Viable Alternatives to Immigration Prisons
How the system can be made more humane.
The UK is currently imprisoning around 25,000 asylum seekers per year, but most never get deported. Indeed, according to Home Office statistics for the year ending June 2022, only 3,384 were deported, just 14%. Most of the rest go on to be given permission to remain in the UK. So is it really necessary to imprison them?
In a previous article: Shame on Us! UK Immigrant prisons, I wrote about the abhorrent conditions inside immigration prisons and advocated that they should either all be closed, or reserved only for those asylum seekers refused refugee status who are awaiting imminent deportation in a viable pre-arranged plan.
So, if the UK were to imprison only the small number of asylum seekers about to be deported (or none at all) what should it do instead with asylum seekers applying to remain in the UK? That’s what this article is about.
Specifically we will be looking for ways in which asylum seekers can be treated more humanely, for less expense than imprisoning them, without serious risk of them ‘going underground’ and so that they will be better prepared for integration into society if they are granted refugee status.
Fortunately there are examples of ‘Alternatives To Detention’ (ATDs) from around the world. Broadly they fall into two types:
- Location tracking which is primarily concerned with keeping track of where the asylum seekers are and
- Case management programs which are primarily concerned with helping the asylum seekers.
Lets have a look at each of these approaches in turn.
- Location tracking
These schemes monitor asylum seekers within the community through the use of surveillance devices such as GPS ankle monitors (tagging), or technology that recognises a persons face or voice in which the asylum seeker is required to check in regularly by speaking or taking their photo, so that they can be traced to a particular location.
Though location tracking is the cheapest option, it is widely considered to be an infringement of human rights. It is also subject to abuse. In America it’s usage is widespread, and has been increasing, with just under 300,000 people currently being tracked.
Various difficulties have been identified with ankle tagging including false accusation when a battery dies or the GPS tracking fails, potentially causing what are colloquially referred to as “strikes.” Individuals who receive too many strikes risk being imprisoned. Further complicating this process, the officers involved are not transparent about what factors are considered when determining whether an ankle monitor should or should not be removed and historically, surveillance methods have been targeted at people of colour, resulting in a host of human rights abuses and harm.
Ankle monitors closely track an individual’s whereabouts, which allows the authorities to monitor not just the individual concerned, but also people in their network and community (against their rights).
Although tagging is being replaced in the US by other forms of tracking these share many of the same data privacy issues. Studies have also shown that methods which use facial or verbal verification technology, do not identify certain racial and ethnic groups as effectively as others. This, again, allows for the possibility of mistaken accusations.
Most importantly, and in addition to privacy, discrimination, and reliability concerns, the dehumanising and degrading effect of being continually tracked has a negative emotional and psychological impact on the migrants concerned. At a time when they are anxious to be accepted by their their chosen country, and treated on an equal basis, they have to endure a constant reminder of their lesser status in the eyes of the authorities and relative to existing citizens.
Finally, location tracking is a blunt instrument — because it doesn’t stop people absconding! It just alerts the authorities as soon as a person has removed their tag, or failed to report — but by the time the authorities respond to the alert the person may well have ‘escaped’ — having made a plan prior to their non-compliance. In the UK we know from figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act referenced in a Guardian article that many do reject being surveyed with around 15% of people cutting off their tags.
2. Case management programs.
In contrast to surveillance strategies, case management programs focus on supporting migrants in the community, providing them with individualised assessment, equipping them with better tools to resolve their cases positively, and helping them to explore all the options available to them.
It is essentially a social work approach designed to ensure support for, and a coordinated response to, the health and wellbeing of people with complex needs. A range of services can be provided, including guidance on securing basic necessities such as housing, benefits and welfare support, as well as access to legal aid, advice about applying for jobs (when this is permitted), and training.
Normally there is a case manager, who is not a decisionmaker, and who provides a link between the individual, the authorities and the community, ensuring that the individual has access to information about the immigration process and can engage fully, and that the government has up-to date and relevant information about the person.
It is a person-centred, holistic approach that has been shown to be largely effective and much more humane and many countries are starting to use it.
One example, perhaps surprisingly, is from Australia. Despite its notorious off-shore detention, Australia now uses a very different approach on its own territory. After years of a punitive enforcement model with little assessment of individual circumstance or the need to detain, a small NGO called the Hotham Mission initiated an independent ‘alternatives to detention’ pilot with support from charitable foundations. The learning generated from this project was then used to start conversations with government, of a different kind to the oppositional discourse that had previously dominated. Because of it’s demonstrated success the Australian government subsequently decided to expand and gradually implement the Hotham Mission’s model on a national level and there are now many other examples there of community based projects run by NGOs including the Australian Red Cross. There are similar projects in Europe, notably in Bulgaria, Sweden, Cyprus, and Spain.
In the UK a ‘Community Support Project’ (CSP) run by Detention Action since 2014 works with migrant males who have experienced or are at risk of long-term detention. Ongoing assistance is provided by the project which takes into account the varied emotional and practical needs of each participant, including support in consequential thinking techniques and advocacy with statutory and non-statutory bodies on their behalf. The project has demonstrated that, when case management principles are followed, alternatives can work even for people with complex needs and a history of convictions. 93% of CSP participants have not re-offended since joining the project. This figure compares to the fact that around half of all people leaving prison reoffend within 12 months.
In 2018, the UK Government published the Shaw Progress Report, urging the UK Government to:
“demonstrate much greater energy in its consideration of alternatives to detention.”
