The Forgotten Human Service Sector: Leadership Narratives of Immigrant and Refugee-Led Community-Based Ethnic Organizations

ABSTRACT

Although community-based ethnic organizations (CBEOs) play a crucial role within the human services landscape, their role often remains unacknowledged. Our study examines the role of CBEOs in the context of the larger human services environment. Purposive sampling was used to interview immigrant/refugee CBEO leaders (N = 7). Four overarching themes emerged: perceived role of CBEOs in immigrant/refugee services; CBEO challenges in the human services environment; inclusion versus exclusion in the HSO network; and CBEO positioning as a way forward for human services. We argue for increased legitimization of CBEOs serving immigrant and refugee communities for an equitable human services environment.

KEYWORDS:

• Community-based ethnic organization (CBEO)
• migrant-run organizations
• leadership diversity
• human services organizations
• refugee community organizations

Community-based ethnic organizations (CBEOs) are nonprofit community-based organizations with a governing board comprising at least 51% of current or former refugees (California Department of Social Services, n.d.). Contemporary CBEOs led by immigrants or refugees champion the resettlement and integration process in myriad ways. Such CBEOs, which typically started as mutual aid agencies, provide human services for a defined ethnic population, balancing the goals of service provision with the ethnic empowerment of new communities (Vu et al., 2017). Literature documenting the crucial roles of CBEOs suggests that they have been instrumental in helping immigrants and refugees navigate a variety of crucial human services systems (Pimentel Walker et al., 2021), filling critical service gaps for which formal organizations may be culturally unequipped (Griffiths et al., 2005), retaining the culture and language of the home countries of refugees and immigrants (Verbunt, 2008), and providing culturally responsive social services (Piacentini, 2015).

Immigrant and refugee-led CBEOs have been found to be particularly adept at identifying and responding to the diverse needs of immigrant and refugee communities across the integration continuum, including but not limited to both short-term goals, such as adaptation to host spaces, navigating the citizenship process, and achieving economic self-sufficiency; and long-term goals, such as upward mobility, ethnic solidarity, and overall community empowerment (Newland et al., 2007). CBEOs also take on roles as advocates, community organizers, and institutional liaisons, mitigating gaps in local human services (Maleku et al., 2020). In the context of COVID-19, CBEOs have been important intermediaries in responding to COVID-related barriers faced by immigrant and refugee groups in local regions (Gonzalez Benson et al., 2022; Nemeth & Padamsee, 2020).

Despite their crucial role as mediators between the local human services systems and immigrant and refugee communities, CBEOs face persistent legitimacy and survival challenges. Most importantly, human services governance structures often do not recognize CBEOs as critical components of the larger human services sector (Newland et al., 2007). This lack of legitimacy within the broader network of nonprofit and human services organizations (HSOs) means that CBEOs struggle to gain funding in order to achieve the economic capital needed to be seen as legitimate organizations. They often do not receive direct funding from the federal government as formal refugee resettlement agencies do, and other sources of funding from government entities are often competitive, with multiple CBEOs trying to secure limited available dollars (Bucklaschuk et al., 2018).

Further, empirical data about these organizations is limited (Vu et al., 2017). Moreover, there is only a fragmented understanding of the role of CBEOs. Therefore, our study explores the perceived role and position of CBEOs by examining the barriers to and facilitators of CBEO functioning, with a particular focus on the positionalities of CBEOs in the larger human services environment. Based on the narratives of a diverse group of immigrant and refugee CBEO leaders in a Midwestern U.S. region, our study will expand the knowledge base on CBEOs by increasing the understanding of the challenges and strengths of these organizations and providing insights on how CBEOs can be leveraged to serve immigrant and refugee communities. We begin with a review of HSOs with specific attention to CBEOs to set the context of our study.

Human services organizations

Human services organizations (HSOs) are community or nonprofit agencies whose mission is to promote the well-being of the communities they serve while also preserving the social values that support societal functioning (Hasenfeld, 2010). HSOs are known as nongovernmental organizations or civil society organizations (Gonzalez Benson, 2021) and include schools, community clinics, public hospitals, and CBEOs (Hasenfeld, 2010; Vu et al., 2017). These organizations mainly operate using public funding through government grants and contracts or private donations from businesses or individuals (Hasenfeld, 2010). Despite increasing demands in service, however, recent political shifts have diminished public funding and safety net programs, resulting in limited access to resources for HSOs (Hasenfeld, 2010). Additionally, the increased privatization of the public sector and the concurrent shifting of social responsibilities from the state to local entities (Gonzalez Benson, 2021) has created more pressure on HSOs to demonstrate impact and efficiency at the cost of service quality and provision (Mosley & Rathgeb Smith, 2018).

HSOs and services to immigrants and refugees

Although HSOs provide many services to immigrant and refugee communities, including financial support, mental health services, legal assistance, and health services, their ability to adequately serve immigrants and refugees often remains limited. This is primarily due to gaps in the capacity to provide culturally responsive services as well as limitations on funding and other resources (Maleku et al., 2020). When service providers have a limited understanding of the experiences and needs of immigrants and refugees, the quality of services becomes questionable (Newland et al., 2007). Moreover, when funding and resources are scarce, minoritized populations are often less likely to receive services and more likely to fall through societal cracks (Akingbola, 2020). These issues have compounding effects on service utilization where, despite being eligible for benefits, immigrants and refugees are less likely to access services due to linguistic or structural barriers, including stigma, fear of deportation, and difficulty navigating complex existing systems (Khullar & Chokshi, 2019; Newland et al., 2007). CBEOs often bridge these gaps when mainstream HSO services are unable to meet these populations’ needs (Maleku et al., 2020).

