Community practice with immigrant and refugee populations: Responding to a growing human rights crisis

As we write this editorial, the continued rise anti-immigrant attitudes and alt-right nationalistic political movements have led governments in the United States, Australia, and Europe to close their borders and further restrict migrant and refugee flows from countries affected by prolonged conflict, persistent gang and drug violence, extreme poverty and disadvantage which, in turn, has resulted in an increasing number of stateless people (Popescu & Libal, 2018). According to estimates by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] (2018), the world is witnessing the highest level of displacement on record with more than 68.5 million people forced to leave their countries of origin. Save the Children (2019) estimates that 28 million of those displaced are children who have fled their homelands – many without other family members – and are unable to return safely to their homes. This is particularly disconcerting since uprooted children are more vulnerable to abuse, exploitation, violence, and human trafficking (UNICEF Europe and Central Asia, 2019). Further, children are being re-traumatized by policies and procedures, such as detention and separation of children from their families, implemented by national governments (Ataiants et al., 2018).

Although the United States and another 192 countries around the world endorsed the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants in 2016 (UN General Assembly, 2016), there is limited cross-national consensus as to what a global response to forced migration and displacement should look like. Historically, immigration and refugee policies in the United States and elsewhere have varied widely – expanding or contracting movements and access according to social, economic and political contexts (see discussions in Jani & Reisch, 2018; Popescu & Libal, 2018). In the United States, for example, Jani and Reisch (2018) note that the federal government approach to unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth has been ad hoc, consistently underfunded, and service delivery is poorly planned, understaffed and uncoordinated. Further, current U.S. government policies that separate children from their families are dismissive of exposure to gender-based violence or gang violence in asylum petitions, and restrict resettlement with zero tolerance clauses underscore how the United States is failing immigrant and refugee children in the areas of child protection and safe homes (Kelsey & Zimmerman, 2017; Shah, 2016). Indeed, the National Association of Social Workers released a statement in 2018 calling the increasingly punitive practice of separating undocumented immigrant children as malicious and unconscionable. In the absence of government protections for unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth, private charitable organizations in the United States have a long history of stepping in and assuming primary responsibility for their protection, care, and well-being (Jani & Reisch, 2018).

So how can community practitioners respond to this growing human rights crisis? Denov and Shevell (2019) underscore the importance of family and community networks to assist in the relocation and resettlement process, especially for children and families affected by war. Additionally, they argue that practitioners move from Westernized individualized, trauma-centered approaches to service delivery that are currently popular within clinical practice circles to ones that are more participatory and integrate immigrant and refugee cultural contexts. UNICEF Europe and Central Asia (2019) identify community-based care for unaccompanied refugee and migrant children as a current priority. Additionally, UNICEF (2019) underscores the need for practitioners to combat xenophobia, discrimination, and marginalization within their communities and within governmental policies and programs. We are called to speak out against practices that further victimize immigrant and refugee children, including their detention and forced separation from family members, the lack of laws protecting basic human rights, and the lack of social safety nets that protect them from further exploitation and violence. Additionally, we are called to engage in actions that support uprooted children by placing them at the center of global, national and local policies for immigrants and refugees.

Our From the Archives piece connects current immigrant and refugee flows from the Middle East, Africa and Central America to a mid-twentieth-century report by the Children’s Bureau of pre-World War II movements of refugee children. In this article, Castendyk documents a series of site visits in 1939 to organizations across Europe serving refugee children. Of interest are the eerie similarities yet notable differences in contemporary approaches to work with refugee children. What have we learned? What have we failed to learn? Additionally, Stuart’s afterword underscores the consequences of governmental inaction on children when we do not challenge policies and practices that promote xenophobia, discrimination, and marginalization.

The rest of our articles in this issue focus on different models or approaches to community practice. In “The Emergence of the Emergence-Based Approach in Community Practice,” Shemer and Agmon-Snir propose addressing complex community situations by moving to outcomes-based organizing that employs a rational planning model. They trace the intellectual foundations of this emergence-based approach starting from organizational development classics such as the Garbage Can Model developed by systems theorists at Carnegie Mellon University to the Cynefin Framework. In these emergence-based models, organizations create an environment where solutions and problems can meet as needed without coordination from a centralized planning body. They test this model by interviewing and observing participants of the Multi-Cultural Hub for Civic Leadership in Sderot, Israel. This research context works because it has some projects and programs planned in advance with set outcomes as well as entrepreneurial initiatives that emerged from the membership. The authors catalog their findings and discuss ways to combine the approaches. For example, practitioners in a community-based initiative might reach agreement with the community on an outcome that they wish to achieve (e.g., increase high school completion), but allow the solution to emerge from the community. Alternatively, independent subsystems can work towards solutions and let the outcomes emerge from the community. The authors argue that given the complexity found in the twenty-first century that these processes will be in flux.

