While a range of digital resources aim to help asylum seekers, research from Cornell argues that many of these resources are outdated and therefore don’t serve their constituents effectively enough.

What’s more, many asylum seekers worry that they will be unjustly tracked and monitored via the online tools they use, with this fear serving as a considerable barrier to adoption, and therefore of access to the resources at the end of the tools.

Respecting privacy

The authors argue that providers of digital resources should be aware of these fears and ensure that as little personal data is collected as possible, while also making clear the privacy policies that underpin the services.

They put their recommendations into practice in the development of Rights for Health, which is a website designed to provide reliable information on the legal and health benefits available to immigrants in the United States. This factored in a range of recommendations from the research:

• Informational uncertainty: A constantly changing legal landscape and variation in federal, state and local policies can result in inaccurate information, with potentially serious consequences for immigrants unsure of which sources to trust. Recommendation: Be transparent about information sources and when they were last updated. Despite concerns about online surveillance, the researchers said US asylum seekers generally perceived websites ending in .gov and .edu as more trustworthy.
• Accessibility: Access to information could be limited by costly internet access, language barriers and a lack of digital literacy—though the researchers found asylum seekers used digital sources routinely for daily activities. Recommendation: Use simple, clear and consistent language and icons to help overcome language barriers, possibly including images instead of blocks of text, like visual resources provided on the Rights for Health website.
• Contextual sensitivity: Professionals emphasized that immigrants’ experiences and eligibility for benefits depend heavily on their location and social context. Recommendation: Scope tools appropriately to address immigration issues nationally or engage deeply with a few issues. Work with established community groups to navigate contextual differences and gain immigrant communities’ trust.

“There’s so much information out there, but it’s often presented in complicated legal language that even a native English speaker would have a difficult time parsing,” the researchers conclude. “We’ve tried to provide a road map and framework for how to design better digital tools for immigrants and other vulnerable populations.”