Community-based ethnic organizations

While the mission of CBEOs may vary widely, their focus is largely centered around the goal of providing direct social services to a specific immigrant or refugee community (Newland et al., 2007; Zetter & Pearl, 2000). CBEOs have the overarching goals of addressing service gaps encountered by minoritized groups, including immigrants and refugees (Vu et al., 2017), and providing multicultural services that meet a community’s particular cultural needs (Holley, 2003). Immigrant- and refugee-led CBEOs – also referred to as ethnic community-based organizations (Vu et al., 2017); ethnic, cultural, and folk nonprofit organizations (Kim et al., 2021); or refugee community organizations (Zetter & Pearl, 2000) – often emerged from groups of immigrant or refugee volunteers who collaborated to provide mutual aid to other community members (Vu et al., 2017). Given that CBEOs are often run by community leaders and are located within the community being served, they are uniquely equipped with an understanding of immigrant and refugee experiences to provide culturally appropriate services (Vu et al., 2017). They have a unique opportunity to provide a platform for people who share a common origin, religion, and nostalgia for the home country to receive needed services for increased integration and success (Castañeda, 2020). Newly arrived refugees, a key group served by CBEOs, receive formal case management services through the government for only 90 days after their arrival. Much of these services are geared toward finding employment and achieving self-sufficiency expectations of the U.S. refugee resettlement program (Brown & Scribner, 2014). After the 90-day period, refugees are often left with little to no formal support, a key gap filled by CBEOs for continued empowerment of the refugee population (Gonzalez Benson, 2020). A wide range of other functions are filled by CBEOs in tandem: they strengthen community ties, connect community members to mainstream services, provide policy advocacy, provide culturally appropriate services, and promote integration (Kim et al., 2021; Vu et al., 2017).

CBEO strengths and challenges

Despite serving such critical functions, CBEOs hold a precarious position within the broader human services landscape (Maleku et al., 2020). CBEOs are often disconnected from mainstream HSOs and are largely underfunded, despite increased demand for services (Maleku et al., 2020; Newland et al., 2007). Prior literature suggests that even smaller CBEOs fill service gaps between mainstream service providers and immigrant and refugee communities (Maleku et al., 2020). Gonzalez Benson (2020) explored the impact of Bhutanese CBEOs across the United States and found that these organizations provide an extensive number of services to their communities, including case management, cultural and social events, and advocacy. Gonzalez Benson (2020) also postulates that CBEO research is limited to well-established nonprofit organizations, where smaller and newly established, informal entities that provide substantial services even with limited financial resources and sometimes even without the legal 501(c)(3) nonprofit status have been largely understudied. Despite building social capital through developing strong social networks and cultural ties (Gonzalez Benson, 2020), the work of CBEOs has often been overlooked in contemporary research on HSOs (Gleeson & Bloemraad, 2013). These research gaps impede recognition of the roles CBEOs play in meeting immigrant and refugee needs as well as catalyzing crucial human services for their well-being.

Further, this lack of attention to CBEO contributions often puts them in a precarious position regarding obtaining funding, due to legitimacy and capacity concerns, largely on the part of funders (Newland et al., 2007). Federal and state grants are often the main sources of funding for CBEOs. These grants are highly competitive and require adept writing and planning skills that leaders of CBEOs may not possess due to unfamiliar funding environments in new spaces or gaps in technical capacities and knowledge of the complex U.S. HSO structure.

Despite these shortcomings, CBEO leaders have an incredible sense of personal commitment, resilience, and strength to find ways to optimize resources to support their communities (Denzongpa & Nichols, 2020). In addition to such institutional barriers, CBEO leaders must overcome historical racial, political, and socioeconomic disparities (Newland et al., 2007) as representatives of minoritized communities, potentially hindering organizational capacity and development. As such, many services provided by CBEOs are informal in nature, compared to other HSOs, and some operate without formal recognition or even formal sources of funding (Gonzalez Benson & Pimentel Walker, 2021). The lack of recognition of CBEOs in comparison to other mainstream organizations often leads to missed opportunities for CBEOs to establish legitimacy and trust within the HSO context. The ripple effects of CBEO perception often lead to gaps in CBEO recognition as a key player in human services, leading them to be understood as playing a secondary or supportive role (Gonzalez Benson & Pimentel Walker, 2021).

COVID-19 has only exacerbated these challenges for CBEOs, as immigrants and refugees are at a greater risk of contracting COVID-19 and experiencing the negative consequences associated with it (Alcendor, 2020). Throughout the pandemic, CBEOs have experienced increased demand for services, limited organizational capacity, and losses in community wealth and prosperity . While organizational strain only continues to increase and a lack of recognition by larger agencies threatens their ability to provide services, CBEOs continue to increase their response to heightened community need.

The present study

The purpose of the present study is to explore barriers and facilitators of CBEO leadership and functioning and examine the perceived role and position of CBEOs in the context of the larger human services environment. Our study setting is a Midwestern U.S. region, which is one of the top five refugee resettlement sites in the country (Refugee Processing Center, 2020). Currently, the region has a high influx of Bhutanese, Congolese, and Somali refugees (Maleku et al., 2018). CBEOs have continued to play crucial roles in this region, providing culturally responsive services and fostering the well-being of the diverse immigrant and refugee populations (Maleku et al., 2020).

Conceptual framework

The study of CBEOs warrants a holistic framework at the intersection of human services structure, resource dependence, culture, and migration stressors unique to CBEOs. We, therefore, argue for a multidimensional framework, which theorizes that CBEOs are impacted by external pressures such as immigration policies, resource and capacity constraints, as well as internal pressures in the human services system such as competition for survival. While CBEOs conform to these pressures to gain legitimacy, they also continually resist dominant cultural expectations to create their niche in the human services arena and contribute toward an equitable human services system. In order to understand the study of CBEOs, we use institutional theory as an overarching lens of our multidimensional framework. Guided by the political economy perspective then, we incorporate the critical perspective to further understand the inherent power structures within the HSO landscape. Thus, our proposed framework attempts to broaden our understanding of the multiple factors affecting CBEO existence within the political, economic, and oppressive structures that affect the functioning and legitimacy of these organizations.

