face multiple and intersecting barriers to employment. In addition to limited English proficiency, lack of Australian work experience or understanding of Australian workplace culture, many refugee also have limited access to transport and affordable housing close to employment (Olliff, 2010b). Even when humanitarian entrants arrive with good English skills, post- secondary qualifications and relevant skills, discrimination and non-recognition of their qualifications, skills and previous experience pose barriers to gaining appropriate employment (Ager & Strang, 2008; Castles, et al., 2002; Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2007; Fozdar & Torezani, 2008; Kyle, Macdonald, Doughney, & Pyke, 2004a).

Refugee youth employment has received far less attention in the academic literature though is a key concern for many agencies working to support that group. Youth unemployment in Australia is consistently two to three times higher than rates for adults within the general population. Disadvantages are multiplied for recently arrived refugee young people lacking relevant educational qualifications or work experience as well as facing discrimination and cultural insensitivity in job selection processes (Coventry, Guerra, MacKenzie, & Pinkney, 2002; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a).

Employment prospects are influenced by both human capital - including language proficiency, prior education and work experience - and contextual factors (Beiser, 2009). Data from the Department of Immigration’s Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia shows that humanitarian stream migrants experience higher rates of unemployment than those arriving on all other visa categories (S. Richardson et al., 2004). The AMES report describes the experiences of 78 recently arrived adult refugees and 108 non refugee-background migrants in the AMEP program in Melbourne. The investigators found that for their sample, 68% of refugees had completed primary school, 47% had completed secondary school and 35% had a tertiary qualification. Moreover, 35% of male refugees and 82% of female refugees had not been employed overseas. These rates of prior education and employment were far lower than for non-refugee-background migrants (AMES, 2011). The researchers also reported that while non refugee migrants with low levels of English were able to access employment at the same rates as migrants with higher English levels, this did not hold true for refugees, most of whom were in the low level of English category and very few of whom were able to find work. They conclude that ‘low levels of English are likely to compound a number of other interdependent barriers faced by refugees looking for work’, including ‘fewer contacts and networks, and more complex settlement needs’ (AMES, 2011:42). It should be noted here that the AMES study may have suffered from recruitment bias towards literate participants who either spoke English or one of the more common migrant languages. It also included only ‘heads of households’, and did not report statistical analyses to indicate the significance of these differences. Nonetheless, these indicative findings are supported by research on the early employment experiences of refugees from Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan in Sydney, which also found that proficiency in English was a significant predictor for gaining employment (Waxman, 2001).The range of factors interacting with language proficiency and influencing employment prospects may also include local or country- specific employment markets. Research in the Netherlands, for example, found that language proficiency was not significantly associated with refugee’s odds of employment per se, but rather with the status of that employment (De Vroome & Van Tubergen, 2010). Similarly, a recent Australian study focusing on predictors of employment amongst male refugee settlers found that English language proficiency did not significantly predict employment, although most of the employed

participants were occupied in low status jobs requiring no or very limited English proficiency (I Correa-Velez, Barnett, & Gifford, 2013).

Other studies have also suggested that social connections are critical for accessing employment (Stone, Gray, & Hughes, 2003). The study conducted in the Netherlands referred to above found that having Dutch friends was significantly and positively associated with both the odds of employment and occupational status for refugees (De Vroome & Van Tubergen, 2010). In an investigation by the Canadian Youth Foundation, researchers found that immigrant and street youth lacked the personal networks and support systems that assisted ‘middle class’ youth in the transition from education to employment (Kilbride, et al., 2001). The Refugee Resettlement Project (RRP) was a decade-long study of the experiences of refugees who came to Canada from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos between 1979 and 1981, a large proportion of whom were sponsored by Canadian individuals and groups. The study found that those who were privately sponsored were more likely to be employed a decade later than those who were government-sponsored, presumably because private sponsors were ‘able to provide access to the opportunity structure of mainstream society’ (Beiser, 2009:545).

The RRP also found a reciprocal relationship between employment and mental health and between employment and English language proficiency: those with good mental health and/or language skills were more likely to be employed, and employment also benefited mental health and provided opportunities for language acquisition (Beiser, 2009). Research into employment assistance strategies in Australia suggests that targeted employment programs using an intensive and holistic approach are necessary to address the multiple barriers faced by former refugees in the labour market (Kyle, Macdonald, Doughney, & Pyke, 2004b; Olliff, 2010b).

HOUSING

Refugee-background settlers in Australia suffer from high rates of both precarious housing and homelessness. Precarious housing is recognised as an important social determinant of physical and mental health (Mallet et al., 2011). Poor quality or insecure housing influences multiple domains of integration for refugees including the ability to participate in education and employment, access services and form social connections (Phillimore & Goodson, 2008). Refugees interviewed in the UK, frequently described the social and cultural aspects of housing as more important than its physical qualities. Disruption of relationships occurs when people have to move, or worry about having to do so (Ager & Strang, 2008). Crowded housing conditions and homelessness also affect young people’s ability to find a quiet space to study and cause significant ongoing disruption to education (Olliff, 2010a; Toure, 2008).

A study conducted in 2002-2003 with 434 refugee-background participants in Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane found that permanent protection visa holders typically moved three times in their first year in Australia and temporary protection visa holders moved an average of four times after release from detention (Beer & Foley, 2005). Moreover, 76% of participants wanted to move from their current accommodation if possible - to housing that was better, cheaper or provided greater independence. Financial stress contributed to housing problems with 10% reporting having been unable to pay rent and 20% experiencing difficulties doing so. Harassment from real estate agents and landlords was common as was confusion about Australian tenancy and lease arrangements. Social connections were important in providing assistance with housing; with friends and relatives reported as most important, followed by community groups, government officers, ethnic organisations and refugee support groups (Beer & Foley, 2005).

Homelessness in Australia has been defined as consisting of three types:

 Primary - equivalent to ‘sleeping rough’ with no shelter  Secondary - temporary or emergency accommodation with friends, relatives or in refuges eg. ‘couch surfing’  Tertiary – living in private boarding houses without minimal standards or fixed tenure (Berta, 2012; Chamberlain & MacKenzie, 2002; Couch, 2011; Toure, 2008)

Beer and Foley found that according to these conventional definitions, a third of their 434 refugee- background respondents had been homeless at some stage since they arrived in Australia. Only six percent believed they had been homeless however, probably because most had not been completely without shelter at the time (Beer & Foley, 2005). More recent research indicated that secondary homelessness was the main form of homelessness experienced by refugee young people and that primary homelessness, if it occurred, was generally of short duration (Toure, 2008). Risk factors for homelessness for refugee-background youth include family conflict and breakdown; lack of family or extended family; lack of available appropriate housing; poor employment prospects and low income; unfamiliarity with services; lack of a rental history or bad credit history; and discrimination by agents and landlords (Couch, 2011; Toure, 2008). While there is limited data available, one study that drew together multiple data sources estimates homelessness rates for refugee-background youth at six to ten times greater than the general population (Coventry, et al., 2002; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a). Refugee-background young people also experience barriers to accessing housing and homelessness services due to limited language and knowledge of their availability; stigma attached to the concept of homelessness; and limited services and a lack of culturally appropriate resources within the sector (Toure, 2008).

Participants in a qualitative study with refugee-background young people experiencing homelessness in Melbourne reported family conflict as the common cause of homelessness. Conflict occurred over ‘parental rules or values, reconfigured families and overcrowding’ (Couch, 2011:46). Couch describes homelessness for refugee-background youth as profoundly under-recognised and under-researched. The process of becoming homeless for these young people involved progressive alienation from support systems including family, schools and community. Most used ‘couch surfing’ to find shelter, moving frequently from one house to another. Shelters and refuges were described as uncomfortable and unsafe with one participant describing fears that other young people would be using drugs and be dangerous. For others, maintaining autonomy was critically important and shelters were seen as ‘too rigidly regulated and intrusive’ (Couch, 2011:47). Those who were able to transition out of homelessness did so with the assistance of others and usually described a trigger event that led to them seeking help.

ADDITIONAL DOMAINS OF INCLUSION

SPORT AND RECREATION

Findings from the Australian General Social Survey indicated that sport and physical recreation groups were the most popular sites of participation for young Australians aged 18 to 24 (VicHealth, 2010). Sport and other recreation programs are recognised as valuable settings for engaging young people and promoting physical and mental health. Studies have shown that participation in sports and physical activity benefits mental health through physiological changes affecting mood, anxiety control and depressive symptoms; by strengthening relationships; by linking young people and their families with schools, community facilities, and networks (VicHealth, 2010).

For recently arrived refugee-background youth participation in sports and recreation activities may also assist with language acquisition, self-esteem, confidence and social connectedness. This group has low participation rates however, and identified barriers include costs, a lack of cultural sensitivity in sporting environments, a lack of knowledge of mainstream sports services on the part of refugee- background settlers, lack of access to transport, culturally determined gender norms and family attitudes (Caperchione, Kolt, & Mummery, 2009; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a; H. Moore, et al., 2008; Olliff, 2007; SCOA, August 2012).

Participation in community clubs can play an important role in fostering a sense of community belonging, (SCOA, August 2012; Spaaij, 2011) perhaps particularly so in Australia given the popularity and pervasiveness of sport within Australian culture (Refugee Council of Australia, 2010). A CMY report on the potential role of sport and recreation as an aid to integration of refugee young 32

people argues that targeted programs can facilitate settlement and transitional support, promote health and wellbeing and be an entry point to broader participation and social inclusion. However, it also warns that this can only occur ‘in the context of a society that addresses the other barriers to their full participation and integration’ (Olliff, 2007, p. 2:2). Following research with Somali Australians in Melbourne, Spaaij (2012) has suggested that whilst sports participation may play a valuable role in the settlement process and assist in building social capital, caveats apply. Sport may also provide a context for negative experiences such as racism, discrimination and even violence; whilst its benefits may accrue unequally – influenced by factors such as gender, age, education and socio-economic status (Spaaij, 2012).

RELIGION

Several studies have found that religion may constitute an effective coping mechanism for some refugee survivors of trauma (Rintoul, 2009; Schweitzer, et al., 2006). Pargament (2001) has suggested that for marginalised groups in particular, with limited means and few alternatives, religion may represent one of few genuinely available resources. With respect to forcibly displaced children, Ojalehto and Wang (2008) suggest that ‘collective spirituality may facilitate cultural adaptation, shared identity, and cohesive meaning systems and thus play an integral role in retaining effective cultural practices to support children’s development….[and] provides a shared framework of meaning that enables refugee communities to form a coherent response to their situation’ (Ojalehto & Wang, 2008). In research with unaccompanied refugee minors in Ireland, religion was found to be an important aspect of their coping strategies (Raghallaigh, 2011; Raghallaigh & Gilligan, 2010). Raghallaigh (2011) argues that religious beliefs and practices provide both a ‘relatively available’ and a ‘relatively compelling’ strategy for her participants to cope with challenges as well as providing meaning, comfort and a sense of control.

A study in the United States amongst the general population found that religiosity was associated with the development of resilience and lower rates of mental illness for some individuals at high-risk of major depressive disorders. The authors of this study suggest that religious people may be more likely to believe that negative life events occur for a valid reason and interpret them as providing opportunities for religious and personal development (Kasen, Wickramaratne, Gameroff, & Weissman, 2012). Studies with unaccompanied refugee minors in Ireland and with Sudanese minors in the United States similarly described how participants found meaning in their past and current experiences by attributing them to God’s will (Goodman, 2004; Raghallaigh, 2011).

Those who regularly attend religious services are also likely to have access to social support, providing another mechanism to explain associations between religiosity and increased resilience and

wellbeing (Ellison, 1991; Kasen et al., 2012). Raghallaigh however, suggests that in her study with unaccompanied refugee minors in Ireland, ‘comfort and companionship were provided by their faith generally, rather than specifically by their membership of religious institutions (Raghallaigh, 2011: 547). For Somali refugee adolescents in the North-eastern United States, religion was seen to play a prominent role in both interpretations and perceptions of mental illness as well as being ‘both highly valued and highly accessed as a source of healing’ (B.H. Ellis et al., 2010:803).

In her ethnographic work with Somali women living in Melbourne, McMichael (2002) found that Islam functioned as a mobile spiritual ‘home’ offering stability and emotional support following displacement and resettlement. Religion functioned as a source of support for these women both for coping with emotional distress and by providing a thread of continuity and sense of identity in the face of the discontinuity experienced with exile and displacement.

Thus far, this chapter has considered a range of factors recognised in the literature as having a significant influence on resettlement. For refugee-background youth, education sites and systems are perhaps the most accessible for offering interventions to enhance outcomes. The following section focuses on the much more limited evidence concerning this topic.

EVIDENCE FOR INTERVENTION

There is some tension between meeting the needs of refugee-background young people through universal services and other services for migrant and CALD groups and the need for targeted intervention. Early resettlement programs in Australia generally lack a coordinated and specific refugee or youth focus (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010; O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006).

Sidhu and Taylor (2007) examined Australian government education websites and found that refugee students are largely invisible; conflated with other migrants and international ESL students. While this may be seen as an attempt to avoid “othering” and “deficit” positions for refugee students, ‘not naming refugees as a “special needs” targeted group’ in practice places them at a significant disadvantage, effectively marginalised in policy discourse. They argue for education policies to be informed by a social justice approach, which recognises that the lack of prior education experienced by many refugee students means their needs are in fact quite different from other ESL students (Sidhu & Taylor, 2007:294-5).

Researchers are also concerned about a ‘psychological approach’ to refugee education that overemphasises pre-migration trauma, thereby individualising and depoliticising students’ situations.

Rather, what is required is a ‘systematic and whole-school approach’ to refugee education informed by understanding of pre- and post-displacement issues (Matthews, 2008; Pinson & Arnot, 2007). The use of a ‘risk discourse’ shifts the ‘focus away from broader structural and systemic issues, placing responsibility for avoiding social dislocation on individuals and communities themselves’. Warning against approaches that frame settlement difficulties as the responsibility of refugee communities and individuals, Sidhu and Taylor (2007) stress that ‘poverty, unemployment and racism, and the responsibilities of governments to provide well resourced services’ are key issues (Sidhu & Taylor, 2007:289-290).

Recognition of the key role that schools play in supporting improved educational and mental health outcomes for refugee-background students suggests a need for systemic and targeted support for this group within educational settings (Murray, Davidson, & Schweitzer, 2008). The importance of providing targeted support responding to the particular circumstances of refugee-background students was recognised in a policy document released by the Victorian government in 2008, Strengthening Outcomes: Refugee Students in Government Schools (DEECD, 2008). Correa-Velez and colleagues point out that while the need for support is critical, it is vital that such interventions also recognise students’ resilience and strengths. Policies and programs for refugee youth, should build on ‘the considerable resources these youth bring to their new country’ (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010:1399).

Recommendations for intervention - recognising the diversity of refugee-background young people and the relevance of particular social and political contexts - usually focus on general principles rather than specific strategies for supporting settlement and promoting mental health (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007b; Victorian Settlement Planning Committee, 2005). Menadue and colleagues identify three key factors which promote successful settlement for refugee-background youth: ‘English language skills, strong family structures, and support for young people (Menadue, et al., 2011:39). Rousseau and Guzder (2008) emphasise the key role played by schools and following discussion of a range of school-based programs, identify a number of promising approaches. They note however, that programs and services are rarely evaluated rigorously.

The Changing Cultures Project, is one of the few interventions described which has been evaluated although the evaluation was unable to assess its impact on outcomes for individual students (Bond, et al., 2007). The project involved a number of education and health providers for refugee-background young people in Melbourne and aimed to enhance positive mental health by mapping teaching practices against social determinants of mental health and engaging in reflective practice. The project identified similar settlement and education challenges to those already discussed in this chapter. In response to engaging in the project processes, project partners implemented changes to program content, structures and organisational networks. Changes included increasing access to recreation and 35

settlement service providers for young people; increasing activities for linking young people to vocational pathways and employment; and increasing emphasis on pastoral care (Bond, et al., 2007).

The important role of families for youth resettlement has also been recognised and resulted in calls for interventions which target families as a whole rather than an exclusively ‘youth-focused’ approach (Weine, 2008). Weine argues for a ‘family resilience conceptualization’ based on ‘family eco- developmental theory, which envisions youth in the context of a family system that interacts with larger social systems’ (Weine, 2008:523).

The Opening the Door report calls attention to the need for improved pastoral care within education settings and cites numerous other reports calling for coordination and cooperation between the post- compulsory education sectors and other service providers to address the complex settlement needs of this group. The report’s authors also argue that the need for additional and appropriate bridging programs to provide viable pathways to further education and training is clear. Where (all too rarely) such programs do exist, teachers report that students do well; but a lack of data tracking the educational and employment pathways of this cohort limits the ability to evaluate their effectiveness. Collecting this data nationally and systematically for a five-year period following entry to Australia is one of the recommendations of the report (H. Moore, et al., 2008).

A report by the Refugee Council of Australia (Olliff, 2010a) explores post-compulsory education and training pathways for young people from refugee-backgrounds in NSW. The researchers conducted interviews with key stakeholders working in the field of education and training with refugee- background young people. In addition to confirming the key issues for refugee-background young people in this age group as being consistent with those discussed above, the report describes models of good practice drawn from the perspectives of those delivering programs. From these models, the following key practice principles are identified:

 Flexible systems which can adapt to individual needs and allow young people to move in and out of programs  Understanding of the refugee experience by teachers and systems  Pastoral care which includes psychosocial support  Partnerships between education and community organisations  Strength-based approaches including activities such as sport and arts which give young people the opportunity to experience success  Transition support and bridging strategies to link to mainstream education settings  Literacy support  Family-centred approaches

 Community involvement  Youth-specific programs to enhance social as well as learning outcomes  Mentoring, especially from other young people or mentors from similar backgrounds  Re-engagement programs to work with those who have disengaged  Stable funding for programs to invest in flexibility and enhance long term outcomes (Olliff, 2010a)

These recommendations are consistent with strategies identified for improving engagement and retention in education for a range of ‘at-risk’ groups of young people (Lamb & Rice, 2008). The need for targeted youth support appears clear. In a recent policy analysis, Menadue and colleagues argue cogently for such assistance:

To harness the optimism and potential of the substantial youthful population that arrives here under the refugee resettlement program, we must help them swiftly. After years of interrupted schooling and living in camps where we know survival comes at enormous personal costs, we cannot condemn them to a marginal existence because at the time when they needed support most (on-arrival) it was not there. (Menadue, et al., 2011:40)

These authors suggest that programs for refugee-background youth should ‘mentor them, link them into broader youth networks, and connect them with opportunities for work’ (Menadue, et al., 2011:40).

CONCLUSION

This chapter has provided background information and reviewed the literature on refugee settlement in developed countries with an emphasis on evidence pertaining to young people and the Australian context where available. A number of barriers and challenges as well as facilitators for refugee integration and inclusion are described. Key issues include the influence of trauma-precipitated migration on mental and physical health; separation from family; English language acquisition and education; employment; and housing. Religion and participation in sport and recreation activities are also highlighted as playing potentially influential roles in mediating settlement experiences.

This review points to a need for further research and existing gaps in knowledge that are both substantive and methodological. Much of the existing literature is concerned with the experiences of refugee adults rather than youth. While the Good Starts study investigated the experiences of

secondary school age young people settling in Australia, several commentators have noted that older adolescents and young adults have particular needs. The impact of disrupted education is especially problematic and current on-arrival education and training systems appear to be inadequate for preparing many in this cohort to undertake further education and training. There is a corresponding need for further research focused on supporting this age group. Although there are common themes identified in recommendations for intervention, evaluation of strategies and interventions aiming to address the barriers and challenges experienced by refugee-background youth is lacking.

An additional gap in the research evidence is that barriers and facilitators to successful settlement have been described largely from the point of view of service providers, often in reports and ‘grey literature’. Much of the available Australian evidence cited in this review is contained in government and non-governmental organisational reports. These include the Refugee Status Report by Paxton and colleagues (2011) and reports provided by DIAC, DEECD, AMES, CMYI, ACER, and the organisations and departments that collaborated to produce the REPP report. While these reports constitute an important source of data along with the perspectives of service providers, peer-reviewed literature that includes the voices of refugees themselves, and of refugee youth in particular, is relatively scarce. Notable exceptions include a series of papers arising from the Good Starts study (See for example, I. Correa-Velez, Gifford, & Barnett, 2010; Gifford, Correa-Velez, & Sampson, 2009; McMichael, Gifford, & Correa-Velez, 2011; Sampson & Gifford, 2010); and studies by Brough and colleagues (2003) and Couch (2011),

As will be described further in Chapter 4, this study aims to address these identified gaps by exploring the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee youth participating in Ucan2, a support program for refugee-background young people aged 16 to 24. The research is also designed to assess the capacity of Ucan2 program activities to address the particular issues faced by these young people. A lack of tracking data concerning education and employment pathways of refugee-background young people is also consistently identified as a limiting factor when it comes to assessing the outcomes of any intervention. Addressing this problem effectively requires a change to the way data is collected and managed by institutions and government departments and is beyond the scope of this project.

The terms successful settlement, integration and inclusion were examined in this chapter and critiques of their normative assumptions and implications acknowledged. Notwithstanding these critiques, a case was made for using the term social inclusion for this study. In addition to avoiding some of the more negative connotations of integration, social inclusion has specific implications for broader policies dealing with social inequalities in areas such as employment, housing, education and access to health and social services. 38

Social connections are a recurrent theme throughout much of the literature. Connections influence and are influenced by all other domains, including mental health and recovery from trauma, education, employment, and housing. Capacities to establish and maintain social connections are clearly related to social inclusion. However, while much of the refugee settlement literature refers to the concepts of social inclusion, integration, and social capital, these terms are frequently poorly defined and references contain implicit superficial assumptions about their meaning. Social inclusion and social capital are used interchangeably at times, for example, or simply as synonyms for sociability or social connectedness.

The aim of the following chapter therefore, is to develop a more precise and nuanced conceptual understanding of these terms. It will focus on the theoretical literature concerned with social inclusion and exclusion, the relationship between social inclusion and social capital, and the implications of these theoretical understandings for intervention and wellbeing for refugee-background young people.

CHAPTER 3 : THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

BONDS, BRIDGES AND LINKS: SOCIAL INCLUSION, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND WELLBEING FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND YOUTH

The previous chapter considered the many challenges and obstacles to social inclusion faced by refugees during the resettlement process and noted that the vital role played by social connections in enhancing successful resettlement was a prominent theme. Social connections are critical circuits for social capital. As will be discussed, definitions of social capital vary but are primarily concerned with the resources that flow through social networks. This chapter will therefore focus firstly on theoretical understandings of social exclusion and inclusion and secondly on theories of social capital and the relationship between these related but distinct concepts.

In discussing the role of theory in social research, Hammersley provides a usefully succinct definition. ‘The term “theory” refers to general principles that provide explanations for empirical phenomena’ (Hammersley, 1995:3). Theory thus assists in clarifying the relationships between the various phenomena that we observe and understanding or predicting the systemic impact of events or interventions. Castles has argued that refugee research - because it is often concerned with addressing practical policy problems - is consequently under-theorised and that relating such ‘practical’ studies to ‘broader theoretical explanations’ will lead to ‘more useful public knowledge than short-term policy- oriented studies’ (Castles, 2003:27). This chapter will develop further a conceptualisation of refugee settlement as an issue of social inclusion; explicate the role of social capital in facilitating or hindering that process; and reflect on the implications of this theoretical understanding for wellbeing and for intervention.

Amartya Sen commented on the burgeoning literature concerning the relatively new concept of social exclusion in 2000 with the statement that: ‘The literature on social exclusion is, obviously, not for the abstemious’ (Sen, 2000). If this was the case then, it is certainly true just over a decade later, during which time it has continued to multiply. The literature concerning social capital is no less abundant. The following review is, therefore, necessarily selective and focuses in the first place, on the key authors for each topic, whose work is generally recognised as defining the scope and direction of debate. It also covers those aspects of social capital and social exclusion/inclusion of most relevance to the thesis, namely the wellbeing of refugee-background youth. The final section of the chapter discusses a conceptual framework developed by researchers in Britain for understanding integration and inclusion that brings together most of the elements discussed here and in the previous chapter.

SOCIAL EXCLUSION

The term social exclusion has been prominent in European social policy discourse for several decades, with its contemporary significance arising in France in 1974 amidst concern over the state’s role in promoting social cohesion (Mathieson et al., 2008). It became central to ‘New Labour’ rhetoric in Britain in 1997, and arrived somewhat later in Australia with the South Australian Social Inclusion Initiative in 2002 (Hayes, Gray, & Edwards, 2008; Silver, 2010). Definitions of social exclusion and inclusion are many and contested, with varying degrees of emphasis on poverty, employment and social participation, as well as on excluded groups versus exclusionary processes. There is however, broad agreement that it consists of both material and social aspects and is characterised by multi- dimensionality. Multi-dimensionality or ‘intersectionality’ is perhaps the sine qua non of social exclusion and it is this feature, which demands an inter-sectoral policy and service response. It is also fundamental to understanding trajectories leading to exclusion. Losing a job, for example, may lead to a downward spiral including failure to pay the rent, homelessness, disruption to social and family networks, alcohol abuse and poor health (Silver, 2010). A useful summary of the dimensions of exclusion lists them as impoverishment; labour market exclusion; service exclusion; and exclusion from social relations (Gordon, 2000). Commentators in Britain have differentiated between people suffering from wide, deep and concentrated social exclusion. Wide social exclusion refers to large numbers of people excluded from a small number of dimensions; deep social exclusion refers to those excluded on multiple and overlapping domains; and concentrated exclusion exists when disadvantage and exclusion are geographically concentrated (Levitas et al., 2007).

Discussing social exclusion and young people in the European context, Williamson claims that increasing numbers of young people are vulnerable to social exclusion:

This has been manifested in growing levels of early drop-out from learning, non- participation in vocational preparation and subsequently marginalisation from the labour market or engagement only with low-level, always low-paid, and often casual and short-term employment (Williamson, 2007).

Although there is reasonable consensus about the constitutive elements of social exclusion, this is underpinned by a number of very different theoretical and ideological constructs - with corresponding solutions ranging from ‘radical social intervention based on the redistribution of wealth and opportunity to more punitive, individualised, “correctional” interventions’ (Williamson, 2007:25). A well-known analysis of the various discourses of exclusion under New Labour in Britain is that by Ruth Levitas. She distinguishes a redistributionist discourse (RED), which addresses social, political, cultural and economic inequalities; from a social integrationist discourse (SID), which advocates paid

employment as the solution to poverty and exclusion; and a moral underclass discourse (MUD). In the MUD discourse, the moral and behavioural delinquency of the excluded is seen as the root of the problem (Levitas, 1998). These distinctions are similar to those made by some authors between strong and weak versions of the concept (Byrne, 2005; Martin, 2004; Veit-Wilson, 1998):

In the ‘weak’ version of this discourse, the solutions lie in altering these excluded peoples’ handicapping characteristics and enhancing their integration into dominant society. ‘Stronger’ forms of this discourse also emphasise the role of those who are doing the excluding and therefore aim for solutions which reduce the powers of exclusion (Veit-Wilson, 1998:45)

Thus, weak and MUD modes of the social exclusion discourse have much in common, whilst a strong version is more akin to a RED.

A report to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Commission on Social Determinants of Health by the Social Exclusion Knowledge Network (SEKN) stresses the importance of viewing social exclusion as a dynamic, ‘relational’ process rather than - as in much policy discourse - ‘a state experienced by particular groups of people’ (Popay, et al., 2008:7). The term ‘relational’ draws attention to the notion that social exclusion involves the ‘rupture of relationships’ between people and society and exclusion from opportunities afforded to others. It also acknowledges that inequalities are produced by relationships defined by ‘normative systems that assign social identities and associated power and status to different individuals, groups, classes, and even States’ (Mathieson, et al., 2008:13-14). Exclusionary processes may be active, for example through withholding political, economic and social rights on the basis of gender, age or migration status; or passive, arising for example when policies result in an economic downturn affecting employment (Popay, et al., 2008; Sen, 2000). An understanding of social exclusion as dynamic – whereby social processes and associated interests exclude people – is also implicit in the ‘strong’ version of a social exclusion discourse.

A prominent critique of a social exclusion focus – and particularly ‘weak’ versions - is that it shifts policy attention away from, and depoliticises, poverty and income inequality (Béland, 2007; Byrne, 2005; Veit-Wilson, 1998). In this respect, it is seen as compatible with economic liberalism ‘grounded in the assumption that the state should fight deprivation but not income inequality at large’ (Béland, 2007:128). Sen, on the other hand, argues that the concept of social exclusion both complements an understanding of poverty - as a lack of capability to lead a decent life - and can enrich this understanding by ‘emphasising – and focusing attention on - the role of relational features in deprivation’ (Sen, 2000:8).

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND HEALTH

As reflected in the following definition, provided by the World Health Organisation (WHO) Social Exclusion Knowledge Network (SEKN), social exclusion is recognised as a key determinant of mental and physical health and wellbeing:

Exclusion consists of dynamic, multi-dimensional processes driven by unequal power relationships interacting across four main dimensions - economic, political, social and cultural - and at different levels including individual, household, group, community, country and global levels. It results in a continuum of inclusion/exclusion characterised by unequal access to resources, capabilities and rights which leads to health inequalities. (Popay, et al., 2008:2)

These authors argue that the concept has unique value for understanding the social determinants of health inequalities. In a literature review published by the same group they make the point that, as a lens for viewing social inequalities, insights provided by social exclusion do not replace – but rather complement – those provided by other ‘systems of social stratification’ such as gender, ethnicity, race and class for example (Mathieson, et al., 2008:29). Social exclusion can drive health inequalities both constitutively – through ‘restricted participation in economic, social, political and cultural relationships as a result of the abuse of power in social relationships’; and instrumentally by causing other deprivations such as low income (Mathieson, et al., 2008:66).

SOCIAL INCLUSION

Social inclusion is most commonly defined as, or assumed to be, the opposite of exclusion. Szoke, for example, describes social inclusion as a ‘policy construct’ that ‘responds to social exclusion’ (Szoke, 2009). Not all commentators, however, agree that inclusion is an unproblematic opposite of exclusion. While a switch in more recent times to using the more positive term inclusion may at one level suggest an attempt to focus on goals rather than problems, it has also been criticised for deflecting attention from social structures to individuals (M. Daly & Silver, 2008). In discussing British mental health policy, Helen Spandler argues that while exclusion refers to:

individuals, groups, institutions or markets’ that have the power to exclude, a ‘policy shift to inclusion can make invisible the social structures and divisions which generate and sustain exclusion and create an obsession with the choices and

responsibilities of the individual rather than the constraining context in which they live. (Spandler, 2007, p. 4:4)

This distinction echoes that referred to above, between strong and weak versions of a social exclusion discourse. Others are critical of the change in focus implied by the semantic shift from exclusion to inclusion, suggesting for example that, in Europe at least, social inclusion is framed as a means for promoting social cohesion, rather than being explicitly concerned with tackling disadvantage (Colley, Boetzelen, Hoskins, & Parveva, 2007). It has been suggested by some commentators that a further problem with a policy emphasis on inclusion – particularly in Britain – is that it is over-concerned with employment as a means to achieving it, representing a ‘paradigm shift’ from a concern with equality and social rights to one of equality of opportunity and social obligations (Levitas, 1998; Lister, 1998)

Silver (2010), on the other hand, contends that exclusion deals with social problems while inclusion is concerned with social membership. It is therefore necessary to ‘pursue both anti-exclusion and pro- inclusion policies’. While universal policies targeting discrimination and ensuring equal treatment may achieve the former, targeted policies may sometimes be necessary to accomplish the latter (Silver, 2010:197).

Other definitions of social inclusion - including the following - share an emphasis on social connectedness as a key feature:

At one level, it represents the degree to which individuals feel connected with their communities ... Social inclusion is thus a broad notion that incorporates concepts of social capital, social networks, social connectedness, social trust, reciprocity, local democracy and group solidarity (Keleher & Armstrong, 2006).

Interventions to promote inclusion, therefore, often have a corresponding emphasis on promoting connectedness (Keleher & Armstrong, 2006). I would argue however, that it is important not to see social inclusion as simply a synonym for social connectedness as we may risk losing sight of the multidimensional nature of disadvantage engendered by exclusion and the vulnerability to exclusion experienced by particular groups.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

Some commentators perceive clear links between human rights and social inclusion, while others stress the advantages of one framework or theoretical lens over the other. The former Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, Helen Szoke, described her frustration that the Federal Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda and the National Human

Rights Consultation were ‘being rolled out side by side, without any clear policy connections necessarily being made between the two initiatives’(Szoke, 2009:6). She argued that implementing a rights-based framework can prevent ‘ambiguity in what social inclusion is trying to achieve’. It stresses that people are important as people and so helps to avoid a social inclusion approach that focuses too narrowly on participation in employment and enhancing people’s productivity. Szoke suggests that social inclusion advocates a set of entitlements needed for social participation; and that ‘human rights represent these entitlements’ (Szoke, 2009:11). This suggests that social inclusion is a policy construct that may be effective at articulating mechanisms for operationalising the rights of disadvantaged communities.

A complementary view is that in the absence of a rights framework, social inclusion risks becoming ‘yet another discourse that constructs people that “don’t fit” as deficient’ (K. Edwards, 2008:12). The authors of the WHO SEKN report suggest that the relational approach advocated for conceptualising social exclusion also assists with understanding ‘the causes and consequences of unequal power relationships’ and makes ‘explicit the links between exclusion and a “rights” approach to the social determinants of health’ (Popay, et al., 2008:8). Moreover, in order for targeted policies and interventions to avoid being stigmatising and disempowering, they ‘should only be implemented within a framework guaranteeing human rights and universal access to essential services and socially acceptable living standards’ (Popay, et al., 2008:18).

Silver argues that a social inclusion framework can accommodate social and cultural differences in multicultural societies such as Australia ‘more readily than one‑dimensional redistributive frameworks insofar as it acknowledges and accommodates specific needs and rights of groups’. Using attempts to address Indigenous disadvantage as an example, she makes the case that ‘this approach calls for policy “targeting within universalism” with attention to avoid differential treatment from becoming undignified or stigmatizing’ (Silver, 2010:195). Underpinning targeted interventions promoting inclusion with an emphasis on universal rights may help to avoid this potential for programs to compound unintentionally, through stigmatising effects, the very disadvantage they aim to alleviate.

Other researchers perceive a clear distinction between rights and inclusion as analytical frameworks. In an article discussing the impact of temporary protection visas (TPVs) on refugees, for example, researchers argue that ‘simplistic and rhetorical notions of inclusion and exclusion’ function to obscure ‘specific practices of injustice … resulting from flawed government policy’ (Humpage & Marston, 2005:145).

Within the education literature concerning refugee young people in Australia, much of the discussion focuses on social justice rather than inclusion (Earnest, et al., 2007; Matthews, 2008; Sidhu & Taylor, 2007; S. Taylor, 2008). In a discussion of how the rise of neoliberal ideology in the 1990s has shaped social policies in Australia, Sidhu and Taylor are critical of the way in which references to social capital, social cohesion, and social inclusion and exclusion have replaced the language of equity and social justice in social policies (Sidhu & Taylor, 2007:287). Much of the criticism of a social inclusion approach in this literature is once again reminiscent of the distinction discussed earlier between weak and strong versions of the social exclusion/inclusion discourse. Commentators using both human rights and social inclusion frameworks are disparaging of approaches that focus on individual ‘deficiency’ rather than the system that withholds justice or inclusion.

SOCIAL INCLUSION FOR REFUGEE YOUTH: PARTICIPATION AND CONNECTIONS

As noted in the previous chapter, much of the literature dealing specifically with refugees is concerned with integration rather than social inclusion. The term social inclusion however, offers some advantages. Associated with its political currency, it suggests that other disadvantaged members of the community share a range of the issues faced by refugee settlers. While the term integration has received similar criticism to a weak version of the social inclusion discourse – the inference that excluded individuals must overcome their deficiencies in order to fit in - the strong version of the social inclusion/exclusion discourse as well as an emphasis on the dynamic and relational nature of exclusion avoids this implication. Hayes and colleagues (2008), in discussing the social inclusion agenda, suggest that advantages of this approach both in Australia and internationally include that it provides a rationale for promoting equitable access to universal services as well as developing targeted interventions which respond to particular groups at risk of exclusion and for whom mainstream services are insufficient. It also explicitly recognises the multiple barriers to inclusion faced by disadvantaged individuals and groups thereby highlighting the need for cross-sectoral policies and services to address them.

As discussed in the previous section, social inclusion also has the potential to be linked more explicitly with human rights and with social participation. Silver describes social inclusion as ‘a prerequisite for citizen participation’ (Silver, 2010:200). The discourse around youth participation is closely allied to human rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) enshrines young peoples’ right to participate in decisions affecting their lives (United Nations, 1989). Ideally, participation leads to ‘meaningful inclusion’ of young people, with positive effects on health and wellbeing, social connectedness, identity, and skill development helpful for education and employment.

In practice, youth participation is frequently impeded by obstacles to social, economic and political involvement. Edwards makes the point that a social inclusion agenda needs to focus on creating the capacity for young people to participate. This capacity, she argues, has been eroded by neoliberal policies which have resulted in high levels of youth unemployment, unaffordable housing - and barriers to political and community participation associated with a consequent itinerant lifestyle (K. Edwards, 2008). While young people from refugee backgrounds are often recognised as having high levels of resilience and resourcefulness they are also positioned by society as at risk of exclusion and marginalisation with respect to housing, health, education, employment and access to social and recreational opportunities. Social inclusion on the other hand is represented by full and equal economic, social and political participation (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a). This means being able to access post-school education and training and/or good employment as well as having a social network which includes people from a range of cultural backgrounds (Fangen, 2010). Many refugee and migrant young people are likely to experience additional barriers to participation, including practical difficulties such as accessing private transport whilst living in areas of cheaper housing where public transport may also be scarce (Couch & Francis, 2006; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a).

As noted above, a social inclusion approach has been criticized by many, as being more concerned with employment than promoting greater youth participation in civil society. Colley and colleagues counter this criticism, claiming that a ‘bottom up’ push for a focus on employment as a means to inclusion came from disadvantaged youth themselves. They suggest that traditional youth participation approaches failed to realise that in order to function and to be included in the community ‘you need a job which also allows you the economic resources, time and energy to participate in these other roles’ (Colley, et al., 2007:13-14).

In its second Annual Report, the Australian Social Inclusion Board lists six priorities for policy action, including children at greatest risk of long-term disadvantage; jobless families; location-based disadvantage; support for those with disabilities and mental illness; homelessness; and ‘closing the gap’ for Indigenous Australians. As is clear from the previous chapter, refugee-background young people are likely to be over-represented in most of these categories; and assistance for ‘vulnerable new arrivals and refugees’ has been added to this list as an additional priority area (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2010a).

This report also highlighted several issues of relevance to this project, in particular stressing the role of social relationships for promoting inclusion. While emphasising the importance of addressing structural barriers, it also drew attention to the significance of social connections, stating that those who are able to overcome cycles of disadvantage ‘invariably have a meaningful relationship with at least one other person... able to provide emotional as well as practical support’. While this may be a 48

family member or friend, often for those who are most vulnerable it will be a professional service- provider (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2010a:10). For young people, it recommended that:

Youth policies should focus on programs that develop the capacities and confidence of disadvantaged young people by providing them with mentoring, friendships, helpful networks, and an atmosphere of trust in which they can grow in confidence and competence. To work well, youth services need ... to provide young people with positive relationships with a trusted adult, bring about positive transitions from school to further education, and provide continuity of support through multiple setbacks and periods of slow progress. (Australian Social Inclusion Board, 2010a:11)

Social connectedness is thus recognised as vital for young people in particular and perhaps even more so for refugee young people, seen to occupy a marginal position in society placing them at risk of social exclusion (See for example Ager & Strang, 2004b; Beirens, Hughes, Hek, & Spicer, 2007; Brough, et al., 2003; Gifford, Bakopanos, Kaplan, & Correa-Velez, 2007; Loizos, 2000).

The importance of social connections for ‘successful’ refugee settlement and social inclusion has been repeatedly emphasised, yet disruption to networks is a key feature of the refugee experience, to the extent that Marx (1990:190) has defined a refugee as ‘a person whose social world has been disturbed’. In Ager and Strang’s UK study on refugee integration (discussed in more detail below) both refugee and non-refugee interviewees identified social connections as crucial. Relationships were nominated as important for a range of characteristics including: friendship, providing a sense of welcome, friendliness and safety, and feeling part of the community (Ager & Strang, 2004a). A study comparing integration of refugees in the Netherlands and Italy found that integration success went beyond simple measurable indicators such as occupational mobility or economic status, to include the quality and strength of social connections with the established community (Korac, 2003). In a qualitative study in which young refugees in Australia talked about wellbeing, various kinds of social interactions were the most commonly cited ‘helpful’ activity (Brough, et al., 2003) and it has been argued that helping traumatised refugees to build up a social network should be the primary objective of professional and therapeutic help (Van der Veer, 2000). One of the key tasks for recently arrived refugee young people can be seen as establishing a new social location. As Brough et al suggest:

They must locate themselves within a new social, cultural, geographic and adult space, yet also try to find security within the spaces of their own families and ethnic communities (Brough, et al., 2003:193).

Social connections comprise the structural elements of, and provide access to, social capital. Castles has argued that the failure of refugee policies based on the research of economists and geographers highlights the need to ‘understand the social dynamics of the migratory process’ with a corresponding emphasis on social networks and social capital (Castles, 2003:17).

The purpose of the following section focusing on social capital theory therefore, is to illuminate the mechanisms and conditions through which social connections may facilitate inclusion.

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Like social exclusion, the term social capital is a contested term with no clear consensus as to its definition (Portes, 1998; Szreter, 2002). In a review of the concept however, Schuller and colleagues make the point that despite ‘scope for genuine disagreement’ over its nature, it remains conceptually useful. They also conclude that definitional problems may ‘inhere not so much in social capital but in the complex and multi-faceted nature of human reality’ (Schuller, Baron, & Field, 2000:23-24). The broad range of ways in which it is employed is captured in the following definition of social capital as ‘a range of thinking around norms and networks; the values and resources that both result in, and are the product of, socially negotiated ties and relationships’ (Cheong, et al., 2007:25).

The following discussion draws on key social capital theorists to give a theoretical overview of the different ways in which social capital is conceived and used within both public health and the broader social capital literature before focusing on the significance of social capital for refugee settlement. I focus specifically on the relationship between lack of access to social capital and disadvantage.

CONSTRUCTIONS AND CRITIQUES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

The imprecise way in which social capital is often used may reflect a failure to distinguish between two common and distinct perspectives of social capital, which can be broadly characterised as a communitarian construction or a network construction. The key difference between the two relates to whether social capital is conceptualised as a group or an individual asset (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Eriksson, 2011; Kawachi, Kim, Coutts, & Subramanian, 2004; Kawachi, Subramanian, & Kim, 2008a; Lin, 1999; Portes, 2000). The communitarian perspective centres on the work of Putnam in which social capital is seen as a community resource associated with high levels of civic engagement, prosocial norms and interpersonal trust (Putnam, 2000). Communitarian social capital is generally considered to be an ecological characteristic, which is a ‘public good’ (Baum & Ziersch, 2003; Wakefield & Poland, 2005), although Coleman (1988) pointed out that effective norms may also 50

hamper innovation. This construction of social capital builds on the discourse around civil society, prominent in the 1980s, and high levels of this type of communitarian social capital are spoken of as virtually synonymous with social cohesion.

The communitarian construction of social capital, particularly as it is used by Putnam, has been criticised for lacking consideration of potential negative impacts, power structures and for justifying the withdrawal of state supports (Wakefield & Poland, 2005). Putnam is best known for his evocatively titled work Bowling Alone (Putnam, 1995, 2000) which describes a decline in social capital in the United States in the late twentieth century. Described as an essentially romantic and middle class view (Hawe & Shiell, 2000) it has been noted that within Australia, ‘the putatively higher social capital of past times’ was also ‘associated with the marginalisation of key social groups including indigenous people, women, gays and lesbians, and non-Anglo Saxons’ (J. Edwards, Cheers, & Graham, 2003:74-75). The group asset conception of social capital is also criticised for tautological confusion between the sources and outcomes of social capital (Portes, 1998). In other words, the circularity of the notion - that high levels of social capital result in social cohesion and connectedness; while social cohesion and connectedness result in high levels of social capital – limits its usefulness.

Arguing for an alternative network perspective of social capital, Lin, for example, contends that social capital ‘must be distinguished from collective assets and goods such as culture, norms and trust. A network perspective characterises social capital as consisting of resources provided through social networks. Lin defines social capital as ‘resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions’ (Lin, 1999:35). While one may postulate causal links: that collective assets such as trust, promote networks and enhance the utility of embedded resources, or alternatively, that networks promote trust - it should not be assumed that they are all forms of social capital or can be defined by one another (e.g., that trust is capital) (Lin, 1999:34).

This second construction draws on Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 1986) and characterises social capital as consisting of the ‘resources that accrue to individuals as a result of their membership of social networks’ (Baum & Ziersch, 2003:320). For Bourdieu,

The volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent thus depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed in his own right by each of those to whom he is connected (Bourdieu, 1986:249).

Bourdieu uses ‘capital’ as a metaphor for power and ‘social capital is used to reinforce the prestige and power of affluent social groups to the detriment of others in society’ (Bourdieu, 1986; Wakefield & Poland, 2005:2822).

This construction, in which social capital stems from the possession of economic and human capital, explicitly acknowledges the importance of class. Together with cultural capital, it functions as a mechanism that excludes those who lack it and ensures that economic capital is passed on and retained within wealthy groups. Rather than social capital being considered a collective asset, it is more properly – according to this construction - seen as an analytic tool which can help to explain inequalities (J. Edwards, et al., 2003). Social capital is a resource that accrues to those who can leverage it to achieve particular goals that may or may not be beneficial to society as a whole. Class based social capital is reproduced both consciously and unconsciously through occasions and practices which bring people from the same group together. Certain behaviours ‘identified as typical of particular groups (often in an essentialist way)... are then either normalized, valorized or marginalized, depending on the social status of the groups with which the behaviour has been identified’ (Wakefield & Poland, 2005:2826).

Network and communitarian approaches to social capital can also be differentiated as concerned respectively with structural elements - networks and associations - versus cognitive elements related to intangible constituents such as trust and reciprocity (Baum & Ziersch, 2003:320). Alternatively they can be characterised as concentrating on the sources of social capital (i.e. networks) and consequences of social capital - which may be positive or negative (Woolcock, 2001:70).

Woolcock suggests a synthesis of the two constructions, focusing on its multidimensional sources rather than consequences, defining social capital as referring to both ‘the norms and networks that facilitate collective action’ (Woolcock, 2001:70 - emphasis added). On the topic of social capital consisting of both networks and norms, Reimer and colleagues elaborate by pointing out that ‘while networks provide both identity and structure to social relations.... it is the norms that provide the “rules” of interaction within these networks (Reimer, Lyons, Ferguson, & Polanco, 2008:257).

Woolcock also stresses the importance of recognising the ‘institutional context within which networks are embedded, especially the role of the state’ (Woolcock, 2001:72). Some social capital theorists distinguish this emphasis on the role of extra-local social structures, organisations and the state as being a third construction, which they call Institutional social capital (Muntaner, Lynch, & Smith, 2000; Wakefield & Poland, 2005). Building on Evans (1996) work detailing ‘state-society synergy’ resulting from development projects in ‘Third World countries’, Wakefield and Poland (2005) suggest that incorporating this emphasis is important for translating social ties into community development in developed countries as well.

SOCIAL CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE: BONDING, BRIDGING AND LINKING NETWORKS

Social networks comprise the infrastructure through which social capital resources are distributed. Network ties are commonly conceptualised as comprising three distinct forms: bonding, bridging and linking connections (Field, 2003).

Bonding social connections are networks and relationships where there is a shared identity, often between family members and close friends. Also described as consisting of strong ties, bonding connections are seen as important for getting by and providing a sense of security along with emotional and practical support. It has been suggested that social capital associated with bonding networks is a particularly important resource for disadvantaged communities where it may allow access to goods and services (such as childcare for example) which are often commodified in higher income communities (Wakefield & Poland, 2005).

Bonding social capital is not however, always regarded as an unadulterated good. Demands associated with bonded networks may be constraining as well as supportive, particularly for those whose limited resources prevent them from withdrawing from such networks - networks of exchange may make it difficult for individuals to save for example (Wakefield & Poland, 2005:2824). Particularly for women in disadvantaged communities, high demands for support associated with bonding ties may represent a net drain for individuals (Warr, 2006). Bonding ties are also responsible for social boundaries. The development of group identity and social capital within groups is by its nature exclusionary with respect to those with different norms and identities. This raises difficulties for attempts to link social capital with community development and health promotion (Eriksson, 2011; Field, 2003; Wakefield & Poland, 2005).

By way of contrast, bridging social capital flows from relationships and associations between a broader range of people, institutions and acquaintances. Referring to such relationships as ‘cross- cutting ties’ Narayan (1999:7) describes them as referring to informal or formal groupings which cut across ‘ethnic, gender, caste, class, wealth, religion, location or any other characteristics which distinguish social groups’. Such associations may come about through engagement in leisure activities or through paid work and do not depend on shared status or social identity (Szreter, 2002). These relationships or weak ties are viewed as necessary for getting ahead, achieving ‘success’ and ‘social mobility’ (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2000; Spicer, 2008; Torezani, Colic-Peisker, & Fozdar, 2008). Unlike bonding networks, bridging networks are invariably depicted as positive for collective wellbeing (Narayan, 1999). Both the communitarian and institutional constructions of social capital

discussed above emphasise the importance of connections between different groups of people although the former pays scant attention to differences in power and status between groups.

Bridging or weak ties have also been characterised as providing instrumental returns to individuals. They are useful for obtaining resources not already possessed by an actor (economic, political and social). These resources are contrasted with expressive returns associated with bonding or strong ties. The latter are useful to maintain resources already possessed such as physical health, mental health and life satisfaction (Lin, 1999; van der Gaag & Webber, 2008). Granovetter (Granovetter, 1973) was perhaps the first to refer to ‘the strength of weak ties’ and Portes similarly describes the benefits of bridging ties in terms of their capacity to transmit new knowledge and resources, in comparison to dense networks of strong bonding ties, which ‘tend to convey redundant information’ (Portes, 1998:6).

Building on Bourdieu’s insights regarding the relationship between class and access to all forms of capital, others have noted that the ‘social capital of the poor primarily manifests itself as bonding social capital only’ (Szreter, 2002:577). Having connections only to others who are socioeconomically disadvantaged offers little opportunity to access other forms of capital, which those groups are also lacking. By way of comparison, for seeking and obtaining resources not already possessed - such as a job - bridging networks are likely to be more useful (Field, 2003; Lin, 1999). Recognition of the inequitable distribution of social capital (based on class, gender and race) is urged along with a corresponding need to focus on the task of developing bridging social capital between disadvantaged and more advantaged groups (Wakefield & Poland, 2005).

Abundant bonding social capital of the poor or marginalised is also sometimes associated with negative images such as teenage gangs, terrorist groups or drug cartels for example (Szreter, 2002; Whiteford, Cullen, & Baingana, 2005). Portes elaborates at some length on the potential negative effects of social capital: ‘exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and downward levelling norms’ (Portes, 1998:15). He goes on to give a number of examples that - perhaps unintentionally - almost all concern the activities of particular ethnic groups.

The concept of linking social capital, emphasised by authors such as Woolcock (2001) and Szreter (2002), deals explicitly with connections where there is disparity in power and resources and with the role of the state. Linking social capital was conceptualised somewhat later than bonding and bridging capital and receives less attention than the other strands. Linking social capital can be seen as a variety of bridging capital and refers particularly to relationships between individuals and institutions. It implies a capacity to leverage resources, ideas and information from institutions and agencies

(Woolcock, 2001). Szreter and Woolcock (2004:655) define linking social capital as ‘norms of respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society’. A number of authors regard linking capital as particularly important for marginalised individuals and communities (Domínguez & Arford, 2010; Field, 2003). Linking ties between people in disadvantaged communities and government and non- government agencies can promote information exchange and capacity building (Warr, 2005b). Szreter argues that ‘there is an optimal dynamic balance of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, which simultaneously facilitates democratic governance, economic efficiency and widely-dispersed human welfare, capabilities and functionings’ (Szreter, 2002:580).

A number of researchers have examined the impact of class on the spatial and structural dimensions of social networks. In Stephen’s (2008) qualitative study of the association between social capital and space for different demographic groups in New Zealand, residents of a deprived suburb were more likely to report close networks within their neighbourhood, including friends, families, church links and neighbours. By way of contrast, those in a privileged suburb reported national and international connections but rarely knew their neighbours well. This observation, that ‘poor people have stronger local social connections and fewer broader connections’ than the wealthy (Stephens, 2008:1181) has been confirmed in a number of other studies as discussed above (MacDonald, Shildrick, Webster, & Simpson, 2005; Szreter, 2002; Warr, 2005b). The effect of neighbourhood on connection may not so much physically contain relationships as define and reflect identity, thus configuring relationships through the impact of social status, stigma and access to symbolic and cultural capitals. Within this analysis, place may be understood as a limitation rather than a source of social capital (Stephens, 2008). In reporting a study of transitions from school to work for young adults growing up in poor neighbourhoods in Britain, MacDonald and colleagues argue that:

While local networks helped in coping with the problems of growing up in poor neighbourhoods and generated a sense of inclusion, the sort of social capital embedded in them served simultaneously to close down opportunities and to limit the possibilities of escaping the conditions of social exclusion. (MacDonald, et al., 2005:873)

They found that in the search for employment, over two thirds of jobs were secured through friends, neighbours and family while the methods advocated by job seeking agencies were completely ineffective, with not one job offer resulting from the several thousand letters the group had collectively sent. However, the end result was that the types of jobs available through their bonding connections with those from their own neighbourhoods were seen as likely to lead to a long term

employment trajectory consisting of ‘low paid work, punctuated by unemployment’ (MacDonald, et al., 2005:881-882).

LINKS BETWEEN SOCIAL NETWORKS, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HEALTH

There is a large body of literature which links the possession of meaningful social relationships, community engagement and social capital to health (Berkman, 1995; Berkman & Glass, 2000; Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000; Fothergill et al., 2011; Hawe & Shiell, 2000; Holt- Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010; Kawachi & Berkman, 2000, 2001; Kawachi, Subramanian, & Kim, 2008b; Lomas, 1998; Veenstra, 2000; VicHealth, 2010; Wakefield & Poland, 2005; Ziersch, 2005). Many of the terms used to link social relationships and health, including social networks, social support, social ties, social integration and social capital - along with assumed synonyms such as cohesion, trust and effective norms - are used loosely and at times interchangeably. The uncritical and imprecise use of the term social capital in public health discourse has been criticised as rendering it a multi-purpose descriptor which ‘has slipped effortlessly into the public health lexicon as if there was a clear shared understanding of its meaning and its relevance for improving public health’ (Muntaner, et al., 2000:108). The following section delineates some of the key distinctions and arguments.

Kawachi and Berkman’s definition of social capital follows Putnam and Coleman, describing it as ‘those features of social structures – such as levels of interpersonal trust and norms of reciprocity and mutual aid – which act as resources for individuals and facilitate collective action’ (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:175). Social cohesion then, exists in a society where there is abundant social capital and an ‘absence of latent social conflict – whether in the form of income/wealth inequality; [or] racial/ethnic tensions....’ (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:175)

In a number of ecological level studies using social capital indicators such as levels of trust and density of associational membership, Kawachi and colleagues have compared self-rated health and mortality rates in American states. These have demonstrated a relationship between ‘state-level social capital and individual well-being, independent of more proximal predictors such as low income, low education, smoking, obesity and lack of access to health care’ (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000). Writing in 2000, Kawachi and Berkman make a distinction between social capital and social networks, seeing social capital as a ‘by-product’ of social relationships:

Social networks are a characteristic that can (and most often has been) measured at the individual level, whereas social capital should be properly considered a feature of the collective (neighbourhood, community, society) to which the individual belongs. It makes no sense to measure an individual’s social capital (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:176, emphasis added). 56

They contrast social capital with other forms of capital by claiming that it is therefore ‘a public good’.... the sine qua non’ of which ‘is its aspect of nonexcludability in consumption’ (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:177). They proceed to undercut this argument however, by acknowledging that a [significant!] proportion of the population – including poor people, women, and African Americans may be excluded from accessing social capital because of segregation and discrimination (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:186-7).

Proposing mechanisms through which collective social capital might influence health outcomes, these authors distinguish between ‘compositional effects’ - whereby socially isolated individuals are more likely to reside in areas depleted of social capital which provide fewer opportunities to develop local ties – and ‘contextual effects’. These include an influence of community level social capital on health- related behaviours, on access to services and amenities and on psychosocial processes (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000:184).