Following this, the Government announced the creation of a Community Engagement pilot (CEP) Series, to test approaches to supporting people to resolve their immigration cases in the community. This resulted in Action Foundation — which had played a key role in the advocacy efforts that led to the introduction of the CEP being granted the contract for the first of the four pilots, ‘Action Access’ which ran between 2019 and 2021 and supported 20 women seeking asylum in a community setting in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the North East of England. With one exception, prior to joining the pilot all of the women had been detained in Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre.
Upon joining the pilot, the women were provided with shared accommodation, received one-to-one support from Action Foundation staff, and were supported to access legal counselling. Although it wasn’t a requirement of the pilot, the women also benefited from Action Foundation’s broader program of activity such as its free English language classes and weekly community gatherings, facilitating socialisation, signposting and referrals.
The model was innovative in a number of ways. The combination of a holistic approach to case management with comprehensive legal support, for instance, was integral to the delivery of the pilot and seen to make case resolution more likely.
Evaluation of this project was researched and compiled by Britain’s largest independent social research organisation, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and published in a report, entitled Evaluation of the Action Access Pilot. Commenting on the effectiveness of the pilot, the report states:
“Our evaluation found qualitative evidence that participants experienced more stability and better health and wellbeing outcomes whilst being supported by Action Access in the community than they had received while in detention. Evidence from this pilot suggests that these outcomes were achievable without decreasing compliance with the immigration system.”
The evaluation said this provided:
“a more humane and less stressful environment for pilot participants to engage in the legal review and make decisions about their future, compared with immigration detention. Even when those decisions were difficult and participants had no legal case to remain in the UK, the pilot gave the participants space and time to engage with their immigration options.”
The evaluation also found that keeping people in the community was much less expensive than holding an individual in detention.
These are promising results. While many understandably regard the Home Office with distrust, the government’s commitment to exploring alternatives to detention offers a unique opportunity for a cultural shift. What has been demonstrated is that an NGO can work with the Home Office and help to release people from detention and humane alternatives are possible if the Home Office is willing to replicate this approach in the future.
There are many other examples of similar projects from around the world. A recent report by Human Rights Watch: Dismantling Detention examined existing alternatives to immigration detention of both categories and in six countries. They interviewed people in the programs and spoke to service providers, social workers, lawyers, and members of civil society organizations.
They found community based case management programs to be highly viable, successful, alternatives to detention and concluded:
..governments should replace immigration detention with community-based case management programs that provide a holistic set of services, including access to legal aid and guidance on securing basic necessities such as housing and employment.
Commenting on the second type of ATD (focussing on tracking asylum seekers) they concluded:
Given the existence of less intrusive alternatives, ankle monitors and other devices that provide continuous location tracking should be banned.
Despite the compelling evidence in favour of community based support there are a few remaining arguments still made against them. Some say that managing people in a humane way in the community loses the deterrent value of Immigration Removal Centres. There is, however, no evidence for this and, as explored in my article: Why the Rwandan threat wont deter asylum seekers, there are many reasons why people are so determined to reach the UK that nothing would deter them. Also the vast majority of people who are detained also go on, at some point to be accepted as refugees, so those that know in advance about IRCs will probably know about this too and just regard it as one further obstacle to get through in order to acquire status.
A second argument is that people are less likely to abscond if they are detained in IRCs. Whilst this is certainly true for the period that they are in detention, recall that the majority (currently 86%) are subsequently released without having been deported. At that point, having had a bad experience with the UK authorities it is surely more likely they will go underground.
Community based projects supporting asylum seekers have demonstrated that a high proportion do end up attending court to complete their application process. Whilst there is hope of getting accepted, only a very small minority abscond. Moreover if they are given proper legal help, as these schemes do, they are even less likely to abscond. The more hope there is the less likelihood of absconding.
We can note also, in passing, that if asylum seekers were allowed to work during their application process (they currently aren’t), this would further reduce the chance of them absconding and the government would be better placed to keep track of someone’s whereabouts through knowing where they pay taxes and work.
A final argument given is that if people are allowed a better experience of being in the UK (through a community based scheme) it will be more traumatic for them to be subsequently deported. This is a curious argument. Suddenly we are concerned about the feelings of the minority of asylum seekers who will be returned, and, having been prepared to give them an appalling experience, we are now worried about the negative effects of giving them a good one. Surely, if they have to be returned it is better that they go back to their home country less traumatised and perhaps with some newly acquired skills that they can use in their home country. And, for the majority that remain, the transition to mainstream society will be swifter and cheaper if they have been supported properly during their application.
Conclusion.
The table below summarises the pros and cons of different provisions for asylum seekers in terms of their humanity, expense, success in reducing absconding and success in terms of helping the person to integrate into society.
Surely it’s a no-brainer — case management programs are the best solution
But they have yet to be introduced to the UK as anything other than pilot schemes. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to ending the policy of immigration detention is that the immigration detainment economy is big business. The private prison companies that administer immigration prisons have contracts and connections with the government that allow them to make huge profits and spend significant money lobbying to be retained.
The current practice of detaining immigrants is big government using its powers inefficiently, tackling a problem with brutish, expensive and inhumane force for the purpose of political posturing, vote grabbing and sustaining business with unethical organisations.
Smaller non-profit organisations using less invasive tactics are able to do a much better job at a fraction of the cost.
Thanks for reading! If you have found this article interesting please do share it widely — the more people know about the alternatives to detention the more likely beneficial changes will happen. To see other articles on refugee and asylum seeker issues please sign up to follow my publication: Refugee Think Tank.