Institutional theory

Like most HSOs, CBEOs must continually adapt to the changing HSO landscape to survive. Institutional theory postulates that organizations are affected both by the pressures of outside sources, like laws and mandates, to gain legitimacy, and by the normative standards of the industry in general and of the comparable organizations within which they function (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). The structure of certain classes of organizations, such as human services, is determined by rules emanating from the institutional environment in which they operate (Carmen, 2011). Organizations may then feel pressure to conform to these standards, including often invisible or unwritten rules, to gain legitimacy or perceived success (Cornforth et al., 2014). Thus, CBEOs and their leaders operate within these boundaries with the constant goal of increasing their legitimacy as an organization (Schmid, 2004).

Political economy perspective

As noted, legitimacy is a key factor in the survival of a CBEO. The political economy perspective (Hasenfeld, 1980) recognizes that for an organization to survive and provide its services, it must garner two fundamental types of resources: legitimacy and (political) power and economic resources (Schmid, 2004). While legitimacy is indispensable to the survival of an organization, power is the means by which authority and influence are distributed across organizations. The political economy perspective, regarding HSOs, refers to the services, programs, and clients with which the organization chooses to engage, which often alters or shifts the monetary and human capital resources the agency receives (Hasenfeld, 1980). If an organization has strong dependence on external resources, its legitimacy and power may be weakened by this external influence (Schmid, 2004). CBEOs that depend on outside funding support are also affected by political forces, including federal and local leaders’ views on immigration. These factors may lead CBEOs to either gain or lose economic independence or legitimacy as a key HSO player. Diverse representation across HSOs is a useful strategy for increasing the perceived legitimacy of organizations (Yoshikawa et al., 2014). For CBEOs, diversity and inclusion efforts in the leadership of delivery systems, boards of trustees, and the workforce can elevate internal legitimacy as well as amplify external legitimacy (Drori & Honig, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2014).

Critical perspective

Given that power is a key variable in defining the structure, processes, services, and worker–client relations of HSOs, the emancipatory focus of the critical perspective becomes particularly salient in the study of CBEOs. Whereas institutional theory focuses on human services agencies as socialized entities that seek legitimacy through conformity to cultural meaning systems, critical theory postulates how these meanings function as ideologies that rationalize patterns of domination. From a critical perspective, workers are complicit in their own subordination through their acceptance of inequitable arrangements and the ideologies that support them. The central goal of critical theory in organizational studies, then, is to create societies and workplaces that are free from domination, where all members have equal opportunity to contribute to the production of systems that meet human needs and lead to the progressive development of all (Carr, 2000). Arguably, the political rhetoric surrounding immigrants and refugees has led to increased distress among CBEOs, where they are continually challenged to develop new strategies to maintain their position in society, support their employees, who most often represent diverse immigrant and refugee communities, and advocate for equitable human services system (Wathen et al., 2022).

Methods

Sample and data collection

We used a purposive sampling strategy – a widely used sampling strategy in qualitative research, to select information-rich cases (Patton, 2002) – to identify immigrants or refugees who currently served in leadership positions at a local CBEO. In order to garner unique participant perspectives given their lived experience as members of the immigrant and refugee community, in-depth understanding of the community’s needs, and their leadership positions in local CBEOs, we purposefully made sure that participants were selected following their availability and willingness (Palinkas et al., 2015). Additionally, participants were selected with maximum variation (especially gender and country of origin) for the purpose of documenting diverse variations within the demographic strata (Palinkas et al., 2015). Participants were purposefully identified through the first author’s network among immigrant and refugee organizations built through previous refugee resettlement work as well as through the list provided by the local New American Advisory Council, which supports the local government in serving immigrant and refugee communities (Franklin County, 2021). Ten individuals were initially contacted for participation in the study, out of which 7 participants agreed to be interviewed.

Our sample (N = 7) represents a substantial number of CBEO leaders in the geographic region who fit our criteria for inclusion: individuals who identify as a refugee or immigrant and serve in a leadership position at a local CBEO. Due to the smaller pool of this unique participant group in general, this sample size is still adequate in centering the voices of CBEO leaders and generating unique knowledge in this area (Saunders & Townsend, 2016). Further, robust in-depth interviews that captured lived experiences of diverse CBEO leaders; systematic data collection and analysis using grounded theory techniques to represent authentic refugee voices; as well as researcher reflexivity strategies strengthened the rigor of our study.

Our study participants represented seven different national origins: Bhutan, Ethiopia, India, Mexico, Russia, Rwanda, and Somalia (Table 1). A little over half of the participants (57%) were women. All participants had lived in the U.S. for 10 or more years and identified as U.S. citizens. Most participants did not spend time in displacement (71%), though those who did spent more than ten years in displacement (29%). It is worth noting that although immigrants and refugees may have different migration and resettlement experiences, we included both in our sample due to the small number of leaders eligible for inclusion and their similar goals of providing culturally tailored services to their community members. The lack of research that includes the voices of either immigrant or refugee leaders also factored into our decision to include both in our study.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics (N = 7).

	n (%)
Age
18–40	2 (28)
41–60	4 (57)
61 and over	1 (14)
Gender	3 (43)
Male	3 (43)
Female	4 (57)
Country of Origin
Ethiopia	1 (14)
India	1 (14)
Bhutan	1 (14)
Somalia	1 (14)
Russia	1 (14)
Mexico	1 (14)
Rwanda	1 (14)
Number of years in leadership
3–5 years	2 (28)
6–7 years	1 (14)
10 or more years	4 (57)

Data collection began in person in February 2020 and moved to virtual data collection in March 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, with most interviews (71%) being completed over the secured Zoom platform. Data collection was completed in February 2021. The first author conducted each 90-minute interview in English and explored participant perceptions of leadership as a refugee or immigrant leader, the role CBEOs play within the larger human services landscape, and the impact of COVID-19 on CBEOs. The first two in-person interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Virtual interviews were recorded, transcribed through Zoom transcription, and then manually checked by the first author to ensure accuracy. The Institutional Review Board approved the study at the study site. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection.

