Moving the Goalposts
Impact of proposed UK settlement reforms on migrant care workers
Executive summary
A coherent, troubling pattern
Migrant care workers have become central to the functioning of adult social care in the UK. Yet many entered a sector already marked by low pay, weak progression, unstable hours, and heavy dependence on employer sponsorship. This report examines how migrant care workers and their households understood the likely effects of the government's proposed settlement reforms as those proposals were becoming politically salient.
Respondents did not view these proposals as minor administrative adjustments. They understood them as measures that could extend insecurity, deepen employer control, weaken family stability, and make long-term planning harder — and they said so with striking consistency.
The survey also shows respondents anticipated serious consequences for wellbeing and family life: 94.4% expected negative financial effects, 92.6% judged the proposed dependant changes unfair, and 91.1% anticipated increased family separation risk. Concern about retrospective change was near universal — 99.3% judged it unfair, and only 36.1% said they would be likely to continue working in health and social care if the route became 10 to 15 years.
Headline verified figures
- 72.9% felt unable to leave a workplace because of visa risks.
- 87.0% rated changing employer as difficult or very difficult.
- 56.5% reported threats relating to sponsorship, and 51.3% reported difficulty obtaining references to switch jobs.
- 95.2% anticipated negative mental-health effects from a longer settlement route; 94.4% anticipated negative financial effects and additional financial pressure under dependant reforms.
- 92.6% judged the proposed dependant changes unfair, while 91.1% anticipated increased family separation risk.
- 99.3% judged retrospective change unfair, while 100.0% said people already in the UK should keep the original five-year route, and 100.0% said retrospective changes violate legitimate expectations.
- Only 36.1% said they would be likely or very likely to continue working in health and social care if the route became 10 to 15 years.
The most important message from the evidence is not abstract opposition to all change. Respondents were clear that they could tolerate some conditions and trade-offs if the original route for people already in the UK were respected. What they rejected most strongly was retrospective extension of insecurity. The report therefore argues that any settlement reform package should be judged not only against migration-control objectives, but also against policy legitimacy, workforce stability, family integrity, and the consequences of prolonging employer-dependant vulnerability in adult social care.
Section 2
Policy and evidence context
The policy context for this study was already taking shape before the survey and focus groups began. In May 2025, the UK Government published the white paper Restoring control over the immigration system, proposing an "earned settlement" model and a more restrictive approach to lower-skilled migration (Home Office, 2025a). The Tulia Campaigns survey and focus groups ran between 12 November and 12 December 2025 — a point when these proposals had already generated concern and public debate among migrant care workers and their households, meaning respondents were reacting to a live, developing policy agenda rather than a settled final rule.
Existing evidence helps explain why the proposals were likely to resonate so strongly in the care sector. The Migration Advisory Committee's review of adult social care described the sector as one marked by high vacancies, low pay, weak progression, and poor terms and conditions rooted in structural underfunding (Migration Advisory Committee, 2022). Research on migrant care work shows that immigration controls do not simply regulate entry — they shape workers' room for choice and control once in employment (Shutes, 2012), expose workers to vulnerabilities linked to immigration status and precarity (Turnpenny & Hussein, 2022), and interact with the social care system to shape wellbeing (Hussein et al., 2024).
The picture became more explicit during fieldwork. On 20 November 2025, the Home Office opened its consultation A fairer pathway to settlement, setting out a 10-year baseline for settlement and contribution-based variations (Home Office, 2025b). Later parliamentary briefing material explained the consultation also discussed stricter requirements for lower- and medium-skilled work such as social care, the possibility that accompanying family members would need to qualify in their own right, and the possibility that some people already in the UK could be brought within the new model (McKinney & Gower, 2026) — while noting that a white paper does not by itself change the law.
These proposals are especially consequential for migrant care workers and their dependants because they sit at the intersection of low pay, sponsorship dependence, and limited labour-market mobility. The inclusion of dependants is not incidental: these reforms do not operate only through the principal worker's immigration status, but restructure household security, family unity, children's futures, and the conditions under which families can plan a stable life in the UK.
