Key messages

• immigration policy can shape everyday experiences of care, financial stability and access to support for migrants and refugees
• administrative issues within immigration systems can disrupt access to welfare payments and essential income
• immigration rules and eligibility criteria can create uncertainty for people who depend on public support while navigating the asylum or settlement process
• proposed changes to migration policy, including longer qualifying periods for settlement, may have implications for migrants with emerging health or care needs
• migrant experiences of care are often shaped by a combination of immigration policy, welfare eligibility and local service provision

Policy implications

• policymakers should consider how immigration policy intersects with health and social care systems
• administrative systems must minimise errors that can disrupt welfare payments or eligibility for support
• social care and welfare policies should recognise the particular vulnerabilities faced by migrants with insecure status
• cross-government coordination may help reduce unintended consequences of immigration rules on health and care access

Gaps

• the commentary draws on illustrative cases rather than systematic empirical analysis
• limited quantitative evidence is presented on the scale of the issues discussed
• further research is needed on how immigration policy shapes access to health and social care services over time
• additional work is required to understand how different migrant groups experience these barriers across regions and service settings

Commentary
This commentary explores how immigration policy interacts with the everyday realities of care, welfare and support for migrants and refugees in the UK. It highlights how policy frameworks designed primarily for migration control can have unintended consequences for people’s financial stability and wellbeing. Administrative processes, eligibility rules and immigration status can shape whether individuals are able to access the support needed to maintain housing, income and basic security.

The analysis shows that disruptions to welfare payments and uncertainty around immigration status can create significant instability. When income is suspended or delayed because of administrative issues, individuals may experience debt, housing insecurity and difficulty meeting basic needs. These pressures can directly affect health and wellbeing, particularly for people already facing precarious circumstances.

From a social care equity perspective, the commentary highlights how structural policy arrangements can shape access to support services. Migrants with insecure immigration status may face additional barriers to accessing welfare and care systems, while proposed changes to settlement rules could extend periods of uncertainty for those with emerging health or care needs. These structural conditions can contribute to uneven access to care and support across different population groups.

Overall, the piece highlights the importance of recognising how immigration policy intersects with health and social care systems. Addressing inequities in access to care requires attention not only to service design but also to the broader policy environment that shapes people’s ability to access support in the first place.

Key Messages:

• Dignity in service delivery: The framework focuses on embedding dignity into service delivery for individuals facing crises, such as those impacted by homelessness, health crises, or other emergencies.
• Person-centred care: It emphasises person-centred care, recognising individual and community needs, particularly the importance of psychosocial support and cash assistance to maintain dignity during crises.
• Collaborative practices: The framework advocates for integrating efforts from various sectors and actively engaging communities in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of support services.
• Training for frontline staff: Training and tools for frontline staff are highlighted as essential for understanding and applying dignity principles effectively.
• Role of government and organisations: The report stresses the role of government and organisations in creating a culture of respect and understanding to reduce stigma and ensure inclusive, accessible service delivery.

Commentary:

The “Delivering with Dignity” framework plays a key role in advancing social care equity by promoting inclusive, person-centred care approaches. It addresses the structural barriers and stigma often faced by marginalised groups, including asylum seekers. The framework’s focus on dignity is critical in reducing disparities caused by systemic inequities, especially in contexts where discrimination or cultural misunderstandings limit access to appropriate care.

By emphasising the importance of training for frontline staff, collaborative practices across sectors, and community engagement, the framework offers actionable strategies to reshape care environments. These recommendations aim to ensure equitable access to dignified support, aligning with broader social care equity goals. The integration of dignity principles into service delivery fosters an environment where all individuals, regardless of their background, can receive respectful and effective care.

Gaps/limitations:

There is a lack of intersectional research on the experiences of subgroups, such as disabled or LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) asylum seekers. These groups’ specific barriers and enablers remain under-researched, often due to challenges in engaging such populations in research, leaving gaps in the evidence base.

Key messages 

• asylum seekers in the UK are excluded from the labour market and rely on welfare payments that fall below standard poverty thresholds 

• civil society organisations provide essential support, including food, housing assistance and advocacy 

• the policy framework contributes to conditions of extreme poverty among asylum seekers 

• support from charities and community groups varies by location 

• without policy reform, third sector organisations will continue to compensate for gaps in state provision. 

Policy implications 

• reforms to asylum support policies may be required to reduce poverty among asylum seekers 

• greater coordination between government and civil society organisations could improve consistency of support 

• policymakers may need to reassess welfare support levels and work restrictions for asylum seekers 

• national standards for support provision could reduce regional variation. 

Gaps 

• limited evidence on the long-term impacts of reliance on third sector support 

• further research is needed on how asylum policies affect access to health and social care services. 

Commentary 
This study explores how asylum support operates in practice in the UK, focusing on the role civil society organisations play in supporting asylum seekers. The analysis shows that restrictive asylum policies create conditions in which individuals are unable to work and must rely on limited welfare payments. 

As a result, voluntary and community organisations frequently provide basic forms of assistance that fall outside formal state provision. These organisations help address immediate needs such as food security, social support and access to services. 

However, the study also highlights the uneven nature of this support. Civil society responses depend heavily on local resources, networks and organisational capacity, meaning that the level of support available can vary significantly across different areas. 

From a care inequities perspective, the findings illustrate how financial and policy structures shape access to support for asylum seekers. Low welfare payments and employment restrictions place individuals at heightened risk of poverty, while reliance on voluntary sector provision creates uneven access depending on geography. These dynamics demonstrate how financial inequities are embedded within the asylum support system and can influence individuals’ ability to access essential services, including health and social care. 

Overall, the study highlights the limitations of relying on civil society to compensate for policy gaps. Without structural policy change, the support available to asylum seekers is likely to remain unevenly distributed, reinforcing financial inequities in access to support and services.