In a separate treatment of the association between social ties and mental health, Kawachi and Berkman discuss mechanisms that include ‘main effects’, whereby integration into social networks produces positive affective states as well as influencing health promoting behaviours, and ‘stress- buffering’ mechanisms, associated with access to real or perceived support during stressful life events (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001). The role of social capital theory in this model lies in the insights it provides regarding the influence of structural characteristics (such as community density of civic associations or extent of voluntarism) on which individual egocentric ties are contingent.

In contrast to a purely communitarian view of social capital, if social capital is seen as residing in social networks of individuals and groups, the link between social capital and health is somewhat more intuitively related to broader social determinants of health. In addition to cognitive benefits associated with a sense of belonging, social participation provides access to health enhancing material resources such as job opportunities (Eriksson, 2011). As Woolcock puts it, ‘controlling for other key variables, the well connected are more likely to be hired, housed, healthy and happy’ (Woolcock, 2001:68). This construction of social capital largely equates social capital with personal networks. These are influenced by contextual norms such as trust and reciprocity, in turn influenced by and interacting with political rhetoric and state-sponsored structures and supports. In clarifying their stance on the individual or group nature of social capital, Szreter and Woolcock (2004) make the point that connections between any pair of individuals only represents social capital by virtue of its being part of a larger network of relationships. Moreover, that larger network depends on shared norms of reciprocity, which are a group property.

Advocating network approaches to public health research, Moore and colleagues argue that conceptions of social capital as residing in networks are more likely to highlight ‘the influence of social structure, power, and disparities in access to resources on health’ (S. Moore, Haines, Hawe, & Shiell, 2006:729). They argue that within recent public health discourse, network approaches have been marginalised in order to establish an environmental level, psychosocial mechanism to explain the effects on health and mortality of unequal income distribution. This, they contend, reinforces ‘the false dichotomy between psychosocial and material determinants of health’. Understood in network terms as the resources to which people have access through their social relationships, social capital should be considered a ‘composite of psychosocial and material elements’. Social capital understood in this way provides access to both material resources - such as money or a car – and psychosocial resources such as social support (S. Moore, et al., 2006:733). Moreover, such an approach can be integrated into broader ‘macro-level frameworks’ which focus on the way in which ‘upstream social factors’ influence the resources available to individuals through networks (S. Moore, et al., 2006:733).

More recent treatments of social capital and health are more likely to recognise both individual network approaches and communitarian approaches as being useful concepts within health promotion. By 2008, Kawachi and colleagues suggest that ‘both the social cohesion and the network definitions of social capital have merit in pointing to the existence of valued resources (capital) that inhere within, and are by-products of, social relationships’ (Kawachi, et al., 2008a:4). Resources available from individual level social capital and community level social capital may perhaps best be understood as occupying different levels of a social ecological framework, which interact (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988). Eriksson (2011), for example, treats these two approaches as different levels of analysis which highlight different mechanisms through which social capital may influence health. Mapping the availability of bonding, bridging and linking connections for individuals may be useful for understanding potential returns – both positive and negative - of network interventions. On the other hand conceptualising social capital as a characteristic of community may be useful for understanding what constitutes ‘health-supporting environments’ (Eriksson, 2011). These environments are determined by the state and associated institutions rather than being a property of civil society alone. Structural circumstances which maintain differences such as high levels of economic inequality or discriminatory legal institutions will hamper the potential for bridging and linking social capital to form between groups (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).

Development of social capital as a health promotion strategy has also been problematised and criticised by many, not least for its potential to be used in the name of politically conservative as well as progressive causes. Promotion of the communitarian view of social capital is seen as undermining redistributive arguments for government intervention and the welfare state, through an emphasis on

third-sector civic organisations instead (Muntaner, et al., 2000). A number of authors advise that efforts to incorporate social capital into health promotion should emphasise the importance of a conscious concern with social justice and empowerment (Wakefield & Poland, 2005; Ziersch, 2005). Ziersch suggests that there has been insufficient examination within public health research, of the potentially complex relationships between demographic, social capital and health variables and how these influence health inequities (Ziersch, 2005:2120). Findings from her study attempting to address this issue supported the Bourdieu-informed perspective that the distribution of social capital is likely to reinforce inequalities rather than the Putnam conception of social capital as a ‘public good’. In terms of health, informal networks (defined as regularity of socialising with family, friends, neighbours, work colleagues and religious service attendance) were positively associated with mental health. Access to help was also associated with health as was a ‘sense of control’ (Ziersch, 2005).

Some authors have emphasised the potential negative health impacts of (particularly bonding) social connections within disadvantaged communities (Kawachi, et al., 2008b). Networks may influence health behaviours negatively as well as positively, by encouraging smoking, alcohol use or drug consumption for example (Muntaner, et al., 2000; Whiteford, et al., 2005). Recent research however, suggests that social connectedness produces a net health benefit. In a meta-analysis of 148 studies which examined associations between mortality risk and social relationships, Holt-Lunstad (2010) and colleagues found an effect corresponding with a 50% increase in odds of survival as a function of social relationships. Moreover, they suspect this of being a conservative estimate because it did not exclude detrimental (stress-inducing) social relationships. This benefit was consistent regardless of age, sex, initial health status, follow-up period, and cause of death. The effect size was comparable with the impact of quitting smoking and exceeded that for risk factors such as obesity and physical inactivity. A noteworthy finding from this study was that social integration was of more importance in predicting mortality than the support received through relationships (Holt-Lunstad, et al., 2010). This suggests that health benefits may be particularly associated with a mix of network types that includes bridging and linking ties rather than bonding ties alone.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND REFUGEE SETTLEMENT

Recognition that bonding ties may have negative as well as positive effects underlies a prevailing notion that social capital interventions should primarily be concerned with creating or promoting bridging and linking social ties (Domínguez & Arford, 2010). A number of studies concerning social capital amongst particular ethnic groups, including refugees, focus on the importance of bridging connections. These studies tend to share a common concern that excessive co-ethnic bonding may isolate newcomers from mainstream society and the economy (Hardwick, 2003; Korac, 2005). Torezani and colleagues (2008) discuss the importance of different forms of social capital in a study 59

involving skilled refugees from the former Yugoslavia, Africa and the Middle East in Perth. They argue that, for refugees, “strong ties” are likely to facilitate employment within “ethnic niches” and that linking social capital is crucial for ‘occupational mobility beyond low-status jobs’ (Torezani, et al., 2008:147). Studies looking at earnings and social mobility of refugees settling in the United States and Canada reiterate this theme (Allen, 2009; Lamba, 2003).

Of course, an exclusive focus on employment or earnings risks ignoring the important role of bonding social capital in providing a broader sense of wellbeing and belonging. Policies emphasising the building of bridging social capital have also been criticised by a number of authors. Cheong et al (2007:28-9) claim that such policies form part of a conservative assimilationist agenda that ‘serves to sideline economic, material and structural inequalities and the interventions needed to mitigate them’. These authors argue that [lack of] social capital has been shown by Bourdieu (1986) and others to be the ‘outcome of social and ethnic inequalities, rather than a solution to them’. This is contrasted with ‘the dominant model that assumes a clean slate, where newer immigrants have both the proclivity and ability to form bridging ties to others in their new countries of settlement’ (Cheong, et al., 2007:37-8).

Researchers involved in a study exploring programs for children at risk of social exclusion in Britain (the National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund) are critical of UK practices of dispersal of refugees and asylum-seekers away from large urban centres. They argue that such practices, resulting from ‘policy discourses and initiatives’ that emphasise ‘social bridges at the expense of the development of social bonds’ are actually detrimental to integration (Beirens, et al., 2007:9; Spicer, 2008). Interviews conducted with asylum-seeker and refugee parents and children suggested that those housed in low- income white neighbourhoods suffered from:

... hostility and racist harassment, limited resources, few inclusive local services and limited opportunities to develop supportive social bonds and bridges. Conversely, places of inclusion tended to be neighbourhoods with histories of immigration; these were described as safe places, having inclusive local resources - including schools and health care - and enabling them to develop social bonds that offered practical and emotional support. (Spicer, 2008:495)

Moreover, ‘excluding neighbourhoods’ also led to more difficulty establishing social links with institutions, agencies and services. Children in particular, experienced culturally diverse schools as more inclusive.

While bonding connections amongst refugee settlers are often assumed to involve people with the same cultural background, in this study, participants described close ties to others from ‘a range of minority-ethnic backgrounds’ seeing them as accepting and tolerant of difference. Also contrasting

with the view that demands associated with bonding social capital may be draining, some participants emphasised the important positive role of reciprocity in their social bonds: supporting others gave both a sense of purpose as well as an opportunity to develop skills (Spicer, 2008). Ager and Strang too, found that for refugees, ‘committed friendships’ needed to ‘exist between people from different groups (be they groups defined by nationality, ethnicity, or some other fact) in order to feel a sense of belonging’ (Ager & Strang, 2004a:7). These findings contrast with another UK study by Daley (2009), which found that strong bonds were formed primarily along ethnic and cultural lines.

While the relative value of bonding and bridging connections is clearly contested, a number of authors argue that refugee integration and wellbeing is enhanced by an optimal balance between bonding and bridging ties (Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a; Marx, 1990). In an analysis of the history of social capital in America, Szreter makes the point that migration has played a positive role historically in facilitating bridging relationships across wealth and class divisions. ‘Ethnic support, self-help, and denominational associations generated social capital that had both bonding and bridging characteristics’ (Szreter, 2002:592). Also running counter to a general tendency for commentators to evince concern about potentially excessive bonding social capital within ethnic or racial groups is a study which found that African-Americans involved in ‘black’ communal associations were more likely also to be involved in a variety of ‘mainstream’ civic and political activities (McKenzie, 2007). Brough et al found that for young people discussing wellbeing, connectedness with family, [co- ethnic] community and friendships outside of that community were all highly valued as providing positive support (Brough, et al., 2003). The absence of either bridging or bonding social capital has been described as a recipe for social exclusion’ (O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006, p. 18:18). Reporting the findings from the Good Starts study, Correa-Velez and colleagues argue that bonding, bridging and linking relationships are all important for promoting the wellbeing of refugee-background youth, and that the inclusiveness of the host-community environment provides the key for the development of social capital (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010).

THE LINK BETWEEN SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION

Having considered social exclusion/inclusion and social capital as distinct theoretical constructs, this section will focus on the relationship between the two. The argument is developed here that we can usefully regard social exclusion as a ‘macro-level’ framework with the capacity to incorporate theories of social capital.

Despite sharing a number of common characteristics - including multiple and contested definitions and indicators which partially overlap - the concepts of social capital and social exclusion have different intellectual origins. The former first became prominent within American academic and international development discourse and the latter within European social policy circles (M. Daly & Silver, 2008). Some have warned that a social policy focus on promoting social capital may be used to justify the withdrawal of state supports and ignore the impact of structural inequalities. Conversely – at least in its strong version - social exclusion is explicitly concerned with the role of the state and policy responses to disadvantage (M. Daly & Silver, 2008). A social exclusion policy focus therefore, draws attention to the normative structures that influence access to social capital. This then helps move beyond treating social capital as an ‘autonomous variable’, or simply another deficit which marginalised individuals and communities may be lacking (Labonte, 2004; Morrow, 2001b; Reimer, et al., 2008; Stephens, 2008).

Wakefield and Poland have suggested that social capital ‘needs to be placed in its economic and political context... recognising that social organization – not just social connection – impacts on health’ (Wakefield & Poland, 2005:2828). Social exclusion limits access to social capital, which may be denied on the basis of ‘political influence, work schedules, lack of resources, racial discrimination, costs, distance, and a lack of education’ (Reimer, et al., 2008:267). Bourdieu’s conception of social capital as a metaphor for power suggests ways in which social capital is reciprocally related to social exclusion (Morrow, 2001b). Thus, exclusion limits access to social capital and limited social capital, in turn, predisposes individuals and groups to exclusion:

Both concepts, social exclusion and social capital, raise implicitly the question of power differentials... Social capital can explain much social exclusion because the same ties that bind also exclude. The non-overlapping nature of social networks of different social groups results in unequal opportunity to participate. Hence those who belong to social networks which already have access to the resource allocation decisions of the state or the private sector (jobs, location of industry) are much more likely to continue to be included in societal processes than those who do not have such access (Narayan, 1999:5).

A number of commentators have attempted to tease out the relationships between social exclusion and different forms of social capital and there is a tendency within social inclusion discourse to advocate building bridging social capital over bonding connections. Some however, have cautioned against simplistic understandings of the relationship between social inclusion and different forms of social capital (Spandler, 2007; Wakefield & Poland, 2005). Spandler, for example, argues that ‘attempts to prioritise “bridging” social capital... may undermine the building of solidaristic social networks’ –

based on common interests and experiences - ‘through which exclusion can be challenged’ (Spandler, 2007:11).

While considerably more concern is evinced over the potential downsides of excessive bonding social capital within disadvantaged social groups, the wealthy too - having little need to associate with those who are less privileged - are likely to have an imbalance of bonding compared to bridging social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Narayan, 1999; Szreter, 2002). This clearly has the potential to function as a mechanism of exclusion. One example to consider would be rich, white, and exclusive “old boys” networks, which pose cultural, institutional and gender-based barriers to participation and result in relative disadvantage for those excluded.

This brief analysis suggests that social exclusion provides a broad ‘macro-level’ framework, which helps to explain both the causes and consequences of access to social capital in terms of exclusionary economic and social processes. The following section introduces a model for understanding the relationship between social capital and social inclusion. While the framework discussed is clearly relevant for this study, as it was developed from research into the experiences of resettling refugees, I would argue further that it offers a useful model for thinking about the relationship between social capital and social inclusion more broadly.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING REFUGEE INCLUSION

This section introduces a conceptual framework that draws together the relationships between the multiple themes discussed in this and the previous chapter and informs this study. Ager and Strang’s (2004b, 2008) work on refugee settlement in the UK identifies key domains of integration, which are depicted in Figure 3-1. It should be noted that the authors of this framework refer to integration (rather than inclusion), as is common in the field of refugee studies. I would argue however, that the framework effectively captures the multidimensional and interactive nature of domains identified as constituting social inclusion and exclusion more broadly. The case was made for choosing to discuss refugee settlement in terms of social inclusion earlier in this and the previous chapter. In the following discussion, I therefore refer to the domains depicted in the framework as domains of inclusion.

FIGURE 3-1: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK DEFINING CORE DOMAINS OF INTEGRATION (AGER & STRANG, 2008)

The framework positions human rights as the foundation for inclusion and draws on social capital theory to emphasise the important mediating role of bridging, bonding and linking social connections. Employment, housing, education and health are both markers and means of inclusion and represent the achievement of public outcomes that are comparable with the broader community (Ager & Strang, 2004b). Gaining host-community language proficiency and cultural knowledge, along with a sense of safety and stability are crucial facilitators for effective engagement and achievement of these outcomes. The key themes that appear in the refugee settlement literature discussed in Chapter 2 can be mapped on to the framework. The literature on the impact of trauma-precipitated migration is clearly relevant to the health domain, and mental health is also fundamental to establishing a sense of ‘safety and stability’. Similarly, families, another key theme in the refugee settlement literature, are important both for promoting safety and stability and as a vital source of social bonds.

As implied by the framework, domains are interdependent, with success in one area likely to result in reciprocal benefits in another. Strang and Ager suggest that the framework’s domains can be conceptualised as ‘reservoirs of resource from which refugees may draw and invest in securing other resources’ (Strang & Ager, 2010:604). Conversely, failure to support one or more domains of integration is equally likely to have adverse impacts in other domains (Ager & Strang, 2008; Phillimore & Goodson, 2008; E. Pittaway, et al., 2011; Strang & Ager, 2010).

Two years after publishing the framework, these authors reflected on its role as representing ‘mid- level theory’, which draws on social theories – social capital and rights – but also presents a simplified structure which can be used to inform practice. They argue that for those working in the field, rather than choosing between ‘theoretical formulations with high-level policy implications and local practice reports articulated without relevant theorization’, mid-level theory acts as a bridge between theory and practice, useful and accessible to both researchers and practitioners (Strang & Ager, 2010:591). Ager and Strang’s framework – as precisely such ‘mid-level’ theory - informs both the research design discussed in the following chapter and the analysis and interpretation of data for this project.

The authors also suggest that certain of the framework’s core implications warrant further exploration. These include the relationship between “belonging” and rights; the role of social capital; and ‘the notion of integration as a “two-way process”; and the dynamic interrelationship of factors shaping integration processes (Strang & Ager, 2010:590). The research discussed in this thesis addresses these important questions.

In sum, the framework can be understood as a model representing inclusion that positions human rights as fundamental; and social capital – in its various forms – as an integral component that both influences and is influenced by, the markers and means of inclusion.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter has been to develop a critical understanding of refugee settlement as an issue of social inclusion; to analyse the role of social capital in facilitating or hindering that process; and reflect on the implications of this theoretical understanding for the wellbeing of refugee- background youth and for interventions to promote successful settlement. To this end, it has reviewed the key literature concerning social exclusion and inclusion; the links between social inclusion and human rights; different constructions and forms of social capital; and the links between these theoretical discourses, refugee settlement and wellbeing.

Critiques of a social inclusion/exclusion approach underscore the importance of applying a strong version of the exclusion discourse that focuses on multi-dimensional exclusionary processes and avoids a deficit model that locates the causes of exclusion within disadvantaged individuals and groups. While a semantic shift from exclusion to the more positive notion of inclusion has been criticised for shifting attention away from the structural causes of disadvantage, the case has also been made that a policy focus on social inclusion can usefully draw attention to the need for targeted 65

interventions for particular groups. This suggests that there is a need to consider both the causes of exclusion (and advocate for systemic reform of exclusionary practices) and mechanisms for promoting inclusion, such as targeted policies and services to assist excluded groups.

It is important to distinguish between network and communitarian conceptions of social capital. The former refers to resources that flow through networks to individuals, whilst the latter is concerned with positive social norms, created by community level connectivity and available to all. A network- based theory of social capital draws attention to the way in which individuals are able to access different types of resources through their membership in social networks. While there is general agreement in the literature that social connections and networks are vital components of refugee inclusion and wellbeing, there is less agreement over the assigned value of different types of social capital. Some authors emphasise the importance of both bonding and bridging ties, others note the limitations and potential negative effects of exclusive reliance on bonding ties within certain contexts and stress the value of bridging capital.

Viewing social capital through a social exclusion/inclusion lens helps to clarify how material and systemic causes of disadvantage and disparities both influence and are influenced by network resources. Ager and Strang’s conceptual framework defining core domains of inclusion for refugee settlers is useful for conceptualising the relationship between social capital, inclusion and human rights.

The next chapter describes the empirical study designed to explore the themes identified here and in the previous chapters.

CHAPTER 4 : RESEARCH DESIGN

The preceding three chapters of this thesis comprise the background to this research and a critical review of the literature to develop a conceptual understanding of refugee settlement and inclusion. While all migrants may face barriers to social inclusion, in Chapter 1, I argued that the experiences of many refugee-background young people, both pre- and post-arrival, can render them especially vulnerable. In particular, it was emphasised that those who have come from areas of protracted conflict and consequent displacement of populations are likely to have disrupted, minimal or, in some cases, no formal education prior to arrival and that current on-arrival systems appear to be failing to meet the needs of this cohort. The importance of social connections and the putative role of social capital in facilitating successful settlement is a recurring theme throughout much of the refugee settlement literature discussed in detail in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 therefore, focused on developing a theoretical understanding of the relationship between social capital and social inclusion, which provides a broader framework and policy agenda. Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework for understanding refugee integration was identified as a relevant and useful conceptual model for guiding this research. The model suggests a dynamic interdependent relationship between the various domains of inclusion and posits a key mediating role for social connections and social capital.

While barriers to inclusion for refugee-background settlers have been identified, the perspectives and experiences of refugee-background young people themselves are less likely to have been considered in the ways in which social inclusion is conceptualised. An additional gap in research knowledge concerns the lack of evidence for the impact of interventions targeting this population to facilitate inclusion.

This chapter describes how this research project was designed to address these identified gaps. It begins by defining the research question and aims. This is followed by discussion of the research methodology; the research setting; and the methods adopted for this research.

RESEARCH AIMS

As outlined in the introductory chapter, the guiding question for this research is: How can policy- makers and services promote positive resettlement experiences and social inclusion for refugee- background youth in Australia?

The corresponding aim of the project is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth in Australia, and provide policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision for this population.

This aim and research question entails the following related objectives:

The first of these objectives has been addressed in the preceding chapters. The remainder of this chapter details the empirical study designed to address the overall aim and remaining objectives. It begins by discussing the methodological approach, followed by a description of the research setting and finally each of the methods employed in the investigation. The research question and aim as well as the findings from the literature review determined the choice of data to be collected. As will be discussed further below, mixed methods are recommended for exploring multidimensional concepts such as social inclusion and social capital. Given the identification of social connections and social capital as critical influences on the resettlement experiences of refugees, social network mapping was selected as a method for quantifying and classifying the connections of participants. This was combined with a wellbeing survey in order to gain a perspective on both the subjective wellbeing of participants and any associations between wellbeing and social connections. Qualitative methods, including participant observation, focus groups, and individual interviews were selected as appropriate for gaining a deeper understanding of participants’ resettlement experiences and for bringing the voices of refugee-background young people into the knowledge constructed around them. The characteristics of the data collected through each of these methods is also discussed in more detail below.

METHODOLOGY

This research is underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology. Social constructionism can be defined as: 68

The view that all knowledge, and therefore all meaningful reality as such, is contingent upon human practices being constructed in and out of interaction between human beings and their world, and developed and transmitted within an essentially social context. (Crotty, 1998:40)

This epistemological position does not imply a belief that reality does not exist independently of human consciousness, rather that while the world always already exists, it acquires meaning for humans only through social practices and constructions (including language) (Crotty, 1998). Thus, the world not only always already exists, but also is always already interpreted – before we can know it. An implication of this epistemological stance is that the influence of the research processes and of the researcher (including my own background and beliefs) on the research participants and the findings is acknowledged as inevitable. This is turn requires reflexivity on the part of the researcher to attempt to understand the nature and significance of that influence. The ethical implications of this acknowledgement are discussed further in Chapter 5.

CRITICAL ETHNOGRAPHY

The methodological approach chosen as most suitable for this study was critical ethnography. Ethnography, associated originally with the discipline of anthropology, as the study of a people or culture, is used widely within sociology to refer to the collection of qualitative data through close and relatively prolonged contact with those being studied in a natural (rather than experimental) setting (Creswell, 2007; Gold, 1997). Brewer describes ethnography as:

not one particular method of data collection but a style of research that is distinguished by its objectives, which are to understand the social meanings and activities of people in a given ‘field’ or setting, and its approach, which involves close association with, and often participation in, this setting. (Brewer, 2000:11)

While extended engagement in the field is primarily associated with data collection using participant observation; typically, a variety of data sources is used to develop ethnographic understanding which seeks to comprehend the viewpoints of those being studied (LeCompte & Schensul, 2010).

Being a ‘white’, highly educated and relatively privileged, Australian-born researcher, seeking to develop an understanding of the complex experiences of people whose lifeworlds are completely different from my own, required an approach providing the opportunity to develop an appreciation of the contexts of participants’ lives. An ethnographic methodology was thus justified as the most suitable for tackling the primary aim of this project – to develop a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee youth. It was also anticipated that an extended 69

period of contact with participants would be necessary in order to build their trust in the research process.

Critical ethnography extends beyond the aim of understanding participants’ experiences to one of using that understanding to promote social justice. The complementary aim of this project involves advocacy - to inform program development - and ultimately policy decisions - relating to service provision for this population. Anderson suggests that critical ethnography grew out of recognition by, and dissatisfaction of, critical theorists and ethnographers, that the former’s preoccupation with structures often precluded human actors, while the latter produced cultural accounts of human actors, which tended to ignore structural constraints (Anderson, 1989:249). Unlike other interpretivist research, a critical approach entails an emancipatory goal of overcoming social injustice and aims to empower participants and increase their capacity for self-determination (See for example Anderson, 1989; Creswell, 2007; Crotty, 1998; Freire, 1972). It is clear from the literature review that, having survived global political forces, which expelled them from their homes, refugee settlers yet face socially structured and accumulated disadvantage representing ongoing problems of social exclusion following arrival in Australia.

A critical ethnographic approach is thus highly suited to addressing the principle aims of this research: to develop a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee- background young people and produce policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision - with the longer term objective of helping to improve outcomes for this population. A critical analytic approach avoids a ‘weak’ victim-blaming version of the social exclusion discourse and presupposes a need to advocate for change. A critical approach also implies a goal that the research processes themselves should be ‘empowering’ for participants, which in turn has ethical implications for the conduct of research. These implications will be discussed in detail in the next chapter.

Before moving on to a description of the research setting and specific research methods employed, the next section discusses some of the methodological challenges associated with attempting to operationalise concepts such as social capital and social exclusion for the research project.

MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL

Conceptualising social capital as either a community or an individual asset clearly has implications for how it is measured. Attempts to measure community-level social capital usually focus on aggregate individual perceptions of trust and reciprocity in a (usually geographically) defined community. Attempting to measure the success or otherwise of interventions to promote (particularly communitarian) social capital raises methodological challenges. Lomas (1998) makes the point that 70

the perceived value of community-level social interventions is likely to depend on their implied potential from observational rather than experimental studies. A further difficulty confronting attempts to measure social capital results from its multi-dimensionality. Daly and Silver describe empirical work conducted in the United States by Fischer which found that seven different indicators of social capital varied independently of each other both cross-sectionally within his sample and over time (M. Daly & Silver, 2008:548). Summarising many of the challenges associated with measurement, Schuller and colleagues emphasise the importance of consideration of context and the consequent importance of using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods (Schuller, et al., 2000).

Given the recognised importance and relevance to refugee settlement of different types of resources associated with social bonds, bridges and links (and that the community of interest is not geographically defined), network approaches to assessing the availability of social capital are suitable for this study. As discussed in Chapter 3, network constructions of social capital draw on a Bourdieu- informed understanding of its ‘class- dependent’ unequal distribution and are thus also more attuned to a critical approach. Combining methods that measure participants’ networks with qualitative interviews and observations enables these networks to be positioned within the contexts of participants’ lives.

Network approaches to measuring social capital rely on social network concepts and methods which study the location of individuals in a network, or focus on embedded network resources such as wealth, power and status of others in an individual’s network (Lin, 1999:36-37). Measurement strategies may examine egocentric networks by gathering information focused on the relationship between an individual (ego) and others (alters) who represent particular roles or types of relationship. Alternatively, sociometric measures examine whole networks from the vantage point of all individuals in a defined network, (Lakon, Godette, & Hipp, 2008). For this study, where we are primarily interested in the network resources (eg. support and access to knowledge) available to individuals, and these are certainly likely to extend beyond a bounded network, examination of egocentric networks is of most relevance (Wellman, 2007). When studying the function of ties, researchers often focus on the resources, the information, or the influence that a particular tie provides. Theoretical guidance is required to determine which resources are important for the outcome being studied (Lakon, et al., 2008).

Using a network approach for measuring individual social capital therefore involves identifying specific classes of network members such as family, friends, neighbours etc. who are assumed to give access to specific sets of social resources (van der Gaag & Webber, 2008). As discussed in the previous chapter, bonding ties are presumed to offer support while bridging ties are more likely to 71

provide access to resources not already available to an individual such as information and new avenues for employment. From this perspective, diversity of network ties represents ‘better’ social capital insofar as diverse networks can facilitate access to diverse resources. It has been suggested that it is not so much a matter of how many alters (others) are present in an individual’s social network, but rather whether ‘at least one instance of [the various classes of] them is present at all... Multiple alters giving access to the same resources can be unnecessary, inconvenient, or normatively restricted to give help’ (van der Gaag & Webber, 2008:34). Thus, if attempting to assess the potential for social ties to provide access to resources, we should consider both the ‘heterogeneity’ of members and their theoretically important characteristics of interest. ‘While network heterogeneity focuses on the diversity within a network, network compositional quality focuses on the presence of specific characteristics of theoretical importance’ (Lakon, et al., 2008:67).

Whitley (2008) has suggested that qualitative research offers the potential to illuminate many of the debates concerning the relationship between social capital and public health. Its ‘bottom-up epistemological orientation’ both avoids being beholden to a particular (Putnam inspired/communitarian or Bourdieu informed/individual level) social capital paradigm and allows researchers to engage in ‘discreet, theory-driven analysis of vulnerable sub-groups’ (Whitley, 2008:97-98). His review concludes that consideration of the relationship between social capital and health inequalities needs to be appropriately contextualised in terms of economic, historical, cultural and other social factors.

This overview suggests that for this study, potential strategies for assessing social capital include analysis of the individual (egocentric) networks of refugee-background participants as well as qualitative approaches to understanding their impact and meaning as well as the effects of community level social capital. As will be described below, and consistent with a critical ethnographic approach, a social network mapping exercise was devised as a quantitative measure of individual’s social ties and focus groups and interviews explored their meaning.

MEASURING SOCIAL INCLUSION

Attempting to measure social inclusion or exclusion is a nascent and similarly complex science. Given the multiple available definitions of social inclusion, it is not surprising that there is no commonly agreed set of indicators for its measurement although a range of census and national survey data on variables such as income, employment, education, socio-economic status, housing, health crime and safety, are clearly relevant (Hayes, et al., 2008).

Again, scholars with expertise in the field recommend a combination of qualitative and quantitative data for its assessment -‘both indicators and stories... [as] the only way to maximise effective policy and action to address exclusionary processes’ (Popay, et al., 2008:9). Mathieson and colleagues argue strongly for the value of qualitative research, to include the experiences of those most affected by exclusionary processes and capture their context dependence and complexity. Moreover, they assert, ‘in contrast to quantitative measures’ qualitative evidence ‘throws into sharp relief the creative agency of people adversely affected by exclusionary processes as they seek to live meaningful lives’ (Mathieson, et al., 2008:57). Qualitative accounts are thus proposed as the means to combating a ‘weak’ social exclusion discourse which depicts ‘powerlessness and apathy as inherent in the “excluded state”’ (Mathieson, et al., 2008:58). As the recently arrived participants in this study were likely to be in a state of transition with respect to education, employment and often housing, quantitative indicators of these aspects of inclusion would be both difficult to collect and interpret. The investigative methods chosen for this study are therefore primarily qualitative.

From this outline of methodological considerations, it is apparent that there is no one accepted method for measuring or assessing social capital or social inclusion. The particular methods chosen need to be appropriately adapted for the research question, research population and setting. Drawing on the methodological issues discussed here, the methods selected for this study are detailed below, following a description of the setting for the research.

RESEARCH SETTING: THE UCAN2 PROGRAM

As noted in Chapter 1, this empirical case study was conducted as one component of a larger evaluation research study undertaken by a research team from the McCaughey Centre, Melbourne School of Population Health. The program being evaluated, Ucan2 is now described in detail. The relationship between the evaluation and the PhD, which comprised a study of the participant experience of the program, is depicted in Figure 4-1, where the purple shading indicates which elements of the evaluation were conducted by me as part of this PhD research.

Ucan2 evaluation (2008-2011)

Economic Evaluation of Cost and time data provided Ucan2 by program staff

Ucan2 Evaluation of Ucan2 Surveys and interviews with Evaluation organisational partnerships organisational and program staff

Exploration of resettlement experiences Qualitative data Research component: Exploration of impact of participant experience Ucan2 program of Ucan2

Social network mapping and wellbeing surveys

Note: purple background denotes part of PhD Quantitative Qualitative data

study data

FIGURE 4-1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHD RESEARCH AND UCAN2 EVALUATION

An explicit recommendation of the REPP report (discussed in Chapter 2) was for an initiative to respond to the particular challenges faced by refugee-background young people in the post- compulsory education age group (Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). In 2007, the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture (Foundation House), the Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY) and Adult Multicultural Education Services (AMES) formed a partnership to develop and implement a program which would support refugee-background youth aged 16-24. The Ucan2 program is delivered within, and aims to enhance, existing education programs and the process of transition from ‘on-arrival’ language education to mainstream education and training programs. Since 2008, it has been run in a number of English language education settings across Melbourne that cater for the target cohort. These include the Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP), English Language Schools (ELS), Foundation VCAL and Access English Programs in TAFEs and at Victoria University (VU).

The program rationale is based on an explicit recognition that the combination of trauma, disruption to education and to social networks that comprise the refugee experience demand a differentiated program from that which caters for non-refugee migrant youth. These disruptions have a profound impact on an individual’s capacity to participate in mainstream education systems, which are based on assumptions of a linear and uninterrupted pathway and an associated accumulation of human and social capital. Figure 4-2, taken from program documents, depicts the typical experience of an Australian-born young person (or non refugee-background migrant). Figure 4-3 illustrates the common experience of many refugee-background young people coming to Australia following protracted displacement. Figure 4-4 represents the contribution envisioned for the Ucan2 program to supporting effective transition from an on-arrival English program. As suggested by this diagram, the program is designed for students who have completed the first six months of a standard 12-month on- arrival English language program. The experience of program partners suggests that by this stage, students will have dealt with some of the most pressing settlement tasks facing them immediately following arrival in Australia and have acquired enough English language proficiency to engage in program activities.

Raising Family

Uninterrupted Pathway

5 yrs old 6 - 12 yrs old 13 - 18 yrs old University Employment

Pre-School/ Primary School Secondary School Kindergarten

Employment

Vocational Employment Training

FIGURE 4-2: UNINTERRUPTED PATHWAY THROUGH THE AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION SYSTEM (Sourced from unpublished Ucan2 program documents, VFST)

Pathway informed by the Refugee Experience

War, oppression - English Displacement displacement Language

FIGURE 4-3: PATHWAY EXPERIENCED BY MANY REFUGEE-BACKGROUND YOUNG PEOPLE (Sourced from unpublished Ucan2 program documents, VFST)

University Employment

Pathway informed by the Employment Refugee Experience 12 months

War, oppression and English Vocational Displacement Employment displacement Language Training

Secondary Education

Raising Family

FIGURE 4-4: POSITION OF UCAN2 PROGRAM IN SUPPORTING TRANSITION TO MAINSTREAM EDUCATION, TRAINING OR EMPLOYMENT (Sourced from unpublished Ucan2 program documents, VFST)

The aims of Ucan2 are to support mental health and wellbeing and facilitate the social inclusion of recently arrived young people of refugee background. Specific program objectives are:

 To increase the level of co-operation between providers of education, social support, training and employment services working with young people from refugee backgrounds in the 16 – 24 year age group.  To increase access to education, training and employment opportunities for young refugees in the first 15 months of the resettlement, recovery and integration process.  To increase psychosocial support provided to newly arrived young people through class activities and developing relationships with volunteers. (Block et al., 2010)

Program activities are designed to provide appropriate levels of support during early resettlement to enable young people to negotiate unfamiliar education, training and employment pathways successfully. The Ucan2 partner organisations bring together expertise in refugee mental health; multicultural youth issues, education and advocacy. Specific elements of the program include integrated mental health support, peer support by volunteers, a work skills curriculum, part-time work experience, and educational case coordination.

Prior to instituting the program at a particular site, Ucan2 staff meet with representatives of sites offering on-arrival English language programs to determine their interest in the program and whether there are sufficient numbers of students from a refugee background of the appropriate age to justify running a youth class that can function as a Ucan2 group. Due to the fluctuating settlement patterns of incoming refugee-background migrants, this means that the program has been offered at some sites continuously from 2007, while others have run the program only intermittently. The program runs one

day per week as an integrated part of an English language program over two school terms (or one six- month semester). Foundation House is the lead organisation in the partnership, although each of the three partner organisations takes primary responsibility for one of its three core components. The English language teacher leads the morning curriculum, which consists of contextualised and experiential learning focusing on work skills. The Foundation House facilitator leads the middle session of the day where the focus is on psychosocial support to assist with recovery from trauma and settlement in Australia. The afternoon session is led by CMY staff, who coordinate activities and excursions for the students with peer volunteers from the broader Australian community whom they also recruit, train and supervise. Planning and case coordination meetings of the delivery team develop the program at the local level, initiating and supporting referrals for those young people requiring extra support.

The Ucan2 program promotes participation in part-time work as an appropriate way for young people to expand social connections while remaining engaged in education. It is also an important potential source of income for students who may be under considerable pressure to earn money during the extended period of time it is likely to take them to reach educational goals. As a step towards gaining employment, program participants have the opportunity to undertake six shifts of work experience over a three-week period in a retail environment. Work experience placements are also opportunities for students to expand social connections and gain first-hand knowledge of an Australian work place environment.

Following completion of the 16-week full day program, there are four fortnightly ‘follow-up’ sessions. These coincide with students transitioning into mainstream education and training programs, help to maintain links between program staff and participants, and provide opportunities to identify students who may need additional advice, practical support or referral. Towards the end of 2010, a mentor scheme was added to the program whereby selected students are matched with a ‘business mentor’ who provides additional individual support and assistance to the young person with the ultimate aim of helping them to find part-time employment. The mentor program begins at the completion of the Ucan2 program and mentors are recruited from workplaces that have, or are likely to, offer work experience, and/or employment to Ucan2 students. In 2011, participating workplaces were Australia Post and Kmart. Foundation House staff train and support the mentors for the duration of the twelve-month program. Students selected to participate in the mentoring program include those whom Ucan2 staff consider most in need of – and/or likely to benefit from - this additional support.

Being part of the evaluation team and responsible for assessing the participant experience of the Ucan2 program obviously provided the occasion for addressing the final research objective listed earlier: to assess the impact of a support program for recently arrived refugee youth on their 77

resettlement experiences. I also had the opportunity to work closely and collaboratively with Foundation House staff over three and a half years (mid 2008 – 2011) while conducting the evaluation and completing this PhD research. The benefits of this collaborative approach were numerous. As well as providing access to research participants, it gave me the opportunity to benefit from the collective and considerable accumulated practice wisdom and insights of staff. Discussions with staff functioned as research ‘debriefing’ sessions and informed all aspects of the research from the development and refinement of methods to analysis. Biannual progress reports were provided to the program partners and triggered valuable discussions between the evaluation team and program staff concerning their findings, the progress of the research to date and planning for subsequent stages. The program partners also used progress report findings to refine and modify the program during the course of the evaluation.

As part of the evaluation team, I also conducted interviews with staff from all of the partner organisations (Foundation House, CMY, AMES) and teachers from participating schools. Although these research data did not contribute directly to the PhD project, they inevitably further informed my understanding of the Ucan2 program and the circumstances of the refugee-background participants.

The evaluation was originally scheduled for completion in 2010. At the end of this period however, both the evaluation team and program partners felt that the program had evolved considerably - with the introduction of the mentor component for example – and the evaluation was therefore extended for a further 12 months until the end of 2011. This also provided the opportunity to extend the fieldwork component of the PhD project enabling ongoing contact with a number of participants and additional opportunities to interview young people after their transition to mainstream educational settings.

METHODS

MIXED METHODS AND TRIANGULATION

The epistemological and methodological approach for this study is based on a qualitative research paradigm. Denzin and Lincoln have defined qualitative research as:

... a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world... At this level, qualitative research involves an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world.... Accordingly, qualitative researchers deploy a

wide range of interconnected interpretive practices, hoping always to get a better understanding of the subject in a different way. Hence there is frequently a commitment to using more than one interpretive practice in any study. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008:4-5)

Qualitative research thus frequently combines multiple methods and perspectives to gain an understanding of its topic. The discussion earlier in this chapter, concerning measurement of social capital however, suggests that quantitative data concerning social networks also have the potential to supplement our understanding of their role in refugee settlement. It was noted that a number of scholars have advocated using both quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate social capital and social inclusion. While debates over the compatibility of quantitative and qualitative paradigms continue (See for example, Denzin, 2010), it has been accepted by many that the choice of methods should be a pragmatic decision, determined by the research question or questions at hand (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morgan, 2007; Patton, 2002). Thus, without abandoning the fundamental understandings implicit in Denzin and Lincoln’s definition, a mixed methods research design has been adopted here to gain an understanding of both the extent and the meaning of social ties in the lives of young people of refugee backgrounds. It has been argued that potential pitfalls of attempting to combine qualitative and quantitative methods are avoidable if appropriate sampling and analytical techniques are applied for each, with the findings integrated at the point of interpretation (Erzberger & Prein, 1997; Kopinak, 1999). This approach has been followed for this study, and sampling decisions as well as methods of analysis are discussed in more detail below.

One advantage of using multiple methods to explore a phenomenon is that it offers the potential for triangulation. Triangulation can also involve using multiple sources, multiple investigators or multiple theories. It may be adopted as a means of confirming findings. Used in this way, the underlying assumption is often that it can help to demonstrate methodological rigour, whereby the strengths of one method compensate for the weaknesses of another as well as potentially minimise ‘bias’(Sandelowski, 1995).

While consistency of results from triangulation are often sought to confirm a particular finding; divergence of findings may also result – and this too offers the potential for greater insight into the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 2002; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2010). As Achermann cautions, while multiple perspectives and data may complement each other and offer a deeper perspective:

[triangulation] ... should not be understood as a means for finding “the truth” or “the reality”. Instead of giving simple answers researchers will rather be confronted with the complexity of social life... the outcome of triangulation will 79

often not be one clear picture of composed parts of a puzzle that would correspond to ‘the objective truth’. Researchers will rather face a multidimensional picture whose colours, shadings and clear, blur or black parts change according to the perspective from which it is presented or looked at. (Achermann, 2009:53)

Others have suggested that the crystal or prism is a more appropriate metaphor than a triangle for the multiple insights offered by different methods of inquiry. As Denzin explains, ‘crystals reflect and refract, drawing attention to the multiple ways in which reality is constructed’ (Denzin, 2010:423; L. Richardson & St. Pierre, 2008; Sandelowski, 1995).

Bearing these general considerations in mind, each of the methods chosen for this study will now be discussed in turn, in the chronological order in which they were commenced. The methods discussed include participant observation; social network and wellbeing surveys - which yielded both quantitative and qualitative data; focus groups; and individual interviews.

PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

During the main period of data collection for the evaluation, beginning in Semester 1, February 2009 and continuing through Semester 2, 2009 and Semester 1, 2010, I attended Ucan2 classes as a participant observer at all sites where the program was running. Following extension of the evaluation to include the first semester of 2011, and in order to assess whether program changes were making a difference to the experience of students, a further two sites (of the six that were running during Semester 1, 2011) were chosen to be included in the research: Dandenong High School VCAL and Victoria University (VU) Footscray. Dandenong High School represented a new type of setting for the Ucan2 program – which had not previously been run within a mainstream high school - and thus offered an opportunity to diversify the sample of participants. VU had been included in the evaluation earlier and so was suitable for assessing participant responses to program changes.

Table 4-1 shows the sites included in the research and the number of participating students at each site. Ucan2 sites are located in parts of Melbourne where there are many recently arrived refugee- background settlers. These include outer south-eastern suburbs (Noble Park and Dandenong), an outer eastern suburb (Croydon) and western suburbs (Footscray and Braybrook). Note that the number of participating students indicated in the table refer to those participating in the evaluation, rather than the Ucan2 program. It is not possible to state precise Ucan2 class numbers for some groups (nor, therefore, precise research participation rates) as some sites practised ‘continuous enrolment’ so that the number of students in the group fluctuated from week to week. Student absences were also common and sometimes extended. Some students therefore experienced only part of the Ucan2

intervention and were present for some of the evaluation activities but not others. At most of the sites, all students present at the time of the evaluation activity participated. On a few occasions, a very small number of students chose not to participate and this is discussed further in Chapter 5.

TABLE 4-1: UCAN2 SITES WHERE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING STUDENTS 2009-2011

Site Number of Number of Percent (%) groups* participating students** of study sample

Adult sites for students 18years+

Dandenong AMES*** 2 31 14.4

Footscray AMES 1 14 6.5

Noble Park AMES 3 67 31.2

Swinburne Croydon 1 20 9.3

VU Footscray 2 33 15.3

English Language School (ELS) or High School for students under 18 years

Dandenong High (VCAL) 1 5 2.3

Noble Park ELS 3 24 11.2

Western ELS Braybrook 2 21 9.8

Total 15 215 100.0

*Ucan2 groups run for one semester with groups beginning in both Semesters 1 and 2. ** This is the number of students who participated in the evaluation activities. *** Note that the second Dandenong AMES group which began in Semester 2 2009 was discontinued part way into the program due to a reduction in student numbers.

Participant observation comprised visits to all groups for periods ranging from several hours to the entire day at least four times for each group, and some of the groups I was able to visit eight or more times during the 16-week program. These visits constituted a vital part of the research process (Eder & Fingerson, 2002). They enabled me to develop a detailed knowledge of the program and sensitised 81

me to the complex and multiple issues faced by the refugee-background students. I was able to build relationships and trust as well as have numerous informal conversations with the students as well as staff, which provided the foundation for later stages of the research. During these site visits, I participated in class activities alongside the Ucan2 staff, teachers, and students. This participation involved taking on the role of an ‘assistant teacher’ in many respects, assisting the young people with their English and responding to teacher requests to help with other class tasks such as leading small group discussions and activities. At all visits however, I was introduced as a researcher and my role explained as a program evaluator with the aim that students would perceive me as independent from Ucan2 staff and program volunteers. Participant observation visits continued over the entire program and often also during the catch-up sessions that followed. They thus coincided with the data collection activities described below, which did not commence until several weeks of the Ucan2 program had elapsed - by which time at least two, and usually three or four visits, had been made to the site.

I had originally anticipated using interpreters for data collection where necessary. One of the insights gained during the immersion phase however was that the large number of languages spoken by participants in any one group rendered this impracticable, at least for the group activities. The complexities associated with language are discussed in detail in the next chapter when considering ethical and methodological challenges.

During the whole evaluation period, I also attended weekly Foundation House Ucan2 team meetings as a participant observer, which provided a further opportunity to gain understanding of the program and issues faced by participants and program staff. Reflective notes made following both site visits and meetings provided a resource to assist with later interpretation of data collected during interviews and focus groups. Conversations with students held during site visits were not however, recorded and analysed formally as data. We (the evaluation team and Ucan2 partners) did not feel that students had the capacity to give informed consent to contribute reportable research data at the very beginning of the program, when they were being introduced to many new people and unfamiliar concepts.

SOCIAL NETWORK MAPPING

SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT

The first formal data collection activity was the social network mapping and wellbeing survey exercise described below. For this primarily quantitative component of the study, it was desirable to maximise the numbers of participants - both to give a broad and inclusive picture of the population of interest (young people in the Ucan2 program) and to increase the likelihood of obtaining statistically

significant results. All Ucan2 students in the groups visited were therefore invited to participate in the activity.

While inclusion of a non-Ucan2 comparison group may have enhanced the potential to draw conclusions from the quantitative component of the study about the impact of the program, it quickly became apparent during the design stages of the research that this would be inappropriate. All eligible students at each site were included in the Ucan2 class. This meant that students in other classes had different characteristics (in terms of age, English level and refugee background) making a comparison group from the same site unsuitable. Settlement patterns also meant that each site had a unique cohort of students, with refugee settlers from particular cultural backgrounds – and therefore with different pre-arrival experiences - tending to cluster in particular geographic locations in Melbourne. The purpose of employing quantitative methods was neither to support nor disconfirm a specific hypothesis; rather it was to build up a picture of the characteristics of participants’ social networks and any associations between those characteristics and wellbeing. The sample therefore facilitated the examination of network characteristics reflecting the diverse circumstances of participants across multiple sites. As will be discussed further in the results chapter, some sites included non refugee- background migrants in Ucan2 classes for logistical reasons. While this was somewhat contentious from the point of view of the program providers, it did offer the opportunity to compare differences in the quantitative findings between refugee and non refugee-background students exposed to the Ucan2 program - with similar English language abilities and length of time in Australia.

The group research activities were conducted in most cases during Ucan2 program hours, apart from some of the focus groups, which were arranged during English classes on other days of the week. This arrangement worked well as it would have been impractical to try to convene the group outside scheduled class times. It did however, also impose time constraints on research activities, which inevitably took time away from other program and teaching tasks.

The purpose of the research was explained to the students both when I was first introduced to the class and again immediately prior to the network mapping activity, a plain language statement was distributed and explained, and students were asked to sign a consent form. For students in the English language schools, who were generally younger and usually under the age of 18, parent or guardian consent was required in addition to student consent. The evaluation team spent some time discussing whether this was appropriate, as all participants would be over the age of 16, and the University ethics committee questioned whether parental consent was necessary for this age group. We decided however, that in a school environment, parents (or guardians) had a reasonable expectation of being kept informed of their children’s extra-curricular activities - the Ucan2 program itself sought parental consent before students were enrolled – and we discovered that in any case, this was a requirement of 83

the education department ethics process. Consent forms for parents or guardians were therefore distributed two weeks before the planned activity (both in English and translated into the most common languages – Arabic, Dari, Pashtu, Tigrinya, Burmese and Karen) and students received a number of reminders to return them. Obtaining consent generated greater than anticipated complexities, and consequent modifications made to the consent process, will be discussed in detail in the next chapter on ethical considerations.

DATA COLLECTION

An important aim of the Ucan2 program is to promote broader social connections by bringing volunteers into the classroom; through work experience; and through opportunities for gaining part- time work in a retail environment. As discussed above, in the section discussing measurement of social capital, both the heterogeneity of social ties and their theoretically important characteristics can give us information about the resources available to individuals through their networks (Lakon, et al., 2008; van der Gaag & Webber, 2008). The Good Starts study (Gifford, et al., 2007; Gifford, et al., 2009) discussed in Chapter 2, adapted the concept of a social circle used by Heikkinen’s (2000) study (of the social networks of young unemployed people in Norway) to investigate the social connections of newly arrived young refugees. This concept was adapted further for this project to produce the social network mapping instrument depicted below in Figure 4-5.

FIGURE 4-5: SOCIAL NETWORK MAP (Adapted from Gifford, et al., 2007; Heikkinen, 2000)

I distributed the blank maps on A3 sheets of paper and demonstrated the method for completing them on a whiteboard by drawing a hypothetical map of my own. Participants were asked to write down the important people in their ‘social circle’ in different sections depending on whether they were family or friends, located in Australia or overseas and, for friends, whether they were born in Australia or overseas. They were requested to write down numbers of people – or for family members, their relationships – rather than names (ie. 2 sisters, 3 cousins, 1 friend etc). They were then also asked to indicate whether each person was associated with the Ucan2 program, whether they received support from that person and whether the person was someone they could go to for advice on education and/or employment. I carefully explained each step of the exercise as students were completing their maps and, usually assisted by the Ucan2 staff member, walked around the room answering questions and assisting students to clarify their responses where necessary. The theoretical significance of each category will be discussed in more detail in later chapters dealing with the results and discussion of these data.

The aim was to collect Time 1 (T1) data in the early stages of the Ucan2 program after allowing enough time for students to settle into the group and develop enough trust in the staff and researcher to facilitate giving informed consent and for effective data collection. Time 2 (T2) data were collected as late as possible in the program to assess whether there had been any quantifiable change to networks over the course of the program. In practice, competing curricular demands often made it difficult to collect data early in the program while irregular student attendance and the practice of continuous enrolment at some sites meant that only a minority of students actually contributed data at two time points. Details of the timing of data collection (see Table 6-1) and the impact of these issues on the analyses are discussed further in Chapter 6.

Initial program cycles provided an opportunity to pilot the methods and instruments used for social network mapping and for collection of demographic and wellbeing data. Modifications made following this piloting are discussed further in Chapter 5.

DATA ANALYSIS7

Quantitative

Once collected, I entered the data into an Excel spreadsheet and coded them according to the following protocol8:

 Mother o location (0 = not mentioned, 1 = overseas, 2 = Australia) o whether source of support (0 = no support, 1 = support) o whether source of advice (0 = no advice, 1 = advice)  Father o location (0 = not mentioned, 1 = overseas, 2 = Australia) o whether source of support (0 = no support, 1 = support) o whether source of advice (0 = no advice, 1= advice)  Other family members living in Australia o number of family members other than mother or father included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Other family members living overseas o number of family members other than mother or father included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Friends living overseas o number of friends included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Australian-born friends living in Australia (excluding Ucan2 students or volunteers)

7 Contribution of other researchers: As stated in the Preface to this thesis, Dr Dean Lusher, a member of the evaluation research team with advanced expertise in social network analysis, conducted the statistical analyses of quantitative social network and subjective wellbeing data for this project. Dr Melanie Davern and Rosie Ashbolt provided additional advice and assistance with statistical analyses. Development of the method (in which I took a leading role) was a collaborative process involving the whole evaluation team, which drew primarily on my interpretation and knowledge of the relevant theoretical literature and understanding of circumstances and practical constraints in the field, and Dr Lusher’s knowledge of social network analysis. A similar process was used to plan the analyses. I was solely responsible for all data collection, data entry and presentation of results and primarily responsible for interpretation of the findings. 8 In some cases, despite requests, participants did not assign a number to network ties in which case plurals were treated as representing two ties and descriptors such as ‘lots’ or ‘many’ were treated as representing ten ties. (eg. ‘sisters’ were entered as two other family members; ‘lots’ of friends were entered as 10 friends). 86

o number of Australian-born friends included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Overseas born friends living in Australia (excluding Ucan2 students or volunteers) o number of overseas born friends included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Other important people (not family or friends and excluding Ucan2 staff) o number of other important people included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Ucan2 students o number of other Ucan2 students included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Ucan2 staff o number of Ucan2 staff included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice  Ucan2 volunteers o number of Ucan2 volunteers included o number indicated as source of support o number indicated as source of advice

Paired sample t-tests (with α set at p < .05) were conducted to detect any changes between T1 and T2 to overall number of ties in particular categories. Chi-square tests were used to assess changes to the number of participants reporting no ties in a particular category.

Qualitative

A number of participants included additional unsolicited information on their social network maps. This information included exclamatory punctuation, pictures and comments. When entering the data for the quantitative analysis, it became clear to me that this extra information - or ‘marginalia’ - implied a great deal about the meaning the exercise had for participants. This information was therefore also recorded and I attempted to analyse the implicit meaning behind the symbols that were included. This interpretation was inevitably tentative and provisional, as I did not have the opportunity (nor would it have necessarily been appropriate) to ask students what they meant by these 87

embellishments. Nonetheless, the analysis of this unsolicited data informed both subsequent changes to the method of collecting this data (discussed in the next chapter concerning ethical considerations), and the overall interpretation of findings. These qualitative data will be discussed further in Chapter 6, in the section dealing with the findings from the social network mapping.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND WELLBEING SURVEYS

DATA COLLECTION

Following completion of the social network maps, participants were asked to complete a short demographic and wellbeing survey (See Appendix 1 for a copy of the survey instrument). The purpose of the demographic survey was to provide a description of the sample as well to enable testing of whether particular demographic variables were predictive of either wellbeing or network characteristics.

Participants were asked to provide their name, age, gender, length of time in Australia, mother’s place of birth, father’s place of birth, own country of birth, nationality, religion, languages spoken at home and employment status. Participants were not asked directly whether they had a refugee background - rather this classification was made based on their predicted prior experiences according to their countries of origin. While this strategy may incorrectly classify a small number of individuals, the alternative - of using visa category - is likely to be even more unreliable for determining refugee- background. This is in part because of the variety of visas on which people with a refugee (or refugee- like) experience may enter Australia and because many were unlikely to be sure of their visa category. Other research has shown that comparing country of origin with the humanitarian intake for the year of arrival is a good predictor of whether an individual has a refugee background (Paxton, et al., 2011; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). Information was sought concerning mother and father’s birthplaces because it was likely that some participants were born following forced migration of their families. Thus a young person might list their own country of birth as Thailand, for example, but can be presumed to have a refugee background if his or her parents were born in Burma - as many young humanitarian entrants were born and lived for many years in Thai refugee camps before coming to Australia.

The Personal Wellbeing Index for Adults (PWI) was selected as a quantitative instrument for assessing the subjective dimension of quality of life (QOL) or subjective wellbeing (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). Assessment of subjective wellbeing was clearly relevant to understanding the overall experience of resettlement for the young people in the Ucan2 program and for detecting associations between social connectedness and wellbeing. Additionally, the availability of Australian 88

population data, gathered several times annually since 2001 by the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index project (Cummins et al., 2011) offered the potential for some comparisons to be made.

The PWI consists of eight questions about satisfaction with specific life domains, plus an additional question asking respondents to rate their satisfaction with ‘life as a whole’. Thus participants were asked to rate their responses on a scale from 0 to 10 (where 0 means very unhappy/dissatisfied, 10 means very happy/satisfied) to the following questions:

Part I: Satisfaction with life as a whole

Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole?

Part II: Personal wellbeing index

How satisfied are you with…?

1. your standard of living?

2. your health?

3. what you are achieving in life?

4. your personal relationships?

5. how safe you feel?

6. feeling part of your community?

7. your future security?

8. your spirituality or religion?