Section 3
About this research
3.1 Study design
This report draws on a mixed-methods study of migrant care workers and connected household members who arrived in the UK from 2021 onwards. The quantitative component is based on 269 eligible survey responses after excluding two ineligible entries. While 40 individuals initially indicated availability for follow-up discussions, 11 ultimately consented to and attended seven focus-group sessions. Participants were recruited through Tulia Campaigns' mobilisation and outreach work, including social media and community networks.
The study is designed for policy engagement and advocacy rather than as a representative survey of all migrant care workers in the UK. Its value lies in combining breadth and depth: the survey shows how widely particular concerns are shared across the sample, while interview and focus-group evidence explain how those concerns are lived and interpreted in everyday working and family life.
3.2 Sample profile
The sample is concentrated among recently arrived migrant workers and household members connected to the care sector. Women made up 69.5% of respondents, 88.5% first arrived in 2022 or 2023, and the corrected visa profile shows 66.5% on the Health and Care Worker route. Most respondents worked for private care providers (77.7%), heavily concentrated in domiciliary and related care settings.
| Domain | Verified result |
|---|---|
| Eligible sample | 269 respondents |
| Gender | 187 women (69.5%); 82 men (30.5%) |
| Arrival period | 238 arrived in 2022 or 2023 (88.5%) |
| Country of origin | Bangladesh, Cameroon, Eritrea, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe |
| Visa profile | 179 Health and Care Worker (66.5%); 53 Skilled Worker other (19.7%); 35 dependant visas (13.0%); 2 other (0.7%) |
| Employer type | 209 private care providers (77.7%) |
| Work settings | 115 domiciliary care only (42.8%); 122 domiciliary/live-in combined (45.4%) |
| Contract type | 224 guaranteed hours (83.3%); 25 zero-hours/variable (9.3%); remainder not sure or outside care |
| Relationship to first sponsor | 89 still with first sponsor (33.1%); 147 changed sponsor (54.6%); 33 dependants (12.3%) |
Many respondents described care work as the route through which they entered the UK, while expecting that a finite settlement pathway would later give them freedom to change employer, pursue further qualifications, reunite with family, and make longer-term decisions. Participants also spoke of backgrounds in teaching, accounting, administration, media, social work, and computing — for some, care work was a route into the UK rather than a permanent destination. A longer route therefore means not just more years before legal security, but more time spent in a constrained sectoral position.
Section 4
Summary of composite indicators
Survey items can be grouped into broader composite indicators that show how different pressures cluster together across the sample — a strongly patterned picture of employer lock-in, exploitation exposure, blocked progression, settlement anxiety, family instability, and perceived unfairness. These should be read as descriptive summaries, not externally validated psychometric scales.
| Indicator | Value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Employer Lock-In Index (0–1) | 0.67 | High dependence on employer and restricted mobility |
| Exploitation Exposure Index (0–1) | 0.43 | Moderate–high exposure to unfair or exploitative practices |
| Workload & Career Constraint Index (0–1) | 0.60 | High constraint on progression and work-life balance |
| Settlement Anxiety Score (0–1) | 0.90 | Very high anticipatory insecurity |
| Dependant Settlement Impact Index (0–1) | 0.92 | Very high perceived impact on family settlement |
| Family Separation Risk Index (0–1) | 0.89 | Very high perceived risk of delayed or fragmented settlement |
| Family Stability Indicator (−1 to +1) | −0.92 | Strongly negative effect on family stability |
| Wellbeing Impact Index (−1 to +1) | −0.91 | Strongly negative effect on mental and financial wellbeing |
| Policy Unfairness / Legitimacy Index (0–1) | 0.97 | Near-universal sense that the reforms are illegitimate or unfair |
These indicators underline a central point of the report: respondents are not describing one problem at a time. They are describing a system in which workplace dependence, household insecurity, emotional strain, and perceptions of unfairness are deeply connected.
Section 5
Sponsorship dependence, exploitation, and blocked progression
5.1 Employer lock-in indicators
The strongest thread running through the evidence is sponsorship dependence. This is not simply dissatisfaction with particular employers — the visa regime shapes the employment relationship itself by narrowing exit options, raising the cost of dissent, and turning legal status into a source of managerial leverage. Sponsored care work can create a form of constrained agency in which workers remain formally employed but have reduced freedom to negotiate, refuse, or leave.
