Keywords

1 Introduction

Given the current reality of the mass displacement of people across borders, social work practice cannot remain local and one-dimensional (Heilman & Roßkopf, 2021). While responses to needs of displaced persons are always developed within the boundaries of local social, economic, political, and legal contexts, they are also situated within and impacted by global and international spaces. Stakeholder responses to humanitarian emergencies and decisions to host and resettle displaced populations are global in nature. When the root causes of displacement in one nation-state are explored more deeply, it often becomes evident that intersecting external and global factors impact local conditions that lead to displacement. Examples of these factors include systems created and sustained by colonial powers, such as the unjust distribution, theft, and illegal ownership of local land and resources, weak institutions of government, racist or regionalist policies that discriminate against specific population groups, and neoliberal and neocolonial resource-extractive practices that have left individual states unable to compete in the global economy, among many others (Palattiyil et al., 2021; Zetter, 2015). Climate-related displacement is another example: while highly industrialized countries of the Global North have disproportionately contributed to the changing climate, the majority of the burden of climate change and resulting environmental crises unjustly falls on the countries of the Global South (Bourgois, 2021). A combination of aforementioned local and global intersecting factors may result in people’s inability to rely on existing institutions and systems of support, which can lead to a loss of livelihoods, decreased food supply, and water shortages. These losses can result in increased poverty, hunger, violence, and other insecurities that drive forced migration (Zetter, 2015).

Social workers practicing on macro-, mezzo-, and microlevels are essential in the prevention of and the immediate and long-term response to the vulnerabilities created by these instabilities. While many social workers are already practicing within these systems, there is a need to prepare them through an integrative approach to not only take part in but challenge the existing outdated and oppressive systems of response to displacement. Current international documents and agreements that govern the systems of global migration management reflect colonial power structures and interests, affording the privilege of full protection and refugee status to few groups. The 1951 Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees initially only provided support to European refugees. While the subsequent attempt to fix this gap through the addition of the 1967 Protocol included access to protection for non-Europeans, the Eurocentric limitations still impact millions of people’s access to safety, protection, and the right to a dignified and sustainable life. Sidhu and Rossi-Stackey (2020) claim that imperfect systems of protection for displaced populations are directly related to the “persistence of colonial thought in international jurisprudence, and [remains active] in part because of a lack of political will” (p. 6). Additionally, the protection offered to displaced populations excludes many groups of migrants who travel through irregular channels, such as stranded migrants, labor or economic migrants, undocumented migrants, environmental migrants, and others forced to flee their homes (Zetter, 2015). Economic and environmental migrants, the largest group of migrants who should be able to rightfully claim protection, are currently not covered by any international protection instruments (Palattiyil et al., 2021). Zetter (2015) suggests the use of “forced migrants” as a more inclusive term capturing their need for protection and recognition in the national and global discourse. The term provides a clearer description of the broad population of people who are formally ineligible to claim conventional refugee status but have been affected by similar circumstances that drive them from their countries of origin.

2 Critical Examination of Social Work Practice Within the Field of Forced Migration

The examination of social work practice within the field of forced migration calls for a critical discussion that names and interrogates tensions among origins of the field of social work, ways in which the field upholds and maintains western power structures, and its present-day commitment to social justice and human rights. A critical lens must be applied to all levels of social work and general practice within the humanitarian response. Social workers in this field, as well as those who are seeking protection, are confronted with many borders, both in physical and conceptual forms, that are shaped by global and national legal frameworks and bureaucratic structures, decisions that are made based on geopolitical interests, and barriers created by nationalist, racist, regionalist, and religious systems that are structural in character (Gebhardt, 2021; Heilmann & Roßkopf, 2021; Palattiyil et al., 2021). Gebhardt (2021) argues that global migration regimes, which also include humanitarian pathways for displaced persons, are a reproduction of “colonial power structures […in] which social workers are often complicit institutionally” (p. 235). Heilmann and Roßkopf (2021) challenge practitioners to consider why social work, with its focus on advancing human rights and social justice, does not question the limiting legal and political definitions, as well as the national politics of immigration and control, and instead accepts their impact on social work practice and clients. They further consider how definitions of refugee, asylum seeker, and migrant, which inherently create an “othering” framework (them vs. us) and differentiate between noncitizens and citizens, create segregated spaces of practice. By accepting these terms and framing practice within the set frameworks, social work practice in turn also contributes to the system of “othering,” even if only responding to existing needs with well intentions. Moreover, social work practice in humanitarian settings does not allow for the realization of the social justice, strength-based, empowerment, and human rights-based purpose of social work, since “humanitarianism – understood as a western concept of an asymmetric relation between ‘the west’ and its ‘Other’ – is always confronted with a ‘white’ savior complex in which ‘the Other’ is victimized, and therefore, rendered passive and helpless” (Gebhardt, 2021, p. 241).