Given the limited English proficiency of the target group for the research, one of the most important criteria for selecting an appropriate instrument to measure wellbeing was that it consisted of a small number of items and used simple language that would be relatively easy for participants to understand. An additional consideration was whether the constructs being measured were likely to have cross-cultural validity. The PWI fulfilled the criterion of simplicity and the constructs on which it is based had been tested in a number of languages and for different cultural groups as well as with children (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). Nonetheless, apart from the concepts of ‘health’ and ‘feeling safe’ (which were easily understood) it was necessary to provide participants in our sample with additional explanations for most of its terms. Guided by the manual produced for administering the scale to school children (Cummins & Lau, 2005), I developed and used the following standard explanations for Ucan2 students:

 Satisfied: means to be happy with how you feel about something

 Standard of living: means the things that you have that you need to live; like whether the place you live in is OK and whether you have enough money to buy the things that you need

 What you are achieving in life: means whether you feel like you are able to do the things you want to do and are trying to do

 Personal relationships: how you get on with your family, friends and other people you know

 Feeling part of your community: a community is a group of people. This question means do you feel like you belong as part of a group of people? It could be the people here at your school/language class, the people where you live, or other people from your country.

 Future security: do you think that you will feel safe in the future and be able to live comfortably?

 Spirituality or religion: some people here are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist, others might not have any religion – how happy are you with this part of your life?

Participants were relatively comfortable with the concept of giving a rating out of 10, as one of the regular Ucan2 psychosocial program activities involved giving a ‘hand rating’ for how they were feeling about something. Thus, I was able to demonstrate that a very high hand rating (hand right up in the air) was equivalent to a ‘10’; a very low hand rating (hand right down almost on the floor) was equivalent to a ‘0’; and so forth.

DATA ANALYSIS

In addition to descriptive analyses and examination as to whether there were changes in wellbeing over time using paired samples t tests, we investigated the relationship between wellbeing and demographic and social network characteristics. Independent samples t-tests and post-hoc analyses were used to compare findings with Australian population data and to investigate associations between both overall subjective wellbeing and individual domains (dependent variables) of wellbeing with the following independent variables:

 gender  refugee status  region of origin  length of time in Australia  having a least one parent in Australia 90

 having any other family members in Australia  having Australian-born friends in Australia  having overseas-born friends in Australia

Results of these analyses are presented in Chapter 6.

FOCUS GROUPS

SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT

All Ucan2 students were also invited to participate in focus groups, which were held within the last few weeks of the 16-week program. Although in some cases, this meant that groups would be larger than is ideal, usually considered six to twelve participants (Liamputtong, 2009; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007), the value of being inclusive, combined with time constraints, made it impractical to exclude students or hold more than one group interview for each class. The consent forms completed for the social network mapping also covered the focus groups (and individual interviews) but students were assured that participation at each stage was voluntary and given the opportunity to opt out before each activity.

DATA COLLECTION

Focus groups were conducted towards the end of the Ucan2 program at all Ucan2 sites in Semesters 1 and 2, 2009 Semester 1, 2010 and at the two sites selected to participate in Semester 1 2011. Fourteen focus groups were held in total and all Ucan2 students were invited to participate.

All focus groups apart from one, were held in the Ucan2 classroom. One of the last groups, from Dandenong High School, had been discussing future study plans - including different pathways and different types of tertiary institutions - when the focus group was being planned. Resulting from these discussions, came the idea (which then came to fruition) that it would be informative and enjoyable for the students to have an excursion with their teacher to the University of Melbourne, where I could meet up with them, show them around and conduct the focus group in a tutorial room.

The aim of the focus group discussions was to explore participants’ experiences of resettlement and the impact of Ucan2 on those experiences. Focus groups were selected as an appropriate method as it was anticipated that most of the students would feel more comfortable participating in a group discussion with their peers rather than one-on-one with a researcher. Focus groups are also recognised as a valuable tool for exploring people’s knowledge and perception, and ‘giving a voice’ to

marginalised groups - particularly when their social and cultural background is different from that of the researcher (Liamputtong, 2009).

The academic literature contains a wealth of information and advice on how best to conduct focus groups. It has been suggested that participants in ‘constructed’ groups may be more prepared to be frank and express divergent views than pre-existing or ‘natural’ groups (Leask, Hawe, & Chapman, 2001). On the other hand, naturally occurring groups may be preferable for allowing participants to share their experiences, or - as in this case - where the group provides the social context for the topic being explored (Liamputtong, 2009). Some scholars suggest that when conducting cross-cultural research, investigators should attempt to ensure homogeneity in terms of culture, religion and gender to facilitate frank discussion (Colucci, 2008; Halcomb, Gholizadeh, DiGiacomo, Phillips, & Davidson, 2007). Others have encountered resistance from participants to this notion, based on the concern that this promotes cultural stereotyping of beliefs and practices (Yelland & Gifford, 1995). The potential for miscommunication when researchers and participants speak different languages has been emphasised, along with the complexities of working with translations and interpreters (Esposito, 2001). This plenitude of frequently conflicting advice is perhaps best summed up in a recent editorial on the topic:

There is no single right way to do focus groups...for each research project investigators need to select a way of using focus groups that matches the goals of the project. (Morgan & Bottorff, 2010:579)

Thus for this study, the approach was determined by both practical and methodological considerations. As noted earlier, it would have been difficult to convene groups of participants outside scheduled Ucan2 or English class times, which limited the potential for doing anything other than invite the whole class to participate in a single focus group. This necessarily involved convening a natural group with a mixture of cultures, languages, religions and genders - all of which may have had the potential to inhibit some members from participating fully. Conversely, as far as the focus of the discussion was concerned, participants had much in common, as all were young people with recent migration experiences that shared many elements. By the time the focus groups were conducted, participants had usually been undertaking the Ucan2 program for almost six months. The psychosocial component of the program was designed to build trust and communication within the group, which mitigated the risk of inhibition to a considerable extent. In my role as a participant observer, I had witnessed the way in which group dynamics changed over time, with classes often dividing themselves into gender and language groups at the beginning of the semester but gradually mixing more and becoming increasingly comfortable and communicative with each other over the course of the program. My role had also allowed me to build up trust and relationships with students,

which in turn facilitated my ability to use appropriate probes and ‘draw out’ some of the more reserved participants.

Themes to be explored in the focus groups were informed by Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework. Thus, in the first round of focus group discussions conducted in Semester 1, 2009, questions focused on students’ previous and current experiences and aspirations concerning education and employment; social connections; other factors affecting resettlement in Australia; expectations and experiences of Ucan2; and any suggestions regarding ways in which the program could be improved (See Appendix 1 for copy of interview guide). Despite groups feeling largely comfortable communicating with each other, some difficulties were encountered – particularly with larger groups and in sites practising ‘continuous enrolment’ where participants were less familiar with each other and the Ucan2 program. Discussions in these groups tended to be more like group interviews – where individuals responded to me as the moderator in turn – rather than an interactive exploration of the topic by the group (Liamputtong, 2009; Willis, Green, Daly, Williamson, & Bandyopadhyay, 2009). This necessitated revision of the method, and for the second round of focus groups, the same questions were addressed, though with visual prompts introduced. This modification is discussed more fully in the following chapter, which focuses on strategies for addressing methodological and ethical challenges.

Although it is common practice to have a second researcher or assistant present for focus groups, to take notes and assist with observing group interactions (Liamputtong, 2008), this was not done for this study. This was a deliberate decision based on the perceived importance of the trust and familiarity built up between myself and the group. To introduce a new person into the group at this stage may have been inhibitory and would have contravened the methodological approach designed to build relationships between participants and researcher over time.

All focus group discussions were recorded, with consent from participants, using a digital recorder pen (Livescribe Smartpen), which can also be used to take notes and links audio and written records. As well as being a highly efficient and reliable recording device, the Smartpen - introduced to the group with a demonstration - functioned as an ice-breaker for the focus group through the interest it generated. All audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim – the first four by myself – and the remainder by a professional transcription service.

DATA ANALYSIS

The aim of data analysis is to create a coherent account that accurately reflects what has been observed and recorded (Green et al., 2007). It is generally recommended that analysis of qualitative data commences concurrently with the research, so that the analysis of data already collected 93

continuously shapes successive data collection and analysis (Liamputtong, 2009; Pope, Ziebland, & Mays, 2000). It is probably almost inevitable that this will occur, as the researcher contemplates the meaning and significance of impressions gained and data collected as they come to hand. In this case, data analysis began on entering the field and beginning observation and continued throughout the study, informing the research design, sampling, collection methods, and later analyses of the project. This was a recursive and non-linear process, in that early analyses and interpretations were also reviewed and revised in light of later analyses.

Concurrent data collection and analysis also allows the researcher to identify when data saturation occurs. Saturation refers to the point when additional sampling yields no new categories or themes emerging from the data (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). The concept of saturation, or redundancy, is frequently used in qualitative research to determine sample size - with sampling continuing until sufficient data have been obtained ‘to account for all aspects of the phenomenon’ under investigation (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002:12). For the focus groups in this study, it was identified that data saturation had occurred by the end of the originally planned evaluation of Ucan2 in 2010. This was confirmed when two additional focus groups were conducted in 2011, and analysis did not result in any new themes - despite the fact that the program had been refined, and that the groups had been chosen for some of their unique features.

Qualitative research is usually characterised as using an inductive method of analysis, in which the researcher discovers patterns or themes that emerge from the data. This is contrasted with a deductive technique – more commonly associated with quantitative research - in which the data or observations are used to test pre-selected theories and hypotheses (Patton, 2002). Content analysis of qualitative data, which involves counting the frequency of appearance of (usually predetermined) categories can also be classified as a deductive technique (Bryman, 2008). In practice, induction and deduction comprise two ends of a spectrum, with many possible positions in between. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue that mixed methods research derives philosophically from pragmatism and that its ‘logic of inquiry’ therefore includes induction, deduction and ‘abduction (uncovering and relying on the best of a set of explanations for understanding one’s results’) (R. B. Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004:17). An abductive interpretation involves moving back and forth between induction and deduction (Morgan, 2007), examining the data for patterns and themes and using existing theoretical frameworks as sensitising concepts against which emergent themes are continually tested (Charmaz, 2003). The patterns emerging from the data are then used to modify or develop new frameworks.

For this study, an abductive thematic analytic strategy was used whereby theories of social capital and inclusion as well as Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework (discussed in Chapter 3) acted as sensitising concepts for making sense of the data. They did not however limit the process of 94

induction, whereby additional themes and patterns could also emerge. The process of analysis followed that recommended by Green and colleagues for interview data, consisting of four steps: ‘immersion in the data, coding, creating categories, and the identification of themes’. These steps are both sequential and cyclical, as ‘the researcher moves back and forth through the processes’ (Green, et al., 2007:546). For focus groups, attention to group dynamics and interactions, including both verbal and non-verbal, is an additional analytic step, offering insights into the social processes shaping the experiences and ideas of individuals (Warr, 2005a; Willis, et al., 2009).

Immersion in the data began with its collection, followed by listening to audio-recordings and reading transcripts a number of times soon after the focus group was conducted. This immersion begins the process of detecting patterns within the data. As the spoken English of many of the participants was quite difficult for me (and the transcriber) to understand, this process also served as an opportunity to listen many times to difficult segments of audio-recording, correct the corresponding transcripts, and make additional reflective notes based on the interactions I had witnessed during the focus group.

Coding the data consists of attaching descriptive labels to every ‘chunk’ of text. As many codes (and subsequently categories) are created as needed to account for all the nuances in the data; and more than one code may be applied to a single statement or section of text (Pope, et al., 2000). As more data were collected, codes were continually reviewed and refined in light of new information and evolving themes (Green, et al., 2007). As coding progressed, categories were created by grouping codes that could be conceptually linked. In creating categories, attention was paid to both consensus and diversity of opinions expressed within and between groups of discussants and to the group processes that helped to shape their expression.

Coding and categorising are primarily inductive processes, although relevant theoretical and background knowledge act to sensitise the researcher to patterns and links within the data. NVivo 9 (2010) software was used at this stage of the research as a data management tool to assist with applying codes, organising and grouping codes and categories, and retrieving coded text.

The final stage of analysis, identification of themes, is perhaps better described as interpretation. Green and colleagues describe identification of themes as:

...moving beyond a description of a range of categories; it involves shifting to an explanation or, even better, an interpretation of the issue under investigation. The generation of themes requires testing the explanation both with the data and with the theory, specifically referring to the theoretical concepts relevant to the study. (Green, et al., 2007:549)

Hammersley (1995) suggests that the qualitative researcher should not necessarily privilege the generation of theory over description – which may be more appropriate for some research aims. Others argue however, that it is the use of theory - to guide the entire research process, from selection of an appropriate research question to sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation - that enables qualitative research to produce evidence for practice that can be generalised beyond the specific research setting (J. Daly et al., 2007; Willis et al., 2007). For this study, this interpretive step will form the substance of Chapter 8 and involve bringing together both the qualitative and quantitative findings using the theoretical lenses detailed earlier.

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

SAMPLING AND RECRUITMENT

A smaller sample of 26 students participated in the individual interviews. A theoretically informed purposive sampling strategy (Gibbs et al., 2007) was used, informed by the results of the network mapping and surveys combined with my knowledge of individual students and their circumstances, built up over the course of the program. For the first interviews, students were invited to participate who represented a range of criteria that included culture of origin, Ucan2 site (language school or adult setting) and gender. For later interviews, participants were selected to explore issues such as employment status, family composition, and connectedness, which had emerged as critical, both from the theoretical frameworks guiding the study and from analysis of the early data (Gibbs, et al., 2007).

Interviews took place after students completed the Ucan2 program, to explore the ongoing impacts of the intervention on settlement experiences - with the time since completion ranging from three months to over two years. I invited many of the selected students to participate in interviews during the ‘catch-up’ sessions, which took place in the months following the 16-week intensive program. In other cases, Ucan2 staff from Foundation House (who kept in touch with most students for some time following completion of the program) made initial contact with the student and asked them whether they would be happy for me to be given their phone number and to invite them to take part in an interview.

DATA COLLECTION

Not all young people who agreed to participate ended up doing so however, as in some cases, they either failed to return multiple phone and text messages and/or failed to turn up to multiple appointments. In some of these cases, this behaviour appeared to constitute passive withdrawal of consent and so I ceased trying to contact them. This notion, of passive withdrawal or non-consent,

will be discussed further in the next chapter in the section dealing with informed consent. Participants were given a choice of interview location, and most took up the suggestion that they might like to meet me at their school or a local library with which they were familiar, and the interviews were conducted there. Three interviews took place in participants’ homes at their request.

The aim of the individual interviews was to explore more deeply participants’ experiences of resettlement and the impact of Ucan2 on those experiences. Focus groups may reveal opinions and beliefs along with the social processes shaping them but are less suitable for exploring personal experiences (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008). By way of contrast, individual interview techniques are more appropriate for seeking personal information about people’s lived experiences, and likely to ‘encourage participants to compose expansive accounts of the self or topics of interest’ (Warr, 2005a:203; see also J. M. Johnson, 2002).

Interviews were semi-structured, using an interview guide as a framework to ensure all topics were covered, rather than structured questions. This allowed conversations to develop naturally within the interview, follow up questions on points of interest and for topics not covered in the guide to emerge where relevant to a particular interviewee (J. M. Johnson, 2002; Patton, 2002). Interview probes focused on education and employment experiences and aspirations, and on social connections - such as family, friends and mentors (when relevant). I also asked participants about changes that had occurred to both their aspirations and their relationships since arriving in Australia and about the types of support they received (See Appendix 1 for copy of interview guide). I did not ask probing questions about their pre-arrival experiences (beyond where they had lived and who they came to Australia with) although some participants chose to speak at length about their lives before migration. By the time I interviewed students, I knew them quite well and knew quite a lot about their individual circumstances through informal conversations and observations as well as the focus groups and wellbeing and social network surveys. Thus the ethnographic methodology facilitated the development of relationships and knowledge that were invaluable in enabling sensitive and appropriate questioning.

Interviews were recorded with the consent of participants. In three cases, participants preferred not to be recorded and in two of these, the young person indicated that they were self-conscious about their English and how they would sound in a recording. In the third case, the interviewee seemed suspicious of the recorder. His wariness of the interview process was confirmed when he also asked me not to use some of the things he told me in my reports. When recording was not possible, I took detailed notes during the interview and augmented these with further notes and reflections immediately afterwards. Audio-files were transcribed by a professional transcription service and, as

with the focus groups, I immediately reviewed and corrected all transcripts while listening to the recordings.

DATA ANALYSIS

Much of the discussion above concerning the method of data analysis for the focus groups applies to the analysis of the individual interview data. In this section therefore, I will comment only on points of difference.

Focus group and interview data are not equivalent (Warr, 2005a). In particular, and as noted above, analytic attention in focus groups is directed at the interactions between participants as well as the content of their conversation. As with integrating quantitative and qualitative findings, it is important to attend to the methodological underpinnings of each method - including their relationship to the study aims, and the different types of data obtained - if combining focus groups and individual interviews (Lambert & Loiselle, 2008). Bearing this in mind - and drawing on the metaphor of a crystal discussed earlier - data from each have been used in the results and discussion chapters to illuminate different facets of a particular theme where mutually informative.

Another distinction between the focus group and interview data arises from the sampling method. While all eligible Ucan2 students were invited to participate in the focus groups; for the interviews, a purposive and theoretical sampling strategy was employed to select individuals representing diverse characteristics and likely to provide rich data on themes which had emerged as significant. As noted earlier, I used personal contacts with the students themselves and with Ucan2 staff to issue invitations to participate. A limitation of this approach was that my sample did not include any young refugee settlers who had lost contact with Ucan2 program staff, some of whom might have become completely disengaged from the education system. Even if I had been able to contact such individuals, it is probably unlikely that they would have consented to participate in an interview. While data saturation was reached in the interviews, in that new categories and themes ceased to emerge towards the end of the sampling period, I had limited opportunity to investigate ‘negative’ or ‘disconfirming’ cases. Thus, I cannot claim to have reached theoretical saturation. ‘Theoretical saturation’ – a term derived from grounded theory – occurs:

When all of the main variations of the phenomenon have been identified and incorporated into the emerging theory. In this approach, the researcher deliberately searches for extreme variations of each concept in the theory to exhaustion. (Guest, et al., 2006:65)

My sampling strategy enabled me to explore the role of different types of social connections for young people who were relatively engaged in the ‘system’. My ability to infer the implications of lack of connectedness however, relied largely on anecdotal sources and hypotheses drawn from one or two participants who appeared to be on the brink of ‘disengaging’. Limitations will be discusses at greater length in Chapter 8.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has detailed the research question, aims and research design for this study. A critical ethnographic methodology has been justified as appropriate for addressing these aims; and the research setting – an evaluation of the Ucan2 program – is described in detail. The chosen methods for investigating the resettlement experiences of refugee-background young people and the impact of a support program on those experiences have also been justified and described. These methods explicitly address the overall aim of the project and the final three objectives outlined above: to privilege the voices of refugee-background young people themselves; to use theories of social inclusion and social capital to inform the understanding of those experiences; and to assess the impact of a support program on resettlement experiences. It is anticipated that the evaluation of the participant experience of Ucan2 will make an important contribution to addressing the identified lack of evidence for the effect of support programs for facilitating social inclusion of refugee-background youth.

The next chapter is devoted to discussion of ethical considerations for this research. The complexities of involving young participants with low levels of English language proficiency combined with the difficult living circumstances confronting participants – particularly concerning their depleted social networks - raised a number of ethical and associated methodological challenges during the early phases of the research. This necessitated ‘fine-tuning’ of the methods described in this chapter and merited the extended discussion that now follows.

100

CHAPTER 5 : ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The previous chapter described in detail the research design for this project. Given the potential vulnerability of the study population, research ethics became a prominent dimension of this project, warranting a chapter of its own. This chapter comprises a reflective analysis of ethical and methodological challenges - anticipated and unanticipated - encountered in the field, and explains the changes to methodology and methods that were made in response.

The first section of this chapter provides a brief description of the ethical review process. The second section provides an overview of the literature concerning ethics in refugee research, followed by a detailed discussion of the ethical challenges encountered in this project, their associated methodological implications and the strategies developed to address them. Three key sets of issues are discussed: repositioning research and intervention activities to maximise benefits of involvement for participants and reduce potential harms; enhancing the integrity of the process for gaining informed consent; and adapting the focus group method to heighten its relevance to circumstances of participants’ lives and enhance their engagement in the research. This section is a summarised version of a journal article published in the Journal of Refugee Studies, entitled: Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: reflections from the field (Block, et al., 2012).

ETHICS APPROVAL

In addition to outlining the methods discussed in the previous chapter, the research proposal submitted for ethics approval focused on the potential vulnerability of the research participants. Emphasis was given to the planned carefully staged approach, progressing from least to most personal and confronting investigative methods - from participant observation, through surveys and focus groups to individual interviews. It was anticipated that embedding the research in the Ucan2 program would both assist in developing relationships and trust with the research participants and provide a pathway for referral if research participation either revealed or triggered any distress on the part of participants when speaking about their experiences.

The University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approved the project proposal early in 2009. This entailed a two-stage review, the first of which is conducted by a department-level committee consisting of academic staff who, in addition to conducting an ethical review, scrutinize the proposed methods to ensure they are technically sound. The second committee 101

is one of the University’s three broadly discipline-based committees, which includes members with relevant research expertise, lay members, a health professional, a member with a community pastoral care role, and a representative of the legal profession. The focus of this committee is on whether proposals satisfy accepted ethical standards ‘with respect to the principles set out in the current National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research’. For the component of the research to be conducted in schools, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) approval was also necessary and this was gained soon afterwards. Despite these formal ethics reviews and approvals, a number of ethical and associated methodological concerns arose during the early stages of the project and these are the focus of the remainder of this chapter.

METHODOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN REFUGEE RESEARCH

To a greater or lesser extent, participation in research influences the lives of participants. Moreover, the ‘research process itself has the potential to transform the very phenomenon being studied (Finlay, 2002:531). This insight informs the ethos that involvement in research should be a positive, even beneficial, experience for participants, while potential risks must be curtailed. These aims are directly relevant to the minimum ethical obligations of researchers, but also exceed them. The Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research asserts that ‘at all stages, human research requires ethical reflection’ informed by ‘core values of respect, research merit and integrity, justice, and beneficence’(National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, 2007:11). Translating these values into practice requires attending to a range of methodological and practical issues associated with the conduct of research. Further, ‘ethical questions are not static’, and need to be considered and reflected upon from the time a research project is conceived until its findings are presented in the public domain (Bilger & Van Liempt, 2009:13). Processes for gaining institutional ethical approval to conduct research are clearly aimed at upholding these core principals and promoting the ethical conduct of research. However, existing ethical guidelines cannot cover all the concerns which arise when researching complex social problems, and identifying and responding to emerging ethical challenges in the processes of research requires on-going vigilance on the part of the researchers (Czymoniewicz-Klippel, Brijnath, & Crockett, 2010).

Recognising these complex dimensions of research ethics, Guillemin and Gillam (2004) distinguish between ‘procedural ethics’, which involves formal processes of gaining consent through ethics committees, and ‘ethics in practice’, which involves responding to the everyday issues that can arise 102

in the processes of research. Processes of gaining formal consent to conduct research are guided by broad consensus regarding the generalised and context independent risks of research. ‘Ethics in practice’ involves identifying and responding to context dependent circumstances and ethical contingencies – or ‘ethically important moments’ - that arise over the course of research projects. Such moments may occur when a remark or a situation, or perhaps just a growing sense of unease, disrupts the planned research procedures, revealing an ethical complexity that demands a response from the researcher. In a similar vein, Swartz (2011) has described ‘ethical red flags’ that presented themselves in the course of her research among vulnerable young people in South Africa. While procedural ethics requires researchers to adhere to documented processes outlined in ethics applications, ‘ethics in practice’ – also referred to as ‘microethics’ - is achieved through ethical reflexivity which requires researchers to adopt a ‘continuous process of critical scrutiny and interpretation’ with respect to themselves and the research situation (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004:275).

Ethical reflexivity is arguably essential when researchers and research participants have disparate lifeworlds. The risks of asymmetries in power between researchers and research participants have long been noted. Bourdieu, in his essay entitled Understanding (1996), argues that research can inflict ‘symbolic violence’ through misunderstanding or misrepresenting research participants. Potential for misrepresentation arises through the difficulties of communicating when researchers and research subjects occupy different positions within social structures. Accordingly, the most disempowered participants are the most vulnerable to being subjected to symbolic violence through research. Bourdieu advocates reflexive practice of research and ‘a relationship of active and methodical listening’ as critical strategies for minimising the latent harms of research (Bourdieu, 1996:18-19). He elaborates on the conditions that may exert symbolic violence as follows:

It is the investigator who starts the game and who sets up its rules: it is most often she who, unilaterally and without any preliminary negotiations, assigns to the interview its objectives and uses, and on occasion these may be poorly specified – at least for the respondent. This asymmetry is underlined by a social asymmetry which occurs every time the investigator occupies a higher place in the social hierarchy… (Bourdieu, 1996:19).

Bourdieu also underscores the importance of rendering the research process meaningful for the participant and rejects the idea of neutrality in research in favour of familiarity and solidarity as necessary conditions for ‘non-violent’ communication (Bourdieu, 1996:20). The kinds of reflexive practices advocated to minimise the risks of research, particularly for research participants rendered vulnerable through their relative powerlessness in encounters with researchers, serve to dissolve

103

distinctions between ethical and methodological issues. Promoting ethical practice and methodological validity are mutually reinforcing objectives.

This project raised ethical issues that inevitably confront researchers working with vulnerable population groups (See for example Snelgrove, 2005): the impact of disparities in power between researchers and participants; negotiating informed consent; and the need to ensure that the benefits of participation outweigh any potential risks. While these challenges were largely anticipated and addressed in the ethics submission to the University’s ethics committees, the proposed methods were soon found to be lacking in the research field. Following a brief review of the array of ethical concerns which frequently confront researchers working with refugee populations, I will discuss the processes of ‘ethics in practice’ that were used to further refine and adapt research methods in order to generate robust data and maximise the benefits of involvement for the young participants in this project.

Collaborative and participatory methods are proposed as a potentially appropriate way to address some of the ethical issues that are raised in research involving marginalised and disenfranchised groups (B Heidi Ellis, Kia-Keating, Yusuf, Lincoln, & Nur, 2007; MacLean, Warr, & Pyett, 2009; E Pittaway, Bartolomei, & Hugman, 2010). Such methods are explicitly orientated to reducing power differentials, however Doná’s examination of participatory research examples with refugee populations cautions against automatic assumptions that ‘participatory’ research is necessarily an ‘empowering’ experience for participants. This is particularly the case if the aims of research stop short of advocacy for political or social transformation (Doná, 2007).

Approaches to research involving newly-arrived refugee youth are discussed at length by researchers involved in the Good Starts Study investigating psychosocial determinants of health and wellbeing for young refugees during resettlement in Australia (Gifford, et al., 2007). Piloting methods of data collection is recommended in order to adjust research activities to some of the logistical challenges posed by working with young people with ‘disrupted schooling, varying levels of literacy in their own language, a limited comprehension of English, and no prior experience of being involved in research’ (Gifford, et al., 2007:420). Although Gifford and colleagues focus more overtly on the practical, rather than ethical, challenges encountered, they make the point that innovative approaches combining both qualitative and quantitative methods are required to engage young people with refugee backgrounds in meaningful reflection on their lives while simultaneously producing findings of relevance to policy makers and service providers. The need for methodological innovation is also highlighted by other researchers who make the point that standardised research instruments may be invalid when applied to different cultural groups and may even be attempting to measure social constructs that do not exist in different cultures (Birman & Chan, 2008; B Heidi Ellis, et al., 2007). 104

While disparities in power between researchers and research participants need to be considered in all stages of the research, from design to dissemination, the issues that it raises are particularly acute when it comes to negotiating informed consent (B Heidi Ellis, et al., 2007; Mackenzie, McDowell, & Pittaway, 2007; E Pittaway, et al., 2010). Clearly, processes of obtaining consent that entail written explanations and consent forms are inappropriate for populations or individuals who are likely to have low literacy rates, or may be reluctant to sign documents (Czymoniewicz-Klippel, et al., 2010). Other commentators go further than this in arguing that the very concept of informed and voluntary consent inherently involves ‘culturally bound, western values of individual autonomy, self-determination, and freedom’ which may defy cross-cultural translation (B Heidi Ellis, et al., 2007:467-469). Participants’ lack of familiarity with research processes and evolving research directions point to the need to gain informed consent at more than one stage. Mackenzie and colleagues argue that in order to avoid eroding ‘participants’ capacities for self-determination’ consent needs to be ‘iterative’ or involve ongoing negotiation. Rather than a standard research model, where consent is a single event – indicated by the signing of a consent form – ‘iterative models of consent start from the assumption that ethical agreements can best be secured through a process of negotiation, which aims to develop a shared understanding of what is involved at all stages of the research process’ (Mackenzie, et al., 2007:307).

A number of authors consider the tension between seeking to maintain methodological neutrality in research and a belief that research should have an explicitly political or moral stance (Jacobsen & Landau, 2003; Landau & Jacobsen, 2005; Rodgers, 2004; Voutira & Dona, 2007). Jacobsen and Landau are critical of what they describe as a tendency towards ‘advocacy research’ in refugee and humanitarian studies, ‘where researchers already know what they want to see and say, and come away from the research having ‘proved’ it’ (Jacobsen & Landau, 2003:187). They argue that much of the research resulting from this approach is methodologically and ethically ‘suspect’ and results in flawed data and subsequent policy conclusions (Jacobsen & Landau, 2003:185). Others have rejected their argument on the grounds that these kinds of commentary amount to criticisms of small scale, qualitative studies that present subjective perspectives of the issues (Rodgers, 2004). For many, the often desperate plight of refugees renders any position other than overt solidarity as ethically inappropriate and these researchers vigorously defend the propriety of a nexus between scholarship and advocacy in refugee research (Voutira & Dona, 2007). Mackenzie et al. endorse this latter position and maintain that ‘wherever possible, social researchers should aim to develop research projects that not only identify problems … but that help to promote autonomy and rebuild capacity.’ On the contentious issue of scholarly neutrality versus advocacy, these authors argue that:

105

When a human being is in need and the researcher is in a position to respond to that need, non-intervention in the name of ‘objective’ research is unethical. Further, it could be argued that if researchers are in a position to assist refugees to advocate on their own behalf . . . that it is morally incumbent on them to do so (Mackenzie, et al., 2007:316).

For the most part, it is accepted that to be ethical, research must not only be methodologically rigorous but also of value to recipients. Debate over the rigour of ‘advocacy research’ notwithstanding, there is certainly in principle agreement that research must do no harm and that the outcomes of research should be of value. These issues are linked to the methods, ethics and the ethics- in-practice of research.

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING ETHICAL CHALLENGES IN THIS PROJECT

It was clearly imperative that for this research project to adhere to core ethical principles of non- maleficence; beneficence; respect for autonomy and promotion of justice (Beauchamp & Childress, 2001), it needed to use methods that allowed a flexible, reflexive and empathetic approach, sensitive to the circumstances of participants. In particular, I anticipated methodological and ethical challenges posed by cultural and linguistic differences between participants and me as the researcher.

Participant observation provided the opportunity to build rapport and trust with teachers and research participants. An additional anticipated benefit of embedding the research process in the classroom was that if research participation revealed unmet needs for personal or social support services then Ucan2 resources would be available for follow up. Low levels of fluency in English among participants were also considered in designing the research and it was decided that interpreters and/or written translations of research-related material would be used where required.

Initial program cycles provided an opportunity to pilot data collection methods and consent processes and it became apparent that practical, methodological and associated ethical issues still needed further consideration. Fine-tuning of methodological and ethics issues was required to respond to unresolved challenges of participants’ limited English proficiency, their lack of familiarity with research processes, emerging potential for research-related harms, capacities to give informed consent, the range of planned research activities, and the quality of data being collected.

106

The following section explains how I adapted the research processes following the pilot phase to address these issues and enhance the relevance and potential benefits of the research to the circumstances of the young people.

REPOSITIONING INTERVENTION AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES: THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF SOCIAL NETWORK MAPPING

From the start we were concerned that participation in the research process ought to develop potential for autonomy and inclusion. In regards to the network mapping exercise this involved contributing to building a sense of trust and mutual respect within the group, ‘normalising’ refugee experiences and promoting participants’ capacities for reflexive and strategic involvement in social networks. However, the process needed to be adapted to enhance the benefits and minimise potential risks. Disrupted and sparse social networks are a feature of this population, rendering this activity far from benign. A large proportion of the students have few connections within Australia and many also have close family members, including parents, who are overseas, missing or deceased (see Figure 5-1 for a typical example of a completed social network map). While these circumstances were anticipated, the extent of young people’s social isolation was profound. Although a similar network mapping exercise had been piloted by program staff, once in the field, we were concerned that it had the potential to leave a considerable number of participants feeling inadequate or distressed when confronted with a graphic reminder of their situation. Further, ethical protocols that had been developed to address this contingency, in which young people would be offered access to counselling as required, was clearly an insufficient response. These concerns were discussed at length with Ucan2 program staff and the following modifications to the exercise were devised.

107

FIGURE 5-1: TYPICAL COMPLETED SOCIAL NETWORK MAP (Social circle adapted from Gifford, Correa-Velez, & Sampson, 2009; Heikkinen, 2000)

The first corrective step was to enlist the active assistance of program staff and ensure that the social network activity was always conducted in the Ucan2 classroom during the period allocated to providing psychosocial support. I also realised that young people needed better understanding of the aims of the exercise. We changed procedures to begin by providing a rationale for the network- mapping activity, explaining that one of the key aims of the Ucan2 program is to assist participants in meeting new people, and why it might be helpful to think about the range of supports provided by one’s social network. I would then draw a hypothetical example of my own social network circle on the board leaving some gaps and including relatives overseas as would be the case for most of the participants. Once students completed their maps, the Foundation House staff member who was working with the class each week, and whose role was to provide psychosocial support to the students, spent some time discussing with the group how they might feel after doing this activity. Staff acknowledged that many students had important people in their lives who were absent and that it could be distressing to think about family and friends not with them in Australia. The group would also discuss the ways that different people in the class dealt with these feelings and the methods they used to keep in touch with others overseas, including email, Facebook and telephone. The students would then complete the short demographic and wellbeing survey.

Inclusion of this ‘group debriefing’ located the activity conceptually within the part of the program aimed at normalising the refugee experience, acknowledged the losses that these young people had

108

experienced, and enhanced the potential for program staff to provide follow up and psychosocial support to students. This process provided a potentially empowering opportunity for participants to discuss the significance of relationships and the potential for social networks to be conceptualised as resources that can be strategically fostered in the future - to look forward, as well as looking backward at lost networks and relationships.

ENHANCING THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONSENT PROCESS

There were several obstacles identified to obtaining informed and meaningful consent from students. The classroom setting meant that students were potentially ‘captive research participants’ in which disparities in power between students, program staff and the researcher may have meant that students would feel that they had little choice but to participate. The modification to the processes for gathering social network data had the effect of further blurring distinctions between program activities and research which, in turn, heightened ethical concerns regarding participants’ capacity to give their informed consent to contribute data for the study. It became even more important that students involved in the Ucan2 program grasped that electing to participate in the research was voluntary and there would be no negative consequences in declining to participate.

Along with limited understandings of research processes, the diversity of cultural and language backgrounds and generally low levels of English-language proficiency contributed to challenges in obtaining informed consent. Participants in the research spoke 37 different first languages. Even if (resources permitting) it were feasible to translate information sheets into most of these languages, interrupted prior education meant that a substantial proportion of students were not literate in their first language and some students came from communities where languages exist primarily in oral forms. Another option was to use interpreters, although the logistics of conducting group conversations with multiple interpreters working simultaneously limited the potential for this being a practical alternative. The use of interpreters can also increase the distance between participants and researchers and we recognised that while participants might understand the words that were being used, they could still struggle to understand concepts such as ‘voluntary’ and ‘confidential’ that were being invoked. It has already been noted that culture-bound notions of autonomy and individual rights may have little meaning to participants from very different cultural backgrounds and whose life experiences have in many cases entailed abuses of these rights. Disparities in power between researcher and researched may even be further complicated by interpreters; particularly in the case of newly arrived communities where the small number of available interpreters are likely to occupy positions of higher status, class and therefore power than research participants.

109

As the research was taking place within the English language program it was agreed that using English to communicate with students was the most practical option, and also respectfully acknowledged their developing proficiency in English-language skills. Nevertheless, as the program was being offered to young people who had been in Australia in most cases for between six and twelve months and were studying in a level two language class (where level three is considered ‘functional English’), this necessitated effort to find the simplest and most accessible terms for explaining the consent process and conducting the research itself.

When I first piloted the social network mapping exercise, I had asked students to sign a consent form prior to undertaking data collection tasks, but it was evident that participants found this consent procedure confusing. Although most were willing to sign the consent form - perhaps indicating the success of the trust building phase of the research - it was apparent from the blank looks and confused questions that many students were struggling to comprehend the significance of this unfamiliar activity. Their bewilderment clearly raised an ‘ethical red flag’ (Swartz, 2011). Despite adhering to formally approved ethics procedures, we were uncomfortably aware that students were consenting to participate without fully understanding what that meant.

The social network data collection activity involved modifying a previously used program activity and it therefore had intrinsic value in relation to the Ucan2 program. In consultation with program staff, we therefore decided to reposition the formal component of the research consent process so that it occurred after the exercise was completed. It should be noted here that the Ucan2 program has its own process for progressive consent to participation in program activities whereby it is clear to students from the outset that they need not participate in any activities if they prefer not to, or if they find them uncomfortable. Indeed, a small number of students chose to exercise this option and did not participate in the network mapping exercise.

Building on these program processes, the revised procedure for gaining informed consent to participate in the research involved seeking permission to use the information contained in the maps and surveys for research after they had been completed by students. We reviewed with the students the purpose of the evaluation research: to find out more about what is important for young people settling in Australia; how Ucan2 helps (or not); and to help make Ucan2 better by telling us what is good about it and what else it could do. I would only then hand out the research information sheets and consent forms. After apologising for the formidable amount of writing that students were presented with, and which, despite our best efforts to simplify, remained difficult for many to easily understand, I provided students with verbal explanations of key issues in the documents. Particular emphasis was given to explaining the voluntary nature of consent and the meaning of confidentiality, and students were encouraged to ask questions if there was anything they did not understand. They 110

were then asked to sign the consent form if they agreed that the information they provided in their maps and surveys could be used for the research and reassured that if they preferred not to sign the consent form, then their data would not be used. I also offered to discuss any issues that individual students may have or give students additional time to read the documents.

These changes to the consent process increased the potential for the research to boost the autonomy and capacity of the participants, by empowering them to make decisions that were appropriately informed. The opportunity to pilot the methods had demonstrated that standard protocols and requirements such as introducing the research through a comprehensive information sheet or ‘plain language statement’ (whether delivered verbally or in written form) served to confuse rather than enlighten the research participants. Asking participants to sign a consent form before undertaking research activities proved a feasible and relatively simple way to satisfy formal ethics committee requirements. It was subjectively experienced in this study however - at least by me - as a process that simultaneously reaffirmed the power imbalance between researcher and participants and failed to respect autonomy or enhance capacity to understand and take part in unfamiliar processes such as research in a way that was appropriately informed. This revised protocol for gaining informed consent enhanced participants’ understanding - evidenced by the increased pertinence of the questions asked of the researchers in the course of the process. A large majority of the students consented to me using the data they had generated for the research.

Three students from the entire sample said that they preferred not to sign the consent form. A small number of others however, as noted in the previous chapter with the example of students failing to turn up for an arranged interview, exercised a ‘passive’ resistance to consent and participation. In the case of school-based students, failing to return a parent or guardian consent form may at times have been due to a reluctance to participate. A couple of students completed social network maps, signed the consent form, but then simply failed to give me their completed map when I moved around the room collecting them. One student left the room - carrying his map, another hid it under an exercise book.

In practice, the changes described above resulted in the kind of iterative consent process that is advocated by Mackenzie and colleagues (2007), whereby students assented informally to undertaking the research-associated activity and then consented more formally to having the resultant data included in the research project and evaluation. Subsequently, students were again given the opportunity to opt in or out of the research when invited to participate in focus groups or interviews.

111

ADAPTING FOCUS GROUP METHODS TO THE POPULATION

The next research activity comprised focus groups, which aimed to explore the young people’s shared ideas concerning constituents of, and supports needed for, ‘successful’ resettlement. Again, initial focus groups were used as opportunities to pilot the processes for facilitating discussions involving participants from diverse language and cultural backgrounds. Participants were happy to take part in the discussion but open-ended questions tended to produce limited responses dominated by a few respondents. These responses indicated inadequate understanding by many in the group of what it was that the researcher might be interested in hearing as well as of the unwritten ‘rules of engagement’ of the focus group. Some participants carried on conversations in other languages, and a common reply to the questions I posed was a polite, but opaque, reassurance, ‘All is good, teacher!’

I was reluctant either to accept the limitations of the data collected in this way or to abandon the focus groups altogether, particularly as focus groups had been carefully chosen as an appropriate method in the first instance. It was anticipated that group discussions would complement the group activities of the program and provide students with a potentially useful forum for sharing common experiences of settlement and of the Ucan2 program.

In addition, focus groups are considered to be a valuable method for working with disadvantaged and vulnerable groups. They have the potential to be empowering, as their relatively loose structure may enable participants to have more control over the research process and to bring new and unanticipated issues into analytic frames (Eder & Fingerson, 2002; Warr, 2005a). However, as Snelgrove (2005) warns, where understanding of research and/or language are limited, stimulus topic questions are likely to produce limited responses. Moreover, ‘simply talking . . . does not constitute engagement with the disempowered “other”’ (Snelgrove, 2005:319). While focus groups were anticipated to be procedurally suitable for eliciting the views of vulnerable participants; in practice they failed to do this in a meaningful way. Warr has suggested that focus group participants require a level of ‘conversational competency’ to enable them ‘to articulate opinions and ideas and join into the swift and complex flows of dialogue that operate in group discussions’ (Warr, 2005a:202). With hindsight, it was unrealistic to expect this in English from young people, who were still in the relatively early stages of learning the language and its conventions. Thus the conventional approach to focus groups was eliciting simplistic – and excessively polite - responses (Tilbury, 2006), which rendered the complex experiences and opinions of participants in one-dimensional ways. These limitations have ethical as well as methodological implications as the risk of perpetrating ‘symbolic violence’ through tokenistic consultation is real.

112

The aim that participation in research should have empowering potential reflects the ideals of methodological approaches such as Critical Communicative Methodology (CCM). Proponents of this approach contend that researchers should aim to bring about social transformation by making academic knowledge available to participants. Knowledge provided by researchers can help participants to ‘reinterpret their lived experiences and work as tools for change in participants’ lives’ (Gómez, Puigvert, & Flecha, 2011:238). Techniques are described for ‘communicative focus groups’ in which ‘The researcher is not [just] one more participant in the conversation but someone responsible for contributing the background of the study and the knowledge from the scientific community’ (Gómez, et al., 2011:240). This methodology differs from more traditional inductive qualitative research techniques, which imply that the researcher should avoid leading participants in predetermined directions.

After considering the limitations of the first few focus groups, I decided to modify the method in an analogous way to that advocated by CCM by incorporating visual prompts and an associated activity to stimulate discussion on issues of interest (Colucci, 2007; Morrow, 2001a). Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework, defining core domains of integration for refugees, informed the themes that were explored in the group discussions. I made sets of laminated picture cards, representing each of the framework’s core domains. These theoretically derived domains were supplemented by the addition of empirically derived domains that had emerged in the earlier discussions. This resulted in a set of 13 cards that depicted and labelled the following: ‘Learning English’; ‘Getting a job’; ‘Studying for a career’; ‘Good health’; ‘Family and friends’; ‘Getting to know other people in Australia’; ‘Having a home to live in’; ‘Feeling safe’; ‘Australian citizenship or residency visa’; ‘Religion – church, mosque or temple’; ‘Computers and the internet’; ‘Sport’; ‘Help with looking after children’. (See Appendix 1 for copies of the pictures used)

I asked participants to gather in small self-selected groups to choose the picture cards which best represented the things that were most important for them to be able to settle and live happily in Australia. In most cases, this process resulted in much animated discussion in multiple languages within the smaller groups. Participants then reconvened to discuss why they chose particular picture cards, as well as whether, and how, they thought the Ucan2 program helped with those aspects of settlement. This method produced much greater engagement by the participants in the group discussions and assisted in participants articulating considerably more sophisticated views of concepts such as safety and belonging than had been elicited by open-ended questions. Issues such as rights and citizenship that had not emerged in the pilot discussion groups also now transpired as important to the young people. Standard verbal prompts or questions had failed to engage young refugee-background participants, whose previous experiences may have entailed relatively few opportunities for their

113

opinions and thoughts to be heard and valued. The use of theoretically informed visual stimuli, and the opportunity to begin with small group discussions (often in a more fluent language) proved a respectful means of eliciting participants’ views and provided opportunities to give feedback on the Ucan2 program. The revised method was potentially empowering, providing participants with academic knowledge and tools, which developed their capacity to both reflect on and discuss their circumstances (Eder & Fingerson, 2002; Kamberelis & Dimitriadis, 2008). Moreover, enhancing the method of data collection to make it more meaningful for participants, addressed both the methodological challenge of collecting valid data that reflects the views of participants and the ethical risk of inflicting harm (through symbolic violence).

CONCLUSION

This chapter has discussed the intersecting ethical, methodological and practical challenges, which arose during the course of the project. The response to these challenges was to employ an ‘ethical reflexivity’ to translate core ethical principles into ethical practice.

The methodological adaptations detailed above represent a way of operationalising Bourdieu’s exhortation to practise ‘active and methodical’ listening, which presents the possibility of understanding across social (and cultural) distance. I would contend that academic rigour is attained, not through an attempt at value-neutral or objective collection of data, which may afford only a superficial understanding of the lives of others. Rather, a rigorous ethical reflexivity that recognises the inherent (and frequently unacknowledged) risk of ‘symbolic violence’ when conducting research with marginalised or excluded populations and simultaneously addresses practical, ethical and methodological challenges can produce research which is more transparent, valid and reliable. This strategy sought to enable a deeper understanding of the lives of refugee-background participants and the challenges that they face.

Furthermore, this approach is capable of responding appropriately to what we might term a ‘triple imperative’ in research with marginalised populations. Building on the ‘dual imperative in refugee research’, identified by Jacobsen and Landau (2003) – to be both academically rigorous and policy relevant – it incorporates a third obligation which others have advocated; that research should also promote autonomy and rebuild capacity of participants (Mackenzie, et al., 2007) . In the case of the young participants in this project, this was achieved by empowering them to make appropriately informed decisions and providing conceptual tools and opportunities to reflect on and discuss constructively the circumstances and challenges that they face. Conversely, failure to implement a

114

rigorous reflexivity is likely to produce only a superficial understanding of lives that are very different from our own.

The next chapter in this thesis moves on to present the results from the social network mapping and demographic and wellbeing surveys. This is followed by the qualitative findings from the focus groups, individual interviews and participant observation in Chapter 7.

115

116

CHAPTER 6 : RESULTS – SOCIAL NETWORKS AND

WELLBEING

The previous two chapters provided details of the research design for this project, the methodological approach, the methods used and revisions to the methods made in response to ethical concerns that arose in the field.

This chapter describes the sample and presents the findings for the social network mapping and wellbeing surveys conducted with Ucan2 participants. The aims of the analysis are to provide insights into the characteristics of participants’ social networks and to draw some preliminary conclusions concerning the impact of those networks.

The first section describes in more detail the quantitative sample and the demographic characteristics of participating students. This is followed by descriptive and statistical analyses of participants’ social networks and subjective wellbeing. The final section presents findings of associations between wellbeing and demographic and social network characteristics.

THE QUANTITATIVE SAMPLE

The aim was to collect T1 data from all participants in each Ucan2 group in the early stages of the program and T2 data from the same participants as late as possible in the program in order to observe any changes to social network composition and wellbeing over time. Data on social networks and wellbeing were collected from 215 Ucan2 students, enrolled in 15 different semester-long Ucan2 groups, at eight different sites over four semesters (Semester 1 and 2, 2009; Semester 1, 2010; and Semester 1, 2011).

Table 6-1 shows the total number of participating students and timing of data collection at each site.

117

TABLE 6-1: NUMBER OF PARTICIPATING STUDENTS AND TIMING OF DATA COLLECTION AT EACH SITE (N=215)

Site Number of Ucan2 week Ucan2 week Number of participating number for T1 number for T2 program students data data weeks collection collection between T1 and T2

Dandenong 20 10 15 5

AMES Noble Park 27 7 16 9 AMES Footscray 14 9 14 5 AMES

Semester 1, 2009 1, Semester Noble Park ELS 7 Not 17*** n/a collected* Dandenong 11 6 Not n/a

AMES collected**

Noble Park 27 4 14 10 AMES VU Footscray 12 3 16 13

Noble Park ELS 9 6 17*** 11

Semester 2, 2009 2, Semester Western ELS 10 6 17*** 11

Noble Park 13 5 16 11 AMES Swinburne 20 5 15 10

Noble Park ELS 8 6 15 9

Semester 1, 2010 1, Semester Western ELS 11 7 15 8

VU Footscray 21 4 13 9

2011 Dandenong 5 6 14 8

Semester 1, Semester High (VCAL) Total/Range 215 3-10 14-17 5-13 * T1 data not collected at due to delays in receiving DEECD ethics approval, ** T2 data not collected because the group was discontinued due to reduction in student numbers *** In some of the ELS sites the 16-week program was extended to 18 weeks to match the school terms

As data collection activities could not begin until the students had been given some time to settle into the group and then had to be arranged to fit around other scheduled program and language class activities, this often resulted in delays to collection of T1 data. The resultant reduced time between T1

118

and T2 data collection (ranging from a low of five and up to 13 weeks) limited the potential for capturing any program related changes. In addition, many of the participating students only contributed data at one time point – at either T1 or T2 but not both. Reasons for this included enrolment practices whereby several of the AMES sites had ‘continuous enrolment’, which meant that students did not necessarily begin the program at the beginning of the semester. Some students stopped attending due to changing their location of residence during the course of the program and there were numerous absences from class, with some students – particularly at the adult sites – attending only intermittently. Of the 215 students who participated in the research, 75 were only present when T1 data were collected and 38 were only present when T2 data were collected; 102 students contributed data at both T1 and T2. (Additional details of students’ variable attendance patterns and related experiences of the Ucan2 program are included in Appendix 2)

The short timeframe between T1 and T2 and the smaller number of participants who contributed data at both time points, reduced the chances of finding significant changes over time. Cross-sectional analyses, employing descriptive statistics, are therefore presented for most of the variables of interest for the entire participant group of 215 students. For these cross-sectional analyses, individual students’ data are included only once according to the following criteria and as shown in Figure 6-1:

 All who participated only at T1 (N = 75) had these data included;  All who participated only at T2 (N = 38) had these data included; and  Those who participated at both T1 and T2 (N= 102) had only one of these response sets included (randomly allocated to include T1 or T2, resulting in T1 data only being included for 50 of these participants and T2 data only being included for 52 of these participants).

As was stated in Chapter 4, the purpose of employing quantitative methods was neither to support nor disconfirm a specific hypothesis; rather it was to build up a picture of the characteristics of participants’ social networks and any associations between those characteristics and wellbeing. The sample therefore facilitated the examination of network characteristics reflecting the diverse circumstances of participants across multiple sites.

The variability in students’ attendance patterns, the impact of continuous enrolment, and the difficulty of attempting to collect data close to the beginning of the Ucan2 program were largely unanticipated when the original plan was made to collect to data at two time points. These factors combined meant that the minority of students who actually contributed data twice were not necessarily representative of the entire cohort, many of whom only received part of the intervention. The inclusion of the whole student group is therefore justified on the grounds that it is important to gain a picture of the

119

wellbeing and network patterns of the entire group, not just the relatively stable minority who were present at both T1 and T2.

Many of the analyses conducted for the entire cohort concerned factors likely to be relatively independent of the intervention – such as the number of family members in Australia or any associations between networks and wellbeing. Some longitudinal analyses were however also justified for the minority group that contributed data at two time points in order to assess whether any of the intended benefits of the Ucan2 program were measurable (such as increases in bridging networks or wellbeing. Where it is relevant to present results as change over time, these longitudinal analyses include the T1 and T2 data for only the 102 participants who contributed data at both time points.

Total participants

(N= 215)

Collected T1 Collected T1 Collected T2

Data collected data only and T2 data data only (N=215) (N=75) (N=102) (N=38)

All data T1 data only T2 data only All data Included in included included included included cross-sectional (N=75) (N=50) (N=52) (N=38) analyses (N=215)

FIGURE 6-1: FLOW DIAGRAM DEPICTING METHOD OF DATA INCLUSION FOR CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES

There were three students whose quantitative data were not included in the analyses because they reported maximum values of 10 on all of the wellbeing measures, which most likely indicates they did not understand the questions or were responding to perceived expectations (International Wellbeing Group, 2006). In addition, of the 215 participants represented in these quantitative statistical analyses,

120

20 did not complete the social network maps and so contributed data towards the wellbeing analyses only. This means that for cross-sectional analyses of network characteristics presented below, N=195.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged between 15 and 32 years (average age 20.4) and had spent between one month and nine years in Australia, (average 13.8 months). Participants reported a wide range of nationalities (33 in total) with 29% coming from the Middle East region, 29% from Burma, 20% from Africa, and 21% from a range of other countries and regions (See Figure 6-2 and Table 6-2).

Ten most common 'nationalities' Region of origin listed by participants Africa Afghan 21% Other 20% 22% Karen 14%

Burmese 10%

Ethiopian 7%

Iraqi 6%

Sudanese 6%

Vietnamese 6%

Chinese 5% Burma Middle 29% East Chin 5% 29% Indian 3%

FIGURE 6-2: ORIGIN OF PARTICIPANTS 9

9 The Bar chart is labelled ‘Ten most common “nationalities” listed by participants’ to reflect the descriptions people gave when asked to list their nationality. Chin and Karen participants in particular appeared to prefer not to describe themselves as Burmese. Note that some of these young people were born outside their country of ‘origin’ – in Thai refugee camps for example. 121

TABLE 6-2: NATIONALITY REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTS (N=215)

Nationality Number of students (%)

African 43 20.0 Chadian 1 0.5

Djiboutian 1 0.5 Egyptian 2 0.9 Eritrean 3 1.4 Ethiopian 14 6.5 French Liberian 1 0.5 Guinean 1 0.5 Liberian 4 1.9 Somali 3 1.4 Sudanese 13 6.0 Burmese/Karen/Chin/Thai 63 29.3 Burmese 22 10.2

Chin 10 4.7 Karen 29 13.5

Thai 2 0.9 From Middle East region 62 28.8 Afghan 45 20.9 Iranian 2 0.9 Iraqi 12 5.6 Pakistani 3 1.4 Other 47 21.9

Bhutanese 1 0.5 Bosnian 2 0.9

Cambodian 4 1.9 Chilean 2 0.9 Chinese 10 4.7 Croatian 1 0.5 Filipino 1 0.5 Indian 6 2.8 Macedonian 1 0.5 Sri Lankan 2 0.9 Turkestani 1 0.5 Turkish-Australian 2 0.9 Turkish 1 0.5

Uyghur 1 0.5 Vietnamese 12 5.6

Total 215 100

122

Using country of origin as the basis for classification (as detailed in Chapter 4), 78% of participants were classified as having a refugee background. Males and females participated in almost equal numbers with 52% of participants being female. A greater proportion of non refugee-background participants were female, probably because many of those non-refugee migrants who arrive in Australia with low levels of English are on spousal visas accompanying someone on a skilled work visa (Table 6-3)10.

TABLE 6-3: REFUGEE BACKGROUND AND GENDER OF PARTICIPANTS (N=215)

Female Male Total Refugee 82 85 167 (77.7%) background

Non refugee 29 19 48 (22.3%) background

Total 111 (51.6%) 104 (48.4%) 215 (100%)

A range of religions were represented by participants with 41% reporting that they were Muslim and 39% Christian (Table 6-4).

10 The non refugee-background participants in Ucan2 were in many ways not typical of non-refugee migrants as a whole. This is because students selected to be in a Ucan2 class often had ‘refugee-like’ characteristics (ie. low levels of prior education). Although classified here as non-refugee because they came from countries not currently included as source countries for refugees admitted to Australia, most also came from countries which until very recently had been ‘refugee-producing’ countries (eg. Bosnia, Cambodia, Chile, Croatia, Vietnam - See Table 6-2). Apart from the fact that no non-refugee background participants were living in Australia without any family members (see below), other analyses that were conducted to look at differences between refugee-background and non refugee-background participants (eg. wellbeing), showed few differences. Therefore, the two groups were treated together for the remainder of the analyses. For results reported in Chapter 7, it was not possible to differentiate in focus group transcripts between refugee-background and non refugee-background participants. All the individual interviews were conducted with refugee-background participants.