"If they have the hours, you are forced to work. You can't say you're not available to work. You can't say you want to rest, you just have to work."Resp 2, Focus Group 7
"Switching is a nightmare... My presence here is dependant on my employer. So basically, if my employer tells me to jump, I can only ask how high."Resp 5, Focus Group 3
"When you want to question certain things, it is your sponsorship at stake. So you do not question."Resp 1, Focus Group 5
"Even right now, if I am being mistreated, I cannot report, because I know that if I report, the next moment it is me getting 60 days before being chased away from here."Resp 1, Focus Group 7
These accounts show the problem is not merely that changing employer is administratively difficult. Sponsored status can suppress voice, normalise endurance, and narrow what counts as a viable employment choice — consistent with existing research showing immigration controls can narrow migrant care workers' room for exit and voice (Shutes, 2012).
5.2 Adverse conditions and blocked progression
95.2% of respondents reported at least one adverse work condition. The most frequently reported included inability to upskill because of poor work-life balance (63.2%), lack of promotion or progression opportunities (62.8%), rota patterns leading to long hours (62.5%), and threats relating to sponsorship (56.5%).
| Condition | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Unable to upskill due to poor work–life balance | 170 | 63.2% |
| No opportunities for promotion or career progression | 169 | 62.8% |
| Rota patterns leading to long working hours | 168 | 62.5% |
| Threats relating to visa sponsorship | 152 | 56.5% |
| Compulsory weekend shifts, no rotating options | 140 | 52.0% |
| Difficulty obtaining references to switch jobs | 138 | 51.3% |
| Harassment or bullying | 130 | 48.3% |
| Underpayment of wages | 110 | 40.9% |
| Unpaid overtime | 95 | 35.3% |
| Paying recruitment fees in home country | 52 | 19.3% |
The Migration Advisory Committee's review of adult social care identified the sector as one characterised by chronic vacancies, low pay, weak progression, and practices such as unpaid travel time (Migration Advisory Committee, 2022). Respondents' accounts show these structural conditions intensify when workers are tied to sponsors — long hours, unpredictable rotas and fragmented shifts reduce the practical possibility of studying, volunteering, or moving into better work.
"You are working 24 hours. Sometimes you are working 18 hours... calling ambulances, attending the patients and everything, but they don't pay you."Resp 1, Focus Group 7
"Actually my plan is that after five years when I got ILR... I want to turn to my profession... But if it's 15 years of PR, I'm not sure about my profession and my future."Resp 3, Focus Group 2
5.3 Retention, sector exit, and future labour-supply implications
If the route to settlement were extended to 10–15 years, only 36.1% said they would be likely or very likely to continue working in health and social care. By contrast, 46.1% said they would be likely to switch sector, 68.0% said they would be likely to leave the UK, and 70.6% said they would be likely to move their family elsewhere.
5.4 Behavioural, reporting and exploitation implications
| Indicator | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Likely/very likely to continue working in health and social care | 97 | 36.1% |
| Likely/very likely to switch to another sector | 124 | 46.1% |
| Likely/very likely to leave the UK | 183 | 68.0% |
| Likely/very likely to move family elsewhere | 190 | 70.6% |
| Longer route could increase exploitation or unfair treatment | 266 | 98.9% |
| Reporting abuse would become harder | 263 | 97.8% |
| Proposed rules could contribute to conditions resembling modern slavery | 264 | 98.1% |
Section 6
Uncertainty, wellbeing and family security
6.1 Family and dependant impacts
92.6% judged the proposed dependant changes unfair, 86.6% anticipated delays in securing settlement together, 91.1% anticipated an increased risk of family separation, and 95.5% said the changes would make family life harder. Settlement here is not simply an individual legal endpoint — it is the condition under which households can stabilise, children's futures become more secure, and life is no longer lived between contingency and interruption.