Data analysis

We followed Charmaz and Smith (2003) and Strauss and Corbin’s (1997) approaches to grounded theory techniques when collecting and analyzing the data. Given the paucity of knowledge on CBEOs within the broader HSO landscape, ground theory approach was specifically relevant to our study in the theoretical understanding of CBEO functioning (Payne, 2007). Grounded theory approach also engages participants’ active voice in the research process and allows for constructing meaning from their own viewpoint (Hood et al., 1999). Using grounded theory techniques helped us center the narratives of participants throughout the data collection and analysis stages. The simultaneous involvement in data collection and analysis; construction of analytic codes and categories grounded in the data; the use of constant comparative methods, making comparisons during each analysis stage, and sampling aimed toward theoretical construction, rather than for population representativeness were followed as grounded theory techniques (Charmaz & Smith, 2003; Strauss & Corbin, 1997).

The first and second authors used Atlas.ti and NVivo software for data coding and analysis. Our aim was to systematically synthesize, analyze, and conceptualize the data through these grounded theory approaches. To gain familiarity with the data, both data coders listened to all interviews at least twice and read the transcriptions multiple times. The first two authors then completed initial coding by using line-by-line coding to ensure that all data from each interview were included in analysis (Charmaz & Smith, 2003). This also included in vivo coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1997), a coding method used to ground participant voices at the center of emerging themes (Saldana, 2015). The two coders then met to compare their initial codes, discussed and explored any discrepancies, and agreed on initial codes. Next, both coders independently used axial coding for a second round of coding that helped connect initial codes, create a new set of focused codes that showed connections between initial codes, which then allowed themes to emerge from the data (Charmaz & Smith, 2003). This form of coding is completed in order to identify the relationships in the initial, line-by-line coding and to begin to identify patterns emerging from the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1997). After axial coding was completed, the first, second, and last author met to explore the initial and axial codes, and finalize the overarching themes based on distinct definitions represented in the data (Charmaz & Smith, 2003).

All coders used constant comparative analysis through the coding process, where multiple rounds of coding and incident to incident comparison of quotes and codes were incorporated to continually reduce the data into themes (Charmaz, 2001). Additionally, the coders used researcher reflexivity strategies throughout data collection and analysis process. Detailed note-keeping and memo writing throughout the data collection, transcription, and analysis process as well as acknowledgment of the positionality of the researchers on data interpretation, bolstered the data analysis process (Charmaz, 2006). We used these strategies to assist in the confirmation of the theoretical saturation of data and to ensure that all relationships and links between the data were identified (Boeije, 2002). The translation of the themes table (Table 2) illustrates the process of coding and analysis, from initial codes to axial codes, and into the resultant overarching themes.

Table 2. Translation of themes.

Extracted Original Codes	Category	Overarching Themes
Access to services; advocate for community; assessment of community needs; clients don’t have resources; community input on services; cultural brokering; cultural competency; culturally appropriate services; different needs of different groups; different needs for refugees; liaison between community and services; services responsive to community need; close gap of needs and resources; community education; connect community to resources; relationships between local and immigrant community	Culturally appropriate services; Fill in a gap of services; cultural brokering; advocacy services	Perceived role of CBEOs in immigrant/refugee services
Need physical space; need more skills; need more support; nobody listens; no previous experience; slow growth; training; technology; funders disconnected; funder’s trust; funding challenges; help from others; identity confusion; merge with other organizations; need formalization for funding; new agency; other agencies ruined trust; small agencies unappreciated; staffing; strategic planning; not included in broader HSO network; nuts and bolts	Funding/infrastructure; larger HSO network	CBEO challenges in the human service environment
Discrimination; lack of opportunity; only so many seats; Columbus better than other places for refuge leader; not acknowledged; more representation; token minority	Discrimination; Inclusion of refugees in HSO network	Inclusion versus exclusion in the HSO network
Expand capacity; expanded to serve other populations; expansion of services; integration; international programming; youth services; mental health/trauma; plan to expand to serve other communities; social enterprise; self-sufficiency; small businesses; supplement other services	Expansion of services	CBEO positioning: A way forward for equitable human services

Results

Four salient themes emerged from our data: the perceived role of CBEOs in immigrant/refugee services (i.e., cultural brokering and advocacy); CBEO challenges in the human services environment; inclusion versus exclusion in the HSO network; and CBEO positioning: A way forward for equitable human services. These overarching themes point to the barriers to and facilitators of CBEOs and their perceived role and position in the context of the larger human services environment.

Theme 1: perceived role of CBEOs in immigrant/refugee services

Within the larger human services context, CBEOs play a vital role for immigrant and refugee communities. Leaders reported on the key role they play as liaison or connector between the community they serve and the broader HSO network. Leaders reported that CBEOs are a crucial part of the HSO system:

We have a very important role. They [human services organizations] won’t be able to function without us being in place. We are like nuts and bolts. They may be a bigger part of the system, like if you think from a system perspective and if they are bigger parts of the system—they are wheel, they’re engine, and things like that. Smaller nonprofits are like nuts and bolts; if you take them out, you are going to crash (2).

HSOs often provide vital services to immigrant/refugee communities, such as health care, housing, and mental health and substance abuse services, but are often difficult for immigrant/refugees to access due to language and cultural barriers, as expressed by the CBEO leaders. One leader explained, “we connect [community members] to the [health services] and then make sure that the health care system understands how to start providing effective services to our community” (7). Another leader also stated that “basic services need to be available like housing, transportation, access to childcare, having employment opportunities. Those are all critical to the survival of refugees and harder for them to get than native-born people” (4).