123

TABLE 6-4: RELIGION OF UCAN2 PARTICIPANTS (N=215)

Religion listed in Number of % survey students Muslim 88 40.9

Christian 83 38.6 Buddhist 25 11.6

Hindu 7 3.3 Hindu/Christian 1 0.5

Bahai 1 0.5 No religion 7 3.3 Not stated 3 1.4

Total 215 100.0

Of participants with a refugee background, only one student did not report a religious affiliation. For non refugee-background students 19% did not report a religious affiliation. This is likely to reflect the extent of religious practice in the countries of origin of these non refugee-background participants, many of whom came from China or Vietnam.

Participants listed 37 different first languages spoken at home and these are shown in Table 6-5. Forty-eight students listed a second language also spoken at home and six students nominated a third. The most common first languages listed were Dari, Karen, Burmese, Arabic, Chin and Vietnamese (Figure 6-3).

Top 6 Languages Spoken at Home Dari 15%

Karen 14%

Burmese 8%

Arabic 8%

Chin 6%

Vietnamese 6%

FIGURE 6-3: MOST COMMON LANGUAGES SPOKEN BY UCAN2 PARTICIPANTS

124

TABLE 6-5: FIRST LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME (N=215)

First language spoken at home Number of % students Amharic 7 3.3 Arabic 17 7.9 Bosnian 2 0.9 Burmese 18 8.4 Cantonese 2 0.9 Chadian 1 0.5 Chin 12 5.6 Dari 32 14.9 Dinka 6 2.8 English 9 4.2 Farsi 2 0.9 Filipino 1 0.5 French 1 0.5 Hindi 1 0.5 Karen 30 14.0 Khmer 4 1.9 Krio 1 0.5 Kurdish 1 0.5 Macedonian 1 0.5 Mandarin 6 2.8 Mano 1 0.5 Nepali 1 0.5 Nuer 1 0.5 Oromo 6 2.8 Pashto 7 3.3 Persian 4 1.9 Punjabi 4 1.9 Serbian 1 0.5 Somali 3 1.4 Spanish 2 0.9 Tamil 4 1.9 Telugu 2 0.9 Thai 3 1.4 Tigrinya 4 1.9 Turkish 2 0.9 Uyghur 3 1.4 Vietnamese 12 5.6 Total 215 100.0

125

In answer to a question regarding employment status, 17 out of the 215 (8%) participants indicated that they were employed at the time of their participation, and 184 (86%) indicated that they would like a job. All Ucan2 students were studying full time when they completed the surveys.

SOCIAL NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPANTS

As described in detail in Chapters 4 and 5, social network data were collected by asking participants to write down the people who were important to them in the various categories indicated in the social network map (Figure 6-4). They were also asked to indicate whether these people were Ucan2 students, staff or volunteers and which network members offered them support and/or were people whom they could ask for advice. The primary focus in this section is on describing the networks represented by those whom students considered as ‘important people in their lives’.

As noted earlier, 20 students did not complete the social network surveys. All percentages for the cross-sectional analyses presented in this section therefore relate to the 195 participants who did. Of these 195 students, a number completed only the first part of the network mapping exercise and did not complete the latter part in which they were asked to indicate sources of advice and support. Analyses of these latter data are therefore presented in the following section only for those students who completed that part of the exercise.

FIGURE 6-4: SOCIAL NETWORK MAP (Adapted from Gifford, et al., 2009; Heikkinen, 2000)

126

LOCATION OF FAMILY

Based on the assumption that family members represent an important resource in terms of bonding social capital, proximity of family is likely to be critical for refugee-background young people. The figures in Table 6-6 indicate that 41% of participants had no parent living in Australia and only 34% had both parents living in Australia. Of participating students, 29% listed their mother as living overseas and 16% did not list their mother as living either in Australia or overseas. For fathers, the corresponding figures were 23% overseas, and 38% not listed in Australia or overseas. Interview data, as well as informal conversations with students and staff, confirmed that most of these ‘missing’ parents had died, although some were literally missing, so that young people did not know whether they were alive or dead. In one or two cases that I was aware of, ‘missing’ parents were living in Australia but estranged from their children, who left them out of their social network maps.

TABLE 6-6: PARTICIPANTS’ PARENTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA (N=195)

Parent living in Number of % Australia students Neither parent 79 40.5

One parent 49 25.1

Mother and father 67 34.4

Total 195 100.0

For the total participating student group, 91% listed at least one family member in Australia. However, while all non-refugee participants had at least one family member with them in Australia, 12% of refugee-background students (18 individuals out of the 151 refugee-background students who completed social network maps) listed no family members in Australia at all.

Ninety-three percent of participants included at least one family member who was important to them as living overseas. The number of important family members listed as living overseas is shown in Figure 6-5, which indicates that over 50% of all student participants listed five or more important family members as living overseas.

127

Number of family members livingoverseas 51%

16% 12% 12% 12% 7%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-5: NUMBER OF IMPORTANT FAMILY MEMBERS LISTED BY PARTICIPANTS AS LIVING OVERSEAS (N=195)

Thus, the social network mapping activity indicated that disruption to family relationships was profound for many participants. A large number of Ucan2 students were separated from close family members. Many close family members had died and participants also maintained strong affective ties to family members from whom they were geographically separated.

LOCATION OF FRIENDS

As an indication of access to a potential source of bridging social capital, social connections to friends born in Australia were assessed. Fifty-one percent of participating students did not list a single person under the category ‘friend who is living in Australia and was born in Australia’ (Figure 6-6).

Number of friends born in Australia 51%

14% 15% 10% 6% 3%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-6: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA WHO WERE BORN IN AUSTRALIA (N=195) 128

Longitudinal analyses were also conducted to examine changes to friendships during the course of the Ucan2 program for the 102 participants who contributed data at T1 and T2. As discussed in Chapter 4, it may be more important when attempting to measure social capital that there is at least one representative of a particular category (representing access to a particular type of resource) than the number of ‘alters’ in that category. We therefore looked at the movement of participants out of the group reporting ‘no Australian-born friends’. The percentage of participants with no Australian-born friends at T1 was 59%, whereas this dropped to 52% at T2. A Chi-square test revealed that these changes did not reach statistical significance (=1.27, p=0.260). In addition to the trend towards a reduction in the number of participants reporting no Australian-born friends, there was an increase in the number of participants reporting two or more Australian-born friends (Figure 6-7).

Number of friends born in Australia at T1 and T2

59% Baseline Follow up 52%

17% 16% 15% 6% 7% 5%

0 1 2 3

FIGURE 6-7: NUMBER OF FRIENDS BORN IN AUSTRALIA AT T1 AND T2 (N=102)

By way of contrast with the lack of Australian-born friends, four out of five Ucan2 students (79.2%) had an important friend living in Australia who was born overseas and 34% listed five or more overseas-born friends (Figure 6-8).

Number of friends in Australia born overseas 34%

25% 21%

11% 6% 4%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-8: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA WHO WERE BORN OVERSEAS (N=195)

129

There were also increases observed in overseas-born friends. Of the 102 participants who participated at T1 and T2, slightly fewer reported no friends in Australia who were born overseas by T2 and the general trend was to report more overseas-born friends, with over 40% reporting five or more friends in this category (Figure 6-9). Although the reduction in number of participants reporting no overseas- born friends was not significant (=0.436, p=0.509), changes to mean numbers of overseas born friends living in Australia represented a statistically significant increase in between T1 and T2 (t (99) = -2.301, p=0.023).

Friends born overseas at T1 and T2 50% Baseline Follow up 40% 40% 35%

30% 26% 22% 20% 20% 17%

9% 9% 7% 10% 5% 6% 5%

0% 0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-9: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, BORN OVERSEAS AT T1 AND T2 (N=102)

Over 95% of participants still had friends overseas whom they considered to be important people in their lives, and over 50% listed more than five such friends (Figure 6-10).

Number of friends

living overseas 53%

13% 12% 9% 8% 5%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-10: NUMBER OF FRIENDS LISTED LIVING OVERSEAS (N=195)

130

INCLUSION OF UCAN2 STAFF, STUDENTS AND VOLUNTEERS

Cross-sectional analysis indicated that almost 70% of the 195 students who completed social network maps listed one or more Ucan2 staff (these included teachers, CMY staff and Foundation House staff) as being important people in their lives (Table 6-7).

TABLE 6-7: NUMBER OF UCAN2 STAFF LISTED AS IMPORTANT (N=195)

Number of Ucan2 Number of % staff listed students 0 62 31.8 1 42 21.5 2 64 32.8 3 or more 27 13.8 Total 195 100.0

The number of Ucan2 staff listed as important increased over time. When results were analysed for the 102 students who contributed data at both time points; at T2, 80% listed at least one Ucan2 staff member as important and 50% listed two or more staff members (Figure 6-11). The reduction between T1 and T2 in numbers of participants not reporting any Ucan2 staff as important was significant (=4.963, p=0.026).

Ucan2 staff listed as important 40% 37% 33% 32% Baseline Follow up 28% 30% 20% 20% 20% 11%

10% 8% 3% 2%

0% 0 1 2 3 4

FIGURE 6-11: NUMBER OF UCAN2 STAFF LISTED AS IMPORTANT AT T1 AND T2 (N=102)

Students were also asked to indicate whether any of the people they had listed as important (under any category) were Ucan2 students or volunteers. For the entire participant group (n = 195), 25% 131

indicated that the people they had listed included other Ucan2 students and 12% indicated that one or more of those listed were Ucan2 volunteers. There was little change over time for listings of either Ucan2 students or volunteers for those students who contributed data at both T1 and T2.

OTHER IMPORTANT PEOPLE

In addition to the large number of participants who listed Ucan2 staff under the category ‘Other people who are important to you (not family or friends)’, 66% of participants nominated a range of additional other important people. With a few exceptions, nominations in this category represented service organisations and included teachers, Migrant Resource Centre, Centrelink, caseworkers, case coordinators, education counsellors, the government, doctors, church, Foundation House, AMES, Job Network, home tutors, Kevin Rudd (who was then Prime Minister), pastors, community guides, elders, a dentist, the Red Cross, interpreters, volunteers, police, boss. God was also named here and one participant nominated his country of origin. When these results were compared for the 102 students participating at both time points, it can be seen that the number of students listing two or more ‘other important people’ (in addition to Ucan2 staff) rose from 37% to 48% (Figure 6-12).

Number of other important people 40% 33% Baseline Follow up 31% 29% 30% 22% 20% 20% 15% 14% 10% 9% 10% 7% 6% 4%

0 1 2 3 4 5+

FIGURE 6-12: NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE LISTED AS IMPORTANT AT T1 AND FOLLOW-UP (N = 102)

We can consider both Ucan2 staff and those from other agencies listed in the ‘Other important people’ category as representing access to linking social capital. One hundred and seventy-one (88%) of all those participants who completed social network maps (N = 195) included at least one person in this category and 78% of these participants included Ucan2 staff.

132

SOURCES OF SUPPORT AND ADVICE

As part of the social network mapping exercise, Ucan2 students were asked to indicate whom amongst the important people they had listed they would go to for advice about education and/or employment. They were then also asked to indicate which of the important people listed provided them with support or help. Advice regarding education and employment can be seen as the type of resource expected to be associated with bridging social capital, while support is more typically associated with bonding connections.

As a number of participants did not complete this part of the exercise, the following analyses concern only those students who indicated at least one source of advice or support respectively. The reason for excluding ‘non-responders’ is that that their lack of response may be due to a number of factors which make this difficult to interpret. While some students were almost certainly indicating that they had no sources of advice or support, others were still working slowly through the first part of the exercise or were no longer engaged in the task.

Figure 6-13 below therefore shows the percentage of students indicating each of the listed categories as a source of advice, out of the 118 students (from the total sample) who responded to that question.

61% Sources of education and employment advice for Ucan2 participants 55% 42%

28% 25% 18% 17% 10% 4%

Family in Ucan2 staff Other Friends in Friends in Friends Family Ucan2 Ucan2 Australia important Australia, Australia, overseas overseas students volunteers people born in born Australia overseas

FIGURE 6-13: SOURCES OF EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION ADVICE FOR PARTICIPANTS INDICATING ADVICE FROM ANY DOMAIN (N=118)

Figure 6-14 shows the percentage of students indicating each of the listed categories as a source of support, out of the 164 students (from the total sample) who responded to that question.

133

72% Sources of support for Ucan2 participants

51% 38% 32% 31% 21% 21% 12% 5%

Family in Ucan2 staff Other Family Friends in Friends in Friends Ucan2 Ucan2 Australia important overseas Australia, Australia, overseas students volunteers people born born in overseas Australia

FIGURE 6-14: SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR PARTICIPANTS INDICATING SUPPORT FROM ANY DOMAIN (N=164)

It can be seen that family in Australia were most frequently nominated as sources of advice and support followed by Ucan2 staff and then ‘other important people’ (who, as previously noted, were in most cases representatives of support agencies and organisations). As might be expected, family in Australia were most strongly associated with support. The linking connections represented by Ucan2 staff and ‘other important people’ were nominated slightly more frequently as sources of advice than support. Given the low percentage of respondents who reported having Australian-born friends, it is noteworthy that 28% indicated they were a source of advice, suggesting that (as anticipated), Australian-born friends represent an potentially important source of bridging social capital. The importance of family as a source of bonding social capital is also underscored by the fact that family living overseas were still nominated as a source of support by 32% of participants.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ‘MARGINALIA’

As noted in Chapter 5, some of the students included additional unsolicited or descriptive information on their social network maps. When analysed qualitatively, these marginal notes or embellishments contributed to my understanding both of the impact of participating in the research and of particular network configurations on students.

The most frequent embellishments served to emphasise participants’ lack of Australian-born friends. A number of students used a large zero, sometimes accompanied by question marks. One student wrote a short ‘essay’, explaining that none of her friends were born in Australia. Others wrote ‘No’, None’ or ‘No-one’ often in large letters or capitals. Some participants, who listed no family members

134

living in Australia, added similar text to their maps. Conversely, some participants included great detail about their family networks overseas; in one case, setting this out in an elaborate family tree. Another participant added information letting us know of family members who had been killed. When participants did have extended family present in Australia, these network members were also often listed with a great deal of attention to detail.

An example of an annotated map was shown in Chapter 5 (Figure 5-1) and another is shown below (Figure 6-15).

FIGURE 6-15: COMPLETED SOCIAL NETWORK MAP EMPHASISING THE LACK OF AUSTRALIAN- BORN FRIENDS

It is difficult to assign a precise meaning to such symbols and notes. Is a large question mark in place of Australian-born friends (for example) asking: how could I possibly have any of those?; where or when will I meet these people?; or, why are you asking me this insensitive question? It is clear however, that in such cases, having no Australian-born friends was certainly not considered unremarkable, and indicates that these are delicate questions. As was discussed in Chapter 5, symbols like this, along with the extent of the disruption to relationships, acted as a trigger to revise and refine the method of administering the social network survey.

135

Some participants chose to emphasise that they had ‘lots’ of friends, either within Australia or overseas. One student listed all the different nationalities of her overseas-born friends residing in Australia. This suggested that she was perhaps contesting any assumptions we might be tempted to make about her only having friends of her own ethnic background. Alternatively, perhaps she was resisting any implications that there was something qualitatively different about ‘Australian-born’ friends compared with ‘overseas-born friends’. When participants did have Australian-born friends, they sometimes helpfully added information about where they had met them – playing soccer or cricket for example.

FINDINGS FROM WELLBEING SURVEYS

As detailed in Chapter 4, the Personal Wellbeing Index for Adults (PWI) (International Wellbeing Group, 2006) was used as a quantitative measure of subjective wellbeing. Overall wellbeing scores are derived from the mean of the individual items in the scale excluding ‘satisfaction with life as a whole’. This scale has been used for the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index project to measure the subjective wellbeing of the Australian population several times a year (each involving a telephone interview of 2,000 respondents nationally) since 2001. Results from the Australian Unity project indicate that subjective wellbeing is generally positive – the average for the Australian population overall being 75 (expressed as a percentage of a maximum possible score of 100) and stable. Cummins and colleagues argue that this stability is a result of homeostatic mechanisms, which maintain subjective wellbeing within a narrow range (Cummins, Lau, & Davern, 2012). Homeostatic control can however, be defeated by very poor objective conditions (Cummins, 2000).

While income is known to be a significant predictor of overall wellbeing for this scale – particularly at low levels (Cummins, et al., 2011) – income data were not collected in this Ucan2 evaluation project. It is likely that many of the Ucan2 students living in family households would have been unsure of their income and in any case, during this early settlement period, income is likely to be highly volatile. Nonetheless, from informal conversations with students and staff during participant observation, it was evident that many (if not most) of the young people and their families were living predominantly on Centrelink (welfare) benefits. It can be assumed therefore, that the income of most participants was low. Table 6-8 summarises personal overall wellbeing scores and scores for individual items (domains of wellbeing) for all 215 Ucan2 participants and compares these results

136

with Australian population data for 18-25 year olds.11 Overall wellbeing scores were calculated both including and excluding ‘satisfaction with spirituality or religion’ both to demonstrate the impact of this particularly high score and to enable comparison with Australian population data which is usually presented excluding this domain12. These Personal Wellbeing Index scores are labelled PWI-8 (includes all eight domains) and PWI-7 (excluding spirituality/religion) respectively.

TABLE 6-8: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES FOR ALL UCAN2 STUDY PARTICIPANTS (N = 215) COMPARED WITH AUSTRALIAN MEANS FOR 18 TO 25 YEAR OLDS

Levels of satisfaction Ucan2 Standard Australian Australian Difference P*** mean Deviation 18-25yo 18-25yo scores (SD) means ** (SD)

Personal Wellbeing Index 78.10 11.43 - - - - (PWI-8) Personal Wellbeing Index 77.12 12.23 75.07 11.61 2.05* 0.017 (PWI-7) Standard of living 65.28 25.56 79.45 16.37 -14.17* <0.001 Health 84.33 18.33 79.31 18.05 5.02* <0.001 What I am achieving in life 70.65 22.33 73.47 17.64 -2.82 0.069 Personal relationships 82.70 19.89 75.82 20.55 6.88* <0.001 Feeling safe 81.95 19.09 80.14 17.30 1.81 0.174 Feeling part of community 74.47 22.12 66.03 20.82 8.44* <0.001 Future security 80.44 20.18 71.00 18.59 9.44* <0.001 Spirituality or religion 90.56 17.04 - - - - Life as a whole 71.58 22.03 - -

* Difference is statistically significant **Australian means sourced from (Cummins, et al., 2011) available at http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/auwbi/survey-reports/survey-026-report-part-b.pdf *** Calucluated using two-sample t tests assuming unequal variances

11 Scores are given as a percentage out of 100 (representing the maximum possible score). The Australian population data consistently varies according to age. Scores for 18-25 year olds were chosen for comparison as this age group most closely matches that of the study sample. The figures presented here are the Australian population age data calculated using raw scores from all 26 Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Surveys, published in September 2011 (Cummins, et al., 2011) available at http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/auwbi/survey-reports/survey-026-report-part-b.pdf 12 The spirituality/ religion domain is not included in the calculation of the PWI for cumulative or time-series data in the report referenced for this data: Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 26.0, (Cummins, et al., 2011). This is due to current uncertainty as to the psychometric performance of this item.

137

It can be seen from this data that while overall wellbeing for the study sample was close to (albeit slightly higher than) the Australian mean for this age group, there was considerable variation within individual domains. The study sample scores were lower than the Australian norm for satisfaction with achievement and markedly lower for satisfaction with standard of living. These domains have been described as representing respectively ‘aspirations or wants’ and ‘needs’; and research has shown that scores in these domains have the strongest association with the presence or absence of depression (Davern, 2004). Variability (as indicated by the standard deviations reported in the table) was also greater for the study sample for these domains. Scores for safety and for health were higher for the study sample and markedly higher for satisfaction with relationships and sense of community. The results included in Table 6-8 also show that differences between the study sample and Australian population means were significant for all domains other than safety and for satisfaction with achievement. While the score for satisfaction with spirituality or religion (of 90.56) is not directly comparable with age-specific Australian data, the strength of this domain for participants is apparent when compared with mean Australian scores ranging from 67.7 to 78.6 from the time the question was added to the Australian survey in 2006 (Cummins, et al., 2011).

The high scores observed amongst the study sample for ‘feeling part of my community’ and for ‘personal relationships’ are particularly notable given the low levels of connection in Australia demonstrated by the social network mapping exercise. This suggests that participants were generally happy with the relationships that they did have and were thinking about these rather than their ‘missing’ social ties when answering this question. As will be discussed in the following chapter, the Ucan2 classroom provided a much appreciated supportive environment for students, which may have contributed to this finding. There may also be cultural influences associated with respondents coming from backgrounds generally considered to be more ‘collectivist’ or ‘communal’ than ‘Western individualistic’ societies, perhaps leading to participants having a greater appreciation of community (Fozdar & Torezani, 2008; Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004). The association between scores in these domains and different types of connectedness is discussed in the next section of this chapter.

While these mean results indicate that on the whole, the participant group experienced high levels of wellbeing, 32 participants (14.9%) had scores for overall wellbeing of less than 65. Scores at this level are highly correlated with depression and therefore of concern (Davern, 2004). Mean scores for this group were particularly low (below 60) for standard of living (mean 35.4) and also for achievement (mean 50.7), relationships (mean 53.6) and sense of community (51.1).

138

Analyses were also conducted to assess whether there were changes to wellbeing scores over the course of the Ucan2 program. Table 6-9 shows the change over time for the 102 participants who contributed data at T1 and T2.

TABLE 6-9: T1 AND T2 PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES (N=102)

Satisfaction with: Mean score Mean score at Change over P** at T1 T2 time

Overall wellbeing (PWI-8) 79.6 77.8 -1.8 0.154

Standard of living 66.0 67.1 1.1 0.697

Health 82.6 84.1 1.5 0.505

Achieving 72.3 67.0 -5.3* 0.033

Relationships 80.5 81.6 1.1 0.675

Safety 82.9 79.0 -3.9 0.115

Community 76.5 73.5 -3.0 0.273

Future security 81.4 78.6 -2.8 0.205

Spirituality or religion 88.7 87.7 -1.0 0.562

Life as a whole 69.5 72.7 3.2 0.244

*Difference is statistically significant **Calculated using paired samples t test

Both the theory of homeostasis discussed above and the short period between T1 and T2 data collection mean that significant variations in this data would not be expected. For the 102 participants from whom data was collected at T1 and T2, the only domain for which there was a statistically significant change over time was satisfaction with ‘what I am achieving in life’ in which students scored significantly lower at T2 (mean = 67.0) than T1 (mean = 72.3); t(101)= -2.166, p=0.033. It is plausible that students in the early stages of an ‘on-arrival’ English course were more optimistic that they would be able to progress rapidly with their studies than at the end, when they were perhaps more aware of the difficulty of the task. This hypothesis is supported by qualitative data (to be discussed in Chapter 7), which suggests that learning English poses a formidable challenge for many participants and indicated that students also ‘lowered’ their career aspirations over time.

Although non-significant, students’ satisfaction with how safe they felt also declined between T1 and T2. While safety does not make a contribution to overall wellbeing for the general Australian 139

population, it does in other countries, and for this population of refugee-background students it is also likely to be an important factor. It should be noted however that data collection for many of the participating groups coincided with intense media attention to a series of attacks on Indian students that had occurred in Melbourne. These attacks were brought up for discussion by participants in focus groups and informal discussions suggesting that they may well have contributed to a declining sense of safety. A trend towards declining satisfaction with community is also present though scores remained well above the Australian average.

PREDICTORS OF WELLBEING

Analyses were conducted to see whether a range of demographic or social network characteristics were associated with subjective wellbeing. Factors examined included gender; whether participants had a refugee or non-refugee background; region of origin; length of time in Australia; whether participants had a parent in Australia; whether participants had any additional family other than parents living in Australia; and whether participants reported any Australian-born or overseas-born friends living in Australia13. While availability of support might also be expected to affect wellbeing, statistical analyses were not conducted for this factor due to the difficulty already discussed of interpreting the reasons for students not reporting any sources of support.

The results of these analyses are summarised and depicted visually below, while additional data tables are included in Appendix 3.

GENDER

There were no significant differences in wellbeing scores associated with gender overall or for any of the individual domains apart from spirituality. For this domain, females reported higher satisfaction with a mean score of 93.1 compared with males with a mean score of 87.9 (t (211) = 2.246, p=0.026).

REFUGEE BACKGROUND

Figure 6-16 below shows the wellbeing scores for the study sample disaggregated to demonstrate any differences between refugee-background and non refugee-background students.

13 As discussed earlier in this chapter and in Chapter 4, quantitative analyses were intended to be primarily descriptive (rather than attempting to provide support for a particular model or hypothesis). For this reason, as well as because of constraints imposed by the available sample size (Green 1991), bivariate rather than multivariable analyses were conducted to examine predictors of wellbeing. 140

Levels of satisfaction according to refugee background Non refugee background2 Refugee background

PWI-8 77.7 78.2

PWI-7 77.6 76.2

Standard of living 71.3 63.6

Health 87.7 83.3

Achieving 70.2 70.8

Relationships 87.1* 81.4

Safety 79.8 82.6

Community 75.4 74.2

Future security 77.3 81.3

Spirituality or religion 78.5* 94.0

Life as a whole 70.5 71.8 *Differences are statistically significant

FIGURE 6-16: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES FOR REFUGEE-BACKGROUND (N=167) AND NON REFUGEE-BACKGROUND (N=48) UCAN2 STUDENTS

For most domains, scores were similar. Refugee-background students scored markedly lower for satisfaction with their standard of living (non-significant: t (212) = 1.848, p=0.066) and markedly higher than non refugee-background students for the spirituality/religion domain (significant: t (55.108) = -4.361, p<0.001). For this latter item, non refugee-background students’ mean scores were similar to the Australian population data when this question was asked only of those people professing spiritual or religious beliefs. 14 Non refugee-background students scored higher for health (non- significant: t (125.545) = 1.882, p=0.062) and for relationships (significant: t (99.230) = 2.031, p=0.045), although scores remained above the Australian average for both groups. In the case of

14 Australian scores for the domain of spirituality/religion varied from 67.7 to 72.5 over the first eight Australian Unity surveys from 2006 when this question was asked of all respondents. A ‘gating’ question was then added so that only those respondents answering ‘yes’ to having spiritual or religious beliefs were asked the question. This led to a rise in average scores to 78.2 to 78.6, still well below the scores reported here for refugee-background students (Cummins, et al., 2011). 141

relationships, it should be noted that discussions during the participant observation component of the research revealed that many of the non refugee-background students studying in these Level 2 adult youth English courses, had come to Australia on spousal visas. Thus the group included a number of ‘newly-weds’ who might be expected to express a high level of satisfaction in this domain.

REGION OF ORIGIN

Figure 6-17 below depicts personal wellbeing scores according to region of origin. Most refugee- background participants came from Africa, Burma or the Middle East. The category ‘other’ includes a range of nationalities, including mostly non refugee-background and a few refugee-background participants (See Table 6-2 above for details).

142

Levels of satisfaction according to region of origin Other Africa Burma Middle East

76.5* 78.6 PWI-8 75.0* 82.2* 76.4 76.3 PWI-7 73.1* 80.2* 68.7 57.4 Standard of living 66.7 66.7 88.1 85.1 Health 79.8 85.5 70.0 80.0* Achieving 60.2* 75.6* 85.5 84.0 Relationships 77.6 85.0 78.3* 80.7* Safety 77.0* 90.6* 74.0 72.3 Community 76.8 73.9 76.0* 77.7* Future security 78.7* 87.6* 76.6* 97.2* Spirituality or religion 89.5* 97.6* 70.5 72.9 Life as a whole 66.8 76.4 *Differences are statistically significant

FIGURE 6-17: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO REGION OF ORIGIN – MIDDLE EAST (N=62); BURMA (N=63); AFRICA (N=43); OTHER (N=47)

Students from the Middle East had the highest scores in a number of domains including safety, future security, overall wellbeing and life as a whole. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the overall wellbeing

143

scores including spirituality/religion (PWI8) for students from the Middle East were significantly higher than those from Burma (p=0.001) and ‘Other’ (p=0.028); and remained significantly higher than those from Burma (p=0.003) when the spirituality/domain was excluded (PWI7). Students from the Middle East also rated their satisfaction with safety significantly higher than all other groups (p<0.001 for Burma; p=0.034 for Africa; and p=0.003 for ‘Other’). Similarly, for satisfaction with future security, students from the Middle East had significantly higher scores than other groups (p=0.059 for Burma; p=0.059 for Africa; and p=0.014 for ‘Other’).

It can be seen that African students scored lower than other groups for satisfaction with their standard of living, but had the highest scores for satisfaction with what they were achieving. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the differences observed for satisfaction with standard of living were not statistically significant but that African students’ scores for satisfaction with achievement were significantly higher than for students from Burma (p<0.001).

Participants from Africa and the Middle East had extremely high scores for spirituality/religion. For this domain, post-hoc analyses revealed that African students’ scores were significantly higher than for students in the ‘Other’ category (p<0.001). Students from the Middle East had scores significantly higher than those from Burma (p=0.016); and ‘Other’ (p<0.001). Students from Burma also had scores significantly higher than ‘Other’ (p<0.001).

Students from Burma scored highly for their satisfaction with community but otherwise had the lowest scores, particularly for satisfaction with achievement; but also including health, relationships, safety and life as a whole. Post-hoc analyses revealed that their scores for achievement were significantly lower than those for African students (p<0.001) and students from the Middle East (p<0.001).

While these results show some interesting trends, such as that students from the Middle East tended to have higher wellbeing scores compared with those from Burma, they should be treated with caution. Interpreting these results is complicated by the fact that a cultural response bias in measurements of subjective wellbeing has been well documented. Specifically, Asians have been observed to tend to avoid scale extremes. Because wellbeing scores are positively skewed, this results in lower scores in Asian samples (Cummins, et al., 2012). However, the fact that participants in each group scored higher than other groups in some domains and lower in other domains suggests that differences cannot be entirely due to a response bias and may be affected by other cultural factors. In addition to the potential for cultural impacts on responses, participants from different regions are likely to have been exposed to different conditions prior to migration, which differentially affect the different domains. Participants from different cultural backgrounds also tended to be living in different parts of

144

Melbourne. Many of the students from the Middle East were living in the south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne around Dandenong and more of the students from Africa were living in the western suburbs, while the group in the eastern suburb of Croydon had a preponderance of students from Burma. Local conditions - including available supports and services, housing quality and availability, tradition of and acceptance of cultural diversity and local incidents of violence - may also have had an effect on wellbeing scores. A final caveat with respect to interpreting cultural differences in these findings is that participants were grouped according to region of origin for these analyses. It should not necessarily be assumed however, that ‘African’ or ‘Burmese’ or ‘Middle Eastern’ students share a common culture - as there is considerable diversity in terms of religious, ethnic and national backgrounds within these groups.

LENGTH OF TIME IN AUSTRALIA

Figure 6-18 depicts personal wellbeing scores according to the length of time participants had been living in Australia.

145

Levels of satisfaction according to length of time in Australia 1-6 months 7-12 months 13-18 months 19-24 months 25+ months

78.8 79.4 PWI-8 75.0 80.2 74.5 77.3 77.9 PWI-7 73.3 79.1 72.4 66.1 63.2 Standard of living 66.8 70.0 63.7 85.1 87.1 Health 76.4 83.2 83.7 71.5 74.8 Achieving 63.2 73.2 63.7 83.6 84.5 Relationships 83.2 83.2 75.6 83.2 84.1 Safety 75.6 84.1 78.0 75.4 75.6 Community 67.2 78.6 72.7 83.2 81.0 Future security 82.0 80.9 71.0 90.6 91.8 Spirituality or religion 88.0 89.5 90.7 69.0 71.9 Life as a whole 70.0 80.0 71.7

FIGURE 6-18: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO LENGTH OF TIME IN AUSTRALIA 1TO 6 MONTHS (N=72); 7TO 12 MONTHS (N=66); 13TO18 MONTHS (N=25); 19 TO 24 MONTHS (N=22); 25+ MONTHS (N=30) 146

As can be seen from this graph, wellbeing scores fluctuated between groups without a consistent pattern. Whilst scores tended to be lower in many domains for the group of students that had been in Australia for 13 to 18 months compared with those more recently arrived; they tended to be higher for those who had been here from 19 to 24 months. Thus, time spent in Australia does not appear to have a clear explanatory effect for wellbeing in this sample.

HAVING AT LEAST ONE PARENT IN AUSTRALIA

Figure 6-19 below depicts personal wellbeing scores according to whether participants had any parents living in Australia.

147

Levels of satisfaction according to whether any parents are living in Australia

One or both parents in Australia No parents in Australia

PWI-8 79.0* 75.0

PWI-7 77.4* 73.4

Standard of living 67.2 62.2

Health 84.1 82.2

Achieving 72.4 66.5

Relationships 83.8 79.6

Safety 81.3 80.4

Community 75.0 71.4

Future security 80.6 78.3

Spirituality or religion 91.8 87.7

Life as a whole 73.8* 65.5 *Differences are statistically significant

FIGURE 6-19: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO WHETHER ANY PARENTS ARE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA – NO PARENTS (N=79); ONE OR BOTH PARENTS (N=116)

It can be seen that scores were lower for all domains for those participants who had no parent living in Australia. Differences were not statistically significant for individual domains, although overall wellbeing (PWI8: t (193) = -2.453, p=0.015; PWI7: t (193) = -2.275. p=0.024) and satisfaction with life as a whole (t (168) = -2.464, p=0.015) were all significantly lower for students with no parents living here.

HAVING ANY FAMILY MEMBERS OTHER THAN PARENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Figure 6-20 below depicts personal wellbeing scores for participants according to whether they had any additional family members (other than parents) living in Australia. These included close family

148

members such as spouses, children and siblings and members of extended family such as cousins and in-laws.

Levels of satisfaction according to whether any other family are living in Australia

Other family members living in Australia No other family in Australia

PWI-8 78.0 75.1

PWI-7 76.4 73.5

Standard of living 65.5 64.2

Health 83.7 82.1

Achieving 68.8 74.1

Relationships 83.1 78.9

Safety 82.4 75.9

Community 76.0* 65.2

Future security 80.0 78.6

Spirituality or religion 90.8 88.0

Life as a whole 71.3 66.4 *Differences are statistically significant

FIGURE 6-20: PERSONAL WELLBEING SCORES ACCORDING TO WHETHER ANY OTHER FAMLY ARE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA – NO OTHER FAMILY (N=43); OTHER FAMILY LIVING IN AUSTRALIA (N=151)

It can be seen that scores were lower in all domains other than satisfaction with achievement for participants with no other family living in Australia. The only domain for which differences were statistically significant was satisfaction with community (t (193) = -2.852, p=0.005).

149

HAVING AUSTRALIAN-BORN FRIENDS OR OVERSEAS-BORN FRIENDS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA

There were no significant differences in wellbeing scores associated with whether participants reported having any Australian-born friends or any overseas-born friends living in Australia overall or for any of the individual domains.

CONCLUSION

The results presented above offer detailed information concerning the demographic and social network characteristics of Ucan2 participants over semesters 1 and 2, 2009, semester 1, 2010 and semester 1, 2011. The student population represented here is extremely diverse, coming from a wide range of countries, speaking a remarkable number of different first languages and representing most major religions. They largely matched the profile targeted by the Ucan2 program with almost 80% coming from a refugee background, an average age of 20 and an average time in Australia when participating in the research of 13 months. Gaining employment was a high priority for Ucan2 students with 8% employed at the time of completing the survey and almost 86% indicating that they would like to have a job.

The picture drawn from the social network mapping is one of disruption to relationships. A large proportion of the participants have one or both of their parents either missing from their social network maps (in many cases deceased) or still living in an overseas country. All but 7% of the students also listed significant family members living overseas. The consequences of this disruption to family relationships is underscored by the findings reported here of a significant negative correlation between wellbeing and having no parent in Australia and the fact that when students did have family living in Australia, they were nominated as the most important source of advice and support. In addition, having family other than parents in Australia was associated with greater satisfaction with feeling part of one’s community.

Family members living overseas were also frequently nominated as providing support, suggesting the strength of these bonding ties, although the qualitative findings, discussed in the next chapter, suggested that these transnational relationships, particularly when they involved close family members, were often experienced as a strain. Previous research also suggests that disruption to family relationships and anxiety about family members living in dangerous and insecure places is an enormous source of ongoing trauma and distress for people of refugee backgrounds (See for example Lim, 2009; McDonald-Wilmsen & Gifford, 2009). 150

The young people participating in this study also experience a paucity of connections to the wider Australian community. This is indicated by the low numbers who listed Australian-born friends compared with the numbers of friends listed who were born in other countries or were living overseas. However when changes are examined over time there was an observed trend towards an increase in both Australian-born and overseas-born friends between T1 and T2. Such friends were also regarded as important sources of both advice and support, with Australian-born friends in particular featuring prominently (in comparison with their relative scarcity) as sources of advice. Expanding social networks, and associated access to bridging social capital, is an explicit aim of the Ucan2 program, although the non-experimental design of this research means that it is not possible to attribute any observed increases directly to the program. The impact of the program on social networks will be discussed further in the following chapter presenting qualitative findings.

The large number of students who included Ucan2 staff as important people in their lives, rising from approximately 70% at T1 to 80% at T2, suggests that the relationships formed within the program may also provide a significant source of linking social capital consisting of valued connections to other services and agencies for participants. Over 60% of participants also included ‘other important’ people in their lives. The findings reported here show that these linking connections were also very important sources of advice and support for participating students.

Overall scores for wellbeing were high and indeed higher than Australian population data for the equivalent age group for most domains. It has been suggested by some researchers that assessments of wellbeing by refugee populations may be positively affected by a combination of ‘cultural politeness’ and the effect of ‘relative gratification’ whereby post-settlement conditions appear relatively bright compared with those experienced prior to migration (Tilbury, 2006). However, the fact that participants in this study were comfortable expressing dissatisfaction in some domains – notably with their standard of living and their sense of achievement suggests that such phenomena did not have a major impact on results in this case. These results therefore suggest that the young people in the study are on the whole remarkably resilient but experience risks for wellbeing in a number of domains - standard of living and sense of achievement in particular. Approximately 15% of the study sample reported a low level of subjective wellbeing at a level that is associated with risk of depression. In addition to domain scores being particularly low for this group for standard of living, low satisfaction with achievement and with relationships was also a feature.

151

152

CHAPTER 7 : RESULTS – QUALITATIVE FINDINGS FROM FOCUS GROUPS, INTERVIEWS AND PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

This chapter presents the qualitative data exploring the resettlement experiences of refugee- background youth and assessing the impact of the Ucan2 program on those experiences. The review of the literature reported in Chapters 2 and 3, identified that there has been relatively little research into the resettlement experiences of this age group, and the importance of taking into account the impact on young people of disrupted education. Whilst barriers to inclusion have been described by service providers, there is a dearth of studies providing accounts of young refugee-background people’s experiences from their own perspectives. Even less evidence exists for the impact of interventions for this group. The findings reported here address these identified gaps.

The chapter begins by reporting the characteristics of the focus group and individual interview samples, followed by a note on the way findings are analysed and presented. As described in Chapter 5, I used Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework - plus a small number of other themes identified in the first few focus groups – to devise visual prompts for the focus group discussions, and these themes also provided a structure for analysis. After firstly considering some of the implications of pre-arrival experiences, these themes are used to organise the discussion of findings - although in many cases, and unsurprisingly, experiences of different domains were interdependent and overlapping. Themes are grouped according to their prominence and degree of interconnectedness in the qualitative data rather than in the categories suggested by the framework. As indicated in the literature, social connections were critically important to participants and these are discussed first. The roles of sport and technology are also considered under the heading social connections although they clearly interact with other domains as well. Learning English (a facilitator of inclusion) and education (one of its markers and means) are discussed second and together, as participants’ educational concerns at the time of data collection primarily focused on acquiring English proficiency. Employment is considered next. Although not an immediate priority for all students, its importance was emphasised as a longer term goal and perceived as closely associated with education. Safety and stability emerged as a complex and centrally important domain, intimately linked to perceptions of mental health and several other domains, which I have labelled as ‘sites of stability’, including citizenship, housing and religion. The impact of Ucan2 on all of these domains is considered throughout the chapter. The chapter finishes with a discussion of the preliminary conclusions that can be drawn from these results, while their further implications will be the subject of Chapter 8.

153

FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

The demographic characteristics of the entire participant sample were described in the previous chapter. This section provides additional description of the sample characteristics for the focus groups and individual interviews.

FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups were conducted with each Ucan2 class participating in the evaluation within the last two to three weeks of the semester-long program. In all of the adult settings, all students present on the day of the focus group agreed to participate. Although a small number of these contributed little to the discussion, most engaged readily in the activity, discussing the picture-card prompts firstly, in small groups and then again with the larger group. In the English language schools, where parental consent to participate was also required, a small number of students did not provide this and were unable to be included. An additional two students from different language school sites also declined to participate and in both cases, sat elsewhere in the classroom, without contributing to the discussion. Twelve focus groups were held during the main evaluation period, which included semesters 1 and 2 in 2009 and semester 1 in 2010. A further two focus groups were held during the evaluation extension in semester 1, 2011. In total, 163 students participated in 14 focus groups and Table 7-1 shows the number participating and average group size in each type of setting.

TABLE 7-1: NUMBER AND SIZE OF FOCUS GROUPS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOOLS (ELS) AND ADULT SETTINGS (AS)

Number of Total Group size Group size groups participants (range) (mean number of participants) English 6 47 3-9 6.7 language school (ELS)

Adult setting 8 116 10-20 14.5 (AS)

Total 14 163 3-20 10.9

It was noted in Chapter 4 that an ideal focus group usually comprises 6 to 12 participants. Due to practical constraints however, some of these focus groups were larger than this, which may have limited the opportunity for some participants to contribute as much as they may have done otherwise.

154

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS

Individual in-depth interviews were conducted with a subsample of Ucan2 participants following completion of the program, to explore further the themes identified from the focus group and social network data and in the literature review. Individual interviews were conducted in the first instance with 18 students who had completed the Ucan2 program between three and twelve months earlier. A purposive sampling strategy, described in Chapter 4, was used to invite individual students to participate in interviews. This strategy aimed in the first instance, to include students with a variety of demographic and social network characteristics and experiences. A further eight young people participated in interviews as part of the evaluation extension in 2011. These students had completed Ucan2 between 16 and 29 months earlier and were selected to explore the impact of having gained a job and/or being assigned a mentor. Table 7-2 shows selected characteristics of the 26 young people in total who participated in individual interviews. Interview participants ranged in age from 16 to 26 years (mean 19.3) and the mean time since completion of Ucan2 was 10.4 months.

TABLE 7-2: SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS WHO PARTICIPATED IN INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS (N-26)

Characteristic Categories Number of participants Gender Male 12

Female 14

Region of Middle East 9 origin Burma 5

Africa 11

Other 1

Has a job Job and 3 and/or mentor mentor Mentor only 3

Job only 2

155

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

In line with the objective of privileging the voices of participants, the primary data informing the results presented here are the transcripts from focus groups and interviews conducted with the young people. Quotes from these interviews are used both to present these voices and to illustrate the accompanying explanations. The reasons for conducting focus groups and interviews in English have been discussed in previous chapters. As many participants still had minimal English language fluency however - and I most certainly lacked capability in their languages, I have ‘tidied up’ quotes by removing excessive hesitations or unclear sections of a speech (and replacing them with ellipses). In arguing for considering the representation of language as an ‘ethical issue’, Swartz (2011:60-61) makes the point that using verbatim quotes in these circumstances, risks unfairly creating the impression that the speaker is ‘childish, unsophisticated, and even unintelligent’. Where I have corrected a misused word, or added words to make the meaning clear, this is indicated by the use of square brackets. Except where thus indicated, the words presented as quotes are the speaker’s own, and at all times, I have attempted to preserve an ‘authentic’ version of the speaker’s voice.

Where different perspectives were voiced concerning the same phenomena, both are presented. In some cases, ‘boxed stories’ are included to give a more extended insight into one young person’s experiences over a number of domains – in each case, these stories emerged gradually over the course of an extended individual interview. Each also illustrates the far-reaching impact of particular themes that emerged as critical.

As discussed in Chapter 4, a period of participant observation preceded these interviews, during which time, numerous informal conversations with Ucan2 students and staff took place. While the quotes presented here are all drawn from focus groups and interviews, in which cases participants had explicitly consented to their words being used as data for this project, the findings presented below also include descriptions of class activities and understandings based on observational data. As part of the broader evaluation, I was also a participant observer in Ucan2 team staff meetings at Foundation House, and conducted interviews with staff. These informal conversations, observations and staff interviews have inevitably also informed my understanding of the young people’s experiences and I draw on them in the following account where they offer confirmation – or a counterpoint – to the experiences described by students. Given the relatively simple language with which participants were able to articulate their experiences in English, this ethnographic approach was critical for enabling a deeper analytical perspective than would have been possible through analysis of interview and focus group transcripts alone.

156

The differences between focus group and interview data were also discussed in Chapter 4. In the case of focus groups, it is the group that forms the primary unit of analysis rather than each individual within it. Results are presented here thematically, drawing on both group and individual data where relevant, with the source of each quote or comment identified. Quotes from focus groups are labelled as either part of a focus group discussion comprising more than one voice (included to illuminate issues where participants either disagreed with each other or used the focus group conversation to articulate the similarity of their experiences); or as a comment by a single focus group participant. Focus group quotes are further labelled as occurring in an adult setting (AS), such as AMEP or TAFE, or an English language school (ELS). The reason for distinguishing between these is that the group experience was somewhat different. In comparison with students in AMEP and TAFE classes, language school participants were generally younger, studied a broader school curriculum, had much smaller class sizes and spent more time together each week. Quotes from individual interviews are labelled according to the gender, region of origin and age of the participant. Some interview participants discussed more personal issues than were covered in focus groups and, in particular, were more likely to speak about their families and their experiences prior to arrival in Australia.

IMPACT OF PRE-ARRIVAL EXPERIENCES

While discussion in the focus groups and interviews focused primarily on experiences in Australia, many participants - particularly in the individual student interviews - also spoke of their pre-arrival experiences and the impact of these on resettlement. The most striking common feature of these stories was that of lives affected by recurrent disconnection, dislocation and disruption. Most of the young people interviewed had lived in a number of different countries with a number of different family members or other people during their journeys to Australia. Several had never lived in the country they identified as defining their nationality, or had left it when very young and had no memory of what it was like. Some Burmese and Karen students had been born in Thai refugee camps, some Afghan students had been born in Pakistan and African participants had frequently spent time in several countries. A not atypical story was related by a Sudanese student who had been born in Egypt, before moving to Iraq and then Kenya, living in Kakuma refugee camp for several years while her mother returned to Sudan to work, before they were reunited and came to Australia to join her father who had come here some years earlier. Others explained that one or both of their parents had died, either before the remaining family fled, or while living in first countries of ‘asylum’. A number of recently arrived Afghan students had been reunited on arrival in Australia with fathers or older brothers who had come as asylum seekers ten or eleven years earlier. Many of these older family

157

members had spent years in Australian detention centres, often followed by several more years living on temporary protection visas, before finally receiving a permanent visa that enabled them to sponsor the rest of their family to come to Australia.

Two students spoke in individual interviews of the way in which their pre-arrival experiences had left them fearful of encountering new people. One of these, who was 17 at the time of his interview, had been sent away from Sri Lanka as a young boy by his parents because they feared for his safety. He reported spending time in India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand being cared for by a succession of different people on an eight-year journey to Australia and said that during that time he ‘never went outside’. Another participant said that his fear came from his pre-migration experiences:

[When meeting new people] I’m scared...when I first came, the people were nice but I’m scared...because when I lived in Burma, police...sort of like an army, if you were talking they were really, really bad – so hitting and killing, kicking – so when I see like new people or different people [I’m] scared. (Burmese male 26 – individual interview)

Another student explained: ‘My whole life is as a refugee’. He had left Afghanistan at a young age, and while unsure exactly how old he had been, as - ‘we didn’t think about birthday or to celebrate birthday, we just think to stay alive’ - said that he was often affected by remembered images of bombing and shooting in Kabul which blended with those he now encountered in the media.

While stories of violence and trauma sometimes also came up in general Ucan2 class discussions, there were also many times when students narrated positive experiences from their pre-migration lives. Sometimes these stories began with the words ‘in my country’, accompanied by a sense of pride and nostalgia. Stories were told about flying kites and catching snakes in the hills near the Afghan- Pakistan border for example. I visited one class where students were showing the rest of the class scenes from their countries of origin that they had found on the internet. In another case, a student had been back to the refugee camp on the Thai-Burma border where he had spent much of his life, returning to Australia with hundreds of photos, which he set up as a slide show on the classroom computer for the other students to see. Other students brought in cultural artefacts or food they had cooked to share.

Additional impacts of pre-arrival experiences will be discussed where relevant in the following sections.

158

DOMAINS OF INCLUSION

As discussed in Chapter 5, the revised focus group procedure consisted of students breaking up into small groups to discuss and choose picture cards representing what they felt were ‘the most important things for living in Australia’. These picture prompts were derived from Ager and Strang’s (2008) framework plus additional domains that emerged during the earliest discussions. They then brought those choices back to the larger group for discussion. Table 7-3 lists the domains of inclusion represented by the picture cards, together with the number of small groups that chose each of them. While each small group was asked to choose five cards, in many cases they ended up choosing six or seven – often with the proviso that ‘all are important’.

TABLE 7-3: THE ‘TOP FIVE’ THINGS CHOSEN AS IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO SETTLE AND LIVE WELL IN AUSTRALIA

Card chosen as very Number of groups important that chose card Markers and means of Getting a job 22 inclusion Good health 19

Studying for a career 20 Having a home to live in 18 Social connections Family and friends 22

Getting to know other 15 people in Australia Facilitators of inclusion Feeling safe 15

Learning English 21

Foundation domain Australian citizenship or 16 residency visa

Additional domains Help with looking after 5 children Religion 16

Sport 11

Computers and the internet 10

159

The numbers in this table are simple counts, and are included to convey that all of the themes represented by the cards were chosen frequently and give an indication of which themes were most commonly agreed upon as important. They are not intended to represent statistically relevant relative frequencies (Pope, et al., 2000). While Help with looking after children was chosen less often than other cards, a large proportion of the young people who were either parents themselves, or who had caring responsibilities for young children did choose this card.

The remainder of this chapter presents a thematic analysis of the qualitative data, including the discussions that flowed from these card choices.

SOCIAL NETWORKS

For the purpose of this analysis, data pertaining to social connections has been categorized as concerning bonding, bridging and linking types of connections and the impact of the Ucan2 program on social connectedness is discussed. The role of sport and use of computer and internet technologies have also been included under this heading, as participants often alluded to their importance for keeping up or expanding connections. However, as will be discussed, they also clearly have relevance for other themes.

BONDING CONNECTIONS: FAMILY AND FRIENDS

Many focus group participants chose family and friends as one of their ‘top five’ picture cards or added it as ‘also very important’. Comments by many participants suggested that they regarded the reasons for nominating family and friends as important as being too obvious to warrant much explanation; but were summed up by one focus group as follows:

- You go [out] with friends, you have fun, or with family…

- And they help us; we can help each other if someone’s sick or if something happens.

- But if someone doesn’t have any family – it’s very hard.

- Very hard, yes.

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

As demonstrated by the social network mapping data, Ucan2 students were commonly disconnected (by death as well as physical separation) from close family members. In some cases Ucan2 students 160

had no other family in Australia and in others, households consisted of a variety of complex combinations of close and extended family members with an associated variety of related housing, economic and relationship tensions which are alluded to in some of the sections below.

Interview data strongly supported the perception that separation from family was a significant cause of ongoing distress, which had serious implications for students’ ability to cope with other demands. In a number of interviews, students spoke of the anxiety and distress that this caused, particularly when separated family members were perceived to be in danger.

Yeah – I worry about my family. Mainly just my brother – they killed my other brothers – and my father and mum, I think about them... (African female 25 – individual interview)

Another interviewee, who had been in Australia for longer, expressed her sadness that she had little hope of being successful in her efforts to bring her mother here:

I wish to bring my Mum here… because she miss us, me and my brother. She doesn’t have other children… and she hasn’t married another one too… I’ll try but I’m not sure – too hard. I’m just trying now, yes and just hoping… I was crying because I want to bring my mum or visit my mum. [I’ve been here] almost three years… (African female 18 – individual interview)

Myine’s story in the box below15 illustrates some of the wide-ranging impacts of family separation as well as the types of complexities that appeared to be common amongst Ucan2 students when it came to family relationships.

15 Note that pseudonyms are used in the presentation of these boxed stories. 161

MYINE’S STORY

YOUNG WOMAN FROM BURMA, 23, LIVING WITH HUSBAND, SON, DAUGHTER AND FATHER

Twenty-three year old Myine, whose sense of humour and strength of will were a constant presence in our interview (which was punctuated by much laughter and some tears), had missed quite a lot of her English classes recently. She explained that this was because her young children often needed her to stay home with them as her family was “broken”. Her convoluted family story emerged gradually over the course of the interview as follows.

Her father, who had come to Australia a year before Myine and her husband, had recently moved in with her family after splitting up with his second wife. Myine was anxious about this as she explained that she had lived with her father before in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burma border and that this had been ‘bad’. They were ‘not good together’ because she had ‘modern ideas’ about how young women should lead their lives that contrasted with his. Her father was ‘political’ and had fled Burma in 1988, leaving his family behind, when Myine was still a baby. Her mother subsequently remarried a man she did not like. She said that he was sometimes violent and also ‘drank’ a lot. At the age of 15, without saying anything to her mother, she left home and accompanied one of her father’s brothers (at his suggestion) to the Thai-Burma border to meet her father, followed sometime later by her younger brother. Myine told me with tears in her eyes, that it was only now that she herself was a mother, that she understood how she had ‘broken her mother’s heart’. She stayed with her father for four years and he had warned her that their relationship meant it would not be safe for her to return to her mother in Burma. Despite this, Myine missed her mother and returned home at the age of 18, marrying shortly afterwards. She had been living in her home village for just long enough to be about to give birth to her first child when, as predicted by her father, government officials came to arrest her. Her mother told them she did not know her daughter’s whereabouts then came to warn her in the hospital; she fled into the forest with her newborn baby and she and her husband escaped with help to the Thai-Burma border.

Myine was now grieving due to the realisation that she would probably never again see her mother who had recently been diagnosed with cancer. It was unsafe for Myine to return to Burma and her mother was becoming too ill to travel. In addition, any slight chance that she might have been able to bring her mother to Australia had been rendered almost negligible, because her father had named her stepmother as her ‘real mother’ on the papers used to sponsor Myine’s own migration to Australia.

162

By way of contrast, those students with a relatively intact family often appeared to be more optimistic about their current lives and future prospects. In many interviews, students referred to advice and support received from family members who had been in Australia for longer than themselves. While for some, reuniting with family members after a long period of time may also have caused tensions, it was evident, as in the following quote, that these relationships constituted a significant source of security for most of these participants.

I haven’t any problem when I first come because my father here for a long time. He know everything, he know school for example. If my father not here, I don’t know how can I make Medicare, or how can I go to school, how I know transport – anything! I haven’t any problem when I came here because my father came first. (Afghan female 19 – individual interview)

One student who had recently been reunited with his mother and siblings after two years of separation expressed profound happiness at his new situation. His happiness spilled over into exuberant enthusiasm when summing up how he felt now about living in Australia:

Awesome! It’s as simple as that. Very beautiful country, people nice, everything organised well, humanitarian, democratic. Everything 100% perfect for me. Perfect! (African male 19 – individual interview)

He also noted however, that until his family arrived, he had been quite unhappy and that his efforts to bring them here had completely dominated his life until now. His buoyant attitude contrasted with the words of one student who was here alone, when she spoke about what it was like for her living in Australia:

You know...if you are with your family or if you have any relation with you then you are better... But I [for me] it’s too hard – not [just] Australia... even heaven, [is] too hard alone! (African female 25 – individual interview)

This young person was one of several interviewed who were in Australia alone and each of these appeared to be struggling to cope with the challenges of settlement. Moreover, even when young people had some family here, the impact of family separation was a recurring theme that underpinned a number of other themes – participants’ feelings of safety and stability in particular.

UCAN2 AND SOCIAL BONDS

The potential for Ucan2 to facilitate the creation of strong social bonds will also be discussed below in relation to how the program promotes a sense of ‘safety and stability’. Additional features are covered here. The psychosocial support component of the program incorporated group bonding activities and 163

sharing of experiences, which explicitly fostered close relationships and a sense of trust within the group. Participants in at least two focus groups and in several individual interviews said that the Ucan2 group had become a ‘new family’ for them. Staff too acknowledged the value of the close relationships that occurred within the Ucan2 group. Some staff explicitly recognised this feature of the Ucan2 program as having the potential to protect ‘at risk’ students from disengagement. Others however, also pointed out the limits of what it (or any program) could do to address some of the intractable family problems that students faced.

Students often also said that Ucan2 ‘helped’ with family and friends because it had helped them to ‘solve family problems’. One participant also suggested that it had enhanced their ability to maintain links with absent family members by introducing them to Facebook.