The oppressive systems that marginalize and make vulnerable entire populations create an increased need for social work intervention and support on micro-, mezzo-, and macrolevels. Still, however, such a response often hinders rather than promotes progress on social justice. The maintaining of the status quo, in which displaced communities are at the receiving end of decisions about their lives, is in the interest of those who hold and are not willing to share power. Leaving such systems unchallenged and working within existing frameworks co-opts the leadership in affected communities, including service providers, to “keep the system functioning – and to suppress potential opposition from community members – no matter how illogical, exploitative, and unjust the system is” (Kivel, 2017, p. 139) through funding of the nonprofit industrial complex (Morgan-Montoya, 2020). An example of co-opting is shared by Williams and Graham (2014), who argue that social workers are too focused on addressing immediate needs of displaced communities and implementing immigration policies, rather than disrupting current global power structures that marginalize these communities. If the social work profession is to live up to its guiding principle of promoting social justice, the profession should strive to render itself obsolete; that is, in a perfectly equitable, just, and empowered society, there should be no need for services provided by social workers. However, in our current reality, “powerful governmental decisions or global political discourses, restrictive cross-border asylum regulations, [and] violations of human right,” among other factors, continue to shape experiences of forcibly displaced populations and reduce the effectiveness of social work services (Heilmann & Roßkopf, 2021, p. 22).

3 Key Issues in Social Work Practice with Forced Migrants

Williams and Graham (2014) summarize and categorize key issues in a social work approach to working with migrant communities as interrelated processes of “decontextualization, disaggregation, culturalization, and ambivalent assimilation” (p. i7). Decontextualization speaks to the phenomenon of responding to migrant communities’ needs within the context of national realities, decoupled from broader cross-national considerations of movement that shape migrants’ lives and agency. Similarly, disaggregation, or the categorization of migrants as asylum seekers, refugees, undocumented persons, unaccompanied minors, etc., creates a differential approach to working with each group, offering rights and services based on which group is most “deserving” (Sidhu & Rossi-Stackey, 2020; Gebhardt, 2021), and obfuscating the urgency, interconnectedness, and complexity of migrants’ experiences (Williams & Graham, 2014). The disaggregation of forced migrants into disparate groups, often defined by each group’s own individual needs (e.g., legal status), undermines any potential for political solidarity among migrant communities or collective challenging of imperial powers. Nation-states’ emphasis on the need for migrants’ culturalization, rather than their rights in discourse and practice, contributes to the justification of spatial segregation, xenophobia, and racism by emphasizing migrants’ “otherness” instead of encouraging the integration of migrant and indigenous cultures. Ambivalent assimilation occurs when the integration of migrants into their new community is partial, based on the assumption of differences between us and them (e.g., “they have a different culture than mine”), which further perpetuates interpersonal and structural marginalization of migrant communities. When social work practice with displaced people is guided by any of the aforementioned processes, the field of social work stands in opposition to its own stated ethical and professional values and commitments to anti-oppressive practice (Williams & Graham, 2014).

4 Future Directions for the Social Work Profession: Increasing Self-Awareness and Furthering Practice Models

Social work education should aim to equip future practitioners with skills necessary to identify and challenge issues of power, privilege, racism, nationalism, sexism, and other oppressive ideologies and structures. As Chap. 14 of this book discusses, this process begins with self-awareness and education. This practice should not solely be the responsibility of individual social workers but rather should be a regular exercise of the profession at large. Institutions and systems within the field of social work and social welfare should constantly examine their roles and positionality in the effort to decolonize the field of migration management and humanitarian response (Gebhardt, 2021).