CBEOs connect their communities to these services by informing them about the services, assisting them in gaining access by setting up appointments or providing transportation, and helping their community to understand the importance of and need for the services. Participants highlighted that CBEOs crucial role in the broader HSO network is the reason that these larger HSOs can serve refugee and immigrant communities.

Along with helping to connect community members to crucial services, leaders also play the role of cultural brokering, helping mainstream agencies to better understand how to serve the community through both language and cultural interpretation. One leader described how a local, federally qualified health center had created a clinic to serve undocumented immigrants but could not get any patients to come. They described how they “saved” the healthcare center by connecting their community to services:

We saved this clinic from [closure], you know with the Latino community and there still is a huge population of Lations that continue going to those clinics to get access to services, so that’s another huge impact. I’m very proud that we were [a] part of this and it became a good result putting together strategic work between an immigrant community agency, the city and a healthcare [organization], that was the perfect triangle that helped this result happen (7).

When the healthcare center partnered with the CBEO, the healthcare center was able to adjust their services to be more culturally competent and gain the trust of the community as a reliable and safe place to seek services. Other leaders reported being called upon to assist larger agencies in language interpretation or in understanding the cultural nuances of a community in order to provide culturally appropriate services. The mainstream HSOs benefit by gaining access to patients, and the community benefits through increased access to needed services, due to the CBEO brokering the service. Leaders also saw CBEOs filling gaps in services that immigrant and refugee communities need but are not generally provided by mainstream HSOs.

I was like, you know, what’s going on with [these] people? Why is everybody in need? When new refugees come, what’s going on? So, I started going to their homes. So, when we knock on doors and I asked if they need help, most of them cry from happiness. So when I asked why, [because] I’m here to help, [they say,] “I know where to go for help now (5)”.

CBEO leaders reported their services as being vital for many families in continuing to provide needed services after the initial 90-day resettlement period for refugees ends. One leader stated, “So after the refugees are settled here, after the 90-day window, where do they go? There’s not enough [assistnace] and we find ourselves dealing with those issues when we don’t have resources” (6).

Services such as, language interpretation, home visiting programs, and the cultural trust that the CBEO and the leader bring to a community of which they themselves are a member of are valuable strengths of a CBEO. One participant described the reason to start their CBEO to “not just to fill the gaps, but because we wanted to deliver services from the perspective of someone who understands the journey [of being a refugee]” (1).

Before refugees came, it [the area] was devastated. Then the refugees came and resettled and that area becomes very vibrant now. And so, the [region] recognizes the existence of refugee and immigrants are impactful. Then refugee and immigrant organizations like [ours], you know we are really pushing the limit, knocking on doors, partnering with other organizations, making our voices [heard] (3).

Four participants specifically stated serving on advisory boards and providing recommendations to other HSOs and government entities in order to best advocate for the needs of their community and to highlight the strengths that refugees bring.

These leaders have seen the immigrant/refugee populations of their region grow. They see themselves as leaders both in their community and on a larger platform. CBEO leaders saw themselves as effective advocate: as a representative advocating both for the needs of immigrant/refugee communities and highlighting the benefits of having immigrants/refugees in the area to the broader community.

Theme 2: CBEO challenges in the human services environment

Participants reported the challenges for CBEOs, especially in garnering sufficient funding to run an organization. A leader explained saying, “[the] number one problem [in running the orgainzation] is financial problems for the new organizations that start. That’s a big problem, where you can see the problem, and you see the solution, but you don’t have the resources to do the work” (4).

Although leaders of these CBEOs see their organizations as often being the most grounded and connected to the communities themselves, they stated that due to aforementioned barriers, funding often went to larger, well-established agencies, whether or not those agencies identified as CBEOs or specifically served immigrant and refugee populations. Leaders of smaller CBEOs specifically felt that it was challenging to secure funding and that “big organizations take advantage” of funding opportunities because “they have the experience and reputation with the people giving away the money (5).”

Many leaders pointed to a need to create more sustainable sources of funding in order to survive without relying on grants for continued support to run their agency. One participant noted,

Small organization like ours will die off if we don’t quickly transition to a sustainable source of income. And that is what I am planning for 2021, is to completely see something that makes the organization sustainable. We need a sustainable source of income if we want to survive. And grants will come and go; if you depend on the grants, there is no future at all (2).

Many leaders pointed to this need to create more sustainable sources of funding in order to survive without relying on grants for continued support to run their agency. Several specific strategies mentioned included receiving reimbursement from Medicaid for case management services, providing consultation and interpretation to other agencies, and expanding the clientele to include other immigrant or refugee groups and thus increase the number of possible clients.

Leaders also pointed to the disconnect between community needs and available funding. A participant noted, “These refugees and immigrants, they are unique. You know they have challenges and unique needs and we know their challenges, so when the funding community, they don’t understand what we are sending for, that is really a big challenge (3)” Leaders commented on how funders are often unsure about what the community needs and therefore do not offer funding that fits those current needs. One leader noted, “they should be able to find that balance so that they draw as much as possible from the communities that they are actually serving and not just coming up with their [own] ideas (1).” Though immigrant and refugee needs such as housing and health care are similar to those of other communities, they also have different, community-specific needs related to language, assistance with navigating the immigration system, and cultural barriers to accessing essential services. One leader stated, “We rely on community resources that we are expecting to have, but then you know our clients are not able to access it because of language or it isn’t culturally right for them for some reason (5).” Leaders stated that these differing challenges are often not included in funding opportunities and the costs then must be covered by the agency itself through other mechanisms, such as donations. One leader specifically talked about clients that they assist in court for domestic violence and reported “struggling to be able to pay for a good interpreter is a big, big, barrier (4).”