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND CARING FOR YOUNG CHILDREN

A number of the young people participating in Ucan2 were themselves parents of young children or, in some cases, about to become parents. Given that this is not the cultural norm for this age group within the wider Australian community, this raises a concern that being a young parent could have the potential to exacerbate social isolation.

For a number of young women who were also young mothers, lack of affordable access to childcare created a barrier to English language education. Some of the staff made the point that the English class setting did not acknowledge these students’ experiences and concerns as mothers and others questioned the relevance of the workplace focus of Ucan2 – suggesting that linking them in to parenting groups might be more appropriate. One staff member spoke of a student who had dropped out because she lost her childcare place and said that this was not uncommon. In some cases the childcare rebate ran out because it was only available for two years. In others, because childcare costs were not funded over the semester break, a scarce place had been lost to someone who could afford to pay the $60 to $80 per day that it cost to keep the booking.

For the participant cited below however, having children was a way of making connections. Her experience contrasted with several others in the group for whom their language class was the only place where they socialised.

- (KB: ...So do you meet people at AMES or do you meet people where you live?)

- I think for me, I meet people with my kids at school and we talk [to] each other and in the street we make friends if we live in the same street…

- For me, it’s only in this class 164

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

It should also be noted that a number of Ucan2 students, although not parents, had significant caring responsibilities for younger siblings or other relatives, some of whom had high needs because of injury or illness.

BRIDGING CONNECTIONS: GETTING TO KNOW OTHER PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA

Many of the focus group participants nominated ‘getting to know other people in Australia’ as important for settling here. Yet, it was evident from the social network mapping exercise that many of the students did not have important people in their lives that fell into the category of ‘friends who were born in Australia’. While several participants said it was easy to meet new people in Australia, many others described it as difficult. Of these, several suggested that it was becoming somewhat easier as their English language skills and understanding of Australian culture improved.

Most focus group participants said that people they did meet were generally ‘friendly’ but spoke of a limited number of places where they could meet people. ‘School’ and ‘church’ were two of the most important places to meet people and, as will be discussed further below, these were also places where students received significant support. In addition, public parks, Centrelink queues, ‘at the bus stop’ and ‘on the train’ were also mentioned as places in which conversations with ‘Aussies’ had occurred; and the students who mentioned these, clearly valued these incidental and casual encounters as indicators of ‘friendliness’.

The people are very friendly! When we sit in the bus, in the station, you laugh! Is very friendly... just talking, just friendly (Focus group participant – adult setting)

Two students who worked in shops said that they met people there and a few spoke enthusiastically of experiences participating in council-run arts programs. Work experience and playing sport were other sites of connection, which are discussed below.

A few young people recounted isolated unpleasant experiences construed as racist or discriminatory, often with representatives of some kind of authority such as real estate agents, transport ticket inspectors and police. One interview participant, who had transitioned to a mainstream high school from an English Language School, said he did not think others were friendly to him at school and implied that the many Afghan students at his school were stigmatised because of the behaviour of a few:

165

They’re not friendly... Some Afghan do something bad and they don’t like us – [even though] we never do something bad (Afghan male 16 – individual interview)

Another student spoke at one of the ‘catch up’ sessions of how the Afghan students and the African students in his new school did not get along and described associated instances of bullying and physical fights.

Although opportunities to meet Australian-born people were limited, some students were keen to emphasise when completing their social network maps that their friends came from a number of different cultural backgrounds and not just their own. A considerable number of focus group and interview participants also suggested that it was somewhat easier to meet and make friends with others from a variety of migrant and refugee backgrounds. This was not only the case within language schools, where it would hardly be surprising, but also out in the wider community. Even some students who had moved on to mainstream education settings including high schools and TAFE remarked that they still had limited opportunities to mix with ‘Australians’. The following discussion took place in a focus group where participants disagreed about whether it was easy or difficult to meet new people:

- You know Miss, I think I have six to seven neighbours and I don’t know who lives in my neighbourhood ... They are friendly – but they don’t like to meet... My landlord, he’s a nice person. I think from Africa... [he] came to my house

- Very easy [to meet people] Miss. We see the other people we say “Hi. Hi, how are you?” and they say “Hi to me too!” We have good neighbours [in] Noble Park from Indonesia. Indonesia – nice people

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

One interview participant suggested that it was more difficult to meet people in Australia than in Africa because here ‘it’s a very busy country!’ Students in several different groups with different backgrounds also spoke with nostalgia about the sense of community they had experienced before coming to Australia, which could leave them feeling profoundly isolated and lonely following resettlement.

If you are born in my country [Ethiopia], this country is going to be difficult for you. You know why? Always [in my country] you living with your neighbour...Your neighbour[‘s house] means your house – that’s why it’s going to be hard sometimes. The first time when I come [to] this country, I cry for

166

five months or six months. Yes I cry – I don’t know my neighbour, that’s why (Focus group participant – ELS)

In Pakistan where I lived, every evening we – the people who living in my street – we come out to the evening... nice – yes - community, nice community. But here, no one want to come out. Every day in the house in Australia, we are outside but there is no one there (Focus group participant – ELS)

Others were somewhat more optimistic, with one focus group participant taking issue with the first comment above and arguing that things would improve when one had been here longer. Another student suggested that even if people did not talk to you, at least they would often exchange a smile.

- I think [here] some don’t like talking

- Yeah it’s like a different culture

- Asia is very different to Australia

- Some people don’t say hello – but because you say hello, they have smile for you (Focus group discussion – adult setting)

The eight students interviewed for the extension of the evaluation all had mentors and/or jobs and had generally been studying in a mainstream educational setting since finishing Ucan2. All said that now they had many friends from a range of different cultures including ‘Aussies’. Those who were working nominated the workplace as the most important site for meeting people and making friends. For those not working, school served this purpose. One participant had also made friends through playing soccer. Participants described these social contacts as a source of satisfaction and wellbeing. They contrasted their current situation with when they first arrived and generally felt that it had been difficult for them to meet people from the broader Australian community initially and several described being extremely miserable and lonely at the beginning. As one student recounted:

When I came here, I didn’t like Australia. ... It was hard, boring, stay at home and cry... Now I like Australia... Going to school. I love school. I meet new people and they’re very friendly, supportive (Afghan female 19 – individual interview)

A number of those interviewed for the evaluation extension expressed similar sentiments - that social networks had widened along with growing language proficiency and engagement in mainstream education or workplace settings.

167

UCAN2, SOCIAL BRIDGES, VOLUNTEERS AND MENTORS

Bringing volunteers into the classroom and providing work experience are two mechanisms through which Ucan2 explicitly aims to extend participants’ social networks. It was suggested by a staff member that a key objective of Ucan2 was to ‘give people the confidence... just to interact with other people’. When asked, focus group participants, with few exceptions, readily agreed that Ucan2 helped them to get to know other people in Australia. Meeting other Ucan2 groups during the holiday outing, improving communication skills: learning ‘how to meet people and talk’ to them and going on work experience were all given as examples of ways in which it achieved this. One interviewee in particular, spoke at length of the importance of Ucan2, including contact with the volunteers, for helping to teach him how to communicate and feel at home in the Australian community. Another said:

I love Ucan2 yeah! I like because in Ucan2 I find a lot of friend you know... From different country you know – sometimes I ask about his country, his culture yeah – I practise too my English you know (Afghan male 26 – individual interview)

Focus group participants were invariably appreciative of their contact with the volunteers, enjoying their company and the excursions they did together. One student also said that she thought it was extremely ‘good for the volunteers’ to learn about other cultures through participating in Ucan2.

Helping with English and writing résumés, conversation, having fun and opportunities to learn about Australian life were all given as reasons why having the volunteers come to classes was a ‘good’ aspect of the program. Students also appreciated having volunteers who were their own age – ‘they are learning like us... [We] understand each other because of same age’.

The following are just a few of many similar comments:

Volunteers – they are… like two or three people and they are coming and talking with us about the work experience, about the life in Australia and they are more fun and playing some games and… (Focus group participant – adult setting)

They support us to make, to get confidence; so confident to make friend here like Aussie (Focus group participant – adult setting)

- Oh the volunteers are perfect!

168

- Résumés …it’s really helpful for us because when you go [to] someone for work…it helps us to get work…and if the volunteers didn’t help us we couldn’t make that… (Focus group discussion – ELS)

I am happy when the volunteers come to my class! (Focus group participant – ELS)

Perhaps surprisingly though, focus group participants rarely spontaneously mentioned the volunteers when talking about meeting new people in Australia. Rather they spoke of things that happened outside of the classroom when this theme was discussed.

The only criticism by students of this Ucan2 component was that participants would like more contact with the volunteers. Staff too, all felt that volunteer involvement was a vital and for the most part successful component of the program. Many remarked on how much students obviously enjoyed the ‘volunteer part’ of the Ucan2 day and made the point that difficulties encountered in recruiting enough volunteers had unfortunately been a limiting factor in the success of this program component. Several suggestions concerned broadening volunteer involvement beyond the classroom and some staff expressed frustration that this had not been more encouraged.

It had been anticipated that improvements to the volunteer component of the program, and in the numbers of volunteers attending, might have emerged as significant when the evaluation was extended to include two groups in 2011. There was no discernible change however, to its impact on these groups of students compared with those participating in earlier groups. The particular features of the two groups included in the extension may have been responsible for this. For the Dandenong High School group, volunteer numbers were very low, while participants in the VU group had been in Australia for far longer (average 28 months, compared with 12 months for participants in 2009 and 2010). It is certainly plausible that for young people who have been in the country for several years, other social contacts will have already have been established and the impact of the volunteer component of Ucan2 may have therefore have been perceived by them as less important.

Of the students interviewed for the evaluation extension who had been matched with mentors, most were very positive about their experiences. Interviewees described their mentors as being like a ‘new sister’ or ‘a good buddy’. Another said that the best thing about having a mentor was just the ‘feeling that someone is helping you’. One former Ucan2 student who had described being matched with a mentor as one of the best things about Ucan2, said it was just good to know her and appreciated the opportunity to get to know an ‘Australian person’.

Students also described receiving practical assistance from their mentors such as help with filling out forms, updating résumés, and applying for jobs. One student however, expressed disappointment that 169

her mentor had not been able to procure a job for her. A few students described a number of barriers to meeting face-to-face with their mentors, such as living a long way from each other, lack of transport, or being too busy with study and work. Some of these had used Facebook or email to keep in touch.

LINKING CONNECTIONS

Given a relative paucity of bridging connections for many newly arrived young people, linking connections to institutions can be particularly significant sources of support. When completing the social network mapping exercise, students almost invariably listed a number of agencies (or individuals within institutions such as teachers) as ‘other important’ people in their lives. The fact that three agencies work in a partnership to deliver Ucan2, almost automatically functions to increase linking social connections for students, very many of whom included staff from Foundation House and CMY as well as their particular educational site in this category. Some students expressed confidence that these relationships would continue to help them beyond Ucan2 - and for those interviewed as part of the evaluation extension, this had certainly been the case.

In interviews, students were asked whom they would speak to if they needed advice on a range of settlement issues such as education, employment and housing. Relatives who had resided in Australia for longer were commonly cited (when they existed) as important here; but for others the answer was usually that they would speak to someone who represented an institution with which they were linked, often a teacher, Ucan2 staff member, a case coordinator, or a counsellor. These qualitative findings were consistent with those reported from the social network mapping activity. A couple of students also said that they would speak to their friends, although one of these also cautioned against relying on the advice of friends. She said that she regretted listening to her friends when it came to choosing a school and now wished that she had listened to the advice of teachers and Ucan2 staff instead.

Ucan2 program staff also actively linked students to a variety of organisations and agencies providing various types of specialised support. Links to organisations such as sports clubs or other community organisations however, were relatively rare. One staff member suggested that recruiting volunteers more strategically - from places such as local sporting clubs could function naturally to create outside links. Others felt that it would be more effective to facilitate links to other programs and agencies focused on youth participation, rather than attempting to bring this focus into Ucan2 itself.

Another staff member however, noted that a number of barriers – including the notion that joining a recreation group was somewhat frivolous and would interfere with other responsibilities - prevented many students from participating in outside programs after school or on the weekends. Despite these

170

misgivings of staff, students themselves often expressed enthusiasm for more involvement in leisure activities – particularly sports, as is discussed below.

Links to institutions can also lead to bonding and bridging connections. The role of religion in students’ lives will be discussed below as a significant source of support. Church attendance in particular, played an important role for a number of students as a site of social connection. When completing the social network maps, one student for example, indicated that she had over 300 friends in Australia – all from church.

SPORT: FOR GOOD HEALTH AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS

Many students, both male and female, spoke about participating in sports as being important to them. Soccer was the most popular sport, with badminton, tennis, volleyball, basketball, kick boxing, Australian Rules football, swimming, running, and cricket all mentioned as favourite sports as well. A number of students had long term career goals that involved sport, such as becoming sports teachers, personal trainers or coaches and one or two said that ‘their dream’ was to become a professional player.

Students of both genders who chose sport as one of the most important ‘things’ for living in Australia explicitly recognised participation as enjoyable; good for one’s health – both physical and mental; and also as being a way to make friends and practise English. This comment from a female African student included all these elements:

It’s good for me – for my body. You play sport – something like soccer – I feel happy. Also it’s good for my health. If I play I’ll be healthy [and] I’ll come together with someone else (Focus group participant – ELS)

Another student made the point that it made him feel healthy, full of energy and also kept his ‘brain [from] being sick’.

One (non refugee-background) Indian student told us that he had ‘lots of Aussie friends’ from playing cricket. This experience was the exception rather than the rule though, as many of the discussions concerning sport were about wanting more opportunities to participate, with some students suggesting that Ucan2 could be improved by including sport. At one Ucan2 site, students had recently started playing a weekly soccer match with a ‘mainstream’ youth class. One staff member related experiences of sports programs being offered to students at her institution in ways that either excluded many of them or did not match their needs. In some cases, programs were restricted to students from specific

171

cultural groups or those living in particular suburbs. In others, it simply was not the right sport – with students being offered Australian Rules Football programs but just wanting to play soccer.

While many students reported being engaged in sport either at school, or informally with family and friends, it appeared that few were linked into broader social networks through mainstream sporting clubs or groups. Overall, given participants enthusiasm for sport, it appeared there was unmet potential for sports programs to provide opportunities for young people to form linking and bridging connections. One focus group participant said that while he enjoyed playing soccer with his friends in the park, he would like to join a club team as that would be a good way to meet people. He anticipated that a lack of transport would make this difficult though. Students also referred to costs as well as ‘not knowing anyone’ as barriers to this occurring. Two interview participants regularly played soccer with friends and one played basketball each week in a sports program specifically for newly arrived young people. Two students mentioned that they were too busy – with part-time work, study and family responsibilities – to play as much sport as they would have liked. One of these had previously played soccer with a mainstream club but had given it up because training and work schedules clashed.

TECHNOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS: COMPUTERS AND THE INTERNET

Many groups also nominated computers and the internet as vitally important; with focus group participants consistently reporting that they were essential for ‘getting information’ and keeping in touch with family and friends in other countries. Some students also said that it was important to be able to look for jobs on the internet and to use it to help with difficult schoolwork. However, both access to computers and the internet and inadequate computer literacy emerged as problems for many participants. While some students reported having access to both computers and the internet at home, many had computers but no internet access (with cost being a major barrier) and some had neither.

While participants from adult settings felt they had reasonable access to computers with an internet connection at ‘school’, this was not the case with the ELS students – whose access was highly regulated and who often seemed unsure about where to go to use the internet. At one of the schools, some students had been unable to complete their résumés due to failures with the poorly resourced IT system.

It was generally agreed by students that Ucan2 had helped them with learning computer skills, as they had used them to find information, learned about email and Facebook, typed up résumés and, in the case of ELS students, completed an online OH & S test needed to do work experience. Several students however, also suggested that they would like to learn more computer skills, including job-

172

searching, and that including more in the way of teaching computer skills was a way in which Ucan2 could be improved.

Although computer sessions were incorporated in most of the on-arrival English courses in which the students were engaged, some teachers elaborated on the difficulties they encountered trying to impart basic skills. One pointed out that many in the group were yet to learn how to attach a document to an email and also said how useful it was to have volunteers in the classroom when trying to teach computer skills because of the need for individualised instruction. At one site, a staff member pointed out that lack of computer literacy meant students were not only excluded from much that the institution had to offer, but that it was difficult for them to comply with administrative requirements. Moreover, the system failed to recognise it as a form of literacy and therefore insufficient teaching time and resources were allocated to address these issues.

One young interviewee, who said that she would like to take her Ucan2 résumé around to some shops to try to get a part-time job, illustrated the impact of low levels of computer literacy on other domains of inclusion. She had lost the original résumé that she made in Ucan2 and a staff member had emailed her another copy. This was of no use to her though, as she told me that she did not know how ‘to get it off the computer’.

EDUCATION AND LEARNING ENGLISH

PRIOR EDUCATION

Along with disruption to relationships and to connection to place, pre-arrival experiences frequently resulted in severely disrupted education. A number of students both from African and Afghan backgrounds said they had never attended school before. Others had received home-schooling only, for periods of time ranging from a few months to several years; some reported completing primary school; some had attended and completed high school; and a few had studied at university in courses that included mathematics, humanities, computers and engineering.

Participants agreed that educational style and content in their countries of origin was very different from that in Australia. While a few students reported in focus group discussions that their previous experience of education had been good, others gave graphic descriptions of physical punishments meted out for minor misdemeanours and said that they much preferred the teachers in Australia. Some students’ education had consisted of exclusively studying the ‘Holy Koran’ and several students from

173

Burma said that even though they had spent several years being schooled, they had not learned very much, as the teachers and conditions were not good.

Students with minimal prior education were keenly aware of the difficulties this created when trying to adapt to education systems here. One recently arrived Ucan2 student with an African background, who had never been to school prior to coming to Australia, was happy with his progress at a Language School. While his spoken English was quite proficient - he had been taught by his Uncle at home and had practised by listening to hip-hop – reading and writing was a major challenge. As he pointed out:

When I came, I didn’t even know how to write my name. [It was hard] to know what a pen is! (African male 18 – individual interview)

Another Ucan2 student had come to Australia at the age of 13 and had lived and attended school in Queensland for three years before coming to Melbourne. She had some prior schooling in Africa when very young, but was shocked to be put into Year 8 when she first arrived in Australia:

And then they take me to Year 8 straight away. I was like – ‘Wow!’... Yeah it was very hard. I didn’t even study year 4, 5, 6 – I was: ‘What, Year 8? Wow!’ and then they were like: ‘In Australia, here is very different you know. You can go with the same age as in the classroom.’ And yeah, I was very quiet then... (African female 21 – individual interview)

It would seem that the system had not been particularly successful in terms of language education for this student, as she went on to describe how, after three years at school in Toowoomba, she moved to Melbourne, repeated year 10 and went on to year 11 and even began year 12 before dropping out to have a baby. Despite all these years in an Australian classroom, her current English level was deemed to be equivalent to CSWE 2 – one step below that which is considered ‘functional English’.

CURRENT EDUCATION: LEARNING ENGLISH AND STUDYING FOR A CAREER

Learning English was one of the highest ranking concerns as well as one of the greatest challenges for Ucan2 students. Gaining greater English proficiency was perceived as vital for being able to settle well in Australia. One focus group participant efficiently summed up the groups’ sentiments as ‘Everything! You must have language!’

As might be expected, prior education was experienced by a number of students as a barrier to progress in learning. Although most Ucan2 students were recently arrived, others – including the young woman whose story was noted above, had been studying for several years to achieve their current Level 2 class at AMES, indicating the extent of the challenge they experienced in learning

174

English. These students were almost invariably individuals whose backgrounds included minimal (or no) formal education prior to arrival in Australia. Other students felt that their lack of prior education combined with their age on arrival (when compared with younger children) simply made it too difficult to cope in the education system in Australia. A young adult student from Burma, who reported having only two years of primary education prior to arrival, was keenly aware of the difficulties she now faced:

For me; I think I don’t want to study anymore because I don’t have any experience of study before. I think it’s too hard for me to go the TAFE, to go to the university… because I haven’t studied before and my English is not very good. (Focus group participant – adult setting)

Progress was accompanied by a great sense of achievement as expressed by this student:

My first time in Australia...I couldn’t understand, because English is very hard – you know hard for me - for others not hard. For me, I couldn’t understand and I couldn’t speak very well and they couldn’t understand me when I speak English. But now I understand... very well and I understand everyone and I’m very happy. If you can understand English you can get a good job, that’s a very important thing...anywhere that’s very important. And I’m very happy to speak English today – I’m very happy about that! (Focus group participant – ELS)

Learning English was inextricably linked for many students with social connectedness and support. Again, separation from family emerged as an overriding issue; affecting young people’s capacity to engage effectively in education. Mohammed’s story, in the box below, provides a poignant demonstration.

175

MOHAMMED’S STORY

YOUNG MAN FROM AFGHANISTAN AGED 26, WITH NO FAMILY IN AUSTRALIA

Mohammed fled Afghanistan with ‘an uncle’ at the age of 12, losing all contact with the family he left behind for many years. He and his uncle lived for some time as asylum seekers in Malaysia including a period in detention there. Then Mohammed travelled to Indonesia alone where he spent seven years, working in a range of jobs including as a baker and a welder. He registered with the UNHCR as a refugee and eventually was accepted as a humanitarian entrant to Australia.

Several months after arriving in Australia, and while studying in his English class at AMES, Mohammed received help from the Red Cross to trace his family. Through this process, he discovered that his mother and younger siblings were living in dangerous conditions in Pakistan. During the years that he had no contact, his father had been killed and two of his brothers were missing - leaving him, as the eldest surviving son, feeling responsible for the safety of his mother and younger siblings. Initially buoyed by the hope that he could bring his remaining family to Australia, Mohammed managed to find a part-time job, which he combined successfully with his English studies – working long hours to try to save money to help them.

Over the months that I had contact with him, I witnessed Mohammed transform from being a lively and enthusiastic student to one who was increasingly despondent as he gradually realised that his efforts to gain a humanitarian visa for his family were unlikely to be successful. By the time he participated in an interview, approximately 10 months after arrival, his application to bring them to Australia had been rejected. He told me that he had been suicidal when this happened - he was now receiving counselling, was no longer working, had poor health and had stopped attending classes because, as he explained:

If I’m thinking about my family, if I go to school and I’m reading a book or writing, I got a headache you know...it’s too hard for me now...because my mind is now really busy about my family... I miss my family. My mother, my two brothers and one sister are in Pakistan – is not much safe. They are killing people yeah. That’s very dangerous place, you don’t know! Before yeah, before OK... Now is too much like Afghanistan...because from Afghanistan, Taliban is always moving to Pakistan you know.

Many participants explicitly associated their aspirations to become more proficient in English with their desire to mix more with other Australians and develop a greater sense of belonging. Students were enthusiastic about opportunities to participate in other programs and activities providing

176

opportunities to practise speaking. Several had been participating in a Young Leaders program in Dandenong, which provided a rare opportunity to meet and converse with native speakers:

- There is the Young Leaders program

- Yeah – many people, all young, from about 10 to 19. The best [thing is] some of them are Aussie!

- Aussie people and African – multicultural

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

Such opportunities were seen as all too infrequent, with several interviewees expressing frustration that both at school and at home ‘too many people’ spoke only their own language, limiting their opportunities to practise English.

Many students were particularly keen to try to combine their studies with work. They not only needed to earn money, but also recognised that the classroom was not the only place where one could learn English.

- Yeah job is good for my language you know. I speak there. When I come to school I speak [English] and go back home [where they speak] Dari, Pashto, Turkey language and another something like that. I’m just speaking English in this class...

- [if] I have a job - if I speak - it’s good for my speaking!

- English is not just to study at school!

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

A group of AMEP students discussed their sense of pent-up energy, frustration and impatience that their language course only occupied four or five hours of their day and they felt unable to use the rest of their time productively. Many students did not have the opportunity to practise their English at home and wished they could use their spare time either working, undertaking concurrent vocational study or being involved in other activities that would help them to learn more quickly. The following conversation involved several focus group participants:

- All of us, we come to this land to study very well you know. [We] go home spend three hours, five hours thinking ... yeah wasting the time.

- Four hours we study and that’s it - we go home.

- KB: Okay and so you think that’s a bad thing?

177

- I think very bad.

- We have to be busy.

- We have to be busy because [that’s] why we come to Australia ...

- Because we like better life

- Yeah better life, peaceful and working

- Have a bright future

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

Some of the staff too felt that the adult learning environment did not always meet the needs of these young students who, having arrived in Australia just a little too old for high school, missed out on the more diverse and intensive curriculum offered there.

However, student reports suggested that even in some high schools, low levels of English proficiency constrained opportunities to participate in the wider curriculum, mix with others and - somewhat ironically - to access opportunities to practise English. A number of students who participated in individual interviews had recently moved from English Language Schools to high schools. Some were studying and enjoying a broad range of subjects, though a few reported that they were not yet studying much other than English. One of these students commented that the language school had been more friendly and others reported that there was little mixing and in some cases outright animosity between different cultural and language groups in their ‘mainstream’ high school. Several students who had left the language school and were studying at a TAFE noted that there were only foreign-born students studying there and that moving from the language school had not, therefore, increased their opportunities to mix with ‘Australians’.

Whilst workplaces were recognised as a good place to interact socially and practise English, limited language proficiency also affected students’ capacity to find and maintain employment. One student, who had found a job through his cousin at a fast-food outlet, had quite a negative experience there because of his low level of English:

Yeah when I was working it's very embarrassing, I’m nervous and shy. If you can't speak English properly - they say something to me, I can't understand anything. (Afghan male 18 – individual interview)

He subsequently lost the job when he had been unable to explain to his manager that he would be late or unavailable for a shift because of a school camp. A staff member related the tale of another student who was not given any further shifts in a casual position because he had been perceived as unable to

178

understand instructions adequately. She felt that this pointed to the importance of making sure students were adequately supported in the workplace and that employers and managers were educated and helped to understand the support that might be required in the early stages of settlement.

UCAN2 AND LEARNING ENGLISH

Most students reported that Ucan2 had significantly helped them with their English, with work experience and potential part-time jobs recognised as important new opportunities for language learning. Students often made the point that they learned ‘practical language’ in Ucan2 classes, which helped them learn about how to live in Australia. Almost all students also described the processes of language learning on Ucan2 days as ‘different’ from other days of the week, mainly because the program provided more opportunities for conversation.

It’s very good because all the time we are speaking and if we speak English we can learn better. If we sit quiet we can’t! (Focus group participant – adult setting)

They teach us how to speak, how to introduce yourself. This helps me a lot. (Burmese Male 20 – individual interview)

It’s different because... [we] learn about everything here in our class about outside, about government, about everywhere – but other class[es] don’t know... (Focus group participant – ELS)

Some focus group participants explicitly linked an enhanced ability to learn, with the psychosocial support they received. In one group, participants agreed that Ucan2 had helped them to learn English because it had helped them to solve their problems. This was reiterated in some of the individual student interviews, with one participant saying that Ucan2 had helped him to learn because it was only in those classes that the teachers listened to him and helped him with his problems.

Students also said that Ucan2 was different from other days because it was more fun. It allowed them to relax and ‘forget’ about things that were worrying them; and group games – which were incorporated into this part of the program - were seen as another opportunity to practise speaking:

That concentration game - it helps you to talk fast English! (Focus group participant – ELS)

Yeah, those games are very helpful. Like every time we stand we have to speak. We want it or not, we have to speak. That’s really helpful. (Focus group participant – adult setting)

179

A very small minority however, expressed the view that while Ucan2 was enjoyable, they thought they probably learned more on other days (possibly reflecting a deeply held conviction that study was a serious pursuit):

- The other days [are] better; you learn more…Because [in] Ucan2 we just have lots of fun.

- ... We’re learning, but not more…

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

Students in the language schools, where the Occupational Health and Safety curriculum included a compulsory test involving difficult vocabulary, also voiced the feeling that Ucan2 was hard work. However, this was not seen as necessarily a bad thing, with many students appreciating the opportunity to learn about things which they felt would help them in the workplace.

Many students appreciated the challenge of learning to converse with the volunteers – who did not necessarily adapt their language in the way that English language teachers did.

- When we answer to the people outside, it’s difficult for us understanding. People speak very fast! (Focus group participant – adult setting)

While most of the volunteers were Australian-born a few were themselves relatively new to Australia and one student suggested that this gave them confidence for the future:

When we meet with the volunteer, we are thinking: ‘If they learn English then why not we can learn English?’ (Focus group participant – adult setting)

Teaching staff were often even more enthusiastic about the impact of Ucan2 on language acquisition and on oral language in particular. While some teachers made the point that Ucan2 was not the only program, or was one of several contexts, for enhancing language acquisition, all staff interviewed for the evaluation felt that Ucan2 was - at least, an appropriate framework - and at best, exceptionally effective for teaching English to this cohort. Elements of the program recognised as particularly valuable by staff included the experiential emphasis of the program, which exposed students to ‘authentic tasks’ and the opportunities to converse with volunteers. Several also appreciated the impact of the supportive and safe environment and group cohesion that the program provided as enhancing students’ confidence to express themselves along with their capacity to learn.

180

TRANSITION AND PATHWAYS

Transition from on-arrival English programs to a mainstream educational setting is recognised in the literature as a critical juncture. Staff interviewed for the evaluation, made the point that ‘failure’ at this point, not only carried attendant risks of longer-term disengagement but may also be experienced as a devastating and irrevocable psychological injury as aspirations were crushed. Others made the point that even (or perhaps particularly) in the apparent absence of significant educational achievement, continued engagement in the system was vital as it linked students in socially as well as to support services. Several expressed the hope and the belief that Ucan2 provided students with important skills in communication, knowledge of systems, confidence and vital links to the wider community that would assist them following transition to mainstream institutions. A number of staff members also felt that students received insufficient support in this area and that students and their families needed a lot more advice about different options such as TAFE and VCAL as an alternative to high school and the range of careers that were available.

Findings from student focus groups and interviews also suggested a need for additional support around transition to mainstream education. Impending transition from AMEP or an English Language School to another setting, along with lack of knowledge about appropriate pathways, was a major source of anxiety and confusion for many Ucan2 students. Students young enough to have the choice were often unsure about whether they should aim to study in a school or a TAFE. Many said that they did not know what or where they would need to study to reach their stated career goals and students frequently used the evaluation focus group discussions and interviews as opportunities to seek information and ask me, as the interviewer, questions about this. When asked whether they had ever had any careers advice or whether they knew where they could go to for such advice, responses varied. Only a few said that they had received any formal advice, though in some locations there was a ‘pathways counsellor’. Others thought that they could probably speak with a teacher and some said that they would ask a friend, relative or neighbour who had been in Australia longer than they had. One student said that they had been advised about what school they should go to next but that this had not included any discussion of what they would like to do in the future. Two students who had finished Ucan2 and were now studying at a high school said that they had participated in a careers advice session at their school, which consisted of looking up different jobs on a computer. Despite this level of confusion and anxiety, the majority of students were also looking forward to the next stage in their studies with optimism and enthusiasm.

Students also wanted more immediate and concrete support for transition, suggesting improvements to Ucan2 such as visits to TAFE or University to observe a class and see what it would be like. Others

181

wanted more specific and personalised advice on courses of future study as this focus group participant explained:

Maybe if they can [advise on]... the courses that we want to do. For example, specific for me like I’m looking for computer courses and.... so that when I look at the TAFE course....I’m not sure about the courses and what it contains ....I don’t know if my English is enough to do that course [it would be good] if someone knows that .... (Focus group participant – adult setting)

Participants interviewed for the evaluation extension were all still engaged in education at the time of the interviews. Some were still studying in intensive English language programs, while others had moved on to broader courses of study and had managed the transition to mainstream settings more or less successfully. One student was unsure whether he would continue studying beyond the end of that year, and two students expressed dissatisfaction with their current studies and planned to change to different institutions and courses. Several were currently in high schools and planning to continue with vocational training at school or TAFE. One student was studying at university and two were undertaking VCE and hoping to study at university after year 12. These latter three students all reported doing well and enjoying their studies and were aspiring to professional careers. Several students expressed a desire for a career which would involve ‘helping others’ and in one case a participant wanted to use his chosen profession to help people back in his ‘home country’.

EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES AND ASPIRATIONS

Employment was nominated as particularly important by many focus group participants. A number of students had experience of employment prior to arrival in Australia. Students reported working in a wide range of jobs from unskilled through to skilled trades and professions. Students had worked as carpet makers, farmers, fishermen, mechanics, welders, a baker, a waiter, a teacher and a pathologist. Other reported jobs included working in a tennis club picking up balls; hairdressing and working as a beautician; factory work; restaurant, retail and office work; childcare; sewing; rice farming; making chairs; making and selling leather jackets; data entry; and working as an electrician for a telecommunications company.

There were clear differences when discussing career aspirations between the responses of younger participants enrolled in language schools and those studying in an adult setting. Younger students were more likely to aspire to careers requiring a university qualification, with careers such as medicine, teaching, social work and nursing being particularly popular. This contrasted with the 182

aspirations of older students who often nominated careers requiring technical or job-based training. Differences between the two groups may partly have reflected advice the students had received where they were studying, though there was also a sense amongst participants that opportunities were critically constrained by their age of arrival in Australia. As the following quote from a male Afghan student suggests, the passage of time and comments of others may also have acted to dampen hopes.

I hope I want to be a doctor but if I can’t … it’s very difficult for anyone…Yes especially when I ask from the Aussie people how it is and they say ‘it’s difficult for us, so how can you be a doctor?!’ … So I think it’s difficult. (Focus group participant - ELS)

A number of students who later participated in interviews, or who discussed this topic in Ucan2 ‘catch-up’ sessions, had scaled back their aspirations since participating in the focus groups. Students who had previously said that they would like to be ‘a doctor’,’ a dentist’ or a ‘pilot’, for example, now said they thought that these ambitions would be ‘too hard’ to achieve.

Several students commented on their frustration, that even relatively low-skilled jobs seemed to require formal qualifications in Australia. This was contrasted with previous experiences in other countries and - along with language - was considered by these students to be a significant barrier to gaining employment.

The hardest thing is you need qualifications, especially with getting job – is very hard… because in my country we didn’t write résumés, [do] interviews, [need] certificates… (Focus group participant – adult setting)

In Australia … any work, for any work, [you] need lots of course[s] for any work! When we go for work she says no, no you cannot…you have to do a course - then you can come for work. If they don’t give us that job, how do we get experience? …In my country not any course, when we go to find a job, like [in] a shopping centre … she say it’s OK you can come tomorrow, maybe today…But here, very different here! (Focus group participant – adult setting)

Here, if you want to [go] fishing – [you need] the fishing licence. If you want some job you got to get a certificate or something...In Burma nothing – just do it. So it’s harder [here]. (Burmese male 26 – individual interview)

Of the relatively few focus group participants who were currently working or had experience of employment at some stage in Australia, most had found their jobs through family or another personal connection. Jobs included working in family-owned shops, a bakery, a fast-food outlet, construction work and in abattoirs. One student had found a job working in a fibreglass workshop but the fumes 183

and dust had severely affected his health and he was told by his doctor that he must stop. Several participants had also gained employment following their Ucan2 work experience as will be discussed below. Participants were very aware of the value of social connections when it came to getting a job.

It’s very good if you know somebody… The first time it’s very hard. If you know someone, if you have a relationship with someone that works, it’s maybe easier to find a job…Because it’s no interview with me and no nothing and no résumé. Just they chose a date for me, come on this date and from this time to this time – that’s OK. (Focus group participant – adult setting)

The potential for Ucan2 students to find work through someone they knew varied considerably. Those with family members who had been living in Australia for some time, often expressed a degree of confidence that they could get help with finding work if they needed to. However, by way of contrast, a considerable number of students were living in households and amongst extended families where no one was currently employed.

Two of the students who participated in interviews spoke of frustrating and unhelpful experiences when dealing with formal employment agencies:

Centrelink told me you must look for job… to apply every week you must be writing…Which job? I don’t know any job! I don’t understand! Centrelink told me if you’re not writing something like that, I’m going to cut your money…. (Afghan male 26 – individual interview)

And, the following describes the experience of another young person with a different ‘job provider’:

They are nothing! They are just getting money from government… [They ask] ‘What is your pathway plan?’ I say to them: ‘My pathway plan is my goal to be a mechanic’, they say ‘Why?’ They ask me like this ‘Why!!?’ I say: ‘This is my hobby…my skill yeah.’ They say: ‘No!’ They give me a piece of paper ([because] I’m not now currently studying) saying go and find ten jobs a week. I want to find some mechanics they said ‘no, not mechanic – go and try cleaning’ – I said ‘Shit! I don’t want to!’ (Afghan male 20 – individual interview)

No participants reported success in finding work through employment agencies, suggesting a need for the types of strategies employed by the Ucan2 program as pathways to employment, - such as building social networks and provision of work experience.

184

UCAN2, WORK EXPERIENCE AND EMPLOYMENT

Some students in the focus group discussions expected to find part-time work through participating in Ucan2 and most participants felt that Ucan2 would be very helpful in the future when it came to finding work. Doing work experience, compiling a résumé, and learning relevant vocabulary about occupational health and safety were all considered particularly useful. It was apparent that many felt they had much to learn about the Australian workplace, with several students saying they had not previously heard of résumés.

As well as being a good way to learn about the Australian workplace, and as already noted, students considered work experience to be good for practising English, though one or two also lacked enough confidence in their English abilities to participate in this Ucan2 component. The following focus group exchange demonstrates both these views:

- My English is not good, I don’t want to go to work [experience]; [if] somebody comes here – [and asks] “can you help me?” - I can’t understand.

- If you can work somewhere you can improve your English too because you talk with everyone, different people, different things

- Yeah, if the first time you don’t understand, the second time you understand

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

Almost all participants who had completed Ucan2 work experience in large retail stores reported enjoying it. Many also said that they were now keen to work part time while continuing their studies and that they had, or would, give the store manager their résumé with this end in sight. This contrasted with one student who had participated in another program where he was required to do work experience on a vegetable farm, which he described as being physically very demanding and leaving him with back pain.

Students often commented that they would like to do more work experience than the six casual shifts offered as part of the standard Ucan2 program. At one site, Ucan2 was incorporated into an employment pathways program and participants had the opportunity to do two full weeks of work experience – one in retail, relatively early in the program, and one in hospitality, a month or two later. Staff associated with this felt that the students reaped additional benefits by being able to approach the second week with far more confidence than the first.

Ucan2 staff were, for the most part, extremely positive about the impact on students of participating in work experience with the following quote expressing the attitudes of many:

185

I think the job opportunities have been fantastic, but the work experience on its own stands out in terms of language development, confidence, connections to other people - and this links back to the psychosocial support stuff as well. A sense of ‘who I am and how I can operate in Australian society’ - because they go out there and they do something that everybody else does... I think the work experience is an overwhelmingly positive learning experience and very good for their emotional health and wellbeing. (Teacher interview)

On the other hand, some focus group participants were quite critical of the work experience component of Ucan2. Generally, this was because they would prefer to have the opportunity to do work experience in an area in which they had a longer-term interest. Hairdressing, childcare, welding and working with a mechanic were all suggested as things they would have liked to do. In one focus group, a fairly heated debate took place on this topic. One student told us she did not think there was any point in working in a supermarket if you wanted to be a psychologist, while another argued to the contrary that any work experience or job was useful when you wanted to apply for another job. It was noteworthy that a staff member at this same institution recalled an earlier program where work experience had been included. She reported that at first they had placed students in work experience related to their preferred long-term career but that this was not as successful as subsequently, when they placed students in shops and cafes – as this had ‘resulted in jobs’.

Several students participating in focus groups had recently been offered jobs in the same places where they had done work experience. Two had just begun their new jobs and shared with the group some of the challenges involved as well as making it clear that they were determined to meet those challenges:

I was working in the deli. They were teaching me how to use the [meat slicing] machine there. [It’s] very hard. A lot of paperwork to go and do at home! [You have to learn] what can go in there, how to use the product... because some customer may come and ask you: ‘What is this?’ or something. You have to explain to them (Focus group participant – adult setting)

The other student, who had also just had her first shift at a supermarket, was proud of the many new things she had attempted. She described learning to use the till, practising calling the manager over the PA system and her confusion at all the different types of credit cards she had encountered. She too had “homework” - in her case learning the names of all the unfamiliar fruits and vegetables. Some students had found jobs independently, rather than directly through the program, but both students and staff commented that these outcomes probably resulted from the knowledge and skills gained through Ucan2. In one of these cases, for example, it was reported by a young woman that she was given a job

186

in a shop (in preference to another candidate) because she had a résumé that detailed her work experience, both of which came directly from participating in Ucan2.

Several of the students interviewed for the evaluation extension were working in retail stores and had acquired their jobs through Ucan2 either directly, in stores where they had done work experience; or indirectly, through Ucan2 associated connections. In some cases, students had done additional and extended periods of work experience – up to six weeks – before being employed. One young person had secured a job interview after being recommended by a fellow Ucan2 student already working at the store; and in one case a participant had successfully applied for work through a store manager met through the mentor program. Some students had also worked casually in pre-Christmas jobs at Australia Post - provided by that company in association with their involvement in the mentoring component of Ucan2.

All of these interviewees were working between one and six shifts per week and were extremely enthusiastic about their jobs. One student emphasised that she loved her job, although also spoke about the occasional customer in her workplace who was racist and treated her badly. When asked what they enjoyed most about working, participants almost invariably mentioned the social aspects of the experience, along with the opportunity to practise English and earn money. The following quotes from four different interviewees represent typical responses to this question:

Meeting new friends and talking to customers. For me [it’s] a new experience because I’m getting English (African male 19 – individual interview)

When there’s not much to do, we can take our time. [The other staff] are cool… just talk, cut some fruit and all that (African male 20 – individual interview)

I love it! Because you know why? When you get the money! … The best thing about my job is the people. I can talk to them. (African female 19 – individual interview)

[My friends] I can say, [are] all the store… I know all of them… It’s really good, they’re all friendly, they all help you, that kind of stuff. Yeah, it’s good! (African female 18 – individual interview)

While staff views concerning the Ucan2 work experience component were overwhelmingly positive, many also reflected on ways in which further improvements might be made, or concerns that remained. A few expressed a degree of ambivalence about whether Ucan2 was an appropriate program for young people who did not currently want to work – some students might be looking after young children or focused exclusively on study. For the younger language school students in

187

particular, it was questioned whether promoting part-time work was likely to be appreciated by all parents, who might prefer their children to be concentrating on their studies.

Some staff – particularly those who saw Ucan2 as primarily an ‘employment program’ – wanted to see ‘more work outcomes’ generated for students. It was suggested that one way to achieve this was to focus on building ‘work experience partnerships with places where there is the real possibility of getting jobs afterwards’ and others pointed out that these relationships were now being developed. Another recurring theme was the importance of educating potential employers about how to support young people with refugee backgrounds in the workplace. Where Ucan2 had resulted, either directly or indirectly, in students gaining jobs, staff saw the benefits as enormous and far-reaching. Speaking of a particular student, a teacher commented that:

When he got his job, his life improved for him a hundred, three hundred percent! You know he had money coming in, he felt secure, he felt like he had something that he could show to his family... and I think that’s the same for all of them. (Teacher interview)

One staff member, who regularly worked with young people suffering the consequences of family breakdown and homelessness, suggested that gaining part-time employment could protect against these outcomes. If young people were working, they gained respect from their families. In cases where extended family had sponsored them to come to Australia, making a financial contribution within the first year or two was also likely to be expected.

GENDER, CULTURE, CLASS AND WORK EXPERIENCE

One Afghan student, with a more educated background than many of her cohort, contrasted the working environment and gender roles in Australia with that in Afghanistan and provided a clue as to why some of the girls in the program – and/or their families - had been reluctant to undertake the work experience component of Ucan2. While she thought that she might like a part-time job while continuing with her studies, she certainly did not think she could possibly take her résumé into a shop and simply ask for employment. Her comment below suggested that the idea of working in a shop was not really considered appropriate for someone of her social position and would require a considerable degree of cultural adjustment:

I need to take some information or experience about job, about living in Australia… because in Afghanistan, women – we – it’s not the rule that women can go out. Just we have woman doctor, woman teacher and the same like

188

this… no one can go to shop and [be a] shopkeeper or something like that! (Afghan female 19 – individual interview)

The issue of what type of employment was considered socially and culturally appropriate and the impact of gender on these ideas was discussed by staff as well. In a few cases, male students were offered work in a kitchen but chose not to take it because they did not want to do ‘that kind of job’. A staff member suggested that the students’ families would laugh at them for working in a kitchen.

SAFETY, STABILITY AND MENTAL HEALTH

A considerable number of focus group participants nominated ‘good health’ and ‘feeling safe’ as important domains for settling and living well in Australia. It was generally agreed that Australia was a ‘safe’ country, in a literal sense. Many participants also clearly interpreted these themes broadly in terms of general mental health and wellbeing and felt that Ucan2 had positive impacts in these areas. One student considered ‘school’ to be the only place where she currently felt safe and amongst friends. She felt that Ucan2 had played a significant role in establishing this feeling.

When I came here, I was worried about my family, my country, my friends and about my life… [They] told me about Ucan2 and then…I go for that. Then I… I’m not worried more… I feel better and [can think about] my future (African female 25 – individual interview)

Recent experiences though (see Kiya’s story in box below), had seriously threatened her newfound tenuous sense of security and her story demonstrates the impact of this on her ability to study and to settle.

189

KIYA’S STORY

YOUNG WOMAN FROM ETHIOPIA, AGED 25, WITH NO FAMILY IN AUSTRALIA

Kiya had been involved in political activity in opposition to the Ethiopian government. As a consequence of this, she had been beaten and imprisoned, then put under house arrest before escaping to Kenya; where, although a devout Christian, she had worn the hijab in order to escape detection by Ethiopian security forces that followed her. She reported that one of her brothers and his wife had been killed by government security forces and another had also been jailed at this time. She had recently returned to Africa, visiting Uganda in order to marry her fiancé (who had also fled Ethiopia). Kiya reported that in the month she was there she had again been followed was threatened. She had immediately returned to Australia but was now extremely fearful for the safety of her husband and sister who were unable to leave their home.

Arriving home from language class one day recently, M surprised an intruder who had broken into the home that she shared with two other women. Several days later, she was terrified to find herself followed down the street by the same man. She went to the police who had taken some notes and given her a large number of (wordy and difficult to read) pamphlets containing extensive tips on how to make one’s property safer – none of which she was able to apply to the insecure rental house in which she lived. Kiya was extremely distressed by these events and told me that all her old fears had returned and she was now so worried all the time that she was completely unable to sleep or study.

It was clear from Kiya’s interview, that recent threats to her safety in Australia triggered a deep sense of insecurity and exacerbated her memories of trauma and danger that she had experienced prior to migration.

Threats to safety and stability might also be anticipated from experiences of racism and discrimination. As noted above when discussing bridging connections, reports of such incidents did occur, though were relatively rare, with most participants describing other people as generally ‘friendly’.

UCAN2, PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT AND MENTAL HEALTH

A key aim of the Ucan2 program is providing psychosocial support to students. This occurs explicitly during the Foundation House led ‘middle session’ of the Ucan2 day, which incorporates group- building and psycho-educative activities designed to promote mental health and wellbeing. Referred to within many of the groups as ‘circle time’, these activities include games; group discussions about 190

living in Australia and problem solving strategies; individual strengths, skills and goals; participant’s journeys to Australia; and the ‘refugee experience’. The psychosocial session also commonly includes elements of the Rock and Water program,16 usually beginning with the ‘Rock and Water salute’. In this exercise, students and staff stand in a circle and make a ‘rock’ (fist) with one hand – discussing how this symbolises being ‘strong’ and ‘grounded’. The other hand is used to symbolise ‘water’ (in a wave motion), and students discuss the importance of also being able to be flexible. The exercise ends by holding both hands over the heart (symbolising friendship) and a bow to the group during which the importance of making eye contact with each other is emphasised.

In addition to these activities, psychosocial support in a holistic sense is integral to other Ucan2 components as well; in particular through interaction with the volunteers; through receiving appropriate support for education and employment; and through developing social and community connectedness. For the purposes of this thesis, however, education, employment and social networks have been dealt with above in separate sections. This section will focus primarily on both the explicit psychosocial support component of Ucan2 as well as other psychosocial settlement issues that are not covered elsewhere.

With occasional exceptions, almost all students and staff were positive about this aspect of Ucan2. Benefits were seen to accrue from gains in student confidence; creating an atmosphere that made students feel safe and supported; the ‘group bonding experience’; providing an opportunity to address specific problems; linking students to Foundation House as a source of additional support; and through creating a ‘powerful tool for normalising the refugee experience’. A number of staff pointed out that, as with the impact of Ucan2 on language acquisition, such benefits were hard to measure.

An important effect of the Ucan2 program was that it created a cohesive group and almost all interview and focus group participants referred to this in one way or another. The intensity of this group bonding was particularly apparent when several participants in one focus group discussed their grief that two students had recently left to go to another school. The impact of their departure was described as being like losing one’s family (again).

- You miss them!

- I think never be like before when we come here now

- Some people [were] crying. It’s very hard

16 Rock and Water is a ‘psycho-physical social competency training program’ for educators working in schools and with youth with special needs. It was developed by Dutch educationalist Freerk Ykema. It comprises a series of exercises designed to teach young people about safety, integrity, solidarity, self-control, self- confidence and self-reflection. (Gadaku Institute, n.d.). 191

- Here... like brothers and sisters

- It’s family, yes!

- Yeah – because we didn’t have family

- Yeah when we are together it’s like family

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

Many of the staff interviewed emphasised the enormous value that came from creating a group in which the young people supported each other. It was pointed out by several that the powerful group dynamic came not only from the program activities but also simply from keeping the same class together, if possible with the same teacher, for more than one term. This practice – necessitated by adopting the Ucan2 program - differed from the usual system in the English language schools, of rearranging classes every term. In some of the adult settings, ‘continuous enrolment’ meant that the composition of the class could change on a weekly basis. I frequently observed that when a new group first came together, students would usually sit in small groups determined by common language and gender. By the middle of a Ucan2 program, most groups were far more cohesive, with students mixing and talking more freely with the rest of the class. Teachers commented that this did not always occur in their ‘non-Ucan2’ class groups.

While it was often difficult for students to articulate how Ucan2 helped them to ‘feel safe’ and ‘healthy’, most responses suggested that it was through playing games and ‘circle time’ as well as sharing their experiences - which helped them to feel ‘part of a group’ of trusted friends. The following quotes came from a number of different focus group discussions where participants had nominated ‘feeling safe’ as important; and were then asked whether Ucan2 helped them to feel safe:

- Yes!

- I can’t explain… Feeling safe – happy, playing games, everything…

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

- Sometimes... Ucan2 told us how to feel... how to become happy. If you feel bad, or sometimes if you are upset or something...they tell you about this. They taught us many things like that.

(Focus group participant – ELS)

[Talking about Rock and Water activities]

- It’s good, the students in the class – it shows we are friendly with each other and work with each other. 192

- It shows that everyone is friendly and you can trust them all.

- Yes – helps to give advice, to work with groups not individuals.

- Yes – we can learn many things from other people in the group

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

Students often mentioned that doing the Rock and Water salute had helped them practise making ‘eye contact’ with others – something that was quite difficult for many from a number of different cultural backgrounds where this would be regarded as impolite. Several participants also gave examples of times when they had used Rock and Water techniques to help them in stressful situations. When discussing games that were played as part of the program, the opportunity to talk about problems, to be amongst friends, and the therapeutic power of laughter and ‘having fun’ were frequently emphasised:

- Yeah – that’s so fun

- It relax you – all your body

- Every day when [you] come to Ucan2 you are laughing from the first day…

- It makes you more relaxed

- It makes you...maybe give you a chance to talk about your problem. It’s good for your health! (Focus group discussion – ELS)

Students participating in individual interviews also discussed their appreciation of this aspect of Ucan2:

Before, I have a lot of problem you know. I have a lot of thinking about my family you know. Yeah my father… he’s dead, but I came to Ucan2 and got a lot of friends came, talk and speak like that… Before I come I can’t laugh - because I can’t. After I come to Ucan2, yeah I can laugh with my friends (Afghan male 26 – individual interview)

As well as broad concurrence that circle time was a good part of Ucan2, many students appreciated the link that Ucan2 gave them with Foundation House. Students frequently referred to Ucan2 (and Foundation House staff in particular) as having helped them to ‘know about their feelings’, ‘understand emotions’ and to ‘solve problems’. Several staff also felt that for some students, the support they received in the group averted a need for additional individualised support. For others, it facilitated referral for further support, either for Foundation House counselling or to other services if required. It was pointed out by some that having a link to Foundation House provided important

193

assistance not only for the students, but also for the classroom teacher, giving them someone with whom to ‘debrief’ and discuss issues. Teachers also commented that it had caused them to reflect on their practice, give greater emphasis to the broader context of students’ lives and, in one case, to reinterpret more empathetically what had previously been considered to be ‘misbehaviour’. This impact of Uan2 on the staff involved, demonstrates potential for the program to instigate wider cultural change within institutions.

A considerable number of students said that they found it helpful to talk within the group about their experiences and to learn that their problems and anxieties were shared by others. In only one of the focus groups, some students felt that this component of Ucan2 was not always helpful and an extended and somewhat heated debate ensued, with others insisting equally passionately that it was. The following is just a small extract, which includes several participants in the discussion, encapsulating the two views expressed.

- We talk about some feelings; it’s really sometimes not good... Especially about some subjects – I have family problems.

- [disagreeing] It’s better if you say it! At home, you can’t tell anybody - your parents - you have to share with your friends or with your teacher. It’s good not to keep [things] in your heart to think about that every day, every night and you can’t tell anyone that I put this in my heart.

- [But] sometimes, you know – your friend is in your country...sometimes hard for you. It’s going to make you cry... If you have some problem in this country with your family, it’s going to be good for you – but when you’re talking about your country – it’s hard for you sometimes... I think for some people it’s good. For some people it’s more hard.

- Yes. [When] you’re talking [about your family problems]. That night... you can’t sleep

- ... Maybe you not live with your family, so you trying to forget about that and then they remind you again.

- They’re just trying to help you. They’re nice people here!

- I think it’s good to share. Because... if you feel you are the only one having that problem...then you feel like [bad]. If the [other] person have the problems too I think...that person has the same problem like mine. So sometimes good to share, not just to keep it by yourself.

194

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

This last point - articulated by the student as ‘That person has the same problem like mine’ – was an implicit program objective, referred to by program staff as ‘normalising’ the refugee experience. Most staff members saw this as a particularly important function of Ucan2 for promoting mental health and wellbeing amongst students.

One of the students who expressed quite negative views in this discussion also participated in an interview about 15 months after completing Ucan2. She brought up the topic again and appeared to have modified her opinion somewhat:

When you talk about family, about problems, a lot of people is crying.

(KB: And you didn’t like that?)

Really it was good. It’s good, like, they make you to remember. Sometimes to cry, it was good... Yes, you can’t be happy all the time anyway... It’s good the way they treat us in that time. (African female 18 – individual interview)

A few staff members were more ambivalent about what this program component achieved. Some expressed doubts about whether this part of the program provided benefits for all students and were concerned that some may find it less relevant or ‘uncomfortable’. However, most of these staff also stressed that they were not usually in the classroom during those sessions and were relying on what others had told them. Even those who expressed ambivalence, usually felt that there had been (in some cases profound) benefits, at least for some students. A couple of staff members also found that encouraging students to ‘open up’ about their substantial (and often insoluble) problems, challenged their own capacity to cope with them. One or two teachers were unsure how much they wanted to know about personal issues with which the students were dealing, questioning whether that was the appropriate role for a teacher.

Despite these occasionally expressed misgivings, students were almost invariably extremely positive when asked to reflect on the impact of Ucan2. The following responses by three students interviewed for the evaluation extension articulate the views expressed by many:

It’s helped me… They help me how to share our feelings. They give me confidence. Before I never talked to people, I feel shy. But [now] openly I talk with people (Afghan female 19 – individual interview)

[It’s helped me] Absolutely, absolutely… I really like it. It’s helped me a lot personally, giving me hope. It’s really when you think [about] these words, “You can too”, you believe it – that’s real (African male 19 – individual interview) 195

Yeah, it’s helped me really a lot. It’s so what I am. I wouldn’t be here… They help you with your life. They help you with things – with your problems with your family, people. How you have to live in Australia. A lot of things. How to know people (African female 19 – individual interview)

It was clear that for many young people, the Ucan2 program had provided a much appreciated space in which they could open up and share the challenges they experienced during settlement.

OTHER SITES OF STABILITY: CITIZENSHIP, HOUSING AND RELIGION

CITIZENSHIP

The picture-card representing Australian citizenship or resident visa was chosen by many of the groups as being one of the five most important things for settling and living well in Australia. Ensuing discussion suggested that rights associated with citizenship were seen as crucial to a sense of belonging, and to a sense of safety and stability. Several students also made the point that citizenship was valued not only because it allowed one to stay in Australia, but also to reconnect with family by facilitating safe travel.