While Williams and Graham’s (2014) argument that the focus of social work practice needs to shift from basic service provision to social justice is salient, it is important to acknowledge that it is impossible to address higher-level needs of displaced communities without ensuring that their basic needs are met first. Thus, the social work profession should work in two parallel systems: (1) addressing immediate needs of displaced communities through a personal social service model, which extends a range of basic services to “restore or enhance [people’s] capacity for social functioning” (Estes, 2010, p. 14), and (2) expanding the “global social transformation” (Estes, 2010, p. 15) model of practice that challenges fundamental inequalities by confronting their root causes. Other models of social work practice, such as the social welfare model, which centers social justice and aims to provide all members of a society with social security, and the social development model, which originates in community organizing and development practice and promotes people’s participation (Estes, 2010; Borrmann, 2021), should be emphasized as methods to achieve social transformations. This approach will apply a rights-based, rather than a more limiting needs based, framework to practice with displaced communities.

5 Skills and Knowledge Required for Future Social Workers

The International Association of Schools of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Workers recently updated the global standards for social work education (IASSW & IFSW, 2020), emphasizing an educational program that prepares practitioners with a critical understanding of socio-economic, political, and environmental injustice, discrimination, and oppression impacts on human development. The standards require incorporation of indigenous knowledge, as well as the knowledge of the traditions, culture, and beliefs that are important components of effective practice. Additionally, the training of social workers should critically examine the historical injustices affecting communities and the role of social workers in addressing these inequities through interprofessional collaboration and teamwork. The global education standards for social work schools promote curricula that incorporate knowledge of social welfare policies (or lack thereof); services and laws operating at local, national, and international levels; and social workers’ roles in policy planning, implementation, evaluation, and social change processes. The goal of training social workers to contribute to the promotion of sustainable peace and justice in communities affected by political and ethnic conflict and violence through the application of human rights principles is especially important for practitioners in humanitarian emergency and resettlement fields. Social work practitioners should also engage diverse actors, such as practitioners, universities, and local governments, affected and host communities, and local and global agencies providing support on the ground, in this work to facilitate global solidarity, democracy, and greater possibility for lasting peace (Ahmadi, 2003).

With human rights, social justice, anti-oppressive, and empowerment approaches guiding the profession, social workers are well positioned to lead various levels and fields of practice supporting forcibly displaced people. While prevention of displacement should be prioritized, the application of an integrative and rights-based approach, through social workers’ participation in global and local advocacy, awareness-raising efforts, and support for displaced people at every stage of their journey, is also critical and necessary.

Video 21.1 provides supplementary discussion of key skills and knowledge of social workers practicing in the context of forced migration.

6 Summary

Integrative Social Work Practice with Refugees, Asylum Seekers, and Other Displaced Persons aims to provide a holistic approach to preparing social workers and other practitioners entering the field of practice with forcibly displaced people by pooling the experience of working with displaced persons across geographies, cultures, and socio-economic and political realities of practice. The book provides a structure for integration of knowledge and skills required to practice micro-, mezzo-, and macrosocial work with displaced people. This is achieved by teaching necessary contextual and skills-based knowledge, emphasizing the necessity of understanding global histories of, and responses to, displacement, current trends and legal frameworks that guide national and international crisis response, coordination of humanitarian effort, and more. While practices within the field of humanitarian response and social work should be viewed through a critical lens, information on various contexts of response, service provision, and durable solutions for displaced persons are explored throughout this text. The book also focuses on the clinical knowledge and skills that social workers and other practitioners should integrate into their practice to become effective and trauma-informed practitioners supporting displaced persons, highlighting the roles of human rights- and social justice-based approaches. Readers are encouraged to consider how the practice of clinical social work, largely unique to and developed within the Global North, may or may not shift in more diverse contexts of practice and regions of the world. While this book focuses on the application of knowledge to the practice of social work, it is very relevant and useful for a variety of professionals within the field of humanitarian response and resettlement.