Leaders stressed the need for more unrestricted funds as being key to supporting their agency mission and serving their clients. One participant noted that “federal funders absolutely put restrictions on who we can serve, how long we can serve and what we can do. But also private funders and often funders who have their own idea about what should be done without any base in reality for that (1).” CBEO leaders reported similar concerns within their agencies as well, with limited funding available to support the basic running of any organization, including office space, support staff, and phone lines. One leader commented that funders provide money to run a program but “don’t want to pay a penny to make a photocopy (7).” One leader noted the impact of funding during times of crisis stating, “To sustain and maintain, you know, for us it was double. The previous administration [Trump], really heavy quarrel, every moment it was something new, harassing refugees and immigrants and the organizations. Then this COVID-19 came (3).” These restrictions limit an agencies ability to pivot to meet the needs of the clients they serve.

All seven leaders reported reduced funding during the Trump administration from reduction of grants “up to 40%” (6) or the complete elimination of grants that caused “full programs at our agency to have to end” (1). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic imposed additional demands in services, where CBEOs had to make rapid shifts in the agency’s focus.

Along with increased funding needs, leaders also commented on the need for increased human capital and infrastructure to increase the capacity of their agencies.

Yeah, we [get] left behind, because we don’t have resources, and then second, we don’t have professionals or skills. We’re not very highly skilled, like I can’t sit and write my own proposals and then have connections to the people who have the access to resources. So, I found that my hands are tied because I don’t have skills (6).

This leader describes how they don’t have skills like grant writing to be able to get the financial support to successfully run their organization. One leader describes the impact of a lack of infrastructure on their agency:

We don’t have an office. I work on my computer and then I drive up and down to the community, we need a space and then we need professionals who can help us and then we need, we need guidance. Yeah, we need guidance. But otherwise, we are willing to work, but that’s the challenges (5).

Many wished that along with funding, they were provided support on how to run a nonprofit, and that their ideas would be given more support through the logistical skills of others. Another leader said CBEOs’ biggest needs included:

Training, we need support and training and connection, and the city needs to do this. They are our government and we look to them for this to support the people they said they wanted us [immigrants and refugees] here but really they just want us to work and not live good lives (2).

One leader explained that “unfortunately in many many places around the world, refugee and immigrants are viewed as a support and only utilized as interpreters or case managers aid. Never promoted, never trained as leaders, not taken seriously” (1).

CBEO leaders acknowledged the lack of opportunities to hold leadership positions or to run an organization during their migration journey, which might have presented barriers to acquire competent skills. They stated that the general public perception on immigrants and refugees prohibits them to be viewed as leaders. They pointed to the complexity of the HSO network and the difficulty in navigating a complex set of regulations and rules to successfully run an organization as barriers to an increased number of immigrants and refugees even when they have the capacity to successfully run CBEOs.

Theme 3: inclusion versus exclusion in the HSO network

Leaders explored discrimination experienced by themselves as leaders, by their communities at large, and by their CBEO. One leader stated, “because you are an immigrant and a refugee, people do not think that you have the competent skills (3).”

Though many leaders saw their local region as recognizing and acknowledging the vital role CBEOs play in serving immigrant and refugee communities, progress remains to be made. Leaders viewed that there were only so many “seats at the Table” and that if too many immigrant or refugee leaders and/or agencies were already involved in a certain project or initiative, they might not be accepted or invited. “And it happens to us as an agency,” said another leader. “We don’t get those invitations to sit on the other large table; you’re not the biggest table. We just been called when somebody remembers ‘Oh, you know what, we have an issue, Latino or not, a person who was speaking Spanish in the line. Let’s call the coalition (7)’”

Leaders also expressed the larger HSO network’s lack of trust in the ability of immigrant and refugee organizations to successfully manage grant funds. Multiple leaders mentioned receiving funding that was explicitly stated to be for immigrant and refugee funding but were also told that they needed a more established HSO, a non-CBEO organization, to oversee the funding and serve as the “fiscal agent.” One participant recounted:

So, for example, [my agency] with 30 years in existence, we are capable to manage grants, efficient [in] providing services, but they always want to see us as an agency who probably don’t know, wouldn’t be able to manage a large amount of grant. So, every time there is funding available for a particular community, and then they will try to go with a larger [agency], you know, for example, maybe the YMCA. They deposited $2 million in the Y because the Y can be now responsible to dealing with the ethnic communities, because they have to be the ones who supervise the ethnic groups. So, we are always placed under somebody else (7).

Another leader described a similar experience where their agency received grant funding and was forced to partner with another mainstream HSO to help manage the grant:

We already have proved ourselves [in overseeing grants]. What we are saying is if you give us hundred dollars, we will save you five hundred dollars. We will keep people out of unemployment and out of emergency room, we will save you money. Trust us with a little money and we will save big money (2)”

CBEO leaders also described differing experiences based on the size of CBEOs. Leaders of small organizations, in particular, expressed the lack of space for their agencies, due to the larger CBEO organizations being the ones that receive funding and recognition from the broader HSO network. The limited space for immigrant and refugee service organizations causes fierce competition for funding, support, and wider recognition. “Sometimes they wanted us to merge or die out,” said one participant. “I don’t want to name an organization, but this organization … tries to kill other small organizations. Because they see it as a threat. What are you even running a nonprofit for? (5)”

Some leaders expressed feeling as if their agencies struggle to gain access to resources due to their serving individuals without legal status, rather than refugee populations that have legal status and a path to citizenship. A participant stated,

There is a lot of funding from the county, from the state, from the city to refugees and asylees, but there is no funding to provide services to immigrant community regardless of statuses. So more and more [of] those fundings are not available to the Latino community. [Latinos] are not the best interests, you know; we are not the priority on the list (7).

They affirmed that their organizations experience discrimination because the populations they serve are not seen as “deserving” immigrant populations and therefore do not receive the same acknowledgment or focus as refugee populations.

Other refugee-serving agencies also experienced the stress of funding sources targeting the newest population of refugees to arrive and then no longer providing support to groups that have been in the area longer but who may still be in need of support. “When you talk to [government leaders] about immigrants or non-English speakers,” said a participant, “they will always go, yes, to whatever community, the latest refugee group that have arrived in the county (3).” This supports leaders’ beliefs that there is only room for so many CBEOs to receive support from both the government and local funders.