- It’s important to go back [to] our country

- Yeah with Australian nationality

- And you are safe

- If you have a Pakistani nationality you go and you have a problem...

(Focus group discussion – ELS)

- [If] we have visa, we are Australian people

- You can go any place

- Like Australian people – the same…

- I have visa, this is important because in our country there’s fighting and there’s not future. In Australia, if we have citizenship visa it is good for us and make our future nice...and safety also.

- (Focus group discussion – ELS)

In one focus group several participants were unhappy about recent changes which meant they could only apply for citizenship after being in Australia for four years rather than two.

196

HOUSING

Having a home to live in was also frequently nominated as important. As with several other themes, there was little discussion in focus groups concerning why this was important as it appeared that students assumed (not unreasonably) that this should be self-evident.

However students did say that finding a home to live in was difficult in Australia, that housing was expensive and several also mentioned that their homes were overcrowded. Some students had moved a number of times and it was clear that insecure housing also caused disruption to relationships. One interview participant said that he no longer saw any of his former Ucan2 classmates because he had moved. Another pointed out that he lived far from services such as public transport. He wished that he could afford a bicycle as he currently had to walk a considerable distance to the nearest station in order to catch a train to school or a library – which was the only place he had access to the internet. One student shared with the group his relief at moving from an overcrowded house where he had felt unable to learn because of a lack of sleep and inability to do his homework. As well as telling us that since his move, his reading was ‘very perfect now’ he said that:

[now] I have more space, more peace. [Now there are] six …before there were 16 [people] – that’s a lot, yeah. Now one bedroom, I’m reliable, I’m very happy now….For me, [before] I slept on the couch in the living room so I was very, very tired and when I woke up in the morning – Oh my back!...So I worry about it, but now I’m very, very happy now! (Focus group participant – ELS)

Beyond the already noted potential for general problem solving, most students did not see a particular link between Ucan2 and either housing or citizenship, although some students pointed out that they were also linked to housing agencies through ‘school’. I was aware from informal discussions with students and staff that homelessness was a disturbingly frequent problem for Ucan2 participants, although this did not arise as a topic for discussion in focus groups. Those afflicted by homelessness may have been less likely to be in attendance or may not have wanted to discuss the issue in a group setting.

Several students who participated in individual interviews had experienced a breakdown in relationships with their families since coming to Australia that resulted in them moving from the family home and attempting to live independently with varying degrees of success. Poor relationships with a step-parent, and mental health problems of a relative were two of the reasons put forward for this occurring.

A staff member also discussed the rising cost of private rental housing as a factor that forced families back into scarce and inadequate public housing, where it was even more difficult to accommodate 197

large families. Several young mothers in one Ucan2 group had become homeless in this way, where large family groups had been forced to split into two or three, leaving the young mother isolated with their young child or baby. It was also pointed out that homeless students usually stopped attending classes and so also lost connections with other support systems that were linked with them.

RELIGION

One of the picture cards used in the focus groups was entitled Religion: church, mosque or temple and this was chosen by many groups as something that was important for settling in Australia. Data from the wellbeing surveys and social network maps suggest that religion and attending mosque or church are experienced by participants as both important for wellbeing and as sites of social connection. In one focus group, students explained that religion showed them how to live in peace and ‘to understand and respect’ people. Several of the participants in this multi-faith discussion appreciated freedom to practise their religion as important for living here.

 Nobody want to stop you when you are praying

 Yeah nobody disturb you in Australia

 Yeah everyone respects

 There are many cultures – everyone lives and just like respect – this word is coming from God...

 Yeah everyone respects here

 They respect more than our country

(Focus group discussion – adult setting)

Religion and religious institutions were often also brought up in individual interviews. One student spoke of how her church had raised money for her to help her to travel back to Africa when she needed to. The potential for religious institutions to promote social connections has been noted and was exemplified by the following experience.

Sunday morning we go to the meeting to the church then after that we play (soccer). Not like a team, just many friends... in a park... they are all Australian...men, kids, sometimes kids, sometimes the lady – the women (Burmese male 26 – individual interview)

198

Many students spoke of their religion as an integral part of their identity and some students in informal conversations expressed consternation and even bewilderment that some people in Australia appeared to be able to function quite normally without such religious guidance.

CONCLUSION

This chapter reports findings from the qualitative components of the study exploring the resettlement experiences of refugee-background young people and the impact of the Ucan2 program on those experiences. Focus group participants considered all of the domains featured in Ager and Strang’s integration framework (2008) as important to settlement - in addition to sports, using computers and the internet, and assistance with caring for children. While the findings from interviews and focus groups are presented here as separate themes, it should be emphasised that domains both overlap and have multidirectional influences on each other.

As anticipated, the crucial role of social connections in promoting integration and inclusion was underscored by focus group and interview findings. Disruption to family relationships had an ongoing and profound effect on many participants. Each of the boxed stories presented above also illustrated its ramifications. In the case of Mohammed’s story and Myine’s story, anxiety over missing family members, and the little hope that they would ever be able to see those family members again, had at best a deleterious and at worst a crippling effect on their ability to cope with other settlement tasks. In the case of Kiya’s story, the anxiety that she suffered concerning her family was compounded by other threats to her sense of safety and security.

Students also recognised the value of bridging connections and often spoke about it being difficult to meet people. Despite this, they also reported that Ucan2 helped them to make connections to people in the wider Australian community. The volunteer component of the program in particular was seen as vitally important in this respect and contact with the volunteers was highly valued by students, while they also made many suggestions about ways in which this program component might be strengthened and extended. Links to mentors and to Ucan2 staff were similarly highly valued. Those students interviewed who had jobs and mentors, had been participating either in the workplace or in mainstream schools for longer than other participants, and they all reported that they now had many friends from a variety of cultural backgrounds. As was noted in Chapter 4 however, I was not able to interview any former Ucan2 students who were no longer connected to the program or program staff in some way. There was therefore limited opportunity to explore the experiences of young people who

199

had become disengaged from education and employment systems - although Mohammed’s story suggests an incipient downward spiral through which such disengagement might be likely to result.

As far as educational and employment aspirations were concerned, age at arrival, combined with lack of previous education, critically constrained participants’ sense of opportunity. There was also evidence that culturally inscribed gender roles created additional complexity when offering opportunities for young people to engage in work experience. The examples where this occurred, discussed above, highlight some of the tensions young people experience between conforming to their families’ (and their own) cultural norms and adapting to the new society in which, for the most part, they are also eager to be included.

Students were almost invariably extremely positive about their Ucan2 experience. They spoke enthusiastically and appreciatively of the opportunities to do work experience; receiving help with problems; having a time when they could laugh and feel happy; meeting and talking to the volunteers; improving their English; and going on excursions. While curriculum, psychosocial support and promoting social connections are each the focus of discrete Ucan2 components, findings suggest that the combined impact is synergistic and this impact was summed up by many evaluation participants as an increase in student confidence. This included confidence to communicate in English, to negotiate employment and education systems, to interact with the broader community and organisations and to seek additional support when required. Students also recognised participation in Ucan2 as benefiting mental health and wellbeing by imparting an increased sense of safety and security as well as through provision of direct help and support in dealing with problems.

When asked how Ucan2 could be improved, many replied that it was already as good as it could be with the most common alternative response being that they would like to do more of these things: more activities, more excursions, more work experience, more volunteers, and have more Ucan2 days per week. This sentiment was perhaps best summed up by one focus group participant’s response: ‘When [Ucan2 day] comes – I’m happy!’

Staff for the most part reiterated student sentiments and most felt that the student experience of Ucan2 recommended it as an appropriate program for addressing the particular settlement needs of this group. Some staff also felt that Ucan2 had begun to create systemic change by altering the way English language educators thought about responding to the complex needs of this particular age bracket.

While most of the young participants in this study demonstrated resilience and determination as well as having a strong desire to achieve and do well, there were also, unsurprisingly, negative consequences from traumatic experiences. While it is beyond the scope of a program such as Ucan2 to 200

have a direct impact on all of the complex difficulties facing students in this area, the support and advocacy provided by the Ucan2 program and staff was much appreciated.

201

202

CHAPTER 8 : DISCUSSION – ‘EVEN IN HEAVEN, IT’S TOO HARD ALONE’

The aim of this PhD project is to contribute to a deeper understanding of the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth in Australia, and provide policy-relevant evidence to inform service provision for this population. Preceding chapters have reviewed the existing evidence relating to the experiences of young refugee settlers; expounded a theoretical conceptualisation of exclusion, inclusion and social capital influencing those experiences; and presented the results of a case study investigating the experiences of Ucan2 students designed to address identified gaps in knowledge.

The literature review presented in Chapter 2 identified a need for further research focused on the particular circumstances of older youth with disrupted education that included the voices of young people themselves. Additionally there is a lack of evidence for the impact of interventions for this cohort. This study goes some way towards addressing these gaps in knowledge. It has also heeded Castle’s (2003) argument that empirical research into forced migration and its aftermath that is grounded within contemporary sociological theoretical frameworks can better inform policy and practice.

Previous research into refugee settlement has shown that the settlement context is as important for long-term mental health and wellbeing as pre-arrival experiences (Beiser, 2009; Correa-Velez, et al., 2010; Porter & Haslam, 2005). While children and adolescents generally have better mental health outcomes than adults (Porter & Haslam, 2005), the ongoing impacts of trauma and disrupted education, concern for family overseas, social isolation, financial need, and housing problems pose significant challenges for young refugee-background settlers in Australia (Brough, et al., 2003; Paxton, et al., 2011; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). The vital role played by social connections in enhancing wellbeing and promoting inclusion for refugee settlers is a recurring theme arising from research in this area (Ager & Strang, 2004b, 2008; Beiser, 2009; Brough, et al., 2003; Correa-Velez, et al., 2010).

Chapter 3 comprised a critical review of theories of social inclusion and social capital, and their relevance for understanding refugee settlement, and a case was made for embedding this investigation of refugee settlement within a ‘strong’ version of a social exclusion/inclusion discourse. Whilst definitions of social inclusion and exclusion are many and contested, all underscore the multidimensional nature of exclusion. Strong versions of the discourse direct attention to structural and systemic barriers to inclusion (Byrne, 2005; Martin, 2004; Veit-Wilson, 1998). By avoiding

203

‘weaker’ or ‘deficit’ versions of the discourse, which locate the causes of disadvantage within individuals, they are thus compatible with a strengths-based approach to understanding refugee settlement.

Network theories of social capital focus on the resources available to individuals through their social connections. Bonding connections are associated with provision of support whilst bridging connections provide access to information and broader opportunities within domains such as employment. Linking connections with institutions and organisations are similarly important for accessing information, as well as support services, and may be particularly significant for relatively disadvantaged population groups. It was argued in Chapter 3 that Ager and Strang’s (2008) framework for understanding refugee integration represents a useful model for conceptualising the multidirectional links between social connections and other domains of inclusion. The framework was used therefore to guide the research design and analyses for this study.

The remainder of this chapter integrates the findings from the quantitative and qualitative components of this study investigating Ucan2 students’ settlement experiences with those from the topical and theoretical literature. Whilst it has been useful to consider each of the domains identified by Ager and Strang’s framework individually, the following discussion emphasises that processes of social connection, of identity, belonging, safety and stability are all closely interwoven. Given the central role played by social connections, this theme will be discussed first followed by a consideration of those factors described by Ager and Strang as the facilitators and foundations of integration. The final domains of inclusion discussed are the framework’s markers and means, with a particular focus on educational and employment pathways. This is followed by a discussion of the role of Ucan2 in addressing the identified needs of refugee-background youth during resettlement. The chapter concludes by considering the implications, strengths and limitations of this research.

SOCIAL CONNECTIONS AND WELLBEING: BONDS, BRIDGES AND LINKS

The review of the literature on refugee settlement, reported in the first three chapters of this thesis, concluded that the vital role played by social connections and networks for promoting refugee inclusion is undisputed. However, the relative importance of different forms of social capital remains a topic of debate. The value of bridging networks in particular is emphasised by some commentators, to the point that there is a tendency evinced to highlight the potential drawbacks of bonding social capital amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, young people and ethnic groups. Kawachi and colleagues, for example, state that ‘theory would suggest that it is not sufficient (or may

204

be even harmful) to build bonding social capital among unemployed youth’ (Kawachi, et al., 2008a:20). Abundant bonding social capital amongst socioeconomically disadvantaged communities – combined with a lack of bridging capital – has been associated with reduced aspirations, exclusion of outsiders, and excessive demands and restrictions (Portes, 1998; Wakefield & Poland, 2005; Warr, 2006). The importance of developing bridging and linking social capital is emphasised within this discourse both as a means for promoting wider social cohesion, and for avoiding potential downsides of bounded social networks comprising social bonds only - such as low status and poorly paid ethnic employment ‘niches’ (Colic-Peisker & Tilbury, 2006).

As was noted in Chapter 3 however, this discourse and associated policies in Britain such as ‘dispersal’ of asylum seekers have also been criticised as potentially detrimental to integration for refugees (Ager & Strang, 2008; Beirens, et al., 2007; Spicer, 2008) and reflective of a conservative and assimilationist agenda (Cheong, et al., 2007; Spandler, 2007). In Australia, Hage, for example, has critiqued the tendency to evince concern over excessive ethnic bonding, as stemming from a perceived threat to ‘white’ hegemony (Hage, 2000). Assumptions by some scholars that social bonds necessarily consist of co-ethnic relationships is also questioned, with a number of authors suggesting that social bonds may be formed between refugees and individuals from a range of ethnic backgrounds (See for example Ager & Strang, 2004a; Daley, 2009; Spicer, 2008). Moreover, co- ethnic relationships may also be a source of bridging capital, with Szreter (2002) suggesting that historically, migrant networks have generated bridging relationships across divisions of wealth and class. There is however, less potential for this to occur amongst the relatively recently settled ethnic groups to which many recently arrived refugee settlers in Australia belong. In comparison with skilled migrant and family reunion streams, humanitarian stream migrants are typically joining less established ethnic communities, and are less likely to enter Australia with their wealth and family connections relatively intact.

Recognition that different forms of social capital tend to provide access to different types of resources, leads naturally to the conclusion that bonding and bridging as well as linking connections are required. Different types of network capital generate ‘emotional, instrumental, and informational support, providing people with both material and emotional aid, and a sense of connection and belongingness’ (Lakon, et al., 2008:65). As well as playing a vital role in promoting overall wellbeing directly, it is well recognised that social networks facilitate opportunities for employment and this informs part of the rationale for seeking actively to expand the bridging networks of recently arrived individuals and communities. In a study of young people’s experiences of social exclusion in the UK, Morrow found that family contacts were their main source of information and guidance and that ‘small-scale, interpersonal networks based on friendship and family were crucial to a sense of

205

belonging and well-being’ (Morrow, 2001b:45). However, amongst disadvantaged populations, she warns, ‘if young people see family members as the main source of information about jobs, then this may be how social inequalities may be reproduced’ (Morrow, 2001b:57). Ucan2 students in this study also nominated family as their most important source of advice and support but qualitative data suggested that families often had limited knowledge and experience of local education systems and labour markets. Morrow’s study focuses on place-based concentration of disadvantage - as do others concerned about its intergenerational transmission. Similar risk contexts may be present for young people from recently arrived refugee communities that are comparatively socially isolated from the ‘mainstream’, whereby family is likely to be a limited resource for providing information about employment and education. Risks may even be additive, as these new communities tend to be clustered geographically in socio-economically deprived areas as well.

The empirical findings from this study suggest that the relative value of social bonds and bridges and the relationship between them are complex, and far from being independent. Meeting and knowing ‘Aussies’ was highly valued by Ucan2 participants, recognised as providing opportunities to practise English, learn more about Australian society, and potentially access employment. Both the quantitative and qualitative results for this study however, suggest that Ucan2 students had a paucity of Australian-born friends likely to represent useful bridging capital. Despite their scarcity, Australian-born friends were relatively frequently nominated in the social network mapping exercise as sources of advice and support when they did exist. Recent research has found that two-thirds of jobs are acquired through social networks and that a lack of diverse networks precludes many migrants to Australia and their children from accessing well-paid employment, even when their education levels are high (Hasmath, 2012). Again, this problem is compounded for young refugee- background participants lacking prior education and relevant work experience, particularly those representing more recently arrived communities, less able to provide employment opportunities of their own. Thus, there is certainly a need to provide opportunities that assist such groups to build bridging connections with the wider community across class and ethnic divisions.

While Ucan2 participants clearly recognised the instrumental value of Australian-born friends, the presence or absence of these ‘bridging’ connections in their social networks did not appear to have an impact on subjective wellbeing as measured by the wellbeing index. This contrasted with the situation for the presence or absence of family as will now be discussed.

The social network mapping exercise with Ucan2 students highlighted an important difference in the spatial dimensions of social bonds for this group compared with other (non-migrant) disadvantaged communities, for whom supportive social networks tend to be geographically confined to the local area (MacDonald, et al., 2005; Stephens, 2008; Szreter, 2002; Warr, 2005b). By way of contrast, and 206

unsurprisingly, participants in this study maintained strong transnational connections to both family and friends overseas, with 93% of participants including family members and almost 80% including friends living overseas as important people in their social networks. Moreover, family and friends living overseas were nominated as important sources of support by 32% and 21% of participants respectively. The types of support that can be offered across such geographical distance however, are likely to be severely constrained. While these geographically dispersed networks were clearly important to participants and may have facilitated some kinds of information flow of relevance and benefit to network members, qualitative findings indicated that the difficulty of sustaining these distant relationships also constituted a major source of anxiety.

Results from both the qualitative components of this project and the social network and wellbeing surveys indicated that a lack of local social bonds was potentially devastating for Ucan2 students. Interview data demonstrated that particularly those students with no family in Australia (representing 12% of participants with a refugee background), as well as those who may have had some family here but were anxious about others still overseas, were distressed by this and often described an inability to focus on settlement tasks such as their studies. Mohammed’s story, recounted in Chapter 7, exemplified a situation where distress associated with anxiety about absent family resulted in progressive withdrawal from social and economic participation. This situation contrasted with participants whose families were relatively intact, who were much more likely to express contentment with, and optimism about, their lives in Australia. These findings were reinforced by the quantitative data, which demonstrated significant negative associations between overall wellbeing and having no parent in Australia - as was the situation for 40.5% of the study sample. The presence of family also appeared to contribute to a sense of belonging, with quantitative analyses indicating that participants without other family members in Australia felt less connected with and positive about community. The results for these groups contrasted with generally high levels of participant subjective wellbeing associated with the domains of relationships and community.

These findings were similar to those reported from the Good Starts study, which also found that ongoing family separation created significant stress for refugee-background young people and that living with parents was a predictor of wellbeing (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010; McMichael, et al., 2011; Wilmsen, 2011). Given that the majority of Ucan2 students are over the age of 18, they are legally considered adults within migration policy, and are ineligible to apply to be reunited with their immediate family under Australia’s split family provision. Other studies with refugee adults have also shown that anxiety about the safety of family interfered with integration (Strang & Ager, 2010).

This suggests that at least some bonding capital, usually represented by family living locally, was necessary both for wellbeing and to provide a base from which young people could develop social 207

bridges. Study participants needed to ‘get by’, before they could ‘get ahead’ (Portes, 1998; Warr, 2006). While the salience of family as the most important source of bonding capital was clear, participants also reported forming close bonds with other Ucan2 students, not infrequently describing their classmates as being ‘like new family’. Interviews with students conducted following transition to mainstream education settings indicated that at least some of these connections formed within the program were sustained beyond its completion. Thus while social capital interventions are generally concerned with generating bridging or linking ties (Domínguez & Arford, 2010), there would appear to be value for this cohort in interventions such as Ucan2 that explicitly facilitate group bonding as well through its activities and processes. Ucan2 demonstrates the potential for bonding relationships to develop through a shared understanding of common experiences rather than assuming that bonds depend only on common ethnicity or culture (See for example Atfield, Brahmbhatt, & O'Toole, 2007).

The detrimental impact of family separation on the mental health and capacity for successful settlement of humanitarian migrants has recently received considerable attention by Australian refugee advocates and researchers (McDonald-Wilmsen & Gifford, 2009; McMichael, et al., 2011; McMichael & Manderson, 2004; Refugee Council of Australia, April 2012; Schweitzer, Brough, Vromans, & Asic-Kobe, 2011; Schweitzer, et al., 2006; Valtonen, 2004). The quantitative and qualitative findings from this research with Ucan2 students add further support to arguments that wellbeing and social inclusion of refugee settlers would be enhanced by changing policy to facilitate the timely reunion of families and broaden the definition of family that could be sponsored to migrate. In particular, this research illuminates the plight of older youth – regarded legally as autonomous adults – who nevertheless suffer considerably due to their separation from parents, with whom they currently have little chance of being reunited. For several of the participants interviewed for this study, a lack of financial resources and the fact that it was unsafe for them to travel back to places where family members were still living, meant that they despaired of ever seeing parents and siblings again. This despair in turn, had a detrimental effect on their capacity to focus on settlement tasks.

As previously described, some students who had completed Ucan2 were matched through the program with individual mentors. The strategy of recruiting mentors from workplaces in which students might do work experience and/or gain employment, was based on the implicit recognition that students can benefit not only from personal relationships and friendships established with mentors, but also from indirect access to mentors’ networks. Both mentors and Ucan2 staff described using their own social networks to help students find employment or suitable work experience. The mentees’ network ties also sometimes benefited from the relationship. One of the mentors frequently met with and provided support to her mentee’s sister, for example, as well. In another example of apparent ‘sharing’ or ‘transfer’ of social capital, one student interviewee had obtained a job through

208

her close friend, whom she met as a fellow Ucan2 student. The friend had been helped to find work by her mentor and once employed recommended her friend for a job as well. In this way, some of the resources accessed through bridging and linking ties were effectively ‘shared’ with or ‘transferred’ to bonding connections

As discussed in Chapter 3, linking connections may be particularly important for relatively disadvantaged and marginalised groups (Domínguez & Arford, 2010; Field, 2003; Heikkinen, 2000; Warr, 2005b). Szreter and Woolcock (2004:655), for example, draw on a number of studies to argue that ‘especially in poor communities, it is the nature and extent (or lack thereof) of respectful and trusting ties to representatives of formal institutions—e.g. bankers, law enforcement officers, social workers, health care providers—that has a major bearing on their welfare’. The social network mapping and qualitative data suggested that Ucan2 students were generally quite well positioned in terms of linking capital. Seventy percent of participants indicated that Ucan2 staff (representing links to all three partner organisations) were important people in their lives and almost as many listed additional ‘other important people’, most of whom represented institutional links in their social network maps. Ucan2 staff and ‘other important people’ were nominated as the second and third most frequent sources respectively of advice and support (after family in Australia). It was also clear from interview and focus group discussions that participants regarded the relationships they developed with program staff and staff from other agencies as both valuable and meaningful – representing trusted people they could go to if needing to discuss problems or seek advice. Wells’ (2011) qualitative study conducted with young asylum seekers in London similarly found that formal ties to institutional actors were particularly important for participants, and she argued that such links, if sustained, may develop into strong affective attachments correlated with wellbeing.

While distinctions between the resources available through bonding and bridging social capital are conceptually useful, it would appear that different forms of social capital provided benefits to participants in this study interdependently. Social bonds were needed before students could mobilise the capacity to participate in bridge building, while links facilitated bridges and these bridges brought benefits to others through bonds. These findings provide empirical support for recommendations that interventions should deliberately seek to build diverse social capital. As is suggested by a number of authors, social inclusion and wellbeing would appear to be enhanced by an optimal balance between bonding, bridging and linking ties (Domínguez & Arford, 2010; Francis & Cornfoot, 2007a; Marx, 1990; O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006). Moreover, the range of interventions included within the Ucan2 program – including volunteer peer support, mentoring, work experience and bonding group activities with other recently arrived refugee-background young people – appear to be appropriate for facilitating this.

209

The discussion thus far has drawn on a network conception of social capital, which focuses on the resources available to individuals directly through their social connections. As discussed in Chapter 3, a communitarian conception of social capital focuses on community norms and social environments that provide both the rules and the context for social interaction and may also enhance understanding of what constitutes a supportive environment (Eriksson, 2011). Structural conditions that maintain high levels of economic inequality for example, are likely to reduce opportunities for social bridging and be exclusionary for a variety of social groups. Even where community-level social capital is relatively high, recently arrived refugees may be excluded from accessing its purported benefits as a ‘public good’. Refugees and migrants may experience social environments and norms differently from majority ethnic groups. English language proficiency clearly influences migrants’ capacity to make and sustain connections. State influences such as ‘hostile’ asylum seeker policies may influence their sense of belonging and work against policies designed to promote ‘integration’(Strang & Ager, 2010). Host community social norms may exist in which racism and discrimination flourish or in which generalised trust available to the rest of the community is not extended to visibly different migrants. Pre-existing bonding connections amongst longer-term residents in deprived neighbourhoods may also function to exclude newcomers (Spicer, 2008). While most Ucan2 students lived in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, and there were few accounts of overt hostility and discrimination, participants (as already discussed) generally described it as difficult to meet ‘Aussies’. Additionally, focus group discussions tended to suggest that participants found it easier to make friends with others from a range of ‘migrant’ backgrounds rather than those of ‘Anglo-Australian’ origin. Additional investigation would be required to determine whether this was a reflection of exclusionary neighbourhood level social capital.

FOUNDATIONS AND FACILITATORS OF INCLUSION

Ager and Strang’s framework positions rights and citizenship as the foundational domain of inclusion on which others rest. Language and cultural knowledge and safety and stability are described as facilitators of inclusion. As with social connections, each of these domains is interconnected. This section discusses the implications of key findings pertaining to these domains.

RIGHTS AND CITIZENSHIP

Findings from the focus groups with Ucan2 students showed that the participants in this study also placed a high value on the rights associated with citizenship and that barriers to acquiring citizenship were of concern to them. Students were aware of, and unhappy about, recent changes to policy

210

increasing the length of time permanent residents must be in Australia before being eligible for citizenship from two to four years. Participants associated citizenship not only with a sense of belonging but also, and equally often, with the potential to travel and therefore maintain connections with ‘one’s own country’ and, by implication, with family and friends still living there.

Helen Szoke has argued that social inclusion and rights based approaches can inform each other. Social inclusion represents a set of entitlements, or rights, needed for social participation, while ‘a rights based framework prevents ambiguity in what social inclusion is trying to achieve’ (Szoke, 2009:6). Thus, addressing exclusionary processes and promoting inclusion through targeted policies and interventions that assist disadvantaged groups can act as an effective mechanism for activating and operationalising human rights. The need for targeted interventions within a framework of universal rights is discussed further below in the section dealing with the implications of this research.

FACILITATORS OF INCLUSION: LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE; SAFETY AND STABILITY

In Ager and Strang’s (2004b, 2008) study, the concept of safety and stability was related to participants’ experiences of crime and harassment as well as housing stability. Safety and stability emerged in this research with Ucan2 students as a complex domain intimately linked with other domains necessary for psychosocial wellbeing. In the wellbeing surveys, students generally reported high levels of satisfaction with how safe they felt as well as for future security. That Australia was a ‘safe’ country, in comparison with where they had come from, was remarked upon by participants as one of the good things about living here. However, participants in focus groups also quite often attempted to articulate a complex conceptualisation of safety that went beyond physical safety to incorporate psychological stability, security and wellbeing as well. It should perhaps be noted here that the visual prompt used to represent ‘safety’ in the focus groups also referred to ‘feeling happy’ and this may have influenced the broad interpretation of ‘feeling safe’ which emerged in these discussions.

Both students and staff reported that the Ucan2 program was effective in promoting students’ confidence - to learn, to interact with others and to participate in social and employment opportunities. This increase in confidence was in turn related to students’ sense of safety and stability. Students in interviews and focus groups unequivocally linked their growing confidence, sense of safety, and general wellbeing with Ucan2 activities – particularly those explicitly designed to provide psychosocial support. These included games aiming to facilitate group bonding and trust; workshops on managing emotions and dealing with challenging situations; and discussions concerning goal setting, life journeys and the refugee experience. These latter activities were described by staff as being designed to ‘normalise the refugee experience’. Such ‘normalising’ was intended to assist 211

refugee-background young people understand some of the feelings and challenges they may be experiencing as being both a natural consequence of forced migration (rather than something abnormal about themselves) and as shared by others in the group. As described in Chapter 7, students also used these discussions to talk about their pre-migration lives. The Ucan2 program quite intentionally gave young people a ‘safe’ space to talk about the past as well as discuss their hopes for the future, which contrasted with the situation observed in some other classroom situations where teachers appeared not to encourage – and in some cases actively discouraged - young people in talking about their past. Some of these classroom teachers quite openly admitted to feeling uncomfortable or unsure of how to react to what might emerge from such conversations. The discussions within the Ucan2 program gave the impression of being an attempt by young people to integrate past experiences into present identities. Such processes of identity construction appear similar to those described as important by scholars interested in processes of youth social inclusion and exclusion more broadly. Niemeyer (Niemeyer, 2007), for example, talks of a ‘pedagogy of social inclusion’, whereby formal and informal learning contexts promote social participation in a ‘learning community’, fostering a sense of belonging and identity. Such processes are in turn recognised as critical for advancing engagement and inclusion for disadvantaged youth (Balatti, et al., 2006; Colley, et al., 2007:16; Niemeyer, 2007).

Ucan2 students’ relatively low and declining satisfaction with what they were ‘achieving in life’ – as measured by the wellbeing surveys – would appear to counteract this ostensible growth in personal confidence and capacity to engage socially. We can reasonably assume that these scores were associated with the difficult and often painstakingly slow progress experienced by many in their attempts to master a new language. They may also have been associated with anxiety over impending transition to a mainstream education setting. Learning English was clearly a major challenge for Ucan2 students and one that was made more difficult for many by a lack of prior education and associated low levels of literacy in first languages. Participants also bemoaned a dearth of occasions to ‘meet Aussies’ and practise their language skills as delaying their progress, although most felt that the Ucan2 program increased those opportunities and explicitly taught them skills for social interaction within Australian culture.

This finding is also consistent with that of the Good Starts study, which reported declining wellbeing of participants associated with transition from language schools to mainstream settings and associations between wellbeing and perceived performance at school (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010; Gifford, et al., 2009). That study also found a significant association between participants’ subjective assessments of the social status of their families and wellbeing; suggesting that young people’s judgments about where they stood in comparison with others were important (Correa-Velez, et al.,

212

2010). While the scale used here to measure wellbeing in this study was different from that used in Good Starts, the low scores for standard of living and for satisfaction with achievement amongst Ucan2 students would also appear to reflect participants’ subjective assessment of their own position with respect to Australian social norms and their own expectations.

The Good Starts study found that discrimination and bullying were important predictors of subjective wellbeing for refugee-background young people over their first three years of settlement (Correa- Velez, et al., 2010). Ucan2 students in this study were not asked directly about experiences of bullying or discrimination. Rather, questions about the ‘friendliness’ or otherwise of people in Australia were posed in the context of discussions about ‘meeting other people’. While participants frequently remarked that it was difficult to find opportunities to meet ‘Aussies’, they generally reported finding them friendly when they did. A few interviewees did describe incidents of bullying and of encountering racism, however usually described these as being isolated occurrences. It is noteworthy that the students from Africa and the Middle East, perhaps most likely to be subjected to discrimination due to their ‘visible difference’, also reported the highest levels of satisfaction with safety. Hence, overt racism did not emerge as having a significant impact on the wellbeing of these students. It should be noted that the young people in the Good Starts study were younger (mean age 15.1 years, Correa-Velez, et al., 2010) than in Ucan2 (mean age 20.4), and that bullying may be a greater issue for that younger age group. The relatively few reports of overt discrimination amongst Ucan2 students may also have reflected the supportive and perhaps somewhat sheltered environment provided by on-arrival English programs in which participants were engaged when the bulk of data collection occurred. Of course, institutional racism and less overt discrimination may still have had an impact on participants particularly when it came to accessing services, housing and employment.

Religion appeared to play an important buffering role in protecting participants’ sense of identity, stability and wellbeing. As described in Chapter 6, wellbeing scores in the spirituality/religion domain were particularly high (at 90.6 compared with 78.2 to 78.6 for the Australian population excluding those professing no spiritual or religious beliefs). Scores were even higher for some groups when the study sample was disagreggated, averaging 94 for refugee-background students and over 97 for those from African or Middle Eastern backgrounds. While overall wellbeing scores remained high even once the very high scores for spirituality/religion were excluded, it is also possible that wellbeing in this domain had a buffering effect that influenced scores in other domains (See for example Tiliouine, Cummins, & Davern, 2009). Many focus group participants chose religion as representing an important domain and qualitative findings too indicated its importance as source of identity and support as well as in facilitating social connectedness through its practice and institutions.

213

MARKERS AND MEANS OF INCLUSION

Housing, health, education and employment are described by Ager and Strang as ‘markers and means’ of integration. Barriers to integration associated with each of these domains are well described in the literature and have been discussed at length in Chapter 2. Education and employment are discussed below first and together, as the two themes were closely linked for Ucan2 participants. Sport is also included in this section, as it emerged from the data that for young people, participation in sport and recreation may constitute an additional domain representing a marker and means of inclusion.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

While Ucan2 students represented diverse cultures and pre-arrival experiences, all were enrolled in an on-arrival English course for those with ‘below functional’ levels of English. The difficulty in learning English and its impact on inclusion and wellbeing has already been alluded to above. A substantial number of the participants in this study arrived in Australia with minimal, and in some cases no, prior education. Qualitative findings indicated that disruption to education prior to migration was experienced by a number of participants as a significant barrier to continued participation and progress especially for older students, who felt that it was too late for them to ‘catch up’ with their peers. Those studying in an adult setting were also more likely to voice frustration with the minimal opportunities for broader engagement offered by on-arrival English courses. These findings, that current systems are failing to meet the needs of this cohort, largely confirm those of other recent reviews and reports on this system. Those reviews indicated that many refugee-background students complete on-arrival English language programs without obtaining the language levels needed to engage in further education or training (AMES, 2011; H. Moore, et al., 2008; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007).

Ucan2 students also frequently expressed confusion over available pathways and impending transition from on-arrival English courses to mainstream settings. Despite these challenges, many participants described having high aspirations regarding future careers and seemed reasonably confident that they would eventually achieve their goals. Students also reported positive scores for satisfaction with their future security, which was defined during the wellbeing survey activity, as ‘thinking that they would feel safe in the future and be able to live comfortably’. These high scores also suggest that most participants felt positive and optimistic about their futures, at least while participating in Ucan2. As was discussed in Chapter 7 though, some students reported feeling discouraged, and career aspirations appeared to have declined amongst participants attending Ucan2 catch-up sessions and in interviews conducted following their transitions to mainstream education settings.

214

Gaining employment was a high priority for Ucan2 students, with most interested in part-time work to accompany their studies. Participants voiced frustration that qualifications were required even for relatively menial jobs. This reality reflects labour market conditions confronting new arrivals to Australia that are very different from those faced by previous generations of migrants when manufacturing and unskilled jobs were relatively plentiful for those without high levels of literacy (S. Richardson & Liu, 2008; S. Richardson, et al., 2004).

Participants recognised the importance of social connections for gaining employment and those with experiences of formal employment agencies uniformly described them as unhelpful (See also Torezani, et al., 2008). Students who had obtained part-time work through the Ucan2 program, were invariably extremely positive about their jobs and also tended to be the most sanguine interviewees overall - though of course their confident demeanours may in some cases also have helped them to gain employment in the first place. These young people certainly appreciated earning money. It was the opportunity to socialise and make connections however, that appeared to be the most highly valued feature of employment for interviewees. By way of contrast, some students who had found work independently of the program (through either relatives or friends) reported negative experiences and were no longer employed in those jobs - suggesting the importance of a supportive workplace and employer to avoid exploitative or damaging experiences. It is likely that the relationships developed between employers and the Ucan2 program increased employers’ opportunities to appreciate and develop empathy for the barriers and difficulties faced by recently arrived refugee-background young people. In addition, Ucan2 students were actively taught concepts and skills within the program that were needed for these jobs and may therefore have been better prepared to cope with their demands.

HOUSING

Housing and homelessness have been identified in the Australian literature as being problematic for refugee-background migrants including youth (Beer & Foley, 2005; Berta, 2012; Couch, 2011; Toure, 2008). Informal conversations held with students and Ucan2 staff during the participant observation phase of this research indicated that a number of participants experienced homelessness and that, as suggested by the literature, family breakdown was the usual precursor, often stemming from complex household structures and overcrowding. Students in focus groups also discussed the difficulty of finding appropriate and affordable housing and their experiences of overcrowded premises. Insecure housing often leads to multiple transitions and moves for refugee-background families. This in turn interferes with multiple other domains of inclusion, particularly the development of social connections and vital institutional links, which are situated and dependent on place (Wells, 2011).

Satisfaction with ‘standard of living’ received the lowest scores for any domain in the wellbeing surveys and was the domain where Ucan2 participants’ scores diverged most in a negative direction 215

from the Australian mean. ‘Standard of living’ was explained to participants as meaning ‘whether the place you live in is OK and whether you have enough money to buy the things that you need’. The low scores for this domain indicate a high level of dissatisfaction by participants with the quality of housing available to them and/or with a lack of disposable income – suggesting that poverty was perhaps one of their most pressing concerns. Given that wellbeing is generally closely correlated with income - particularly at the low income levels that can be assumed for this population (Cummins, et al., 2012) - it is noteworthy that overall subjective wellbeing scores remained high for Ucan2 participants. On the other hand, there is evidence that low scores in this domain – along with low scores for satisfaction with achievement – are associated with depression in the general population (Davern, 2004). This suggests that the dissatisfaction in these domains demonstrated in wellbeing survey scores, may pose a threat to longer-term wellbeing and mental health for study participants. As discussed in Chapter 6, those students with low overall wellbeing scores (less than 65), also reported particularly low levels of satisfaction with their standard of living and achievement.

HEALTH

Results from the wellbeing surveys indicated participants generally reported high levels of satisfaction with their health. Focus group participants frequently nominated ‘good health’ as important and it appeared that when participants understood this as physical health, its importance was assumed to be self-evident and to warrant little discussion. Some groups however, discussed health in terms of general wellbeing that incorporated notions of mental and social wellbeing as well as physical health. Mental health in turn was associated with ‘feeling good’ and inextricably linked with feelings of safety and security, which have already been discussed above. These discussions about health and the way in which Ucan2 ‘helped’ them with their health were consistent with the World Health Organisation’s definition of health as ’a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’ (WHO, October 2006). Access to health services did not feature as an area of concern for the young people in this study.

SPORT

In addition to the range of activities already provided by the Ucan2 program, students frequently discussed a desire for more opportunities to participate in sport and barriers to participation. When asked how the program might be improved, the addition of sport (or more sport) was one of the most common responses. Participants recognised sports participation as having the potential to contribute to physical and mental health as well as provide opportunities to develop social connections.

Whilst a few Ucan2 students were participating in mainstream sports clubs, most reports of sports participation involved activities such as ‘kicking a ball’ in a local park with friends and family,

216

involvement in ad hoc or one-off events, school-based programs, or occasionally, in specific programs for refugee young people. Whilst all of these activities were valued, many students expressed an aspiration to be involved in more regular and organised sports activities. The potential for sport to facilitate the building of social capital, benefit health and promote social inclusion has been consistently emphasised by a number of commentators (Olliff, 2007; Refugee Council of Australia, 2010; SCOA, August 2012). Barriers to participation for recently arrived communities are similarly well documented and include costs, difficulties with transport, lack of knowledge of local systems and lack of support from families – particularly for sports participation by girls.

Notwithstanding some of the risks, including exposure to discrimination on the sports field, Spaaij (2012) has argued that participation in recreational sport should be regarded as an additional marker and means of integration. The results of this study with Ucan2 students lend weight to this suggestion and indicate a need for additional efforts on the part of policy-makers, sports clubs, and service providers to address the recognised barriers to participation.

SOCIAL INCLUSION: THE NEED FOR TARGETED INTERVENTION AND IMPACT OF THE UCAN2 PRORAM

Whilst experience of the Ucan2 program for participants in this research has been touched on throughout the above discussion, this section provides a more concentrated focus on the indications for and impact of intervention. Recent Australian research has demonstrated that generations of humanitarian entrants have made significant economic and social contributions to Australia over many years (Hugo, 2011). However, global trends towards a more educated society, more competitive labour markets and increasing disparities between the wealthy and poorest sections of society mean that new arrivals face greater structural barriers to integration and inclusion than earlier generations of migrants (Beiser, 2009).

Youth is a critical time of transition, which provides the foundation on which a life trajectory rests. Young people also tend to occupy age-specific institutional and spatial contexts associated with education, training and leisure activities, which offer opportunities for intervention (Heath, Brooks, Ireland, & Cleaver, 2009). Added to experiences of trauma and separation from family, many of the young people arriving in Australia in recent years have had severely disrupted or minimal education associated with prolonged portions of their lives spent fleeing persecution and violence and seeking refuge. The combined impacts of these challenges leave young people with refugee-backgrounds at risk of long-term social exclusion. 217

A failure to intervene when young people are at heightened risk of exclusion can only result in an increased prevalence of social problems, including poor health, substance abuse, family breakdown, homelessness and crime (Couch & Francis, 2006; Menadue, et al., 2011; Olliff & Mohammed, 2007; Williamson, 2007). A symposium on the social costs of inadequate education in the U.S. found that improving school retention would significantly reduce crime rates and save billions of dollars per year in lowering the associated costs from crime. In addition, annual losses of billions of dollars in income and tax revenues are avoided; and as higher rates of morbidity occur among high school dropouts, lowering dropout rates saves billions on health care (Levin, 2005). This evidence suggests that supporting refugee-background students to improve educational outcomes, employment opportunities, mental health and wellbeing is likely to lead to long-term social benefits by relieving pressure on social security, health and justice systems and their associated costs.

Refugee-background young people should not however, be regarded only, or even primarily as at risk. The results from the wellbeing surveys conducted for this study as well as qualitative findings suggest that these young people bring with them to Australia considerable resilience, resources and aspirations to achieve. However, threats to wellbeing were identified as stemming particularly from material conditions, separation from families, and difficulties encountered within education systems, suggesting in turn a need for structural, policy and systemic responses to support inclusion. While the need for structural responses to economic and material inequalities is indicated, specific recommendations for these lie beyond the scope of this thesis. The impacts of family separation and their implications for policy have been discussed above. Barriers to inclusion stemming from disrupted education prior to arrival require a systemic response and indicate the need for targeted interventions within the education system.

As was discussed in Chapter 3, a number of scholars have suggested that reducing exclusionary processes and promoting inclusion demand differentiated, albeit complementary, approaches (Hayes, et al., 2008; Hulse, Jacobs, Arthurson, & Spinney, 2010; Labonte, 2004; Lister, 2007; Silver, 2010). Responding to social exclusion requires equitable and universal policies and services, whilst a social inclusion focus helps to recognise the particular needs of groups at risk of exclusion requiring a response through targeted intervention. As Labonte argues, ‘universal programs without some targeting within them (some deference to greater disparity, greater need, greater historic exclusion) can heighten inequalities in outcome because of who is better able to avail of such programs’ (Labonte, 2004:119).

The other key insight associated with social inclusion and exclusion discourses is the need for an intersectoral policy and practice response to the multi-dimensional nature of exclusion. The Australian Social Inclusion Board (2010a) has emphasised that youth policies need to provide continuity of 218

support across transitions and provide opportunities for disadvantaged young people to develop confidence, networks and relationships with trusted adults.

IMPACT OF UCAN2

Ucan2 was developed by service providers who recognised that general youth services, even those developed for CALD youth and other ESL learners, failed to respond to the particular needs of refugee-background young people whose experiences entail profound disruptions to education and relationships. The ways in which the Ucan2 program promoted participants’ social connectedness, mental health and sense of safety and stability have been alluded to above and throughout this thesis and these were key findings of the evaluation. Students and staff believed that the program also facilitated English language acquisition through experiential learning tasks and developing young people’s confidence and opportunities to interact with English speakers.

In addition to developing bonding and bridging social capital, the program actively built linking social capital. At a minimum, it linked young people to service providers and organisations beyond those in which they were studying, including to those providing trauma counselling and support when needed (Foundation House) as well as CMY, which undertakes CALD youth advocacy and provides opportunities for participation. In addition, case management meetings between these service providers were used to link students to other agencies, such as housing or other support services, where indicated. A further opportunity to extend these linking activities to include local sports clubs and other organisations providing recreational activities for young people was identified through this research.

Students also appreciated the advice they received and practical skills they learned in relation to gaining employment. Interviewees frequently discussed the value of assistance with writing résumés as well as practising culturally unfamiliar social conventions, like looking into a person’s eyes when speaking and interview techniques such as talking about one’s skills and attributes. The program is also in step with recent research on social inclusion in promoting part-time work as an appropriate means by which refugee young people can effectively continue their engagement in education systems. The value for young people of part-time work combined with study has been argued to provide vital credentials for future employment and strategic and effective labour market attachment (Kamp, Horn, & Keating, 2008; Misson, 2008). For CALD youth and those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds it has been recognised that active strategies such as those undertaken by the Ucan2 program are needed to promote opportunities for employment. These include building partnerships with businesses, mentoring and work placements to provide ‘opportunities that more advantaged young people take for granted’ (Misson, 2008:6).

219

The Ucan2 program therefore represents an appropriate and valuable intervention that addresses deficiencies in current universal systems and incorporates many of the key features identified in Chapter 2 as apposite for supporting refugee-background youth. It responds to a recognised need for cross-sectoral partnerships between education and community organisations to deliver youth-specific programs (Olliff, 2010a; Refugee Education Partnership Project, 2007). The program also promotes change within current education systems by enhancing system-wide understanding of the refugee experience and the associated need for additional pastoral and psychosocial support.

Both quantitative and qualitative findings indicated that Ucan2 staff became important members of students’ networks, representing linking social capital. It should be acknowledged though, that as the network mapping activity took place within the Ucan2 classroom, the context of data collection may have influenced this finding. While interviews conducted with participants (up to many months) after the program had ended confirmed that the effect of the program was still keenly felt by those young people, I was only able to contact interview participants through program staff. The proviso should be added therefore, that as the process excluded any students for whom staff no longer had contact details, interviewees may have represented some of the most engaged and positive participants rather than the entire group. However, even if these factors may have introduced an element of selection bias into the findings, there is no doubt that these participants believed their participation in the Ucan2 program had had a profoundly beneficial impact on their settlement experiences. This conviction and the importance of the support provided by program staff appeared to reflect the views and experiences of the majority.

STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Young people arriving in Australia as refugees have diverse backgrounds and prior experiences. Participants in this research had 33 different nationalities and 37 different first languages, lived in a variety of family and household structures and had experienced varying degrees of loss and trauma. Predominant countries of origin largely matched the profile of those arriving under Australia’s humanitarian program (See Chapter 2). Most participants had experienced at least some degree of disruption to education and in many cases, prior education had been minimal or non-existent. This disruption can be explained by the fact that most of those currently being accepted into Australia through the humanitarian migration stream come from parts of the world that have experienced protracted conflict. It should be noted however, that as Ucan2 catered specifically for those studying in a low-level English language program, a lack of prior education should not necessarily be assumed for all refugee-background youth. This was exemplified by a young volunteer in the Ucan2 program 220

with a Southern Sudanese refugee background who had arrived three years earlier, had already completed VCE, was enrolled at university and working part time. As he explained, his many years in a boarding school in Kenya prior to migration meant he had not needed to go to an English Language School when he first arrived, and he was already in a position to be assisting other refugee- background young people. In addition, and as noted in Chapter 4, as all participants were enrolled in a post-compulsory education setting, this research did not include any young people who may have been completely disengaged from the education system. Thus participants in this study represent a sizeable proportion, although certainly not all, recently arrived refugee-background young people. Moreover, the absence of a control group, or external data on non refugee-background migrants, along with the fact that all participants were attending a program specifically designed to improve settlement outcomes at the time of data collection, further limits the generalisability of findings to other groups. While it may be surmised that other groups of refugee-background young people would face similar settlement challenges, additional research is required to investigate the experiences of, and appropriate ways to support, those not represented in this study.

Engaging this diverse group of participants with low levels of English proficiency in unfamiliar research processes posed a number of methodological and ethical challenges. While the role of social networks in promoting social inclusion is consistently acknowledged in the refugee settlement literature, few studies appear to have systematically attempted to quantify such networks and relate them to settlement outcomes. This study has demonstrated an effective methodology for measuring participants’ networks, and the associations between those networks and subjective wellbeing over a range of domains. Using the Personal Wellbeing Index (International Wellbeing Group, 2006) as a measure of wellbeing has also allowed comparison between findings for this group and the broader Australian population. As was discussed in Chapter 5, the potential for such research to have negative impacts on participants was also carefully considered and addressed.

Visual methods were developed that successfully engaged young people with limited English language in focus group discussions about their circumstances that yielded rich data and appeared to provide a meaningful and potentially valuable experience for participants. Nonetheless, the language barrier between myself and participants inevitably limited communication to a degree. Whilst there were valid reasons for not using interpreters (discussed in Chapter 5), participants with very low levels of English in particular may have been able to contribute more to the research had interpreters been employed.

While I have argued earlier in this thesis – particularly in Chapter 5 – that the embedded approach used to conduct the research allowed both a deeper understanding of participant experiences and the development of relationships between researcher and participants that facilitated effective and ethical 221

data collection, there are also drawbacks to this approach. As was evident from comments in focus groups such as ‘all is good teacher’, some participants may not have distinguished my role from that of Ucan2 staff despite my efforts to emphasise my research role. Although many participants did discuss ways that they felt the program could be ‘improved’, this embedded approach may have contributed to the overwhelmingly positive assessments by students of theUcan2 program and limited the potential for criticisms to emerge.

Students were selectively invited to participate in individual interviews to maximise diversity in the sample with respect to a range of criteria, including culture of origin, Ucan2 site (language school or adult setting) and gender. While the quantitative analysis suggested the existence of significant cultural influences on wellbeing outcomes, possible reasons for these differences (discussed in Chapter 6) remain unclear and were not explored to any great extent in the qualitative interviews and focus groups. An underlying assumption of the Ucan2 program is that the common refugee experience, entailing trauma-precipitated migration, disruption to networks and to education has a greater effect on resettlement than cultural differences. Interviews largely confirmed the similar impact across cultures of the refugee experience but were completed before the final quantitative analyses and did not reveal possible reasons for the observed cultural differences in wellbeing. These therefore remain a topic inviting further exploration. It is of note that the Good Starts study also found cultural origin was a predictor of subjective wellbeing. Although in that study, young people with an African background reported higher wellbeing (Correa-Velez, et al., 2010), which was the case only for some domains for this study with Ucan2 students, in which those from the Middle East generally reported equivalent or higher scores. Nor did the Good Starts study include a sizeable group from Burma, who in this study tended to have the lowest scores for wellbeing in a number of domains. It should perhaps be reiterated here, that different ethnic groups also tended to reside predominantly, although not exclusively, in different parts of Melbourne. Different community characteristics and local conditions such as acceptance of ethnic diversity, access to services, and housing quality may also have had a differential impact on various domains of wellbeing.

Overall, the results of the wellbeing surveys indicated that Ucan2 students experienced high levels of subjective wellbeing, greater than Australian averages for their age group in most domains. Despite these generally high levels of wellbeing, it is possible that administration of the demographic and wellbeing surveys after the social network mapping could have influenced participants wellbeing scores, perhaps particularly in cases where young people had very limited networks.

Qualitative findings suggest that the Ucan2 program may have had some influence on wellbeing scores by providing a much appreciated supportive social environment. However, as this was an observational study without a control group, the extent of any influence of the program on wellbeing 222

cannot be demonstrated, nor whether any influence on wellbeing persisted beyond the end of the program. Assessing the influence of the Ucan2 program on wellbeing is further complicated by the fact that irregular attendance and continuous enrolment affected data collection as well as the extent to which participants had actually had been exposed to the Ucan2 program when data was collected.

Additional longitudinal and comparative research is required to investigate further the impact of programs such as Ucan2 on both short-term and long-term social inclusion, wellbeing and settlement outcomes. An additional limitation with respect to the wellbeing findings is that they reflect subjective wellbeing measures only. Objective measures of achievement, income, and housing, for example, were not collected. Such measures would add further insights to the findings reported here that these domains were problematic for participants. As suggested earlier, additional research into the influence of religious beliefs and practices on wellbeing and social inclusion of refugee settlers is also indicated.

The discussion earlier concerning the relative value of bonding and bridging social ties is based on the qualitative and quantitative findings from this study as well as the theoretical literature. It should be noted however, that the social network mapping exercise entailed necessarily crude distinctions and assumptions about the types of relationships that constituted bonds, bridges and links. Family members were assumed to represent bonds, friends to represent bridges and ‘others’ to represent links. Qualitative analyses, however, indicate that there is considerable blurring and overlap between these categories. Friends and ‘linking connections’ for example, may in some cases provide the types of support generally associated with family ‘bonds’, and vice versa. It may be more useful in fact, to define different forms of social connection functionally (ie. according to the types of resources made available), rather than structurally (according to network ties’ nominal relationship with the ego).

SUMMARY

This chapter has considered the findings of this investigation into the settlement experiences of Ucan2 students in the context of existing substantive and theoretical evidence concerning refugee settlement, social inclusion and the role of social capital. It has also discussed the implications of these findings for policy and practice as well as the study’s strengths, limitations and indications for further research.

I have argued here that different forms of social capital operate interdependently to facilitate social inclusion for refugee-background youth, with the implication that interventions should aim to support and build diverse social connections that include bonding, bridging and linking ties. Social connections, along with multiple other domains of inclusion, are also critical for imparting a sense of safety and stability - crucial for promoting psychosocial wellbeing. In addition to the domains 223

identified by Ager and Strang’s (2008) framework, participation in sports and other recreational activities emerged as a complementary marker and means of inclusion, while religious beliefs and practices appeared to play an important role in supporting participants’ sense of identity, stability and wellbeing. Threats to wellbeing identified through this study included the ongoing impact of family separation; unstable and poor quality housing and poverty; and difficulties within education and employment systems flowing from a lack of prior educational and relevant employment experiences.

The next and final chapter concludes the thesis by briefly reviewing its key findings in relation to the study’s aims and summarising its methodological, theoretical and substantive contributions to understanding the resettlement experiences of recently arrived refugee-background youth.

224

CHAPTER 9 : CONCLUSIONS

One of the objectives of this study was to privilege the voices of refugee-background young people and effectively bring those voices into the knowledge constructed around them. As discussed in detail in Chapter 5, methods were adapted to render them ethical and effective and this process has contributed to academic discourse concerning ethical and rigorous strategies for engaging a potentially vulnerable participant group in research about their experiences (Block, et al., 2012). This research has also demonstrated the value of using a mixed methods approach for understanding the role of social capital in influencing social inclusion for this cohort.

Castles has argued that much refugee research is under-theorised and that this limits its effectiveness in guiding policy and practice (Castles, 2003). Using theoretically grounded sampling and analytic methods also enhances the generalisability of qualitative and observational studies (J. Daly, et al., 2007). Another objective of this study therefore, was to contextualise an enhanced understanding of the settlement experiences of refugee-background young people within contemporary social theories – in this case social inclusion/exclusion and social capital. Whilst social exclusion has been broadly adopted in a number of Western countries, including Australia, as a useful means for conceptualising multi-faceted and overlapping circumstances of disadvantage, it remains relatively under-utilised in the field of refugee research in comparison with the more ‘specialised’ concept of integration (Correa- Velez, Spaaij, & Upham, 2012). I have argued that Ager and Strang’s (2008) conceptual framework for understanding integration also provides an appropriate model for representing multiple domains of inclusion and the multidirectional role played by social connections in facilitating it.

This research has added substantially to the current evidence base concerning the resettlement experiences of older adolescent and young adult refugees in Australia. Qualitative techniques provided rich data concerning participants’ aspirations, experiences and concerns, and confirmed the relevance to this cohort of the domains identified in the framework. Religious beliefs and practices, and participation in sports and recreation activities emerged as additional important areas influencing inclusion. A lack of access to the internet and skills in using computer technology appeared to be an additional challenge limiting access to information and connections for a number of young people.

Survey results showed that, within the context of the Ucan2 program, participants reported high levels of subjective wellbeing. Wellbeing can be considered as both an indicator of social inclusion and successful settlement and as a resource that assists young people to cope with settlement challenges (Ager & Strang, 2008; Correa-Velez, et al., 2010). This study’s findings suggest a high degree of resilience amongst participants in the face of considerable challenges and traumatic past experiences. Despite high scores for overall wellbeing, participants generally expressed low levels of satisfaction 225

with their standard of living, indicating that poverty and insecure or inadequate housing threatens wellbeing for this cohort. In addition, relatively low and declining satisfaction with achievement suggests that many struggle in the educational system; a finding that may be addressed by recognising and responding to the particular needs of refugee-background students with disrupted education. A systemic response, in the form of targeted interventions such as Ucan2, which recognises the particular challenges brought about by disrupted education and provides additional, and holistic support for this cohort appears to be indicated. Although, given that students within the Ucan2 program still reported this decline, additional longer term and comparative research is indicated to determine whether outcomes would be worse without the program or whether further support is required.

