Evaluation by National Centre for Social Research and Fortia Insight of initiatives to improve move on process
The Home Office yesterday published a commissioned evaluation of initiatives to enhance the "move on" period for newly recognised refugees to transition from asylum support to mainstream support services.
Image credit: WikipediaYou can read it online here.
The evaluation was conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and Fortia Insight and it examined three initiatives introduced by the Home Office in 2024: a pilot scheme extending the move on period from 28 to 56 days; the deployment of Asylum Move on Liaison Officers (AMLOs) in selected local authorities; and £2.8 million in recognition payments to local authorities and devolved governments.
According to the evaluation, all participant groups were positive about the extension of the move on period to 56 days. Local authorities (LAs) and voluntary community sector (VCS) organisations reported that the additional time reduced pressures and improved outcomes.
The evaluation states: "The temporary extension of the move on period was widely welcomed by all research participants. It was reported to have reduced stress for refugees and service providers, improved planning, and enabled more trauma-informed support. LAs and VCS organisations reported better partnership working and fewer crisis interventions. However, delays in receiving discontinuation and [Notice to Quit (NTQ)] letters limited the full benefit of the extension, as participants reported that some refugees could not fully utilise the 56-day period. During the pilot of the 56-day move on period, the median time from asylum decision to support exit increased, as expected, while reinstatement rates declined. Fewer cases experienced extended stays of 6 months or more, suggesting the extension helped resolve documentation issues and enabled more efficient exits.
"The 56-day pilot also improved the timeliness of departures (within the planned exit period) compared to the previous 28-day period, which could have created a more structured and less stressful process for refugees and staff supporting them. Despite these improvements, housing shortages were reported to remain a significant barrier, meaning additional time alone cannot address this systemic challenge. While all participants agreed that the move on period should be extended, some VCS participants recommended longer periods for some groups, particularly single adult men who face greater difficulties securing accommodation."
The evaluation found evidence of earlier intervention by councils. In England, homelessness prevention duty cases increased while relief duty cases, which apply when a person is already homeless, decreased. The report says this suggests a reduced risk of homelessness.
Management information analysed by the researchers showed that the median length of stay in Home Office support after an asylum decision increased from 41 days before the pilot to 56 days afterwards. At the same time, the proportion of cases remaining in support for six months or more fell from 17% to 4%, while reinstatements of support fell from 25% to 10%. The proportion of people leaving support by their planned departure date rose from 76% to 80%.
However, the report says delays in issuing discontinuation and Notice to Quit letters meant some refugees were unable to make full use of the 56-day period. Some local authorities also reported confusion over notice periods and communication from the Home Office.
Based on its findings on the pilot, the evaluation importantly recommends an extension of the move on period, stating in its recommendations: "Extend the move on period; research indicates that a longer move on period alleviates pressure on LAs and VCS providers, impacts refugee and LA and VCS organisation support staff wellbeing, and decreases the risk of homelessness. Recognising that [service users] have diverse circumstances and may face different barriers to securing housing, extending the move on period is likely to mitigate some of these challenges and provide essential flexibility for those at greater risk."
The evaluation found mixed views on the role of AMLOs, who were introduced in selected areas to help refugees navigate the move on process. Some local authority participants said they improved coordination and helped resolve eVisa-related issues. According to the report, AMLO teams supported nearly 10,000 refugees and resolved 94% of the 3,644 escalation issues they raised between September 2024 and September 2025.
However, the analysis found no significant evidence that AMLOs affected key outcomes such as length of stay in support, reinstatement rates or timely departures. The report notes that the scheme was introduced gradually and did not reach all refugees in participating areas.
Recognition payments were generally viewed positively by councils that received them, with 73% of surveyed authorities reporting a positive impact. Nevertheless, participants described the funding as limited and raised concerns that, because it was not ringfenced, it could be absorbed into wider homelessness budgets.
The report identifies housing shortages as the most significant challenge affecting all of the initiatives. Participants across all groups stressed that the risk of homelessness would remain unless wider housing pressures were addressed. The rollout of eVisas, fragmented support arrangements and data-sharing constraints were also highlighted as challenges.
On the overall value for money of the initiatives, the evaluation concludes: "The assessment found that the move on initiatives may have generated benefits that exceeded their costs, indicating value for money, but only if observed impacts could be attributed with confidence to the move on initiatives. This is not possible because a lack of granularity in the data and other potential confounding factors. The main monetisable benefit was a reduction in the average (mean) length of stay in asylum accommodation, but attributing it to the extension of the move on period and the implementation of AMLOs is challenging for the reasons above.
"Beyond the core monetisable benefit, the evaluation identified additional positive impacts, such as reduced rough sleeping and improved signposting and integration for newly granted refugees. Overall, the move on initiatives could have demonstrated value for money, with potential to continue to deliver value for money over time. Future initiatives would benefit from robust baseline data, consistent reporting across LAs, and consideration of spillover effects to better capture the full impact of such interventions."