"I brought my family here, because I believed that this government has promised me that I'm going to follow this route... Now, they are telling me I have to be on the same way for another ten more years, which I had not planned for."Resp 5, Focus Group 3
"This is really quite difficult, given the emotional stress of remote parenting and the financial burden of trying to maintain family presence across borders."Resp 3, Focus Group 1
6.2 Dependants as a distinct group within the reform debate
In this sample, 13.0% of respondents were on dependant visas. Their position is not identical to that of main applicants, but the findings show they are deeply affected by the proposed reforms — particularly uncertainty about family unity, household planning, children's futures, and their own long-term security. In subgroup comparisons, dependants reported especially high concern about family separation: 97.1% anticipating this risk, compared with 90.2% among those on main work routes.
"My daughter had to drop out from her A-levels back home... Now, I am at a crossroad because she cannot remain a dependant for the extra years implied by the changes."Resp 1, Focus Group 3
"The 15 years, it's prolonged separation from my daughter... My daughter's six. 15 years from now means that by the time I get to 15 years, my daughter will be 21."Resp 11, Focus Group 6
Taken together, these accounts show dependants are not simply accompanying family members affected indirectly by policy — they are part of the core impact pathway.
Section 7
Information, mobilisation, and collective response
Awareness of the reforms was already high, with 90.0% saying they had heard about the possible extension before taking part in the survey — but awareness has not produced stability. It has produced suspended planning. Respondents described being unable to make credible decisions about housing, education, mobility, savings, family reunion, or future work because the policy environment had become simultaneously high-stakes and unsettled.
"I am not too sure when these changes are going to happen. There is a lot of confusion."Resp 3, Focus Group 1
The same information environment also supported early forms of collective coping and mobilisation — discussing concerns with friends and colleagues, using community and faith networks for reassurance, and wanting to "speak with one voice." At the same time, some participants expressed hesitation about public visibility for fear of repercussions from employers or immigration authorities, consistent with the wider finding that sponsorship dependence can suppress voice beyond the workplace.
Section 8
Retrospective change, fairness, and trust
The strongest theme running through the data is not simply unfairness in a general moral sense — it is a perceived breach. Respondents are saying that changing the terms after people have already entered, worked, invested, and organised family life around a five-year expectation amounts to reopening the settlement contract after performance has already begun.
| Indicator | Count | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Aware of proposed extension before survey | 242 | 90.0% |
| Concerned or very concerned about applying changes to those already in the UK | 268 | 99.6% |
| Said migrants already in the UK should keep original five-year route | 269 | 100.0% |
| Judged retrospective change unfair or very unfair | 267 | 99.3% |
| Said retrospective changes violate legitimate expectations | 269 | 100.0% |
"They needed us. They opened their borders and we offered to come and help... And now when we are here, everything changes... It's just a huge betrayal, honestly."Resp 1, Focus Group 4
"And what guarantee do I have?"Resp 11, Focus Group 6
Respondents repeatedly present themselves as lawful entrants who filled shortages, paid taxes, complied with conditions, and arranged family life around a known route. In that frame, retrospective change is not simply inconvenient — it is illegitimate, and it erodes trust in policy stability with implications for retention, recruitment, and the UK's legitimacy as a destination for essential care labour.
Section 9
Policy preferences and what respondents are willing to trade
Respondents did not reject every possible form of reform — their preferences were structured and specific. The current five-year settlement route for those already in the UK was the overwhelming first preference, with 97.0% ranking it best and 99.3% placing it in their top two.
| Option | Mean rank | Best option | Top two |
|---|---|---|---|
| Keep the current five-year route for those already in the UK | 1.04 | 97.0% | 99.3% |
| Allow settlement after five years, restrict benefits until citizenship | 2.16 | 42.0% | 71.0% |
| Apply new 10–15 year requirements only to new arrivals after 2026 | 2.48 | 46.8% | 56.1% |
| Move to a 10-year route but protect everyone already here from retrospective change | 3.39 | 20.4% | 28.3% |
| Introduce a seven-year settlement route for care workers | 3.59 | 1.9% | 27.1% |
Predictability matters more than unrestricted access. Respondents repeatedly signalled they could tolerate trade-offs, including delayed access to benefits, provided the original five-year pathway for those already in the UK was respected.