Overall wellbeing was also reduced for those young people with no parents in Australia and those without other family members reported lower levels of connection to and satisfaction with community. Network mapping combined with qualitative data and a detailed analysis of theories of social capital has aided a nuanced understanding of the resources available to refugee-background youth associated with bonding, bridging and linking social connections. Network mapping proved a feasible method for measuring the extent of young people’s social connections and assessing the potential of those networks to provide the different types of resources associated with bonding, bridging and linking social capital. This method revealed the profound degree of disruption to bonding relationships brought about by the refugee experience in addition to a general lack of bridging connections experienced by this group. Qualitative and quantitative findings indicated that those participants lacking local social bonds were particularly vulnerable and consequently found it difficult to participate effectively in settlement tasks. The capacity of programs such as Ucan2 to facilitate new bonding connections appeared to assist some students to cope with their lack of local family support. Additionally, findings concerning the debilitating impact of loss of family connections lend weight to recent advocacy efforts supporting enhanced broad and inclusive family reunion policies for refugee settlers.

Within the broader social capital literature, there is some concern evinced about the potential downsides for socioeconomically disadvantaged communities of dependence on abundant and localised bonding connections combined with a relative lack of bridging capital. These concerns appear to have been extended to refugee settlers - for example in research investigating the reduced earning potential of refugees and their potential to be consigned to ethnic niches within the labour market. Similar concerns would also appear to justify policies such as dispersal of refugee settlers in Britain. There are some important differences however, between the bonding networks of refugee settlers and those of communities of entrenched disadvantage consisting of the locally born. The

226

findings here would suggest that many of the young participants in this study tended to lack localised bonding capital – as well as bridging capital - and that the capacity of programs such as Ucan2 to support the development of bonding, as well as bridging, connections was valuable. The interdependence of bonding and bridging networks discussed in the previous chapter suggests that a concern with cultivating bridging networks exclusively may be insufficient for those young people struggling to cope with missing family and a lack of support. The findings of this study also confirmed the vital role played by linking relationships to representatives of services and institutions in supporting these young people.

A subsidiary aim of this project was to provide relevant evidence to inform policy and service provision for refugee-background young people. The impact of the Ucan2 program has been documented throughout this thesis and this research has shown that the range of psychosocial supports it offers is both theoretically and empirically justified and highly valued by its young participants. Regular research reports based on this study and the close working relationship developed with the organisations delivering Ucan2 enabled the findings from this research to be used to inform and refine the program. Progressive findings were relayed back to research partners and theoretical, methodological and substantive insights arising from the project were shared throughout with other practitioners and policy-makers involved in providing services to refugee-background young people. A complete list of knowledge translation activities and outcomes is provided in Appendix 4.

As was noted throughout the previous chapter, findings from this PhD study indicate a number of areas for further research, including additional longitudinal and comparative research into the impacts of interventions such as Ucan2. This study also highlighted a need for further research into variations in resettlement experiences according to cultural background; the potential for participation in sports and recreation to promote social inclusion; and the role played by religion in supporting inclusion and wellbeing. The target cohort for the Ucan2 program comprised refugee-background youth studying in low-level on-arrival English classes. Thus, those with higher levels of pre-arrival education as well as those disengaged entirely from education were not included. The circumstances and supports needed for the latter group in particular also demand further investigation.

Notwithstanding this need for further research, the findings of this study suggest that policy-makers and services can promote positive resettlement among refugee-background young people by:

 Providing targeted interventions within the education system that recognise and respond to the disrupted education and psychosocial needs of refugee-background youth;  Providing opportunities for young people to develop both a mixture of bonding, bridging and linking connections; and  Facilitating family reunion wherever possible. 227

228

REFERENCES

ACER. (2008). Schools first. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research. Achermann, C. (2009). Multi-perspective research on foreigners in prisons in Switzerland. In I. Van Liempt & V. Bilger (Eds.), The ethics of migration research methodology: Dealing with vulnerable immigrants (pp. 49-80). Eastbourne and Portland: Sussex Academic Press. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2004a). The experience of integration: A qualitative study of refugee integration in the local communities of Pollokshaws and Islington (Vol. 55). UK: Home Office. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2004b). Indicators of integration: Final report. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166-191. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fen016 Allen, R. (2009). Benefit or burden? Social capital, gender, and the economic adaptation of refugees. International Migration Review, 43(2), 332-365. AMES. (2011). Words to work: The experiences of people in the Adult Migrant English Program in Melbourne. Melbourne: Adult Multicultural Education Services, Victoria. Anderson, G. L. (1989). Critical ethnography in education: Origins, current status, and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 249. Atfield, G., Brahmbhatt, K., & O'Toole, T. (2007). Refugees' experiences of integration: Refugee Council and University of Birmingham. Atwell, R., Gifford, S., & McDonald-Wilmsen, B. (2009). Resettled refugee families and their children's futures: Coherence, hope and support. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 40(5), 677-697. Australian Government. (n.d.). Social inclusion Retrieved 22/09/2011, from http://www.socialinclusion.gov.au/ Australian Human Rights Commission. (23 November 2009). Social Inclusion Week spotlights the need to think inclusively. Retrieved from http://www.humanrights.gov.au/about/media/media_releases/2009/117_09.html Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2010a). Second annual report. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Australian Social Inclusion Board. (2010b). Social inclusion in Australia: How Australia is faring (First annual report). Canberra: Dept. of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Balatti, J., Black, S., & Falk, I. (2006). Reframing adult literacy and numeracy course outcomes: A social capital perspective. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research Australia (NCVER). Baum, F. E., & Ziersch, A. M. (2003). Social capital: Glossary. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57, 320-323. Bean, T., Derluyn, I., Eurelings-Bontekoe, E., Broekaert, E., & Spinhoven, P. (2007). Comparing psychological distress, traumatic stress reactions, and experiences of unaccompanied refugee minors with experiences of adolescents accompanied by parents. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 195(4), 288. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics 5th edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Beer, A., & Foley, P. (2005). Housing need and provision for recently arrived refugees in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Beirens, H., Hughes, N., Hek, R., & Spicer, N. (2007). Preventing social exclusion of refugee and asylum seeking children: Building new networks. Social Policy and Society, 6(02), 219-229. doi: doi:10.1017/S1474746406003484 Beiser, M. (2009). Resettling refugees and safeguarding their mental health: Lessons learned from the Canadian Refugee Resettlement Project. Transcultural Psychiatry, 46(4), 539-583. 229

Béland, D. (2007). The social exclusion discourse: Ideas and policy change. Policy & Politics, 35(1), 123-139. Berkman, L. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57(3), 245-254. Berkman, L., & Glass, T. (2000). Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. In L. F. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 137-173). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berkman, L., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843-857. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5-34. Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. Chun, P. Balls-Organista & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement and applied research (pp. 17- 37). Washington DC: APA Press. Berry, J. W. (2009). A critique of critical acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 361-371. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2010). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity and adaptation. Paper presented at the Migration, Identität, Sprache und Bildungserfolg., Weinheim, Germany. Berta, L. (2012). Making it home: Refugee housing in Melbourne's west. Melbourne: Footscray Community Legal Centre. Bilger, V., & Van Liempt, I. (2009). Introduction: Methodological and ethical concerns in research with vulnerable migrants. In I. Van Liempt & V. Bilger (Eds.), The ethics of migration research methodology: Dealing with vulnerable immigrants (pp. 1-22). Eastbourne and Portland: Sussex Academic Press. Birman, D., & Chan, W. Y. (2008). Screening and assessing immigrant and refugee youth in school- based mental health programs. Washington, DC: Center for Health and Health Care in Schools, George Washington University. Block, K., Riggs, E., Gibbs, L., Warr, D., Gold, L., Tadic, M., et al. (2010). Ucan2 Evaluation: Final Report: McCaughey Centre, University of Melbourne. Block, K., Warr, D., Gibbs, L., & Riggs, E. (2012). Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: Reflections from the field. Journal of Refugee Studies. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fes002 Bond, L., Giddens, A., Cosentino, A., Cook, M., Hoban, P., Haynes, A., et al. (2007). Changing cultures: Enhancing mental health and wellbeing of refugee young people through education and training. Promotion & Education(3), 143-149. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P. (1996). Understanding. Theory, Culture & Society, 13(2), 17-37. Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Brough, M., Gorman, D., Ramirez, E., & Westoby, P. (2003). Young refugees talk about well-being: A qualitative analysis of refugee youth mental health from three states. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38(2), 193-208. Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Byrne, D. (2005). Social exclusion. Maidenhead UK: Open University Press. Caperchione, C. M., Kolt, G. S., & Mummery, W. K. (2009). Physical activity in culturally and linguistically diverse migrant groups to Western society: A review of barriers, enablers and experiences. Sports Medicine, 39(3), 167-177. Cassity, E., & Gow, G. (2005). Making up for lost time. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 51-55. Castles, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of forced migration and social transformation. Sociology, 37(1), 13-34. 230

Castles, S., Korac, M., Vasta, E., & Vertovec, S. (2002). Integration: mapping the field. London: Project Report: Home Office Immigration Research and Statistics Service Chamberlain, C., & MacKenzie, D. (2002). Youth Homelessness 2001: A research program funded by all state and territory governments and the Salvation Army. Melbourne: RMIT University. Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium & A. H. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 675-694). Thousand Oaks: Sage Cheong, P. H., Edwards, R., Goulbourne, H., & Solomos, J. (2007). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 24-49. doi: 10.1177/0261018307072206 CMYI. (2006). Refugee young people and resettlement. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(S1), 95-120. Colic-Peisker, V., & Tilbury, F. (2006). Employment niches for recent refugees: Segmented labour market in twenty-first century Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 19(2), 203-229. Colic-Peisker, V., & Tilbury, F. (2007). Integration into the Australian labour market: The experience of three “visibly different” groups of recently arrived refugees. International Migration Review, 45(1), 59-85. Colic-Peisker, V., & Walker, I. (2003). Human capital, acculturation and social identity: Bosnian refugees in Australia. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 13, 337-360. Colley, H., Boetzelen, P., Hoskins, B., & Parveva, T. (Eds.). (2007). Social inclusion for young people: Breaking down the barriers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Colucci, E. (2007). “Focus groups can be fun”: The use of activity-oriented questions in focus group discussions. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1422-1433. Colucci, E. (2008). On the use of focus groups in cross-cultural research. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Doing cross-cultural research : Ethical and methodological perspectives (pp. 233-252). London: Springer. Correa-Velez, I., Barnett, A. G., & Gifford, S. (2013). Working for a better life: Longitudinal evidence on the predictors of employment among recently arrived refugee migrant men living in Australia. International Migration. Correa-Velez, I., & Gifford, S. M. (2007). When the right to be counted doesn’t count: The politics and challenges of researching the health of asylum seekers. Critical Public Health, 17(3), 273-281. Correa-Velez, I., Gifford, S. M., & Barnett, A. G. (2010). Longing to belong: Social inclusion and wellbeing among youth with refugee backgrounds in the first three years in Melbourne, Australia. Social Science & Medicine, 71, 1399-1408. Correa-Velez, I., Spaaij, R., & Upham, S. (2012). ‘We are not here to claim better services than any other’: Social exclusion among men from refugee backgrounds in urban and regional Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fes003 Couch, J. (2011). A new way home: Refugee young people and homelessness in Australia. Journal of Social Inclusion, 2(1), 39-52. Couch, J., & Francis, S. (2006). Participation for all? Searching for marginalized voices: The case for including refugee young people Children, Youth and Environments 16(2), 277-295. Coventry, L., Guerra, C., MacKenzie, D., & Pinkney, S. (2002). Wealth of All Nations–Identification of strategies to assist refugee young people in transition to independence. Hobart: Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Craig, T., Jajua, P. M., & Warfa, N. (2009). Mental health care needs of refugees. Psychiatry, 8(9), 351-354. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: Sage

231

Cummins, R. A. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55-72. Cummins, R. A., & Lau, A. D. (2005). Personal wellbeing index – school children (3rd Ed.) Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/pwi-sc- english.pdf Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. L. D., & Davern, M. T. (2012). Subjective wellbeing homeostasis. In K. C. Land, A. Michalos & J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research (Vol. 1, pp. 79-98). New York: Springer. Cummins, R. A., Schäfer, M., Woerner, J., Hartley-Clark, L., Perera, C., Collard, J., et al. (2011). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey 26.0. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University. Czymoniewicz-Klippel, M. T., Brijnath, B., & Crockett, B. (2010). Ethics and the promotion of inclusiveness within qualitative research: Case examples from Asia and the Pacific. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(5), 332-341. Daley, C. (2009). Exploring community connections: Community cohesion and refugee integration at a local level. Community Development Journal, 44(2), 158-171. Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N., Kealy, M., et al. (2007). A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 43-49. Daly, M., & Silver, H. (2008). Social exclusion and social capital: A comparison and critique. Theory and Society, 37(6), 537-566. Davern, M. (2004). Subjective wellbeing as an affective construct. Doctoral dissertation, Deakin University, Melbourne. Davies, J. S. (2005). The social exclusion debate. Policy Studies, 26(1), 3-27. DEECD. (2008). Strengthening outcomes: Refugee students in government schools (Vol. b). Melbourne: ESL Unit, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victorian Goverment. DEECD. (2011). Refugee status report: Backgound information, methodology and data sources. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. DEEWR. (2011). English as a second language - New arrivals program Retrieved 28/10/11, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/Programs/EnglishasaSecondLanguageNewArrivalsProgr am/Pages/default.aspx Denzin, N. K. (2010). Moments, mixed methods, and paradigm dialogs. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(6), 419-427. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2008). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. De Vroome, T., & Van Tubergen, F. (2010). The employment experience of refugees in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 44(2), 376-403. Dhanji, S. (2009). Welcome or unwelcome?: Integration issues and the resettlement of former refugees from the Horn of Africa and Sudan in metropolitan Melbourne. The Australasian Review of African Studies, 30(2), 152-178. DIAC. (2009). Humanitarian Settlement Services. Fact Sheet 60. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government, Available at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/66hss.htm. DIAC. (2011a). Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program. Fact sheet 60. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government. DIAC. (2011b). English courses for eligible migrants and humanitarian entrants in Australia. Fact Sheet 94. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government. DIAC. (2011c). The People of Australia: Australia's Multicultural Policy. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government DIAC. (2011d). Settlement reporting facility Retrieved 20/10/11, from http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/settlement-reporting- facility/

232

DIAC. (2011e). A significan contribution: The economic, social and civic contributions of first and second generation humanitarian entrants - a summary of findings. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government DIAC. (2011f). Settlement Grants Program. Fact Sheet 92. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australian Government. Domínguez, S., & Arford, T. (2010). It is all about who you know: Social capital and health in low- income communities. Health Sociology Review, 19(1), 114-129. Doná, G. (2007). The microphysics of participation in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 210-229. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fem013 Duncan, G., Shepherd, M., & Symons, J. (2010). Working with refugees-a manual for caseworkers and volunteers. Rural and Remote Health, 10, 1406-1428. Earnest, J., Housen, T., & Gillieatt, S. (2007). A new cohort of refugee students in Perth: Challenges for students and educators. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth. Eder, D., & Fingerson, L. (2002). Interviewing children and adolescents. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 181-201). Thousand Oaks: Sage Edwards, J., Cheers, B., & Graham, L. (2003). Social change and social capital in Australia: A solution for contemporary problems? Health Sociology Review, 12(1), 68-85. Edwards, K. (2008). Social inclusion and youth participation: A new deal for Australia. Youth Studies Australia, 27(2), 11-17. Ellis, B. H., Kia-Keating, M., Yusuf, S. A., Lincoln, A., & Nur, A. (2007). Ethical research in refugee communities and the use of community participatory methods. Transcultural Psychiatry, 44(3), 459-481. Ellis, B. H., Lincoln, A. K., Charney, M. E., Ford-Paz, R., Benson, M., & Strunin, L. (2010). Mental health service utilization of Somali adolescents: Religion, community, and school as gateways to healing. Transcultural psychiatry, 47(5), 789-811. Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 80-99. Eriksson, M. (2011). Social capital and health–implications for health promotion. Global Health Action, 4, 5611-5621. Erzberger, C., & Prein, G. (1997). Triangulation: Validity and empirically-based hypothesis construction. Quality & Quantity, 31(2), 141-154. Esposito, N. (2001). From meaning to meaning: The influence of translation techniques on non- English focus group research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 568-579. Evans, P. (1996). Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development, 24(6), 1119-1132. Fangen, K. (2010). Social exclusion and inclusion of young immigrants. Young, 18(2), 133-156. Fazel, M., Wheeler, J., & Danesh, J. (2005). Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7000 refugees resettled in western countries: A systematic review. The Lancet, 365(9467), 1309-1314. Field, J. (2003). Social capital New York Routledge. Finlay, L. (2002). “Outing” the researcher: The provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), 531-545. Fothergill, K. E., Ensminger, M. E., Robertson, J., Green, K. M., Thorpe, R. J., & Juon, H. S. (2011). Effects of social integration on health: A prospective study of community engagement among African American women. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 291-298. Fozdar, F., & Torezani, S. (2008). Discrimination and well-being: Perceptions of refugees in Western Australia. International Migration Review, 42(1), 30-63. Francis, S., & Cornfoot, S. (2007a). Multicultural youth in Australia: Settlement and transition. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI) for Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY).

233

Francis, S., & Cornfoot, S. (2007b). Working with multicultural youth: Programs, strategies and future directions. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI) for Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gadaku Institute. (n.d.). Rock and Water Program Retrieved 17/02/12, from http://www.rockandwaterprogram.com/ Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N., & Daly, J. (2007). What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 540-544. Gifford, S., Bakopanos, C., Kaplan, I., & Correa-Velez, I. (2007). Meaning or measurement? Researching the social contexts of health and settlement among newly-arrived refugee youth in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(3), 414-440. Gifford, S., Correa-Velez, I., & Sampson, R. (2009). Good Starts for recently arrived youth with refugee backgrounds. Melbourne: Refugee Research Centre, La Trobe University. Gillard, J. (2007). Labor's Social Inclusion Agenda: Challenges for government and the community sector. Sydney: ALP National Conference Fringe Event: ASU/Acoss Launch Building social inclusion in Australia - priorities for the social annd community services sector workforce. Gold, R. L. (1997). The ethnographic method in sociology. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 388-402. Gómez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235-245. Goodman, J. H. (2004). Coping with trauma and hardship among unaccompanied refugee youths from Sudan. Qualitative Health Research, 14(9), 1177-1196. Gordon, D. (2000). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360- 1380. Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., Gibbs, L., et al. (2007). Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 545-550. Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499-510. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi: 10.1177/1525822x05279903 Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261-280. Hage, G. (2000). White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. New York: Routledge. Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., DiGiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007). Literature review: Considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 16(6), 1000-1011. Hammersley, M. (1995). Theory and evidence in qualitative research. Quality & Quantity, 29(1), 55- 66. Hardwick, S. W. (2003). Migration, embedded networks and social capital: Towards theorising North American ethnic geography. International Journal of Population Geography, 9(2), 163-179. Hasmath, R. (2012). The ethnic penalty: Immigration, education, and the labour market. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2000). Social capital and health promotion: A review. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 871-885. Hayes, A., Gray, M., & Edwards, B. (2008). Social inclusion: Origins, concepts and key themes: Paper prepared by the Australian Institute of Family Studies for the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Heath, S., Brooks, R., Ireland, E., & Cleaver, E. (2009). Researching young people's lives. London: Sage Publications

234

Heikkinen, M. (2000). Social networks of the marginal young: A study of young people's social exclusion in Finland. Journal of Youth Studies, 3(4), 389-406. Hoerr, K. (4 October 2007). Report shows Africans slow to integrate: Andrews. ABC News Retrieved 21 November, 2011, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-10-04/report-shows-africans- slow-to-integrate-andrews/689538 Holden, E., & Dwyer, P. (1992). Making the break: Leaving school early. University of Melbourne: Youth Research Centre, Institute of Education Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta- analytic review. PLoS Med, 7(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 Houston, A., Aristotle, P., & L’Estrange, M. (August, 2012). Report of the expert panel on asylum seekers: Australian Goverment. Howard, R. W. (2006). Bending towards justice: Service‐learning and social capital as means to the tipping point. Mentoring & Tutoring, 14(1), 5-15. Hugo, G. (2011). Economic, social and civic contributions of first and second generation entrants. Adelaide: Final Report to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Hulse, K., Jacobs, K., Arthurson, K., & Spinney, A. (2010). Housing, public policy and social inclusion AHURI Positioning paper No. 135. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2004). A last resort? National enquiry into children in immigration detention. Sydney: Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Humpage, L., & Marston, G. (2005). Cultural justice, community development and onshore refugees in Australia. Community Development Journal, 40(2), 137-146. doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsi022 International Wellbeing Group. (2006). Personal wellbeing index (4th edn.) Retrieved from http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol/instruments/wellbeing-index/ Jacobsen, K., & Landau, L. B. (2003). The dual imperative in refugee research: Some methodological and ethical considerations in social science research on forced migration. Disasters, 27(3), 185-206. Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 103-119). Thousand Oaks: Sage Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2008). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 375-402). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Kamp, A., Horn, M., & Keating, J. (2008). Social inclusion and youth: A summary report of the social inclusion and youth workshop Social Inclusion and Youth Workshop Proceedings. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St. Laurence. Kasen, S., Wickramaratne, P., Gameroff, M., & Weissman, M. (2012). Religiosity and resilience in persons at high risk for major depression. Psychological Medicine, 42(3), 509. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2000). Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In L. F. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social epidemiology (pp. 174-190). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(3), 458-467. Kawachi, I., Kim, D., Coutts, A., & Subramanian, S. (2004). Commentary: Reconciling the three accounts of social capital. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 682-690. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh177 Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S., & Kim, D. (2008a). Social capital and health: A decade of progress and beyond. In I. Kawachi, S. Subramanian & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 1-26). New York: Springer. Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S., & Kim, D. (Eds.). (2008b). Social capital and health. New York: Springer.

235

Keleher, H., & Armstrong, R. (2006). Evidence-based mental health promotion resource: Public Health Group, Victorian Department of Human Services. Kia-Keating, M., & Ellis, B. H. (2007). Belonging and connection to school in resettlement: Young refugees, school belonging, and psychosocial adjustment. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12(1), 29. Kilbride, K. M., Anisef, P., Baichman-Anisef, E., & Khattar, R. (2001). Between two worlds: The experiences and concerns of immigrant youth in Ontario. Toronto: CERIS (Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement). Kopinak, J. K. (1999). The use of triangulation in a study of refugee well-being. Quality and Quantity, 33(2), 169-183. Korac, M. (2003). Integration and how we facilitate it: A comparative study of the settlement experiences of refugees in Italy and the Netherlands. Sociology, 37(1), 51. Korac, M. (2005). The role of bridging social networks in refugee settlement: The case of exile communities from the former Yugoslavia in Italy and the Netherlands In P. Waxman & V. Colic-Peisker (Eds.), Homeland wanted: Interdisciplinary perspectives of refugee resettlement in the West (pp. 87-107). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Kyle, L., Macdonald, F., Doughney, J., & Pyke, J. (2004a). Refugees in the labour market. Ecumenical Migration Centre of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Fitzroy, Victoria. Kyle, L., Macdonald, F., Doughney, J., & Pyke, J. (2004b). Refugees in the labour market: Looking for cost-effective models of assistance. Melbourne: Ecumenical Migration Centre, Brotherhood of St Laurence. Labonte, R. (2004). Social inclusion/exclusion: Dancing the dialectic. Health Promotion International, 19(1), 115-121. Lakon, C. M., Godette, D. C., & Hipp, J. R. (2008). Network-based approaches for measuring social capital. In I. Kawachi, S. Subramanian & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 63- 81). New York: Springer. Lamb, S., & Rice, S. (2008). Effective strategies to increase school completion report. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Victorian Government. Lamba, N. K. (2003). The employment experiences of Canadian refugees: Measuring the impact of human and social capital on quality of employment. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 40(1), 45-64. Lambert, S. D., & Loiselle, C. G. (2008). Combining individual interviews and focus groups to enhance data richness. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(2), 228-237. Landau, L. B., & Jacobsen, K. (2005). The value of transparency, replicability and representativeness. Forced Migration Review, 22, 46. Leask, J., Hawe, P., & Chapman, S. (2001). Focus group composition: A comparison between natural and constructed groups. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(2), 152- 154. LeCompte, M. D., & Schensul, J. J. (2010). Designing & conducting ethnographic research: An introduction (2nd ed. Vol. 1). Plymouth: Altamira Press. Levin, H. (2005). The social costs of inadequate education. Paper presented at the Teachers College Symposium on Educational Equity, Columbia University, New York. Levitas, R. (1998). The inclusive society?: Social exclusion and New Labour. London: Macmillan Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Fahmy, E., Gordon, D., Lloyd, E., & Patsios, D. (2007). The multidimensional analysis of social exclusion. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Liamputtong, P. (2008). Doing cross-cultural research: Ethical and methodological perspectives. London: Springer Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Lim, S. L. (2009). " Loss of connections is death": Transnational family ties among Sudanese refugee families resettling in the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40(6), 1028- 1040. Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51. 236

Lister, R. (1998). From equality to social inclusion: New Labour and the welfare state. Critical Social Policy, 18(55), 215-225. Lister, R. (2007). Inclusive citizenship: Realizing the potential Citizenship Studies, 11(1), 49-61. Loizos, P. (2000). Are refugees social capitalists? In S. Baron, J. Field & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 124-141). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lomas, J. (1998). Social capital and health: Implications for public health and epidemiology. Social Science & Medicine, 47(9), 1181-1188. MacDonald, R., Shildrick, T., Webster, C., & Simpson, D. (2005). Growing up in poor neighbourhoods: The significance of class and place in the extended transitions of 'socially excluded' young adults. Sociology, 39(5), 873-891. Mackenzie, C., McDowell, C., & Pittaway, E. (2007). Beyond 'Do No Harm': The challenge of constructing ethical relationships in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 299- 319. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fem008 MacLean, S., Warr, D., & Pyett, P. (2009). Was it good for you too? Impediments to conducting university-based collaborative research with communities experiencing disadvantage. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(5), 407-412. Mallet, S., Bentley, R., Baker, E., Mason, K., Keys, D., Kolar, V., et al. (2011). Precarious housing and health inequalities: What are the links? Summary report. Australia: Hanover Welfare Services, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide, Melbourne Citymission. Martin, S. (2004). Reconceptualising social exclusion: A critical response to the neoliberal welfare reform agenda and the underclass thesis. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 79-94. Marx, E. (1990). The social world of refugees: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies 3(3), 189-203. Mathieson, J., Popay, J., Enoch, E., Escorel, S., Hernandez, M., Johnston, H., et al. (2008). Social exclusion, meaning, measurement and experience and links to health inequalitites: A review of literature: WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network. Matthews, J. (2008). Schooling and settlement: Refugee education in Australia. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(1), 31-45. McCarthy, C., & Marks, D. F. (2010). Exploring the health and well-being of refugee and asylum seeking children. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 586-595. McDonald-Wilmsen, B., & Gifford, S. M. (2009). Refugee resettlement, family separation and Australia's humanitarian program. Geneva: UNHCR. McDonald, B., Gifford, S., Webster, K., Wiseman, J., & Casey, S. (2008). Refugee resettlement in regional and rural Victoria: Impacts and policy issues. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. McKenzie, B. D. (2007). Reconsidering the effects of bonding social capital: A closer look at black civil society institutions in America. Political Behavior, 30(1), 25-45. McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15(4), 351-377. McMichael, C. (2002). 'Everywhere is Allah's place': Islam and the everyday life of Somali women in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies, 15(2), 171-188. McMichael, C., & Gifford, S. (2010). Narratives of sexual health risk and protection amongst young people from refugee backgrounds in Melbourne, Australia. Culture, Health & Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 12(3), 263-277. McMichael, C., Gifford, S., & Correa-Velez, I. (2011). Negotiating family, navigating resettlement: Family connectedness amongst resettled youth with refugee backgrounds living in Melbourne, Australia. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(2), 179-195. McMichael, C., & Manderson, L. (2004). Somali women and well-being: Social networks and social capital among immigrant women in Australia. Human Organization, 63(1), 88-99. McPherson, M. (2010). ‘I integrate, therefore I am’: Contesting the normalizing discourse of integrationism through conversations with refugee women. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(4), 546-570.

237

Menadue, J., Keski-Nummi, A., & Gauthier, K. (2011). A new approach. Breaking the stalemate on refugees and asylum seekers. Sydney: Centre for Policy Development Miralles-Lombardo, B., Miralles, J., & Golding, B. (2008). Creating learning spaces for refugees: The role of multicultural organisations in Australia. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). Misson, E. (2008). Inclusion through education Social Inclusion and Youth Workshop Proceedings. Melbourne: Brotherhood of St Laurence. Moore, H., Nicholas, H., & Deblaquiere, J. (2008). 'Opening the Door': Provision for refugee youth with minimal/no schooling in the Adult Migrant English Program. Sydney: AMEP Research Centre on behalf of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Moore, S., Haines, V., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2006). Lost in translation: A genealogy of the “social capital” concept in public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(8), 729-734. Morgan, D. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi: 10.1177/2345678906292462 Morgan, D. L., & Bottorff, J. L. (2010). Advancing our craft: Focus group methods and practice. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 579-581. Morrow, V. (2001a). Using qualitative methods to elicit young people's perspectives on their environments: Some ideas for community health initiatives. Health Education Research, 16(3), 255-268. Morrow, V. (2001b). Young people's explanations and experiences of social exclusion: Retrieving Bourdieu's concept of social capital. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(4-6), 37-63. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13-22. Muntaner, C., Lynch, J., & Smith, G. D. (2000). Social capital and the third way in public health. Critical Public Health, 10(2), 107-124. Murray, K., Davidson, G., & Schweitzer, R. (2008). Psychological wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia: A literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society. Melbourne: Australian Psychological Society. Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and bridges: Social capital and poverty: World Bank. National Child Traumatic Stress Network: Refugee Trauma Taskforce. (2005). Mental health interventions for refugee children in resettlement: White paper II. Los Angeles: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, & Australian Vice- Chancellors’ Committee. (2007). National statement on ethical conduct in human research: Australian Government. Newman, L. (2013). Researching immigration detention: Documenting damage and ethical dilemmas. In K. Block, E. Riggs & N. Haslam (Eds.), Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refugees and asylum seekers Brisbane: Australian Academic Press. Niemeyer, B. (2007). Is there a pedagogy of social inclusion? Critical reflections on European policy and practice in school-to-work transition. In H. Colley, P. Boetzelen, B. Hoskins & T. Parveva (Eds.), Social inclusion for young people: Breaking down the barriers. Strasbourg Council of Europe. Northcote, J., & Casimiro, S. (2009). A critical approach to evidence-based resettlement policy: Lessons learned from an Australian Muslim refugee sports program. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 8(8), 173-185. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd.Version 9. (2010). O’Sullivan, K., & Olliff, L. (2006). Settling in: Exploring good settlement for refugee young people in Australia Policy Paper. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI).

238

Ojalehto, B., & Wang, Q. (2008). Children’s spiritual development in forced displacement: A human rights perspective. International Journal of Children's Spirituality, 13(2), 129-143. Olliff, L. (2007). Playing for the future: The role of sport and recreation in supporting young people to 'settle well' in Australia Policy Paper. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI). Olliff, L. (2010a). Finding the right time and place: Exploring post-compulsory education and training pathways for young people from refugee backgrounds in NSW. Sydney: Refugee Council of Australia. Olliff, L. (2010b). What works: Employment strategies for refugee and humanitarian entrants. Sydney: Refugee Council of Australia. Olliff, L., & Couch, J. (2005). Pathways and pitfalls: The journey of refugee young people in and around the education system in Greater Dandenong, Victoria. Youth Studies Australia, 24(3), 42-46. Olliff, L., & Mohammed, F. (2007). Settling in: How do refugee young people fare within Australia’s settlement system. Melbourne: Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI). Pargament, K. I. (2001). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. London: Guilford Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Paxton, G., Smith, N., Win, A. K., Mulholland, N., & Hood, S. (2011). Refugee status report: A report on how refugee children and young people in Victoria are faring. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD). Phillimore, J., & Goodson, L. (2008). Making a place in the global city: The relevance of indicators of integration. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(3), 305-325. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fen025 Pierson, J. (2004). Tackling Social Exclusion: Routledge. Pinson, H., & Arnot, M. (2007). Sociology of education and the wasteland of refugee education research. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(3), 399 - 407. Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L., & Hugman, R. (2010). ‘Stop stealing our stories’: The ethics of research with vulnerable groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2(2), 229-251. Pittaway, E., Muli, C., & Shteir, S. (2011). “I have a voice—hear me!” Findings of an Australian study examining the resettlement and integration experience of refugees and migrants from the Horn of Africa in Australia. Refuge: Canada's Periodical on Refugees, 26(2), 133-146. Popay, J., Escorel, S., Hernández, M., Johnston, H., Mathieson, J., & Rispel, L. (2008). Understanding and tackling social exclusion. Geneva: WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network. Pope, C., Ziebland, S., & Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data. BMJ, 320(7227), 114-116. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114 Porter, M., & Haslam, N. (2005). Predisplacement and postdisplacement factors associated with mental health of refugees and internally displaced persons: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 294(5), 602-612. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1-22. Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1-12. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-65. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Raghallaigh, M. N. (2011). Religion in the lives of unaccompanied minors: An available and compelling coping resource. British Journal of Social Work, 41(3), 539-556. Raghallaigh, M. N., & Gilligan, R. (2010). Active survival in the lives of unaccompanied minors: Coping strategies, resilience, and the relevance of religion. Child & Family Social Work, 15(2), 226-237.

239

Refugee Council of Australia. (2010). A bridge to a new culture: Promoting the participation of refugees in sporting activities. Sydney. Refugee Council of Australia. (April 2012). Humanitarian family reunion: The building block of good settlement. Sydney. Refugee Council of Australia. (January 2009). Australia's refugee and humanitarian program: Community views on current challenges and future directions. Sydney. Refugee Council of Australia. (March 2011). Australia's refugee and humanitarian program 2011 - 2012: Community views on current challenges and future directions. Sydney. Refugee Education Partnership Project. (2007). The education needs of young refugees in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture (Foundation House). Reimer, B., Lyons, T., Ferguson, N., & Polanco, G. (2008). Social capital as social relations: The contribution of normative structures. Sociological Review, 56(2), 256-274. Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2008). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (3rd ed., pp. 473-499). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Richardson, S., & Liu, P. (2008). Changing forms of employment and their implications for the development of skills. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Richardson, S., Stack, S., Lester, L., Healy, J., Ilsley, D., & Horrocks, J. (2004). The changing labour force experience of new migrants. Canberra: Report to the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Rintoul, A. (2009). Understanding the mental health and wellbeing of Afghan women in south east Melbourne. Melbourne: Monash University. Rodgers, G. (2004). 'Hanging out’ with forced migrants: Methodological and ethical challenges. Forced Migration Review, 21, 48-49. Ross, C. E., & Wu, C. (1995). The links between education and health. American Sociological Review, 60(5), 719-745. Rousseau, C., & Guzder, J. (2008). School-based prevention programs for refugee children. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(3), 533-549. Rousseau, C., Rufagari, M. C., Bagilishya, D., & Measham, T. (2004). Remaking family life: Strategies for re-establishing continuity among Congolese refugees during the family reunification process. Social Science & Medicine, 59(5), 1095-1108. Sampson, R., & Gifford, S. M. (2010). Place-making, settlement and well-being: The therapeutic landscapes of recently arrived youth with refugee backgrounds. Health & Place, 16(1), 116- 131. Sandelowski, M. (1995). Triangles and crystals: On the geometry of qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 18(6), 569-574. Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and critique. In S. Baron, J. Field & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital: Critical perspectives (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press Schweitzer, R., Brough, M., Vromans, L., & Asic-Kobe, M. (2011). Mental health of newly arrived Burmese refugees in Australia: Contributions of pre-migration and post-migration experience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45(4), 299-307. Schweitzer, R., Melville, F., Steel, Z., & Lacherez, P. (2006). Trauma, post migration living difficulties, and social support as predictors of psychological adjustment in resettled Sudanese refugees. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40(2), 179-188. SCOA. (August 2012). Discussion paper - Sports and settlement. Sydney: Settlement Council of Australia. Scott Smith, R. (2008). The case of a city where 1 in 6 residents is a refugee: Ecological factors and host community adaptation in successful resettlement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 42(3/4), 328-342. Sen, A. (2000). Social exclusion: Concept, application and scrutiny Social Development Papers (Vol. 1). Manila: Office of Environment and Social Development, Asian Development Bank.

240

Settlement and Multicultural Affairs Branch. (2010). Settlement planning update Melbourne: DIAC Victoria. Settlement and Multicultural Affairs Branch. (2011). Settlement planning update Melbourne: DIAC Victoria. Sidhu, R., & Taylor, S. (2007). Educational provision for refugee youth in Australia: Left to chance? Journal of Sociology, 43(3), 283 -300. Silver, H. (1994). Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms. International Labour Review, 133, 531-578. Silver, H. (2010). Understanding social inclusion and its meaning for Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 45(2), 183-211. Snelgrove, S. (2005). Bad, mad and sad: Developing a methodology of inclusion and a pedagogy for researching students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(3), 313-329. Spaaij, R. (2011). Sport and social mobility: Crossing boundaries. New York: Routledge. Spaaij, R. (2012). Beyond the playing field: Experiences of sport, social capital, and integration among Somalis in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(9), 1519-1538. Spandler, H. (2007). From social exclusion to inclusion? A critique of the inclusion imperative in mental health. Medical Sociology Online, 2(2), 3-16. Spicer, N. (2008). Places of exclusion and inclusion: Asylum-seeker and refugee experiences of neighbourhoods in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(3), 491-510. Steel, Z., Momartin, S., Bateman, C., Hafshejani, A., Silove, D. M., Everson, N., et al. (2004). Psychiatric status of asylum seeker families held for a protracted period in a remote detention centre in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 28(6), 527-536. Stephens, C. (2008). Social capital in its place: Using social theory to understand social capital and inequalities in health. Social Science & Medicine, 66(5), 1174-1184. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Stone, W., Gray, M. C., & Hughes, J. (2003). Social capital at work: how family, friends and civic ties relate to labour market outcomes. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies Strang, A., & Ager, A. (2010). Refugee integration: Emerging trends and remaining agendas. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(4), 589. Swartz, S. (2011). ‘Going deep’and ‘giving back’: Strategies for exceeding ethical expectations when researching amongst vulnerable youth. Qualitative Research, 11(1), 47-68. Sznitman, S. R., Reisel, L., & Romer, D. (2011). The neglected role of adolescent emotional wellbeing in national educational achievement: Bridging the gap between education and mental health policies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 135-142. Szoke, H. (2009). Social inclusion and human rights-strange bedfellows on the road to an authentically Australian inclusion agenda. Paper presented at the Australian Social Policy Conference, University of New South Wales. Szreter, S. (2002). The state of social capital: Bringing back in power, politics, and history. Theory and Society, 31(5), 573-621. Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650-667. Taylor, J. (2004). Refugees and social exclusion: What the literature says. Migration Action, XXVI(2), 16-31. Taylor, S. (2008). Schooling and the settlement of refugee young people in Queensland:..."The challenges are massive". Social Alternatives, 27(3), 58-65. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 1-41). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Thomas, S. L., & Thomas, S. D. M. (2004). Displacement and health. British Medical Bulletin, 69(1), 115-127.

241

Tilbury, F. (2006, December). ‘‘Everything is excellent’: Methodological issues in studying refugee settlement’’. Paper presented at the Australian Sociological Association Conference, Perth. Tiliouine, H., Cummins, R. A., & Davern, M. (2009). Islamic religiosity, subjective well-being, and health. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12(1), 55-74. Torezani, S., Colic-Peisker, V., & Fozdar, F. (2008). Looking for a "missing link": Formal employment services and social networks in refugees' job search. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 29(2), 135 - 152. Toure, I. (2008). Hidden homelessness: The impact of refugee homelessness on newly arrived youth. Perth: Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors Inc. . Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223-239. UNHCR. (1979). Handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status: under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. UNHCR. (1999). UNHCR Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme Standing Committee, 15th Meeting 'Family protection issues'. International Journal of Refugee Law, 11(3), 582-591. doi: 10.1093/ijrl/11.3.582 UNHCR. (2011). UNHCR: The UN Refugee Agency, 2011, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49, entered into force September 2 1990. /C/93/Add.5 of 16 July 2003, (1989). Valtonen, K. (2004). From the margin to the mainstream: Conceptualizing refugee settlement processes. Journal of Refugee Studies, 17(1), 70-96. van der Gaag, M., & Webber, M. (2008). Measurement of individual social capital. In I. Kawachi, S. Subramanian & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 29-49). New York: Springer. Van der Veer, G. (2000). Empowerment of traumatised refugees: A developmental approach to prevention and treatment. Torture, 10(1), 8-11. Veenstra, G. (2000). Social capital, SES and health: An individual-level analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 50(5), 619-630. Veit-Wilson, J. (1998). Setting adequacy standards. Bristol: Policy Press. VicHealth. (2007). More than tolerance: Embracing diversity for health: Discrimination affecting migrant and refugee communities in Victoria, its health consequences, community attitudes and solutions – A summary report. Melbourne Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. VicHealth. (2010). Opportunities for social connection: A determinant of mental health and wellbeing. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. VICSERV. (2008). Pathways to social inclusion - Social inclusion: An outcome measure for the mental health service system. Melbourne: Psychiatric Disability Services of Victoria. Victorian Settlement Planning Committee. (2005). Good practice principles: Guide for working with refugee young people. Melbourne: Department for Victorian Communities, Victorian Government. Vinson, T., Brown, N., Graham, K., Stanley, F., & Working, A. (2009). A compendium of social inclusion indicators: How's Australia faring? : Social Inclusion Board , Australian Government. Voutira, E., & Dona, G. (2007). Refugee research methodologies: Consolidation and transformation of a field. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 163-171. doi: 10.1093/jrs/fem017 Wakefield, S. E. L., & Poland, B. (2005). Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in health promotion and community development. Social Science & Medicine, 60(12), 2819-2832. Warr, D. (2005a). "It was fun...but we don't usually talk about these things": Analyzing sociable interaction in focus groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 200-225. Warr, D. (2005b). Social networks in a ‘discredited’neighbourhood. Journal of Sociology, 41(3), 285- 308. 242

Warr, D. (2006). Gender, class, and the art and craft of social capital. The Sociological Quarterly, 47, 497-520. Waxman, P. (2001). The economic adjustment of recently arrived Bosnian, Afghan and Iraqi refugees in Sydney, Australia. International Migration Review, 35(2), 472-505. Weine, S. (2008). Family roles in refugee youth resettlement from a prevention perspective. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17(3), 515-532. Wellman, B. (2007). Challenges in collecting personal network data: The nature of personal network analysis. Field Methods 19(2), 111-115. Wells, K. (2011). The strength of weak ties: The social networks of young separated asylum seekers and refugees in London. Children's Geographies, 9(3-4), 319-329. Whiteford, H., Cullen, M., & Baingana, F. (2005). Social capital and mental health. In H. Herrman, S. Saxena & R. Moodie (Eds.), Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice. Melbourne: World Health Organization. Whitley, R. (2008). Social capital and public health: Qualitative and ethnographic approaches. In I. Kawachi, S. Subramanian & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 95-115). New York: Springer. WHO. ( October 2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization Retrieved 1/5/12, from http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf WHO. (2013a). Social Determinants of Health Retrieved 24 June 2013, from http://www.who.int/social_determinants/sdh_definition/en/index.html WHO. (2013b). Social Determinants of Health: Social Exclusion Retrieved 24 June 2013, from http://www.who.int/social_determinants/themes/socialexclusion/en/ Williamson, H. (2007). Social exclusion and young people: Some introductory remarks. In H. Colley, P. Boetzelen, B. Hoskins & T. Parveva (Eds.), Social inclusion and young people: Breaking down the barriers (pp. 23-30). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Willis, K., Daly, J., Kealy, M., Small, R., Koutroulis, G., Green, J., et al. (2007). The essential role of social theory in qualitative public health research. Australian And New Zealand Journal Of Public Health, 31(5), 438-443. Willis, K., Green, J., Daly, J., Williamson, L., & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2009). Perils and possibilities: Achieving best evidence from focus groups in public health research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 131-136. Wilmsen, B. (2011). Family separation: The policies, procedures, and consequences for refugee background families. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 30(1), 44-64. Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11-17. Yelland, J., & Gifford, S. M. (1995). Problems of focus group methods in cross-cultural research: A case study of beliefs about sudden infant death syndrome. Australian Journal of Public Health, 19(3), 257-263. Ziersch, A. M. (2005). Health implications of access to social capital: Findings from an Australian study. Social Science & Medicine, 61(10), 2119-2131.

243

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEW PROMPTS

UCAN2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND WELLBEING SURVEY

UCan2 Survey 2009/10 Quantitative Social Network Survey

Name:______Date:______

Age: ______

Gender (please circle): Female Male

Length of time in Australia: ______years ______months

Mother’s place of birth______

Father’s place of birth______

What nationality are you?______

What country were you born in?______

Religion______

Languages spoken at home______

Do you currently have a job? (circle answer) Yes/No Would you like to have a job? (circle answer) Yes/No

244

Well-being Scale

Instructions

“I am now going to ask how satisfied you feel, on a scale from zero to 10.”

“(On this scale,) Zero means you feel completely dissatisfied. 10 means you feel completely satisfied. And the middle of the scale is 5, which means you feel neutral (i.e. neither satisfied nor dissatisfied).”

“Would you like me to go over this again for you?”

“In that case, I will start by asking how satisfied you are with life. So,

Test Items

Respondent’s Rating (0-10) Part I: Satisfaction with Life as a Whole “Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole ?”

Part II: Personal Wellbeing Index “How satisfied are you with…… ?” 1. your standard of living ?

2. your health ?

3. what you are achieving in life ?

4. your personal relationships ?

5. how safe you feel ?

6. feeling part of your community ?

7. your future security ?

8. your spirituality or religion?¨

This research project has University of Melbourne ethics clearance (ref no. Ethics ID: 0830443.1). Should you have any concerns about its conduct please contact the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, ph: 8344 2073

245

FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW GUIDE (REVISED TO INCLUDE VISUAL PROMPTS)

Supply food. Reiterate voluntary nature of participation, explain about taping the focus group, confidentiality, any questions?

 We’re going to talk about what it’s like coming to live in Australia, what things are most important for you and how Ucan2 might help you  Ask people to get into small groups of 4-6 people.  Hand out visual prompts: o Ask each group to choose which are the five most important of these for settling or being able to live well in Australia o OK if they don’t all agree o Ask each group to explain their choice and discuss o Is there anything missing?  Does Ucan2 help you with each of these things (go through one at a time) o If yes how? o If not – what would help with this? Follow up prompts if not already covered:

 Thinking more about Ucan2: o How is the English language part of the class different from the rest of the week? o What about circle time? (psychosocial support component) o What is it like having the volunteers here? o What has work experience been like?  Now I’d like to talk about what sort of study and work you’d like to do here in Australia after you finish this course (go around group and ask about education/career goals)  Do you think being in Ucan2 has helped you with the things you want to be able to do? o How? o What would you say to other students if you wanted to tell them about Ucan2? o Any unexpected outcomes?  Were you studying or at school before coming to Australia? o How was that different from studying here or going to school here?  Did any of you have work or have jobs before coming to Australia? o What sort of jobs . . . o (depending on responses, include prompts re working and studying in refugee camps)  Has it been easy or hard to meet new people and make friends here in Australia? Are people that you meet friendly?  How could the Ucan2 program be improved?  Is there anything else you would like to talk about?

246

PICTURES USED AS ADDITIONAL FOCUS GROUP PROMPTS

247

248

249

250

INTERVIEW THEME GUIDE (POST UCAN2)

1. Are you still studying/at school? a. If not/why not b. Where/what are you studying c. How is that going? d. What do you hope/plan to do next year? e. And in 5 years time what do you think you will be doing? f. Have your plans changed since you first came to Australia? Why/how?

2. Do you have a job at the moment? a. If yes, what are you doing and where? i. How did you get the job? Did anyone help you get this job? ii. How much are you working and would you prefer to be working more or less? iii. Do you enjoy it? iv. What is the best thing about your job? v. Are there any problems with your job? b. If not, are you trying to find a job? i. If yes - describe your experiences (what jobs have you applied for? what would you like to do? what happened when you applied? Why do you think you didn’t get the job? Is/has anyone helped you with trying to get a job?) ii. (adapt questions above, if had a job and no longer have it or if have changed jobs)

3. Do you think the Ucan2 program helped you with your life in Australia? a. If so, how? (prompt further if required) b. What was the best thing about Ucan2? c. What (if anything) didn’t you like about it? d. What could make it better?

4. For students who have had a mentor a. Who was your mentor? How often did/do you meet up? b. Has having a mentor made a difference to your life? i. If so, how? ii. If not, why not? iii. What was the best thing about the mentor program? iv. What (if anything) didn’t like about it? v. Is there anything that Foundation House could do to make it better? vi. Do you think you will keep in contact with your mentor, now that the program has finished? (why/why not? How much?)

5. Who do you live with now? Who did you come to Australia with? a. Have there been any significant changes since you first came in terms of who you live with ? (Discuss circumstances if appropriate/comfortable) b. Any other family in Australia?

251

6. (if have children – discuss any issues associated with this eg. childcare, schooling, being a young parent, availability of support)

7. Is it easy or hard to meet people and make friends with other people in Australia? a. Do you go to any clubs, groups, play sport, go to church etc? b. Are your friends from the same country as you? c. How did you meet? d. What do you do when you get together?

8. Who would you talk to or how do you find out about education/employment etc

9. Thinking about living in Australia – How do you feel about it? a. Is it easier/better or harder/worse than you thought it would be? (or just the same?)

10. Where were you living before you came to Australia (and before that – how long? With whom? Previous education and employment? )

11. Is there anything else you would like to say about what has been important for you in Australia?

252

APPENDIX 2: UCAN2 PARTICIPANT DATA

The following tables provide additional information, collated from data provided by the Ucan2 partner organisations concerning participant experiences in the Ucan2 program.

Collated data from Ucan2 site reports Ucan2 site Noble Park Dandenong Footscray NPELS Totals/ AMES AMES AMES ranges Total number 36 44 18 16 114 students Refugee/ 23 31 13 16 83 refugee-like (73%) Non-refugee 11 13 5 0 29

(27%) Students completing 13 (36%) 4 13 13 43 whole program (9%) (72%) (81%) (38%) Age range 18-28 19-32 18-26 15-17 15-32 Time since arrival <1–12+ <1–12+ <1– 2+ <6-12+ <1–12+ Semester 12009 Semester months months months months months Average number 3 2 7 2 n/a volunteers/week Work experience Unclear from 5 Unclear from Unclear from Approx 43 placements provided provided data provided reported data data

Ucan2 site Noble Park WELS VU Footscray NPELS Totals/

AMES ranges Total number 36 13 14 14 77 students Refugee/ 29 13 11 14 67 refugee-like (87%)

Non-refugee 7 0 3 0 10

Students completing 7 12 11 13 43 whole program (19%) (92%) (79%) (93%) (56%) Age range 18-28 15-18 17-20 16-18 15-28

Semester 22009 Semester Time since arrival <1–12+ Not reported <1->5 years <6-<9 <1month- months months >5years Average number 2 3 4 4 n/a volunteers/week Work experience 1 5 7 8 21 placements

253

Ucan2 site Noble Park WELS Swinburne NPELS Totals/ AMES ranges Total number 19 16 25 11 71 students Refugee/ 15 16 25 11 67 refugee-like (94%) Non-refugee 4 0 0 0 4

(6%) Students completing 11 13 20 10 54 whole program (58%) (81%) (80%) (91%) (76 %) Age range (years) 19-26 15-18 17-25 16-18 15-26

Time since arrival <3–12+ months <6 – 12+ <6 -24+ Not <3 -24+ Semester 1 2010 1 Semester months years reported months Average number 3* 2 3 2 2-3 volunteers/week Work experience 11 in Retail 11 14 8 54 placements 10 in

Hospitality** * The average number of volunteers attending at Noble Park AMES was two up until week 11. After this time, numbers were supplemented by AMES volunteers and the average for the final five weeks was 5 per week. ** The program at Noble Park AMES was an EPP (Employment Pathways Program). Work experience is an integral part of this program and is offered twice, for one week in retail and one week in hospitality.