It is noteworthy that women CBEO leaders expressed struggles related to their status as an immigrant woman leading an organization. One woman leader said,

It’s the essence of why I do what I do, because I’m a woman. I came here not wanting to be beholden to another male member. I wanted to be an independent woman. I wanted to have a voice of my own. So in my engagement with this group, I see myself and many of the women not as victim but as a woman, having a voice and having the rights, the same rights that’s given to the paternalistic society which dictates that women don’t have, don’t need to have, a voice (1).

Women leaders also pointed out the need to navigate both cultural gender norms and patriarchal expectations on the part of those in their community, though they expressed pride in their role as women immigrant leaders, which allowed them to understand and support women in their community.

Theme 4: CBEO positioning: A way forward for equitable human services

Leaders expressed a desire to find ways to improve and elevate both their agency, specifically, and the community they serve in general. One leader said,

So [other organizations] are really trying to do their best by hiring someone that speaks the language. It helps a little, but when the leaders are from the community, they can set the policy for the need of the community. A white person, they do their best, but they will always think about what they know; they don’t understand the need of this community. They will always try to hire someone that speaks the language. You know, that’s the way they always go; they’re helping, they’re trying, but it is not what’s going to help, you know? (4)

Leaders provided a variety of solutions they believed would improve the landscape of human services for immigrant and refugee communities by better integrating CBEOs into the larger human services landscape. They have a strong desire to be used and celebrated as connectors to their community and to gain leadership positions where they will have the largest impact.

The leaders voiced a desire to no longer be siloed into being seen only as ethnic-based organizations that are separate from mainstream HSOs, but rather as playing an important role in getting the needs of their communities met, communities that they see as important societal members of the larger region in which they live. A participant said,

Our agency, it is in the moment where we need to be accepted as another social services agency, rather than put us under the labels of “immigrant ethnic agency.” If there was a problem in the neighborhoods our community lives in, they would call all the social services agencies in the area but not the immigrant agencies, not a Latino, not an African, because they don’t consider us as a part of the whole community (7).

The political environment has affected the ability of CBEOs to be successful and to serve their communities. The Trump administration caused funding cuts to social services in general, and especially to refugee- and immigrant-serving agencies, due to a largely anti-immigration platform. “I think we have been under shadows for this last four years; we lost our grants from quite a bit, from 2020,” noted a female. “It started with 15% on this year; some agencies got cut by 40% (4).”

Though leaders see hope with the Biden administration, solutions are complex. Leaders stated that a four-year decrease in funding caused a loss of infrastructure and that it may take years to build capacity back to its normal state. There also is fear that future administrations will decrease funding again and that this will become a continual cycle that leaders will need to be prepared for. The leaders however, highlighted that they have local support.

We understood early on that it is very important to develop relationship with local government. And it pays off, and so we do have support of our municipalities of our local government. County is very supportive of our work, and the state [has] demonstrated [support] regardless of party affiliation (6).”

Even though the state in which these agencies are situated in leans conservative, many leaders shared that state, county, and local support for refugee and immigrant communities were high, and they have continued to feel supported throughout the years of the Trump presidency.

Though many expressed supports from local government, different leaders had varying experiences. Some reported being used as a “token minority” by local officials who wanted to show their support for refugees but not put resources into CBEOs. In one leader’s experience:

[The] city is not recognizing the work that smaller nonprofit agencies do. You know, they may be giving, you know, sometimes. Well, I went to an event. The mayor invited me to introduce him at an event recently, right? But that’s just a political statement only. That is not going to help me. I know it clearly that this guy is just making a political statement, but there is no benefit [to my organization] (2).

These differences often seemed to be based on the CBEO size. Smaller agencies expressed difficulties in receiving funding support and recognition compared to larger agencies. A leader of a small CBEO said: “City Council wants us for the photo in their pamphlet, but then not to actually provide us the support we beg them for (5).” Concomitantly, a leader of a larger CBEO stated that “state and local leaders understand the importance of our population in the state and support the work we do (1).”

Despite agency size, all leaders expressed the need to continue to push for CBEOs to be viewed as legitimate members of the HSO network who provide vital services for new members of the community.

Discussion

Grounded in the perspectives of immigrant and refugee leaders in a local context, our study explored the perceived role and position of immigrant- and refugee-led CBEOs within the larger human services landscape. Findings from our study corroborate prior literature that acknowledges the role of CBEOs as filling specific roles for immigrant and refugee communities, including that of liaison and cultural broker between immigrant and refugee communities and the broader HSO network (Hung, 2007; Lee & De Vita, 2008; Vu et al., 2017). Consistent with other studies, our findings highlight that the position of immigrant- and refugee-led CBEOs within the larger HSO network reflects the ongoing exclusion and marginalization of refugees and immigrants in the U.S. (Maleku et al., 2020; Lacroix et al., 2015).

Our study corroborated previous studies on the vital role of CBEOs and how they function as mainstream service providers for culturally responsive services to immigrant and refugee populations in the U.S. (Maleku et al., 2020). Consistent with prior studies, we also found that CBEOs are often overlooked and lack acknowledgment despite the vital role they play in immigrant and refugee communities (Gleeson & Bloemraad, 2013; Gonzalez Benson, 2020). Findings point to the need for acknowledgment from state and federal agencies, as well as other stakeholders that assists in building the legitimacy and sustainability of CBEOs. Organizational legitimacy is correlated to resource allocation, particularly public funding (Gleeson & Bloemraad, 2013; Gonzalez Benson, 2020), and thus to the sustainability of an organization (Gonzalez Benson, 2020; Vermeulen et al., 2016). The critical application of institutional theory and a political economy perspective provided us the opportunity to identify barriers to and facilitators of CBEO functioning at the intersection of their unique positionalities. Legitimacy, power, and resources are indispensable for an organization’s survival (Hasenfeld, 1980). As our findings suggest, precarious funding provision, non-renewability of grants, restrictive immigration policies, and a competitive atmosphere within the human services landscape limit CBEO capacity to serve their communities.