"One way can be just maybe to maintain the five-year route. If there are any changes they want to make, maybe let people get settlement without benefits... We are applying for settlement to have choices."Resp 3, Focus Group 4
"They can perhaps apply the new rules to people who are coming after us, but not to those who are already here and have been working under a different understanding."Resp 1, Focus Group 6
Section 10
Workplace impacts across subgroups
Although not a representative workforce survey, subgroup comparisons point to patterned differences in how risk is distributed. Respondents in domiciliary or live-in settings appeared especially exposed to workplace immobility: 80.3% reported feeling unable to leave due to visa risks, compared with 66.7% in other settings. Private-provider employment also stood out — 78.0% reported feeling unable to leave, compared with 55.0% among other employer types, and sponsorship threats or blocked references were reported more often in private-provider settings than elsewhere. Underpayment and unpaid overtime followed the same pattern, most concentrated in domiciliary and private-provider settings.
These findings matter because they suggest the risks associated with prolonged dependence on sponsorship are not borne evenly across the sector — they weigh most heavily where low bargaining power, fragmented scheduling, and close employer control already shape day-to-day work. Dependants appeared less exposed to some direct workplace risks, but this should not be read as insulation from reform: the proposed changes operate at the household and labour-market levels too.
Section 11
Key policy and advocacy implications
- Transitional protection for those already in the UK is the strongest and most consistent implication — the evidence on legitimate expectations, unfairness judgments, and policy preferences all point the same way.
- Settlement design cannot be separated from sponsorship design. Extending the settlement period without loosening employer dependence is likely to intensify reporting barriers and the risk of exploitation.
- Family settlement should be assessed as a safeguarding and integration issue, not merely an immigration-control variable.
- Enforcement and worker-protection efforts should focus especially on private-provider and domiciliary settings, where risk is most concentrated in this sample.
- Policy communication matters — confusion about proposed rules is itself part of the harm landscape, because it suspends decision-making and magnifies anxiety.
- The strongest advocacy message is not only that respondents oppose the reforms, but that they articulate a coherent alternative: preserve the five-year pathway for those already here, consider non-retrospective changes for future arrivals, and reduce employer lock-in.
Section 12
Policy recommendations
The evidence does not support a narrow policy response confined to years-to-settlement alone. Any serious response must treat settlement design as part of labour-market governance rather than a detached administrative question.
Guarantee full transitional protection for those already in the UK
People already here should not be moved retrospectively onto a harsher route. This should apply not only to principal applicants but to households whose movement, finances, and family arrangements were made on the original basis.
Treat family settlement as a central policy domain
Policy should reject designs that require family members to qualify separately in ways that fragment household settlement, intensify financial pressure, or expose children to ageing out and educational disruption.
Decouple lawful residence from excessive employer power
If sponsored migration continues in social care, job mobility must be made materially possible: faster employer switching, realistic grace periods after sponsorship breakdown, and controls on repayment clauses and reference obstruction.
Introduce a bridging status for workers leaving exploitative sponsors
A bridging route or temporary open work permission for workers leaving exploitative employers, or affected by licence revocation, would reduce the coercive element in sponsored work and strengthen reporting.
Target enforcement where structural vulnerability is concentrated
Domiciliary, live-in, and private-provider settings appear especially associated with rota-driven strain, sponsorship threats, and labour immobility, and should be prioritised for inspection and enforcement.
Align settlement design with the actual labour economics of care work
Settlement rules should be judged against actual sector wages, real progression opportunities, and the costs imposed by renewals, training, transport, and household maintenance.
Avoid extending NRPF-style insecurity deeper into the route
Respondents' willingness to trade benefit access for route stability should not be misread as support for prolonged hardship. Any extension of NRPF-like conditions should be assessed against debt, family strain, and child wellbeing.
Communicate clearly and legislate transparently
Government should communicate future changes with far greater clarity — who is affected, when changes begin, what happens to those already in the UK, and what evidence will count towards settlement.