Examples of presenting issues requiring additional support from Ucan2 staff These involved 46 individual students as well as general group assistance with transitions and pathways planning

 Housing/homelessness  Immigration issues  Financial stress – advice re income  Physical and mental health issues support  Information about child  Trauma and torture related counselling development/education needed  Anxiety about family members overseas (concerning participants’ children)  Employment needed  Domestic violence/family breakdown  Transport/driving licence assistance  Support in dealing with police following  Assistance with dealing with Centrelink break-in and threats to participant’s safety  Assistance with job applications  Unplanned pregnancy  Assistance with pathways and transition  Carer support needed planning  Referral to Sports without Borders for funding assistance for sports club fees

254

APPENDIX 3: ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN WELLBEING AND REGION OF ORIGIN (ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL TABLES)

DESCRIPTIVES – region of origin N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum Lower Bound Upper Bound middle east 61 66.7213 24.88114 3.18570 60.3490 73.0937 .00 100.00 burma 63 66.6667 25.77821 3.24775 60.1745 73.1588 .00 100.00 SMmat africa 43 57.4419 30.47974 4.64812 48.0616 66.8221 .00 100.00 other 47 68.7234 19.95833 2.91122 62.8634 74.5834 20.00 100.00 Total 214 65.2804 25.55792 1.74710 61.8365 68.7242 .00 100.00 middle east 62 82.1832 8.98503 1.14110 79.9014 84.4649 54.44 97.78 burma 63 74.9647 11.39299 1.43538 72.0954 77.8340 37.50 96.67 SMPWB8 africa 43 78.6111 13.40630 2.04444 74.4853 82.7370 37.78 98.89 other 47 76.4509 11.07042 1.61479 73.2005 79.7013 54.44 98.89 Total 215 78.1005 11.42842 .77941 76.5642 79.6368 37.50 98.89 middle east 62 85.4839 21.01346 2.66871 80.1475 90.8203 30.00 100.00 burma 63 79.8413 17.82460 2.24569 75.3522 84.3303 30.00 100.00 SMhealth africa 43 85.1163 19.80525 3.02027 79.0211 91.2114 30.00 100.00 other 47 88.0851 12.09353 1.76402 84.5343 91.6359 60.00 100.00 Total 215 84.3256 18.32689 1.24988 81.8619 86.7892 30.00 100.00 middle east 62 75.6452 16.65670 2.11540 71.4152 79.8752 40.00 100.00 burma 63 60.1587 22.75338 2.86666 54.4284 65.8891 .00 100.00 SMachieve africa 43 79.7674 24.05236 3.66795 72.3652 87.1697 .00 100.00 other 47 69.7872 21.51737 3.13863 63.4695 76.1050 20.00 100.00 Total 215 70.6512 22.33024 1.52291 67.6493 73.6530 .00 100.00 middle east 62 84.8387 19.05488 2.41997 79.9997 89.6777 40.00 100.00 burma 63 77.6190 21.00033 2.64579 72.3302 82.9079 .00 100.00 SMint africa 43 83.9535 21.72770 3.31344 77.2667 90.6403 10.00 100.00 other 47 85.5319 16.78619 2.44852 80.6033 90.4605 40.00 100.00 Total 215 82.6977 19.88699 1.35628 80.0243 85.3711 .00 100.00 middle east 62 90.6452 13.53453 1.71889 87.2080 94.0823 50.00 100.00 burma 63 76.9841 16.71728 2.10618 72.7739 81.1943 40.00 100.00 SMsafety africa 43 80.6977 26.67220 4.06747 72.4892 88.9062 .00 100.00 other 47 78.2979 16.59219 2.42022 73.4262 83.1695 30.00 100.00 Total 215 81.9535 19.08901 1.30186 79.3874 84.5196 .00 100.00 middle east 62 73.8710 26.81783 3.40587 67.0605 80.6814 .00 100.00 burma 63 76.8254 17.30424 2.18013 72.4674 81.1834 50.00 100.00 SMcommunity africa 43 72.3256 25.43313 3.87852 64.4984 80.1527 .00 100.00 other 47 74.0426 17.77389 2.59259 68.8239 79.2612 30.00 100.00 Total 215 74.4651 22.12047 1.50860 71.4915 77.4387 .00 100.00

middle east 62 87.5806 14.89697 1.89192 83.7975 91.3638 50.00 100.00 burma 63 78.6508 19.71994 2.48448 73.6844 83.6172 10.00 100.00 SMfutsec africa 43 77.6744 26.80060 4.08705 69.4264 85.9224 .00 100.00 other 47 75.9574 17.89578 2.61037 70.7030 81.2118 40.00 100.00 Total 215 80.4419 20.18409 1.37654 77.7285 83.1552 .00 100.00 middle east 62 97.5806 8.03384 1.02030 95.5404 99.6209 50.00 100.00 burma 63 89.5238 15.07279 1.89899 85.7278 93.3198 50.00 100.00 SMspiritual africa 43 97.2093 9.83811 1.50030 94.1816 100.2370 40.00 100.00 other 47 76.5957 23.70806 3.45818 69.6348 83.5567 .00 100.00 Total 215 90.5581 17.03940 1.16208 88.2676 92.8487 .00 100.00 middle east 55 76.3636 18.69478 2.52080 71.3097 81.4175 20.00 100.00 burma 50 66.8000 23.77102 3.36173 60.0444 73.5556 20.00 100.00 SMlifesat africa 42 72.8571 24.32360 3.75321 65.2774 80.4369 20.00 100.00 other 37 69.4595 20.67553 3.39904 62.5659 76.3530 20.00 100.00 Total 184 71.5761 22.03362 1.62434 68.3712 74.7809 20.00 100.00 middle east 62 80.2189 9.93288 1.26148 77.6964 82.7414 50.00 97.50 burma 63 73.0910 12.43613 1.56680 69.9590 76.2230 28.57 96.25 SMPWB7 africa 43 76.2832 14.82841 2.26131 71.7197 80.8467 30.00 98.75 other 47 76.4324 11.01314 1.60643 73.1988 79.6659 50.00 98.75 Total 215 76.5154 12.23089 .83414 74.8712 78.1595 28.57 98.75

Test of Homogeneity of Variances Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. SMmat 1.782 3 210 .152 SMPWB8 1.610 3 211 .188 SMhealth 4.120 3 211 .007 SMachieve 1.603 3 211 .190 SMint .821 3 211 .484 SMsafety 4.947 3 211 .002 SMcommunity 4.590 3 211 .004 SMfutsec 4.564 3 211 .004 SMspiritual 30.006 3 211 .000 SMlifesat 2.301 3 180 .079 SMPWB7 1.245 3 211 .294

> 0.05 then use Welch/Dunnett <0.05 then use Anova/Tukey

256

POST-HOC TESTS: Multiple Comparisons

95% Confidence Interval Mean Dependent Variable Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound SMmat Tukey middle burma .05464 4.56598 1.000 -11.7700 11.8793 HSD east africa 9.27945 5.06146 .261 -3.8283 22.3872 other -2.00209 4.93351 .977 -14.7785 10.7743 burma middle east -.05464 4.56598 1.000 -11.8793 11.7700 africa 9.22481 5.02813 .260 -3.7967 22.2463 other -2.05674 4.89932 .975 -14.7446 10.6311 africa middle east -9.27945 5.06146 .261 -22.3872 3.8283 burma -9.22481 5.02813 .260 -22.2463 3.7967 other -11.28154 5.36409 .155 -25.1730 2.6100 other middle east 2.00209 4.93351 .977 -10.7743 14.7785 burma 2.05674 4.89932 .975 -10.6311 14.7446 africa 11.28154 5.36409 .155 -2.6100 25.1730 Dunnett middle burma .05464 4.54935 1.000 -12.1031 12.2123 T3 east africa 9.27945 5.63504 .474 -5.9106 24.4695 other -2.00209 4.31554 .998 -13.5626 9.5584 burma middle east -.05464 4.54935 1.000 -12.2123 12.1031 africa 9.22481 5.67035 .488 -6.0534 24.5030 other -2.05674 4.36155 .998 -13.7366 9.6231 africa middle east -9.27945 5.63504 .474 -24.4695 5.9106 burma -9.22481 5.67035 .488 -24.5030 6.0534 other -11.28154 5.48454 .230 -26.1023 3.5392 other middle east 2.00209 4.31554 .998 -9.5584 13.5626 burma 2.05674 4.36155 .998 -9.6231 13.7366 africa 11.28154 5.48454 .230 -3.5392 26.1023

SMPWB8 Tukey middle burma 7.21845* 1.99183 .002 2.0604 12.3765 HSD east africa 3.57207 2.20967 .372 -2.1501 9.2943 other 5.73223* 2.15344 .041 .1557 11.3088 burma middle east -7.21845* 1.99183 .002 -12.3765 -2.0604 africa -3.64638 2.20248 .350 -9.3500 2.0572 other -1.48622 2.14605 .900 -7.0437 4.0712 africa middle east -3.57207 2.20967 .372 -9.2943 2.1501 burma 3.64638 2.20248 .350 -2.0572 9.3500 other 2.16017 2.34964 .795 -3.9245 8.2448 other middle east -5.73223* 2.15344 .041 -11.3088 -.1557 burma 1.48622 2.14605 .900 -4.0712 7.0437 africa -2.16017 2.34964 .795 -8.2448 3.9245 Dunnett middle burma 7.21845* 1.83369 .001 2.3151 12.1218 T3 east africa 3.57207 2.34133 .562 -2.7641 9.9082 other 5.73223* 1.97728 .028 .4148 11.0497 burma middle east -7.21845* 1.83369 .001 -12.1218 -2.3151 africa -3.64638 2.49801 .610 -10.3765 3.0837 other -1.48622 2.16052 .982 -7.2791 4.3067 africa middle east -3.57207 2.34133 .562 -9.9082 2.7641 burma 3.64638 2.49801 .610 -3.0837 10.3765 other 2.16017 2.60524 .955 -4.8561 9.1764 other middle east -5.73223* 1.97728 .028 -11.0497 -.4148 burma 1.48622 2.16052 .982 -4.3067 7.2791 africa -2.16017 2.60524 .955 -9.1764 4.8561 SMhealth Tukey middle burma 5.64260 3.25452 .309 -2.7854 14.0706 HSD east africa .36759 3.61046 1.000 -8.9821 9.7173 other -2.60124 3.51858 .881 -11.7130 6.5105

258

burma middle east -5.64260 3.25452 .309 -14.0706 2.7854 africa -5.27501 3.59871 .460 -14.5943 4.0443 other -8.24384 3.50651 .090 -17.3244 .8367 africa middle east -.36759 3.61046 1.000 -9.7173 8.9821 burma 5.27501 3.59871 .460 -4.0443 14.5943 other -2.96883 3.83916 .866 -12.9108 6.9732 other middle east 2.60124 3.51858 .881 -6.5105 11.7130 burma 8.24384 3.50651 .090 -.8367 17.3244 africa 2.96883 3.83916 .866 -6.9732 12.9108 Dunnett middle burma 5.64260 3.48786 .493 -3.6818 14.9670 T3 east africa .36759 4.03039 1.000 -10.4540 11.1892 other -2.60124 3.19903 .959 -11.1790 5.9765 burma middle east -5.64260 3.48786 .493 -14.9670 3.6818 africa -5.27501 3.76366 .653 -15.4048 4.8548 other -8.24384* 2.85568 .028 -15.8919 -.5957 africa middle east -.36759 4.03039 1.000 -11.1892 10.4540 burma 5.27501 3.76366 .653 -4.8548 15.4048 other -2.96883 3.49769 .950 -12.4321 6.4944 other middle east 2.60124 3.19903 .959 -5.9765 11.1790 burma 8.24384* 2.85568 .028 .5957 15.8919 africa 2.96883 3.49769 .950 -6.4944 12.4321 SMachieve Tukey middle burma 15.48643* 3.78822 .000 5.6764 25.2965 HSD east africa -4.12228 4.20253 .760 -15.0052 6.7607 other 5.85793 4.09557 .482 -4.7481 16.4639 burma middle east -15.48643* 3.78822 .000 -25.2965 -5.6764 africa -19.60871* 4.18885 .000 -30.4562 -8.7612 other -9.62850 4.08153 .088 -20.1981 .9411

259

africa middle east 4.12228 4.20253 .760 -6.7607 15.0052 burma 19.60871* 4.18885 .000 8.7612 30.4562 other 9.98021 4.46873 .118 -1.5921 21.5525 other middle east -5.85793 4.09557 .482 -16.4639 4.7481 burma 9.62850 4.08153 .088 -.9411 20.1981 africa -9.98021 4.46873 .118 -21.5525 1.5921 Dunnett middle burma 15.48643* 3.56267 .000 5.9546 25.0183 T3 east africa -4.12228 4.23424 .907 -15.5736 7.3290 other 5.85793 3.78496 .545 -4.3285 16.0443 burma middle east -15.48643* 3.56267 .000 -25.0183 -5.9546 africa -19.60871* 4.65527 .000 -32.1282 -7.0893 other -9.62850 4.25073 .143 -21.0230 1.7660 africa middle east 4.12228 4.23424 .907 -7.3290 15.5736 burma 19.60871* 4.65527 .000 7.0893 32.1282 other 9.98021 4.82751 .223 -3.0105 22.9709 other middle east -5.85793 3.78496 .545 -16.0443 4.3285 burma 9.62850 4.25073 .143 -1.7660 21.0230 africa -9.98021 4.82751 .223 -22.9709 3.0105 SMint Tukey middle burma 7.21966 3.53262 .175 -1.9285 16.3678 HSD east africa .88522 3.91898 .996 -9.2634 11.0339 other -.69321 3.81924 .998 -10.5836 9.1972 burma middle east -7.21966 3.53262 .175 -16.3678 1.9285 africa -6.33444 3.90622 .369 -16.4501 3.7812 other -7.91287 3.80614 .163 -17.7693 1.9436 africa middle east -.88522 3.91898 .996 -11.0339 9.2634 burma 6.33444 3.90622 .369 -3.7812 16.4501 other -1.57843 4.16722 .981 -12.3699 9.2131

260

other middle east .69321 3.81924 .998 -9.1972 10.5836 burma 7.91287 3.80614 .163 -1.9436 17.7693 africa 1.57843 4.16722 .981 -9.2131 12.3699 Dunnett middle burma 7.21966 3.58559 .245 -2.3622 16.8016 T3 east africa .88522 4.10307 1.000 -10.1622 11.9326 other -.69321 3.44260 1.000 -9.9173 8.5309 burma middle east -7.21966 3.58559 .245 -16.8016 2.3622 africa -6.33444 4.24018 .585 -17.7338 5.0649 other -7.91287 3.60492 .167 -17.5671 1.7414 africa middle east -.88522 4.10307 1.000 -11.9326 10.1622 burma 6.33444 4.24018 .585 -5.0649 17.7338 other -1.57843 4.11997 .999 -12.6833 9.5264 other middle east .69321 3.44260 1.000 -8.5309 9.9173 burma 7.91287 3.60492 .167 -1.7414 17.5671 africa 1.57843 4.11997 .999 -9.5264 12.6833 SMsafety Tukey middle burma 13.66103* 3.28255 .000 5.1605 22.1616 HSD east * africa 9.94749 3.64156 .034 .5172 19.3777 other 12.34729* 3.54888 .003 3.1570 21.5375 burma middle east -13.66103* 3.28255 .000 -22.1616 -5.1605 africa -3.71355 3.62970 .736 -13.1131 5.6860 other -1.31375 3.53671 .982 -10.4725 7.8450 africa middle east -9.94749* 3.64156 .034 -19.3777 -.5172 burma 3.71355 3.62970 .736 -5.6860 13.1131 other 2.39980 3.87223 .926 -7.6278 12.4274 other middle east -12.34729* 3.54888 .003 -21.5375 -3.1570 burma 1.31375 3.53671 .982 -7.8450 10.4725 africa -2.39980 3.87223 .926 -12.4274 7.6278

261

Dunnett middle burma 13.66103* 2.71856 .000 6.3927 20.9294 T3 east africa 9.94749 4.41576 .154 -2.0657 21.9607 other 12.34729* 2.96851 .000 4.3648 20.3298 burma middle east -13.66103* 2.71856 .000 -20.9294 -6.3927 africa -3.71355 4.58043 .959 -16.1272 8.7001 other -1.31375 3.20834 .999 -9.9179 7.2904 africa middle east -9.94749 4.41576 .154 -21.9607 2.0657 burma 3.71355 4.58043 .959 -8.7001 16.1272 other 2.39980 4.73305 .996 -10.4016 15.2012 other middle east -12.34729* 2.96851 .000 -20.3298 -4.3648 burma 1.31375 3.20834 .999 -7.2904 9.9179 africa -2.39980 4.73305 .996 -15.2012 10.4016 SMcommunity Tukey middle burma -2.95443 3.97417 .879 -13.2460 7.3372 HSD east africa 1.54539 4.40882 .985 -9.8718 12.9626 other -.17159 4.29662 1.000 -11.2982 10.9550 burma middle east 2.95443 3.97417 .879 -7.3372 13.2460 africa 4.49982 4.39447 .736 -6.8802 15.8798 other 2.78284 4.28189 .915 -8.3056 13.8713 africa middle east -1.54539 4.40882 .985 -12.9626 9.8718 burma -4.49982 4.39447 .736 -15.8798 6.8802 other -1.71697 4.68809 .983 -13.8574 10.4234 other middle east .17159 4.29662 1.000 -10.9550 11.2982 burma -2.78284 4.28189 .915 -13.8713 8.3056 africa 1.71697 4.68809 .983 -10.4234 13.8574 Dunnett middle burma -2.95443 4.04387 .976 -13.7905 7.8817 T3 east africa 1.54539 5.16167 1.000 -12.3147 15.4055 other -.17159 4.28036 1.000 -11.6389 11.2957

262

burma middle east 2.95443 4.04387 .976 -7.8817 13.7905 africa 4.49982 4.44925 .891 -7.5387 16.5384 other 2.78284 3.38740 .957 -6.3048 11.8705 africa middle east -1.54539 5.16167 1.000 -15.4055 12.3147 burma -4.49982 4.44925 .891 -16.5384 7.5387 other -1.71697 4.66523 .999 -14.3102 10.8762 other middle east .17159 4.28036 1.000 -11.2957 11.6389 burma -2.78284 3.38740 .957 -11.8705 6.3048 africa 1.71697 4.66523 .999 -10.8762 14.3102 SMfutsec Tukey middle burma 8.92985 3.53832 .059 -.2331 18.0928 HSD east africa 9.90623 3.92530 .059 -.2588 20.0713 other 11.62320* 3.82540 .014 1.7168 21.5295 burma middle east -8.92985 3.53832 .059 -18.0928 .2331 africa .97638 3.91253 .995 -9.1556 11.1083 other 2.69335 3.81229 .894 -7.1790 12.5657 africa middle east -9.90623 3.92530 .059 -20.0713 .2588 burma -.97638 3.91253 .995 -11.1083 9.1556 other 1.71697 4.17395 .976 -9.0920 12.5259 other middle east -11.62320* 3.82540 .014 -21.5295 -1.7168 burma -2.69335 3.81229 .894 -12.5657 7.1790 africa -1.71697 4.17395 .976 -12.5259 9.0920 Dunnett middle burma 8.92985* 3.12282 .030 .5769 17.2828 T3 east africa 9.90623 4.50370 .172 -2.3260 22.1385 other 11.62320* 3.22388 .003 2.9567 20.2897 burma middle east -8.92985* 3.12282 .030 -17.2828 -.5769 africa .97638 4.78295 1.000 -11.9450 13.8978 other 2.69335 3.60370 .973 -6.9636 12.3503

263

africa middle east -9.90623 4.50370 .172 -22.1385 2.3260 burma -.97638 4.78295 1.000 -13.8978 11.9450 other 1.71697 4.84954 1.000 -11.3835 14.8174 other middle east -11.62320* 3.22388 .003 -20.2897 -2.9567 burma -2.69335 3.60370 .973 -12.3503 6.9636 africa -1.71697 4.84954 1.000 -14.8174 11.3835 SMspiritual Tukey middle burma 8.05684* 2.69657 .016 1.0737 15.0399 HSD east africa .37134 2.99149 .999 -7.3755 8.1182 other 20.98490* 2.91535 .000 13.4352 28.5346 burma middle east -8.05684* 2.69657 .016 -15.0399 -1.0737 africa -7.68549 2.98175 .052 -15.4071 .0361 other 12.92806* 2.90536 .000 5.4043 20.4518 africa middle east -.37134 2.99149 .999 -8.1182 7.3755 burma 7.68549 2.98175 .052 -.0361 15.4071 other 20.61356* 3.18098 .000 12.3760 28.8511 other middle east -20.98490* 2.91535 .000 -28.5346 -13.4352 burma -12.92806* 2.90536 .000 -20.4518 -5.4043 africa -20.61356* 3.18098 .000 -28.8511 -12.3760 Dunnett middle burma 8.05684* 2.15573 .002 2.2701 13.8436 T3 east africa .37134 1.81436 1.000 -4.5200 5.2626 other 20.98490* 3.60555 .000 11.1573 30.8125 burma middle east -8.05684* 2.15573 .002 -13.8436 -2.2701 africa -7.68549* 2.42014 .012 -14.1708 -1.2002 other 12.92806* 3.94527 .010 2.2732 23.5829 africa middle east -.37134 1.81436 1.000 -5.2626 4.5200 burma 7.68549* 2.42014 .012 1.2002 14.1708 other 20.61356* 3.76960 .000 10.3882 30.8389

264

other middle east -20.98490* 3.60555 .000 -30.8125 -11.1573 burma -12.92806* 3.94527 .010 -23.5829 -2.2732 africa -20.61356* 3.76960 .000 -30.8389 -10.3882 SMlifesat Tukey middle burma 9.56364 4.27625 .117 -1.5255 20.6528 HSD east africa 3.50649 4.48451 .863 -8.1227 15.1357 other 6.90418 4.65315 .449 -5.1623 18.9707 burma middle east -9.56364 4.27625 .117 -20.6528 1.5255 africa -6.05714 4.58057 .550 -17.9354 5.8212 other -2.65946 4.74579 .944 -14.9662 9.6473 africa middle east -3.50649 4.48451 .863 -15.1357 8.1227 burma 6.05714 4.58057 .550 -5.8212 17.9354 other 3.39768 4.93427 .901 -9.3978 16.1932 other middle east -6.90418 4.65315 .449 -18.9707 5.1623 burma 2.65946 4.74579 .944 -9.6473 14.9662 africa -3.39768 4.93427 .901 -16.1932 9.3978 Dunnett middle burma 9.56364 4.20187 .140 -1.7206 20.8479 T3 east africa 3.50649 4.52118 .967 -8.6961 15.7091 other 6.90418 4.23177 .485 -4.5287 18.3371 burma middle east -9.56364 4.20187 .140 -20.8479 1.7206 africa -6.05714 5.03863 .789 -19.6091 7.4948 other -2.65946 4.78066 .994 -15.5307 10.2118 africa middle east -3.50649 4.52118 .967 -15.7091 8.6961 burma 6.05714 5.03863 .789 -7.4948 19.6091 other 3.39768 5.06360 .984 -10.2592 17.0546 other middle east -6.90418 4.23177 .485 -18.3371 4.5287 burma 2.65946 4.78066 .994 -10.2118 15.5307 africa -3.39768 5.06360 .984 -17.0546 10.2592

265

SMPWB7 Tukey middle burma 7.12791* 2.14802 .006 1.5654 12.6905 HSD east africa 3.93567 2.38294 .352 -2.2352 10.1066 other 3.78652 2.32230 .364 -2.2273 9.8004 burma middle east -7.12791* 2.14802 .006 -12.6905 -1.5654 africa -3.19224 2.37518 .536 -9.3431 2.9586 other -3.34138 2.31433 .474 -9.3346 2.6519 africa middle east -3.93567 2.38294 .352 -10.1066 2.2352 burma 3.19224 2.37518 .536 -2.9586 9.3431 other -.14915 2.53389 1.000 -6.7110 6.4127 other middle east -3.78652 2.32230 .364 -9.8004 2.2273 burma 3.34138 2.31433 .474 -2.6519 9.3346 africa .14915 2.53389 1.000 -6.4127 6.7110 Dunnett middle burma 7.12791* 2.01152 .003 1.7495 12.5063 T3 east africa 3.93567 2.58937 .567 -3.0718 10.9431 other 3.78652 2.04253 .336 -1.6982 9.2712 burma middle east -7.12791* 2.01152 .003 -12.5063 -1.7495 africa -3.19224 2.75107 .814 -10.6059 4.2214 other -3.34138 2.24399 .588 -9.3537 2.6709 africa middle east -3.93567 2.58937 .567 -10.9431 3.0718 burma 3.19224 2.75107 .814 -4.2214 10.6059 other -.14915 2.77383 1.000 -7.6298 7.3315 other middle east -3.78652 2.04253 .336 -9.2712 1.6982 burma 3.34138 2.24399 .588 -2.6709 9.3537 africa .14915 2.77383 1.000 -7.3315 7.6298 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

266

APPENDIX 4: DISSEMINATION OF FINDINGS AND RELATED KNOWLEDGE TRANSLATION OUTCOMES

Below are listed the publications and presentations as well as additional research output arising from this PhD research and my associated work in the broader Ucan2 evaluation over that period. They include journal articles, major research reports, an edited book and book chapter, nine conference presentations, and delivery of six training seminars or workshops. Abstracts for the journal articles and conference presentations as well as the executive summaries for the research reports are also included following the list, as is a copy of the simplified report produced for research participants.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

1. Block, K., Warr, D., Gibbs, L., & Riggs, E. (2012). Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: Reflections from the field. Journal of Refugee Studies 2. Riggs E, Block K, Warr D, Gibbs L, (Under review) Working better together: New approaches for understanding the value and challenges of organisational partnerships, Health Promotion International, (received reviewer comments)

MAJOR RESEARCH REPORTS

3. Block, K, Riggs, E, Gibbs, L, Warr, D, Gold, L, Tadic, M, et al. (December 2010). Ucan2 Evaluation: Final Report. Melbourne: McCaughey Centre. 4. Block, K., Gibbs, L., Lusher, D., Riggs, E., & Warr, D. (December 2011). Ucan2 Evaluation: Supplementary Report. McCaughey Centre, University of Melbourne.

EDITED BOOK AND BOOK CHAPTER

5. Block K, Riggs E, Haslam N (eds). (2013) Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refugees and asylum seekers. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press. 6. Block, K., Riggs, E., & Haslam, N. (2013). Ethics in research with refugees and asylum seekers: Processes, power and politics. In K. Block, E. Riggs & N. Haslam (Eds.), Values and vulnerabilities: The ethics of research with refugees and asylum seekers. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

267

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

7. Block, K. Gibbs, L. Adding value to evaluation using a theoretically grounded approach. Australian Evaluation Society International Conference, August 2012 8. Block, K., Nansen, B., Gibbs, L. MacDougall, C. Engaging children and refugee youth in research by eliciting ‘alternative literacies’. RC33 Eighth International Conference on Social Science Methodology, Sydney July 2012. 9. Riggs E, Block K, Warr D, Gibbs L. Evaluating complex inter-agency partnerships: A mixed method study, Australian Evaluation Society International Conference, August/September, Sydney, 2011 10. Block K, Gibbs L, Riggs E, Warr D. Evaluation research with refugee youth: Adapting methods to the population, Australian Evaluation Society International Conference, 29 August – 2 September 2011 11. Block K, Gibbs L, Riggs E, Warr D, “Some people don’t say hello” - Supporting social inclusion for newly-arrived youth with refugee backgrounds, UNSW 2011 Refugee Conference : Looking to the future, learning form the Past, UNSW, June 2011 12. Block K, Gibbs L, Riggs E, Warr D, Supporting social inclusion for refugee youth, New Migrations, New Challenges: Trinity Immigration Initiative International Conference, Dublin, 30 June-3 July 2010 13. Block K, Riggs E, Gibbs L, Warr D, Supporting social inclusion for refugee youth, Diversity in Health Conference, Melbourne, 7-9 June 2010 14. Riggs E, Block K, Gibbs L, Warr D. Working better together: evaluating inter-agency partnerships that promote social inclusion, Australian Health Promotion Association, Melbourne, May 2010 15. Block K, Conducting socially inclusive research: Reflections on working with refugee youth, International Conference on Migration, Citizenship and Intercultural Relations, Deakin University, Melbourne 19 – 20 November 2009

TRAINING SEMINARS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOPS DELIVERED

16. Block K, The refugee experience and implications for research and evaluation. Training workshop for ARTD Consultants - in preparation for Evaluation of DIAC Pilot Refugee Youth Support Program (Sydney, 17 October 2012)

268

17. Block K, Pierson C, The refugee experience, Implications, Practice and Transitions and supporting social inclusion for refugee-background youth. Victorian Department of Human Services Seminar Series ( 5th December 2011) 18. Block K, Riggs E, Ucan2 mentor training – Contributed to training of Ucan2 professional business mentors for refugee-background students (13 October, 3 November 2011, 27 July 2012) 19. Block K, Evaluation workshop: Social network mapping – Professional development workshop at Foundation House for Ucan2 staff from Melbourne and Brisbane (7 February 2011) 20. Block K, Riggs E, Social Inclusion: Theory and practice - Workshop for CMY and Foundation House staff at McCaughey Centre (31 March 2010) 21. Block K, Riggs E, Social Inclusion: Theory and practice - Professional development workshop at Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY), Melbourne (11 February 2010) 22. Warr D, Riggs E, Block K, Social network analysis: Theory concepts and practice – Foundation House professional development workshop (24 June 2009)

ABSTRACTS

1. Journal article Abstract: Addressing ethical and methodological challenges in research with refugee-background young people: Reflections from the field

Ethical complexities associated with research involving vulnerable and marginalized population groups are well recognized, while practical solutions to these challenges are somewhat less well described. In this article we focus on strategies for addressing interrelated practical, methodological and ethical issues which may arise during research with refugee-background participants considered vulnerable. The article draws on a study exploring the impact of social networks and support on the resettlement experiences of newly-arrived migrant youth of refugee background in Australia. Three key sets of issues are discussed: developing research processes that maximize the benefits of involvement for participants while reducing potential harms; enhancing capacities for participants to give informed consent; and adapting research methods to heighten their relevance to the circumstances of participants’ lives and enhance their engagement in the research. We argue that promoting ethical practice and methodological validity are mutually reinforcing objectives and illustrate how processes of ethical reflexivity were applied to resolve methodological challenges, promote autonomy and capacity of research participants and enhance the potential for outcomes to be rigorous and useful.

269

2. Journal article Abstract: Working better together: new approaches for understanding the value and challenges of organisational partnerships

Inter-agency partnerships are critical for addressing the interrelated circumstances associated with the social and health determinants of health inequalities. However, there are many challenges in evaluating partnership processes and outcomes. We discuss a mixed-methods study that explored partnership processes in an innovative program that aims to promote social and economic inclusion for young newly arrived refugees. A theoretically informed evaluation was designed and data collected in three ways: an organisational ethnographic approach; a partnership self-assessment tool; and semi-structured interviews. Partnership assessments and interviews were collected at two points in time providing progressive process data. Analyses explore divergent levels of staff satisfaction with the partnership’s operations, particularly between staff working in program development (strategic management) and program delivery (service provision) roles. Follow-up data collection indicated satisfaction with partnership processes had improved. The partnership did achieve its aim of increasing the level of cooperation between service providers to support young people from refugee backgrounds. This paper presents insights into how to evaluate interagency partnerships and reports both methodological and empirical findings. It provides an approach for a better understanding of the levels at which individuals operate within such partnerships, alerting management to where support and attention is needed.

3. Report Executive Summary: Ucan2 evaluation final Report

Ucan2 is an innovative program developed in response to identified challenges posed by current Australian education and employment systems for newly-arrived youth with refugee backgrounds. Research has shown that the refugee experience can leave individuals particularly vulnerable to several dimensions of social exclusion. These include high rates of unemployment, lack of proficiency in English, racial discrimination, insecure housing, lack of education and poverty associated with all of these. Many young people who arrive in Australia as refugees may have spent long periods in refugee camps or first countries of asylum, experiencing minimal or no formal education pre-arrival, coupled with significant emotional and physical deprivations. Australian education and training systems are constructed on a linear model which assumes uninterrupted progression through primary, and secondary schools leading to tertiary education or integration into the workforce. This system is particularly challenging for older adolescent and young adult refugees who have experienced interrupted schooling and need to acquire English language proficiency along with relevant skills and knowledge to tackle unfamiliar education, training and employment pathways.

270

Ucan2 is designed to provide appropriate levels of support during early resettlement to enable young people from refugee backgrounds to negotiate these challenges successfully. The specific objectives of Ucan2 are:

 To increase the level of co-operation between providers of education, social support, training and employment services working with young people from refugee backgrounds in the 16 – 24 year age group.  To increase education, training and employment opportunities for young refugees in the first 15 months of the resettlement, recovery and integration process.  To increase psycho-social support provided to newly arrived young people through developing relationships with volunteers and class curriculum. It is a multi-agency project involving collaboration between the Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture (Foundation House), Adult Multicultural Education Services (AMES) and the Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY). The Ucan2 program provides individual case-management, employment- focussed curriculum, psycho-social support, host community connections and part-time employment opportunities to participants who are concurrently undertaking the standard twelve-month English language program offered to newly-arrived migrants. Researchers from the McCaughey Centre, University of Melbourne and Deakin University have evaluated the experience, impact, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of Ucan2 for individual program participants and for organisational service providers. The overall aim of the evaluation is to build the evidence and knowledge for enhancing social, educational and economic participation for young people from refugee backgrounds.

Summary of findings

The profile of the evaluation participants indicated that the Ucan2 program was successful in reaching its target group with almost 80% coming from a refugee background, an average age of 20 and an average time in Australia when participating in the evaluation of 12 months.

The experiences of students, staff and volunteers of the Ucan2 program were overwhelmingly positive with a sense that the program is improving over time and has progressive benefits for students in terms of language, confidence, psychosocial support and work experience. There were also significant positive changes in social connections such as increased friends in Australia, both born in Australia and born overseas. The large number of students (70%, trending upward over time) who included Ucan2 staff as important people in their lives, suggests that the relationships formed within the program may also provide an important source of linking social capital consisting of valued connections to other services and agencies for participants.

271

While curriculum, psychosocial support and promoting social connections are each the focus of discrete Ucan2 components, it is important to recognise that they all interact and impact on each other. Findings suggest that the combined impact is synergistic and this impact was summed up by many evaluation participants as an increase in student confidence. This included confidence to communicate in English, to negotiate employment and education systems, to interact with the broader community and organisations and to seek additional support when required.

Participation in Ucan2 was associated with perceived benefits to English language learning, particularly oral language development accompanied by an increase in confidence and cultural knowledge needed for communication. Embedding language learning in ‘real life’ situations such as preparation for and participation in work experience and interaction with the volunteers was recognised as particularly effective. Participation in Ucan2 was also seen as valuable preparation for employment. Some students gained part-time work directly following their work experience and others felt strongly that the relevant skills, knowledge, experience and contacts they had acquired would hold them in good stead for future job-seeking.

The provision of psychosocial support to students was recognised as an extremely valuable program component and the crucial role of social connections in promoting integration and inclusion was underscored by focus group and interview findings. Disruption to family relationships has a profound impact on many participants. While it is beyond the scope of a program such as Ucan2 to have a direct impact on many of the complex difficulties facing students in this area, bonding relationships developed within the program and the support and advocacy provided through the Ucan2 program is much appreciated. Increased capacity to make links to other organisations providing support and advocacy is also perceived to be an outcome of participation in Ucan2.

The volunteer component of the program was seen as vitally important and has substantial potential to promote social inclusion and social connections for newly arrived refugee youth, However, certain features of the program such as restriction of contact between volunteers and students to class time, low numbers of volunteers initially, and in many cases a lack of training and preparation of volunteers for class activities prevented this from being fully realised. Contact with the volunteers was highly valued by students. The volunteers’ understandings and perceptions of newly arrived young refugees have been deepened and strengthened and it s evident that volunteers as well as students have gained and learnt as a result of the volunteer component in the Ucan2 program. Recommendations are included below concerning ways in which this program component might be strengthened and extended.

272

The evaluation findings reflect that Ucan2 is a complex program to operate, requiring a consistent model to ensure sufficient ‘intervention dose’ for participants while still being adaptable to the school systems within which it is operating. There are some indications that features of the partnership have improved over time and it is clear that this is contributing to the successful delivery of the Ucan2 program. There is now more open communication, governance structures have been outlined and trust continues to be established. It is clear that the program is still evolving with clear areas for governance improvements to maximise the effects.

Further translation of the improvements described by staff and students into measurable outcomes is not likely to occur until the program is delivered consistently and is embedded within existing programs, policies and reporting systems. Current data availability for language and pathway outcomes is limited. Identification of an appropriate comparison group, for assessing whether the observed extension of social connectedness can be attributed directly to Ucan2, is also problematic. The follow up period for this study of approximately twelve months for partnership changes and three to six months for student effects is likely to be too soon for impacts to be realised as changes in outcomes. At this stage, the costs of the program (roughly $2,250 per student) were shown to be offset by quantified benefits in terms of significant increases in social connections. In the absence of comparative data, it is difficult to confirm that these benefits have arisen as a result of Ucan2 rather than other influences. It should therefore simply be considered as an early indication that Ucan2 shows promise as an important investment in infrastructure/sustainable systems change and the core domains of integration of refugees. The strong qualitative evidence presented here however, suggests that Ucan2 has substantial positive effects on participants that could be expected to lead, over the longer term, to improved employment prospects and improved integration into Australian society. These may well mean that not only are the effects of Ucan2 long-lasting and substantial but that Ucan2 is associated with longer term cost-savings to society (e.g. through reduced welfare dependence) that more than repay any initial investment required in the program. This anticipated translation of positive experiences into participant outcomes could be assessed through a longer term follow up evaluation.

Recommendations to Ucan2 partners:

 Adhere to agreed governance structures and procedures to support open and effective communication between staff and organisations  Deliver Ucan2 only to student groups that match the established profile and where students are able to participate in the entire program (eg. do not offer Ucan2 to classes where continuous enrolment is practised)

273

 Introduce staff induction sessions at each site involving all program delivery and other relevant staff, prior to the start of each Ucan2 program  Actively work to facilitate links to other organisations and groups including sports and recreation groups as these are likely to be an enduring source of support through transition from language schools and AMEP courses  Continue to support the specialised position of a work experience/part-time employment coordinator to promote relationships with employers and facilitate student outcomes  Work towards developing systems and conduct further research to track medium to long term education and employment pathways of refugee-background students following transition  Adapt educational settings to keep students together for longer than one term in recognition of the benefits gained and enhanced capacity to learn that occurs  Continue to review current classroom activities and work experience options and create opportunities to collect and respond to feedback from students  Continue to support students through transition from on-arrival English language programs (eg. through establishing links with mentors where appropriate) and recognise particular risks for students with severely disrupted family relationships, especially those with no family in Australia  Conduct a one year follow up of the participants in the Ucan2 evaluation to assess longer term benefits  Support and encourage volunteers and students to maintain contact outside of the classroom and Ucan2 program if they choose to do so  Revise current recruitment and retention processes for volunteers to more effectively recruit sufficient numbers of young people aged 18 – 35  Ensure volunteers receive appropriate induction, training and weekly preparation for activities to enhance outcomes from this program component

This final evaluation report will be supplemented by a series of research papers in 2011 presenting the evaluation findings in the context of theory and the available evidence base.

4. Report Executive Summary: Ucan2 Evaluation- Supplementary Report

This document presents findings from the extension of the Ucan2 Evaluation conducted during 2011 by researchers from the McCaughey Centre, University of Melbourne. It is intended to be read as a supplement to the Ucan2 Final Evaluation Report (December 2010) which covered the period 2008 to 2010. This report includes findings from social network mapping, wellbeing and demographic surveys conducted over the entire evaluation period. It also presents findings from focus groups conducted

274

with Ucan2 students in Semester 1, 2011; and from interviews with past Ucan2 students, business mentors and representatives of workplaces offering work experience to Ucan2 students.

The picture drawn from the social network mapping is one of disruption to relationships. A large proportion of the participants have one or more of their parents either missing from their social network maps (in many cases deceased) or still living in an overseas country. All but 5% of the students also listed significant family members living overseas. We know, both from the qualitative findings from this study as well as from other research (Lim, 2009; McDonald-Wilmsen & Gifford, 2009), that disruption to family relationships and anxiety about family members living in dangerous and insecure places is an enormous source of stress and distress for people of refugee backgrounds. The consequences of this disruption to family relationships is also underscored by the new findings reported here of a significant negative correlation between wellbeing and having no parent in Australia and the fact that family living in Australia were nominated as the most important source of advice and support reported by students. Having family other than parents in Australia was also associated with greater satisfaction with feeling part of one’s community.

The young people participating in the evaluation also experience a paucity of connections to the wider Australian community. This is indicated by the low numbers who listed Australian-born friends compared with the numbers of friends listed who were born in other countries or were living overseas. When changes are examined over time however, there was an increase in Australian-born friends listed as important between T1 and T2 for Ucan2 students. A significant increase was also seen for overseas-born friends living in Australia. These changes can be viewed as representing increased access to bridging social capital. The importance of such connections for achieving the markers and means of social inclusion and integration such as employment, education, secure housing and good health is indicated both by Ager and Strang’s (2008) theoretical framework and other studies with migrants and refugees (Cheong, et al., 2007; Marx, 1990; Spicer, 2008; Torezani, et al., 2008). Focus groups again confirmed (in line with previous reports) that contact with Ucan2 volunteers is highly valued by students. Despite reviews of this program component and improved numbers of volunteers for many of the 2011 Ucan2 groups however, there was no discernible reported change in their impact for the current evaluation participants. Nor was there an increase in the number of volunteers being included on social network maps completed for the evaluation extension. The particular features of the two groups included in the extension may have been responsible for this. For the Dandenong High School group, volunteer numbers were very low, while participants in the Victoria University group had been in Australia for far longer than the average for Ucan2 students. It is plausible that this may reduce the impact of the volunteer component of Ucan2 for these students.

275

The large number of students who included Ucan2 staff as important people in their lives, rising from approximately 70% at Time 1 to 80% at T2, suggests that the relationships formed within the program may also provide a significant source of linking social capital consisting of valued connections to other services and agencies for participants. Over 60% of participants also included ‘other important’ people in their lives. The new findings reported here show that these connections were also very important sources of advice and support for participating students.

In addition to the associations between family and wellbeing already noted, analyses of the wellbeing data showed decreased overall wellbeing as well as decreased satisfaction with future security associated with length of time since arrival. This finding too suggests that the stresses associated with resettlement are significant for refugee-background young people and highlights the importance of providing support.

The focus groups tended to confirm findings previously reported regarding the settlement experiences of refugee-background students. The individual interviews with past students however, provided new insights into their pathways and in particular the benefits of involvement in the mentoring program and part-time work. Disruptions to family continued to pose significant challenges for these young people. Bridging connections to the wider Australian community were reported by them to have expanded considerably though, and were greatly appreciated and enjoyed. Workplaces and school were the main sources of these connections and the young people often credited participation in Ucan2 with facilitating their development. Interviewees had also established linking connections to people from a range of institutions and maintained links with Ucan2 staff. All of those interviewed were engaged in study and many of them in work, with all of those working greatly enjoying their jobs. It should be emphasised however, that the sampling strategy used here deliberately targeted past Ucan2 students who were either working or being mentored and that their experiences cannot necessarily be assumed to represent all past Ucan2 students.

Both mentors and young people generally reported finding the mentoring program highly rewarding. Mentors often described ways in which participation in mentoring had enlarged or changed their perspective and increased their understanding of the challenges faced by refugee-background settlers in Australia. They also reported challenges, many of which were associated with a mismatch in expectations between mentor and mentee. The concept of a developmental – instrumental mentoring continuum is discussed, to illuminate some of these differing understandings of the mentoring program. In addition to managing expectations, mentors reported challenges and frustrations associated with contacting their mentees. It is anticipated that as this was the first time the mentoring program was implemented, these findings will inform future refinements to the program and mentor training. 276

Interviews with workplace representatives found that all who participated in the evaluation were extremely positive about their experiences of providing work experience, and in some cases employment, to Ucan2 students. The young people were invariably described as hard working, and those who had been employed, as excellent employees. Interviewees perceived benefits not only for the students but also for themselves, their staff, and their workplaces. Several store managers felt that these benefits could be enhanced further through greater opportunities for ongoing communication and involvement in the program. Specific suggestions for improved communication included making time to provide direct feedback to students at the end of their placement; and provision of information and guidance to stores on the backgrounds of work experience students and the Ucan2 program.

Overall, the findings of this evaluation extension provide a continuing rationale for the Ucan2 program strategies of providing psychosocial support to students and enhancing opportunities to make connections and links to the wider Australian community.

5. Conference presentation abstract: Adding value to evaluation using a theoretically grounded approach

This presentation will make a case for knowledge transfer in relation to the use of theory in evaluation research. The paper’s title was a question from a program manager 12 months into a three-year evaluation of a complex intervention promoting social inclusion for refugee youth. “That circle diagram” referred to a conceptual framework, that we, as external evaluators, had included in initial reports and presentations to program partners, to clarify the previously unarticulated theoretical underpinnings of their program activities.

We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of a program aiming to provide psychosocial support; enhanced educational and employment opportunities; and increased social connectedness for recently arrived refugee-background youth. Members of the evaluation team were located one day per week at the lead organisation to attend weekly program team meetings, and also conducted ethnographic research with program participants.

The title question triggered further explanation of the proposed theoretical framework by the evaluators and identification by the program providers of its relevance. The lead organisation then enthusiastically adopted the framework and used it extensively to guide their work and explain their program to other service providers.

Drawing on this case study, we contend that theory can play a key role in promoting reflective practice and adding value to the evaluation process for stakeholders. 277

Evaluators have a responsibility to engage in knowledge transfer with evaluation users; to explicate the theoretical grounding of the evaluation; and the relevant applications of the theory.

6. Conference presentation abstract: Engaging children and refugee youth in research by eliciting ‘alternative literacies’

Many of the standard data collection techniques employed in the social sciences – including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups - are most effective at capturing the views and experiences of those who are literate and articulate. Qualitative researchers have long recognised the ethical challenges inherent in conducting research across power gradients. Such gradients typically exist when a ‘white’, middle class, English-speaking and highly educated researcher instigates research with participants who are relatively vulnerable or disadvantaged in some way – perhaps because of age, gender, ethnicity, or low socio-economic status. Bourdieu has suggested that in such asymmetrical circumstances, researchers risk inflicting ‘symbolic violence’ on participants by misrepresenting their position; and emphasises the importance of mitigating this risk by rendering the research process meaningful for participants. Participatory research methods attempt to do this and to ‘empower’ participants by honouring their expertise and knowledge. Participant-generated visual methods, such as photovoice, represent a strategy researchers employ with the explicit intention of empowering individuals and communities.

In this paper, we discuss another approach, in which we used researcher-generated images as focus group prompts when power differentials, understandings of research and language threatened effective communication. We present case studies from our research with newly arrived refugee- background youth and with primary-school children, in which we provided focus group participants with images, and the task of sorting and discussing them. In the research with refugee youth, low levels of English proficiency posed a challenge, but multiple first languages prevented the use of interpreters as a solution. Standard verbal prompts were piloted first, but failed to engage participants in meaningful discussion. Combining visual prompts with an activity, however, elicited sophisticated views on the part of young people about their circumstances. In the example of research with children, this technique was used to stimulate children’s responses and debate independent of the researchers; to minimise the impact of the power imbalance between adults and children; and of pedagogical protocols learned in classroom settings. Children were then given the opportunity to participate in further development of the research methods by reflecting and commenting on the visual method used.

278

These case studies suggest that visual methodologies using researcher-generated images provide an ethical means of engaging with research participants across social distance, by invoking alternative literacies that they possess. This in turn produces data both different and richer than could be obtained using verbal prompts alone in these circumstances.

7. Conference presentation abstract: Evaluating complex inter-agency partnerships: A mixed methods approach

There is a growing need for developing organisational partnerships to address complex and multi- faceted circumstances that are associated with the problems of social exclusion. Understanding how to maximise the effectiveness of inter-agency partnership work is critical for improving community outcomes, however, they remain difficult to evaluate. This paper describes a method for evaluating an innovative partnership that aims to promote social inclusion among young refugees. A mixed methods evaluation framework was developed. It included an organisational ethnographic approach, a modified implementation of the VicHealth Partnership Analysis Toolkit and key informant semi- structured interviews. This informed the development of a useful partnership map. Findings revealed diverging levels of satisfaction with the ways in which the partnership was operating among staff working in either program development (strategic management of the partnership) or program delivery (service provision) roles. This suggested a need to improve communication channels both between personnel working at different tiers within organisations (intra-organisational), and between organisational (inter-organisational) partners. This paper offers an enhanced understanding of how complex and multi-level partnerships work to address complex societal issues. We argue that it is critical to recognise the different nature of collaborative tasks likely to be required of staff from different organisational tiers when working in partnership. While currently available frameworks and tools for evaluating partnerships are limited they can be usefully extended using ethnographic and qualitative methods to capture and appraise the complex arrangements of partnership processes.

8. Conference presentation abstract: “Some people don’t say hello” - Supporting social inclusion for newly arrived youth with refugee backgrounds

Many humanitarian entrants to Australia come from countries that have experienced protracted conflict and consequent displacement of populations. This background results in particular barriers to inclusion for young refugees who have often spent long periods of time, and sometimes their whole lives in refugee camps, as well as having experienced a significant degree of trauma. Many arrive

279

with significantly disrupted family and social networks as well as little formal education, compounded by limited vocational skills, work histories or experiences relevant to employment in Australia. Standard on-arrival programs provide twelve months of English language tuition before transition to mainstream education systems, where a mismatch of age, educational level and experience leaves individuals at high risk of disengagement, dropping-out, and subsequent welfare dependency leading to long term social exclusion.

This paper will present findings from mixed methods research with young people from refugee backgrounds who are participating in an innovative intervention designed to improve settlement outcomes for this group. The Ucan2 program is situated within standard on-arrival English language programs and aims to provide support to refugee-background students prior to and during transition to mainstream secondary schools or tertiary institutions. The intervention provides participants with psychosocial support and relevant experiences in terms of employment-focused language acquisition and employment skills while promoting social networking beyond existing community boundaries. The research focus is on experiences of resettlement and social connections generated through program participation as well as education and employment expectations, aspirations and outcomes. I will also reflect briefly on some of the ethical and methodological challenges encountered in this research with newly arrived young people from refugee backgrounds.

9. Conference presentation abstract: Evaluation research with refugee youth: Adapting methods to the population

This paper derives from a study exploring the experiences of older adolescent and young adult migrants of refugee background during their early settlement period in Australia. Study participants are drawn from groups undertaking a program called Ucan2, which can be broadly conceptualised as aiming to promote successful settlement and social inclusion for refugee youth. The authors are conducting a mixed-methods three-year program evaluation of which one component is evaluation of the impact of the program on participants. The presentation will focus on strategies used to adapt research methods for this population.

A number of methodological and associated ethical challenges are commonly encountered by researchers working with refugees. These include tensions inherent in obtaining access and informed consent; the logistics of working with multiple language groups, varying literacy levels and understandings of research; an imbalance of power between researchers and participants; concern with maximising inclusion and agency in the research process; and the tensions between rigour and advocacy when working with a vulnerable population. 280

For this evaluation project, innovative strategies were required to make research methods more ethical and responsive to the circumstances of participants. Features of the target population including low levels of English proficiency and literacy and potential vulnerability associated with a refugee background meant that standard evaluation tools and methods are of limited use for working with this group. As well as using an embedded ethnographic approach to develop trust with and understanding of the study population and appreciation of the program, methods for obtaining consent and data collection were piloted and adapted in response to early experiences. We argue here that, considerable time, ongoing reflexivity, adaptation and innovative methods are required if we are to conduct evaluation research with this population that is rigorous, ethical and valuable for participants, researchers and other stakeholders.

10. Conference presentation abstract: Supporting social inclusion for refugee youth (Trinity Immigration conference- Dublin)

Australia accepts approximately 13,500 refugee and humanitarian migrants yearly, over half of whom are under the age of 25. Currently, the majority of humanitarian entrants arriving in Australia are from countries in Africa, the Middle East and Burma which have experienced long periods of conflict and consequent displacement of populations. This background results in particular barriers to inclusion for young refugees who have often spent long periods of time, and sometimes their whole lives in refugee camps, as well as having experienced a significant degree of trauma. Many adolescent and young adult refugees arrive with significantly disrupted family and social networks as well as little formal education, compounded by limited vocational skills, work histories or experiences relevant to employment in Australia. Standard on-arrival programs provide twelve months of English language tuition before placement in mainstream education systems, where a mismatch of age, educational level and experience leaves individuals at high risk of disengagement, dropping-out, and subsequent welfare dependency leading to long term social exclusion.

This paper will present findings from focus groups and interviews with young people from refugee backgrounds who are participating in an innovative intervention designed to improve settlement outcomes for this group. The Ucan2 program is situated within standard on-arrival English language programs. It brings host-community volunteers into the language classroom and promotes part-time work as a means to inclusion and engagement. The intervention provides participants with psychosocial support and relevant experiences in terms of employment focused language acquisition and employment skills while promoting social networking beyond existing community boundaries. The research focus is on experiences of resettlement and social connections generated through

281

program participation as well as education and employment expectations, aspirations and outcomes. The presentation aims to enhance our understanding of the issues impacting on social inclusion for newly-arrived young adult and adolescent refugees in Australia and other developed countries and how this can inform policy and program development relating to service provision for this population.

11. Conference presentation abstract: Supporting social inclusion for refugee youth (Diversity in Health conference – Melbourne)

Social exclusion has been associated with a variety of poor health outcomes ranging from depression and anxiety to increased death rates from almost all causes. Social networks, as one indicator of social inclusion, provide support, opportunities for economic and social engagement and access to resources, which offer protective effects against causes of ill health.Young refugees arriving in Australia have often spent long periods of time in refugee camps as well as having experienced a significant degree of trauma. This background means that adolescent and young adult refugees may arrive with significantly disrupted social networks as well as little formal education, compounded by limited vocational skills, work histories or experiences relevant to employment in Australia. Standard programs provide twelve months of English language tuition before placement in mainstream education systems, where a mismatch of age, educational level and experience leaves individuals at high risk of disengagement, dropping-out, and subsequent welfare dependency leading to social exclusion with its attendant poor health outcomes.

This paper will present findings from focus groups and interviews with young people from refugee backgrounds who are participating in the Ucan2 program. Situated within standard on-arrival English language programs, the Ucan2 intervention promotes part-time work as a means to inclusion and engagement. It provides participants with psychosocial support and relevant experiences in terms of employment focused language acquisition and employment skills while promoting social networking beyond existing community boundaries. The research focus is on social connections and experiences of resettlement as well as education and employment expectations, aspirations and outcomes.

The presentation aims to enhance our understanding of the issues impacting on social inclusion for newly-arrived young adult and adolescent refugees in Australia and how this can inform policy and program development relating to service provision for this population.

282

12. Conference presentation abstract: Working better together: Evaluating inter-agency partnerships that promote social inclusion

Introduction: There is increasing demand for partnerships to address complex, multi-faceted problems such as social exclusion. An understanding of how multi-agency partnerships work is critical to improving community outcomes. However, there is a clear gap in how best to evaluate such complex partnerships. VicHealth describes partnerships as operating on a continuum. This conceptualisation was used to inform a current partnership evaluation of three agencies that have come together to provide a program promoting social inclusion.

Methods: A range of methods were employed including collaborative ethnography, the VicHealth partnership checklist, key informant interviews and development of a map of the partnership.

Results: Integration of findings showed that staff were operating at different levels, as described by the VicHealth continuum. Some relationships were operating at a collaborating level and others at a coordinating or cooperating level. These differences related to whether staff were involved in program delivery, or program management and conceptual development. Embedded networks operating horizontally across organisations as well as vertically within and between organisations were also apparent. The partnership map demonstrated a higher level of complexity than that described by the VicHealth continuum.

Conclusions: An enhanced understanding of how complex and multi-level partnerships work is required. It is imperative that partnerships are evaluated to monitor their functionality and identify any issues that can be improved. This paper highlights that the currently available frameworks and tools for understanding partnerships are limited but can be usefully extended using qualitative methods to allow exploration of a greater degree of complexity.

13. Conference presentation abstract: Conducting socially inclusive research: Reflections on working with refugee youth

For young refugees who are settling in Australia, key domains of social inclusion can be described as comprising adequate material conditions; meeting educational and occupational needs; providing a sense of wellbeing and connectedness as well as of a capacity to shape the future (O’Sullivan & Olliff, 2006b, pp. 16-17:16-17). Newly arrived refugee youth with backgrounds including significant trauma and long periods in refugee camps face considerable barriers to inclusion.

283

Challenges for researchers seeking to understand their experiences include those of obtaining access and informed consent; the logistics of working with multiple language groups, varying literacy levels and understandings of research; imbalance of power between researchers and participants; maximising inclusion and agency in the research process; and the tensions between rigour and advocacy when working with a vulnerable population. In this paper I will reflect on methodological considerations for evaluative research we are currently conducting on an intervention incorporating psychosocial support, social connections and a work-focussed curriculum within an English language education setting.

284

Ucan2 Evaluation Report for Students April 2011

We would like to thank all the Ucan2 students and staff who helped with this evaluation. The evaluation results are now being used to keep improving Ucan2 so that it can help more young people who are settling in Australia.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUNG PEOPLE SETTLING IN AUSTRALIA?

Students from 13 different Ucan2 groups talked to Karen from Melbourne University about what sort of things were important for them to be able to settle happily in Australia. Some of the most important issues were:

 Learning English  Good health  Getting a job  Family and friends

Other things which were also very important for many people were:  Religion  Feeling safe  Getting to know other people in  Computers and the internet Australia  Studying for a career  Having Australian citizenship or  Sport a residency visa  Help with looking after children  Having a home to live in

285

HOW DOES THE UCAN2 PROGRAM HELP?

Learning English is one of the biggest challenges for Ucan2 students. Most students thought that Ucan2 had helped them a lot with their English – especially with spoken English that was useful for everyday situations. Some students said that because Ucan2 helped them with ‘problems’. This meant they worried less and could learn more. Playing games, having fun, going on work experience and talking with volunteers were all seen as good opportunities to practise English.

“It’s very good because all the time we are speaking and if we speak English we can learn better. If we sit quiet we can’t!”

(Ucan2 student)

Nearly all the students in Ucan2 thought that the program would help them to get a job either now or in the future. Learning about work in Australia, writing a résumé, and doing work experience were all considered particularly useful. Most students enjoyed doing work experience and thought it was also a good way to practise English. Some students got a part-time job following their work experience. A few had used their résumés to help them get a job in other places.

“If you can work somewhere you can improve your English too because you talk with everyone, different people, different things.” (Ucan2 student)

Lots of Ucan2 students thought that the program had helped them to feel happy and

safe in Australia. For some students this was because Ucan2 had helped them to deal with

problems that they had. Other students said that the activities in Ucan2 helped them to

relax and worry less and that this was also good for their health and wellbeing.

“I can’t explain... Feeling safe... happy, playing

games, everything....”

(Ucan2 student)

“It makes you more relaxed”

“...Maybe give you a chance to talk about your problem. It’s good for your health!”

(Ucan2 students)

Meeting new people in Australia was difficult for many Ucan2 students. However, most students thought Ucan2 helped a lot because they learned communication skills and met new people through the program. Having the volunteers in the classroom was a popular part of Ucan2 for most students.

“I love Ucan2 yeah! I like because in Ucan2 I find a lot of friend you know... From different country you know – sometimes I ask about his country, his culture yeah – I practise too my English you know.” (Ucan2 student)

“They support us to get confidence. So confident to make friend here like Aussie!” 287 (Ucan2 student)

WHAT ELSE DID WE LEARN ABOUT UCAN2?

When we asked Ucan2 students about the important people in their lives we found that lots of them were separated from close family members and that this was very difficult for them. Many students had not yet had the opportunity to make friends with other Australians. Many also had important friends who were living in other countries. Most students included “other people” who were important to them as well as friends and families. Often these were people who helped them such as teachers, other Ucan2 staff, caseworkers, doctors, people from their church, or Centrelink.

WHAT DID OTHER PEOPLE THINK ABOUT UCAN2?

We also spoke to lots of teachers from schools and AMES, Foundation House staff and people from CMY about Ucan2. All of the people we interviewed thought the program helped students with settlement in Australia. This is what one of the teachers said:

“I think one of the main aims is to build students’ confidence and to do that through building connections with the community and through work placement and that goes hand in hand with building their language and their understanding of the community that’s new to them. So confidence in all that kind of thing - confidence in their language, confidence in their skills, confidence in their place in a new community”. (Ucan2 teacher)

288

289

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: BLOCK, KAREN

Title: Refugee youth, social inclusion and health

Date: 2012

Citation: Block, K. (2012). Refugee youth, social inclusion and health. PhD thesis, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faulty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne.

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38233

File Description: Refugee youth, social inclusion and health