Outcome-based social planning is not the only model to be examined in this last regular issue of the Journal of Community Practice for 2019. In “Community-Based Accompaniment and Social Work: A Complementary Approach to Social Action,” Wilkinson and D’Angelo propose a complementary approach of community organizing to Alinsky style social action. They call this “community-based accompaniment,” an approach inspired by Liberation Theology that is best understood as a radical “being with” oppressed members of the community, which, in turn, provides those who are marginalized with a protective presence. They provide examples of accompaniment practice as exemplified by the work of Dr. Paul Farmer, a doctor practicing medicine in low-income countries experiencing conflict; Archbishop Oscar Romero, who walked alongside families living in poverty and was eventually assassinated in El Salvador, as well as the movement to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline that involved supporters camping in the planned path alongside with Native American Elders. In each case, persons from more privileged positions put themselves at risk for the sake of more vulnerable members of society. To date, the extant social work literature has only had a limited discussion of accompaniment. This form of community action stands in sharp contrast to the Alinsky model, which revolves around the building of a powerful organization or organizations with a professionally trained cadre of organizers. While a critical part of social action history, the Alinsky approach has been called into question in terms of the ethics surrounding the means in which actions are accomplished as well as challenged with regards to the role of women and people of color in leadership decisions and general lack of cultural competence. The authors propose basic tenets for community-based accompaniment that include long-term relationships, structural analysis, and reflective praxis. In other words, it is not so much a specific method, but a deep commitment to a radical vision of community practitioners having mutual relationships with members of the oppressed communities in which they serve.

Top-down models of development also are assessed by Silverman, Taylor, Yin, Miller, and Buggs in “There Goes Our Family Friendly Neighborhood: Residents’ Perceptions of Institutionally Driven Inner-city Revitalization in Buffalo, NY.” This article draws from data collected as part of the Urban Institute’s “Turning the Corner” research study whose aim was to identify factors that signal gentrification with displacement. The case is connected to debates in the literature about the political economy of place that distinguish between the use value (e.g., quality of life of amenities for those that live there) and exchange value (e.g., monetary value of property) of housing services. The authors conducted focus groups in three different working-class neighborhoods undergoing different phases of gentrification. In particular, some of the neighborhoods under study were experiencing anchor institution development. This type of development led by hospitals and universities is controversial because it can displace vulnerable residents. This article contributes to that literature by showing how planned development to attract an early career, highly educated professional class can be destabilizing. In their focus groups, they learned that new consumption-based lifestyle amenities appealing to single young professionals (e.g., yoga studios, cafes) crowded out basic services for families and put them at risk of displacement. Having neighborhoods shift from family-oriented to creative professional-oriented call into question the long-term viability of these neighborhoods. The findings challenge current development strategies appealing to the creative class. The authors recommend protecting affordability and services for working class, minority neighborhoods to ensure long-term sustainability.

Finally, in our From the Field submission entitled, “Emerging Community-Based Service models for Older Adults in Urban China: A Case Study in Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province, China,” Li and Lin compare two different models of social welfare service contracting: non-competitive and competitive. In the non-competitive model, a single, large agency agrees to handle services for their region. In the competitive model, social work agencies have to compete with each other to obtain these substantial service contracts. The authors interviewed government officials, social workers, and community residents to get different perspectives about the contracting process and subsequent service delivery in two case study sites. Social workers expressed concerns about boundaries as well as reporting lines because they received tasks from their agency, the government, and their clients. The authors found that there were not enough government-recognized social work agencies to create a market in the competitive pilot site. The emphasis on contracting was motivated by a desire to restrict growth in the public sector; however, it was clear that a robust NGO sector had not yet “emerged” nor has it led to reductions in the public sector.

Our next issue of the Journal of Community Practice is our special issue on ecosocial work and social change in community practice. We look forward to sharing this content with you. We wish to thank all of the authors who disseminate their scholarship in the journal.

Additionally, we wish to thank the following reviewers for their work on the manuscripts included in the first two issues of Volume 27: David Androff, Keith Baker, Itai Beeri, John Betancur, Jaime Booth, Breno Braga, Daniel Brisson, Amy Castro Baker, Robert Chaskin, Susan Clampet-Lundquist, Sherrill Clark, Ram Cnaan, Birhan Sisay Demissie, Mary Kate Dennis, Riela Provi Drianda, Judith Dunlop, Ryan Dyson, Meagan Ehlenz, Diana Elliott, Robert Fisher, Sondra Fogel, Jan Fook, Terri Friedline, Claudette Grinnell-Davis, Sally Hageman, Kari A. Hartwig, Richard Hoefer, Charles Hounmenou, Mark Joseph, Njoroge Kamau, Kyeongmo Kim, Gyanesh Lama, David W. Lehman, Yi Li, Jill Litt, Asun Llena, Vernon Loke, Antoinette Lombard, Wilson Majee, Suzanna M. Martinez, Brent D. Mast, Md. Masud-All-Kamal, Kirk McClure, Fredline A. O. M’Cormack-Hale, Thomas G. Measham, Jennifer Mosley, Arghya Kusum Mukherjee, Leah Mungai, Anwar Najor-Durack, Aydin Nazmi, Mary Ohmer, Jessica Pace, Larissa Padua, Megan Patton-Lopez, Jon Phillips, Christine M. Porter, Kristen Prock, Emily Rauscher, Carolina Reid, Michael Reisch, Christine E. Rittenour, Amy Roberts, David Rothwell, Gerardo Sandoval, Anna Maria Santiago, Jason Sawyer, Molly Scott, Micheal L. Shier, Yoon Ah Shin, Richard J. Smith, Joanne Sobeck, Fei Sun, Anne Toomey, M. J. Ubbink, Xavier Úcar, Laurie Walker, Carolyn Wallace, A. Wedin, Idit Weiss-Gal, Arlene Weisz, Judith Wineman, Ricardo Wray, Wynne Wright, Sarah Young, and Allison Zippay. Finally, we wish to thank all of you who read the Journal of Community Practice. We hope that we continue to publish materials that are useful to your research, teaching, and practice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.