Embed migrant worker protection in adult social care workforce reform
Immigration policy cannot solve the workforce crisis in care, but it can deepen it. Migrant worker protection should be a core part of workforce sustainability, not bolted on after the fact.
Centre migrant workers and their households in policy design
Future design should involve structured engagement with migrant care workers, dependants, campaign groups, unions, and frontline providers before reforms are finalised.
Section 13
Strengths and limitations
This report draws directly on the survey workbook and qualitative transcripts, combines breadth and depth through a mixed-methods design, and presents a coherent account of how respondents connect settlement rules to workplace power, family life, and future planning. Its value lies particularly in timing: the evidence was gathered while the proposals were still being debated.
There are also important limitations. This is not a probability sample, and the respondent pool is heavily concentrated among recent arrivals reached through Tulia Campaigns' networks and outreach channels. The findings therefore do not support population estimates for all migrant care workers in the UK, and the qualitative component is small, though it provides useful depth. The report's strongest claims are descriptive and interpretive rather than predictive.
Section 14
Conclusion
Migrant care workers and their households do not experience the proposed settlement reforms as a minor administrative adjustment. They experience them as a likely extension of conditions already marked by sponsorship dependence, restricted mobility, financial pressure, blocked progression, and family insecurity.
What is at stake is not immigration status in the narrow legal sense alone. It is the meaning of work, sacrifice, and belonging within a system that recruits migrant labour into an essential yet structurally undervalued sector while keeping many workers tied to employers for extended periods. Respondents described selling property, leaving professions, separating from children, and accepting difficult working conditions on the understanding that these sacrifices were time-limited and would lead to greater security. When that expectation is destabilised, the result is not simply disappointment, but a wider sense that the terms of contribution have been rewritten after the fact.
Taken together, the study suggests that any reform package should be judged not only against migration-control objectives, but also against workforce stability, safeguarding, predictability, and fairness. The strongest message emerging from the evidence is that respondents articulate a coherent alternative: protect the five-year pathway for those already in the UK, avoid retrospective extension of dependence, consider non-retrospective changes only for future arrivals, and reduce employer lock-in within the care labour market.
Section 15
References
Home Office. (2025a). Restoring control over the immigration system (CP 1326). gov.uk/government/publications/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper
Home Office. (2025b). A fairer pathway to settlement: Statement and accompanying consultation on earned settlement (CP 1448). gov.uk/government/consultations/earned-settlement
Hussein, S., Kilkey, M., & Tawodzera, O. (2024). The vulnerability of Central & Eastern European and Zimbabwean migrant home care workers' wellbeing in the UK: The intersectional effects of migration and social care systems. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 50(5), 1118–1137. doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2279716
McKinney, C., & Gower, M. (2026). Changes to UK visa and settlement rules after the 2025 immigration white paper (Research Briefing CBP-10267). House of Commons Library. commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10267
Migration Advisory Committee. (2022). Adult social care and immigration: A report from the Migration Advisory Committee. gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-adult-social-care-2022
Shutes, I. (2012). The employment of migrant workers in long-term care: Dynamics of choice and control. Journal of Social Policy, 41(1), 43–59. doi.org/10.1017/S0047279411000596
Turnpenny, A., & Hussein, S. (2022). Migrant home care workers in the UK: A scoping review of outcomes and sustainability and implications in the context of Brexit. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 23(1), 23–42. doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00807-3
Appendices
Data, formulas, and collection tools
Appendix A — Index formulas
| Index | Formula | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Employer Lock-In Index | Mean of: unable to leave due to visa risks; change employer difficult/very difficult; sponsorship threats; difficulty obtaining references | 0.67 |
| Exploitation Exposure Index | Mean of: underpayment; unpaid overtime; long hours; compulsory weekends; recruitment fees; harassment/bullying | 0.43 |
| Workload and Career Constraint Index | Mean of: long hours; compulsory weekends; unable to upskill; no promotion/progression | 0.60 |
| Settlement Anxiety Score | Composite index based on high-concern and high-harm items related to retrospective change, NRPF concerns, and anticipated mental and financial impacts | 0.90 |
| Dependant Settlement Impact Index | Mean of: dependant reform unfair; likely ILR delays; likely family separation; likely financial pressure; family life harder | 0.92 |
| Family Separation Risk Index | Mean of: likely ILR delays; likely family separation | 0.89 |
| Family Stability Indicator | Negative expression of dependant settlement impact so more negative values indicate worse family stability | −0.92 |
| Wellbeing Impact Index | Signed average of mental-health and financial-wellbeing impact items | −0.91 |
| Policy Unfairness / Legitimacy Index | Mean of: retrospective change unfair; legitimate expectations violated; dependant reform unfair | 0.97 |
Appendix B — Exploratory statistical checks (supplementary only)
The main report does not rely on inferential statistics because the survey is not a probability sample. These checks show that several descriptive subgroup differences remain strong within the sample — internal pattern checks, not population-level estimates.