Findings of our study highlight the barriers in garnering financial capital and technical support – key resources to survival both internally and in the broader community (Thornhill & Amit, 2003) – that bereft CBEOs from smooth operation and sustainability. In addition to resource constraints and the inevitable competition in the human services environment (Maleku et al., 2020), arguably, the fiscal agent expectations imposed by funders, particularly on smaller CBEOs point to the added burden faced by CBEOs that ultimately question their legitimacy in the HSO arena. Given these barriers, our findings suggest that CBEO leaders see the need to diversify their funding streams in order to both increase their chances of gaining legitimacy within the broader human services landscape and to simply survive as an organization. This is consistent with prior research showing that having multiple sources of funding and reducing reliance on a single funding source is preferred by foundations and resource holders when considering who to award new funding streams to (Walker & McCarthy, 2010). Findings also suggest disparities among CBEOs, with stakeholders favoring more established, larger CBEOs over smaller CBEOs. Inequitable funding practices based on the size of organization disempowers smaller CBEOs serving equally vulnerable populations, further undermining their perceived legitimacy.

Participants shared the desire not only to be seen as ethnic-based organizations that isolate them but to be acknowledged as legitimate HSOs that play a vital role in meeting community needs in the most culturally responsive ways. Literature asserts that diversification of services (Fehsenfeld & Levinsen, 2019) and diverse representation across HSOs may be useful strategies for increasing the perceived legitimacy of organizations (Yoshikawa et al., 2014). For CBEOs, diversity and inclusion efforts in the leadership of delivery systems, boards of trustees, and the workforce elevates internal legitimacy (Drori & Honig, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2014). External legitimacy, often tied to stakeholders’ recognition of appropriate practices, values, and representatives, also implies certain congruence with internal legitimacy (Drori & Honig, 2013). Consistent with previous studies, CBEO leaders have noticed a practice of tokenism, where their participation is merely a matter of ticking the boxes, which reflects a lack of external legitimacy from certain stakeholders. This practice affects CBEOs’ ability to secure funding, support, and opportunities to be seen as vital in providing key services to immigrant and refugee populations.

Implications for social work

Social workers play a crucial role in the protection and promotion of immigrants and refugees and their related organizations in the U.S. However, social workers often struggle to provide the best support to immigrant and refugee communities (Käkelä, 2020). This is particularly relevant in terms of sustaining and supporting CBEOs in their ongoing struggle to obtain legitimacy and sustainability to serve immigrant and refugee communities best. CBEOs possess cultural knowledge and community expertise and thus, play a fundamental role as first responders to already-existing and newly arriving immigrant and refugee populations (Lacroix et al., 2015). Social workers working in partnership with these organizations hold enormous capacity to contribute and should offer their skills, including writing, data development, and evaluation and translation of research into practice, to build the capacity of CBEOs.

The critical perspective highlighted in the study also offers social workers with opportunities to expand their understanding of representation and to challenge themselves to ask critical questions about the sustainability and perceived legitimacy of CBEOs. For macro practitioners, policy upgrades for CBEOs based on advocacy and data-driven research can strengthen the organizational capacity of CBEOs (Maleku et al., 2020). This should include working with funders to build the capacity of CBEOs and ease additional burden, such as the use of fiscal agent, experienced by CBEOs. Advocacy for funding streams developed in consultation with CBEO leaders would ensure that funding investments are intentionally targeted to the felt needs of immigrant and refugee communities. Additionally, social workers should recognize CBEO leaders’ struggle to legitimize their representation of refugee and immigrant voices in the larger human services landscape (Bahram, 2020). In accordance to the recent calls for social work researchers to make concerted efforts to include community members in research through community-based participatory research methods (Filler et al., 2021; Salazar et al., 2015), social work practitioners should be called upon to include the voices of CBEOs throughout the planning, development, budgeting, implementation, and evaluation of targeted programs concerning immigrant and refugee populations. Finally, as a crucial element of human service system, social work researchers could explore CBEO dynamics as a fertile field of social work inquiry and mitigate the current research gaps in CBEO research and leadership.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations. Findings should be interpreted with caution beyond the Midwest region, given the smaller sample size. Moreover, the CBEO leaders included in this study were heading formally established, tax-exempt organizations. As such, the study potentially misses important leaders who run more informal organizations and the prospective this could bring around legitimacy of CBEOs. This study represented seven different immigrant and refugee communities, and though the communities being served by both immigrants and refugees within the study were comparable, future research should look at the differences among these groups. Additionally, exploring gender differences on CBEO leadership was out of the scope of the study. Future research should explore the impact of gender and immigration status intersections on CBEO leadership. While all the interviews were conducted in English, as all participants had high levels of English proficiency, we should note that English was still their second language, which might have created potential limitations to verbalize their views in the most culturally and vernacularly appropriate ways. Finally, differences in displacement experiences, length of stay in the United States, and the age of their affiliated CBEO should be considered cautiously.

Conclusion

Based on the narratives of CBEO leaders, our study highlighted the imperative role of CBEOs in the successful integration of immigrant and refugee populations in the U.S. Our study findings expand the human services literature, particularly as it relates to grassroots community-based and migrant-run organizations. The larger human services environment constantly interacts with the social, cultural, economic, and political environment – crucial conditions under which CBEOs operate. The broader social, political, and economic systems also shape behaviors and constrain access to resources necessary to maintain an organization’s well-being, which can deprive CBEOs of legitimacy and survival. Our findings reaffirm the abilities of CBEOs to work across populations, issues, and geographic locales. We call on the broader human services field to recognize the meaningful role of CBEOs, which will not only help strengthen human services but also foster an inclusive and equitable human services sector.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.