Host perspectives

Morals and motives[i]

There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine has generated various emotions amongst the UK public. In addition to high numbers of those registering for the scheme in the first days of its announcement people helped in various other ways too. People shared with us their reasons for deciding to register for the scheme. While some had more personal reasons, such as family ‘refugee story’, majority of those we talked to shared three intertwined reasons that shaped their decision to welcome an individual or a family from Ukraine into their homes:

1. The intensity of media portrayals of the war in Ukraine were both consistent and shocking in their content. This enabled people to immerse themselves into what was happening in Ukraine, somewhat differently to conflicts elsewhere in the world, and to imagine themselves in such a situation. Quite often, people told us something along the following lines: ‘you know if this was happening to me, I would want someone to do the same for me’. Jenny, for example, told us that once they learned about the existence of the scheme signing up for it felt the right thing to do. She shared:

‘[we thought] if you were in that situation wouldn’t you want help?! So when we saw the war starting, it was on the news constantly, wasn’t it, there is nothing else on the news and people fleeing and fleeing and fleeing … the picture that we saw of the bridge that has been destroyed and people going underneath this broken bridge to escape, that was actually among one of the inspirations for us to get involved, so we signed up straight away, really.’

2. Positioning in the life course and practical ability to help: people that decided to host told us they had enough space and time to offer the needed support. Often their own children, or at least one of them, left the house and therefore they had a spare room. When Bella and her family decided to host she told us that in addition to the shock they felt when seeing the ‘dreadful pictures of Mariupol’ their house was big enough and that her and her husband’s jobs placed them well to support people staying with them practically and emotionally:

‘It felt like if we’re not going to do it then, who will? We have got a house that’s big enough; we’ve got the motivation; we’ve got the time; I’ve got skills in helping people to get set up with, you know, benefits, jobs and kind of emotional stuff. You know, we didn’t know if they were going to be traumatised; we didn’t know what they have witnessed; what they have come from. You know, we didn’t know what it would be like for them. And we thought, “we just need to nurture them and care for them”. So, that is kind of [what made us] sign up.’

3. Finally, and crucially, the government’s backing of this type of support played a major role for many people when deciding to open their homes. The fact that the Homes for Ukraine scheme existed at all shaped the capacity and inclination to help. Namely, some people told us that because there was a structure in place, despite all the initial uncertainties and chaos, they felt they were not alone. As Marcus shared:

‘I guess when it all happened, sort of whatever the rights and wrongs of this war, invading another country is not acceptable, a feeling that, although it’s unlikely, one could find oneself in the same situation, and one would hope that other people would help. I think the fact that the government [announced the scheme] made it easy … the support available in the structure … if something similar was to happen [with Syrians], we would have done something but there wasn’t. It’s just a feeling that having to step in completely alone without any idea of really what you’re taking on, the need to support if things go wrong…and of course we’ve got the space and the time. We’re both retired, so if we’re not prepared to do it, who’s really? That’s it in a nutshell—the fact that there was a need, the fact there was a structure in place to facilitate it, the fact that we have space and time to help, and the feeling that one day, we might find ourselves in a similar situation, relying on others. I hope we don’t’.

‘Sense of responsibility and moral obligation’, as well as practical ability to help, have already been discussed as main motivations for hosts to sign up. Thus, in this in this section, we wanted to emphasise the role both media and the government played in encouraging, or rather enabling, these motivations. While surveys suggest that the public support for welcoming people from Ukraine in the UK has been particularly high, our conversations with people that decided to host suggest that if there were an option to host individuals and families from other geographical locations, supported by the government, many would do so.

In fact, people often shared their feelings of discomfort that this scheme existed only for one group of people. Tanya said she felt ‘torn’ about it all, and Julia talked quite a bit about how it was difficult to know that she was ‘participating in a scheme that is so unequal’. Similarly, when Bella shared how her family decided to welcome a family from Ukraine, they immediately also began questioning why they did not do something similar before, for people from elsewhere. She said they began wondering: ‘why didn’t we do it before for another family? Why has Ukraine got a hook somewhere, because I think it does, doesn’t it? Is it because they are Europeans? Because they’re white? What is that about? Why would we not offer home to Syrian families? Why didn’t we? We should have done it. Why didn’t we?’

Similarly, the importance of government’s backing of the Homes for Ukraine scheme for one’s decision to host came across really well in what Carol had to share on her decision to welcome a single woman into her house:

‘I wanted to do this for ages … If I was still living in my last house, I wouldn’t have done it because my old next-door neighbour was awful. He was sort of racist and just generally nasty of anybody who was not white and British. And I was thinking you bring someone into your house who has just escaped war and you don’t want them to come against that as well, it is not much of a welcome. But here it is completely different. I feel safe. I’ve got a spare room. I could do it for a few months to a year. And I just thought why not. 

What made it easier, which is wrong on the government’s part, is that they have basically given the Ukrainian refugees pretty much the same status as the British nationals. So they can go out and get jobs as soon as they got here, they have got access to all the services. Whereas refugees from anywhere else in the world they cannot do that, which is completely racist and out of order. And for me that [they can access services and jobs] makes life a lot easier. That is why really [I was able to host]. If they didn’t have that special arrangement for Ivanna, I wouldn’t have done it, because I don’t think that I would be able to offer the sort of support, and I certainly don’t have the money to give somebody who doesn’t have the same rights. Do you see what I mean?

I am not an expert on visa or immigration status. I don’t have a clue. But what I do understand is that people [from other parts of the world] are given vouchers while the Home Office decides if they can be given a legal asylum here, before they can work. And that can take so long. And they are not entitled to anything at all, and they cannot work, so I wouldn’t know what I am supposed to do as a host in that situation.

I am a very independent person. And one of the things I made clear is … that I don’t drive so if you come here, you have to find your own way to get around. I work full time and I am in the office most days. I can’t be here all the time. The person really has to be independent … Language, not a problem at all. Ivanna, her English is pretty bad, but we still communicate, and we can still talk. So it is a mix of broken English and Google translate. That is quite funny sometimes (laughing). If it was somebody who did not have self-confidence, they would struggle and feel quite isolated.’

Clearly then, we must not underestimate the government’s backing of schemes of this kind when it comes to enabling and shaping decisions to host. Even though this may be considered to be the UK’s ‘largest experiment in people-led and community-led welcome efforts’, it was supported by the government and our research suggests that without it some people would not be able to open their homes and provide support.