| Comparison | Outcome | Result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domiciliary/live-in vs other settings | Rota-driven long hours | χ² = 40.97, p < .001, Cramér's V = 0.39 | Strong within-sample association |
| Private care provider vs other employers | Unable to leave due to visa risks | χ² = 11.33, p = .001, Cramér's V = 0.21 | Moderate within-sample association |
| Private care provider vs other employers | Sponsorship threats | χ² = 7.72, p = .005, Cramér's V = 0.17 | Small–moderate within-sample association |
| Domiciliary/live-in vs other settings | Employer Lock-In Index | Welch t = 3.52, p < .001 | Higher lock-in in domiciliary/live-in settings |
| Private care provider vs other employers | Employer Lock-In Index | Welch t = 3.26, p = .002 | Higher lock-in in private-provider settings |
Appendix C.1 — Survey questionnaire (summary)
Conducted by Tulia Campaigns; voluntary and anonymous, with optional contact details for follow-up only. Selected question groups below; full instrument available on request.
- Demographics: gender, year of arrival, visa type, relationship to main applicant, occupation, country of origin, UK region, employer type, work setting, contract type, job role.
- Sponsorship history: whether still with first sponsor; reasons for leaving; ability to change employer; feeling unable to leave a workplace due to visa risk.
- Awareness and understanding of proposed reforms: qualifying-period extension, earnings thresholds, continuous residence, job continuity, English-language requirements, NRPF.
- Views on retrospective application: concern about changes applying to people already in the UK; whether the original five-year pathway should be kept; whether retrospective change is fair; whether it violates legitimate expectations.
- Dependant impact: fairness of dependants needing to qualify separately; likelihood of ILR delays, family separation, and additional financial pressure; overall effect on family life.
- Workplace experience: tick-list of underpayment, unpaid overtime, long rota hours, compulsory weekends, sponsorship threats, blocked references, recruitment fees, document retention, harassment, blocked upskilling and progression.
- Anticipated effects of a longer route: likelihood of continuing in health and social care, switching sector, leaving the UK, or moving family elsewhere; effect on ability to report abuse; whether proposed rules could contribute to conditions resembling "modern slavery"; effect on mental and financial wellbeing.
- Policy preferences: ranking of five settlement options from best to least preferred.
- Optional consent to follow-up interview or focus group, with contact details collected separately from responses.
Appendix C.2 — Focus group discussion guide
- Experiences since arriving in the UK — what has been positive, what has been challenging, and any changes over time.
- Understanding of the proposed settlement changes — what participants had heard about the 10–15 year route, earnings thresholds, NRPF, and dependant changes, and how they learned about them.
- Perceived impact on work, career, and wellbeing — mental and emotional wellbeing, financial security, and ability to upskill or progress.
- Ability to change employers and job mobility — what makes switching jobs easier or harder, and how a longer route might influence this.
- Family-level impact — risk of separation or delays in settlement, financial pressures, caregiving responsibilities, and changed family plans.
- Experiences of pressure, unfair treatment, or exploitation — visa-related threats, working hours and unpaid time, and access to training and progression.
- Ideas for fairer or more workable settlement options — what should be protected for people already in the UK, and views on earnings thresholds, dependants qualifying separately, or NRPF.
- Final reflections — messages for policymakers and advice for improving migrant experiences in the care sector.