Social Work Practice with War Affected Children The
Importance of Family, Art, Culture, and Context - 1st Edition
Visit the link below to download the full version of this book:
https://medipdf.com/product/social-work-practice-with-war-affected-children-the-
importance-of-family-art-culture-and-context-1st-edition/
Click Download Now
Contents
Citation Information
Notes on Contributors
Introduction: Social work practice with war-affected children and
families: the importance of family, culture, arts, and participatory
approaches
Myriam Denov and Meaghan C. Shevell
1 Intergenerational resilience in families affected by war, displacement,
and migration: “It runs in the family”
Myriam Denov, Maya Fennig, Marjorie Aude Rabiau, and Meaghan C.
Shevell
2 Rethinking the meaning of “family” for war-affected young people:
implications for social work education
Natasha Blanchet-Cohen, Myriam Denov, Alusine Bah, Léontine
Uwababyeyi, and Jean Kagame
3 Beginning at the beginning in social work education: a case for
incorporating arts-based approaches to working with war-affected
children and their families
Claudia Mitchell, Warren Linds, Myriam Denov, Miranda D’Amico, and
Brenda Cleary
4 Culture, migration, and identity formation in adolescent refugees: a
family perspective
Marjorie Aude Rabiau
5 The essential role of the father: fostering a father-inclusive practice
approach with immigrant and refugee families
Sharon Bond
Index
Citation Information
The chapters in this book were originally published in the Journal of
Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019). When citing this
material, please use the original page numbering for each article, as follows:
Introduction
Social work practice with war-affected children and families: the
importance of family, culture, arts, and participatory approaches
Myriam Denov and Meaghan C. Shevell
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp. 1–
16
Chapter 1
Intergenerational resilience in families affected by war, displacement,
and migration: “It runs in the family”
Myriam Denov, Maya Fennig, Marjorie Aude Rabiau, and Meaghan C.
Shevell
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp.
17–45
Chapter 2
Rethinking the meaning of “family” for war-affected young people:
implications for social work education
Natasha Blanchet-Cohen, Myriam Denov, Alusine Bah, Leontine
Uwababyeyi, and Jean Kagame
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp.
46–62
Chapter 3
Beginning at the beginning in social work education: a case for
incorporating arts-based approaches to working with war-affected
children and their families
Claudia Mitchell, Warren Linds, Myriam Denov, Miranda D’Amico, and
Brenda Cleary
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp.
63–82
Chapter 4
Culture, migration, and identity formation in adolescent refugees: a
family perspective
Marjorie Aude Rabiau
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp.
83–100
Chapter 5
The essential role of the father: fostering a father-inclusive practice
approach with immigrant and refugee families
Sharon Bond
Journal of Family Social Work, volume 22, issue 1 (January 2019) pp.
101–123
For any permission-related enquiries please visit:
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/help/permissions
Notes on Contributors
Alusine Bah is a student studying in Social Work at McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
Natasha Blanchet-Cohen is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Applied Human Sciences at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Sharon Bond is an Associate Professor in the McGill School of Social
Work at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Brenda Cleary is completing her master’s degree at Ingram School of
Nursing at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Miranda D’Amico is a Professor in the Department of Education at
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Myriam Denov is a Full Professor of Social Work at McGill University,
Montreal, Canada, and holds the Canada Research Chair in Youth,
Gender and Armed Conflict.
Maya Fennig is a PhD Student in the School of Social Work at McGill
University, Montreal, Canada.
Jean Kagame is a Student studying Social Work at McGill University,
Montreal, Canada.
Warren Linds is an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied
Human Sciences at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.
Claudia Mitchell is a James McGill Professor in the Department of
Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Marjorie Aude Rabiau is an Assistant Professor in the School of Social
Work at McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Meaghan C. Shevell holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and
Psychology from McGill University, Montreal, Canada, and a Master of
Arts in Human Rights Studies from Columbia University, New York City,
USA.
Léontine Uwababyeyi is a recent graduate of the School of Social Work at
McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
INTRODUCTION
Social work practice with war-affected
children and families: the importance of
family, culture, arts, and participatory
approaches
Myriam Denov and Meaghan C. Shevell
ABSTRACT
War and armed conflict not only gravely impact individual
children, but the entire family system, with the impacts of war
further compounded by the complexities of displacement, flight,
migration, and resettlement to new contexts. These processes can
cause destabilizing ruptures in the social fabric, networks, and
services that support and protect children and families, ultimately
hindering their potential protective capacities and potentially
contributing to negative long-term intergenerational effects. The
family plays a vital role in shaping children‘s mental health and
well-being in conflict and post conflict settings, and thus the
family needs to be accorded greater consideration in designing
psychosocial support services for war-affected populations. With
growing numbers of war-affected refugees resettling in Canada
and the U.S., it is critical that psychosocial programs and
interventions address their unique needs, as individuals, families,
and communities. Moreover, there is a greater need for culturally
responsive practice with war-affected refugee children and
families that accounts for the diversity and heterogeneity of their
needs and lived experiences. In this Special Issue entitled:
“Children of War and their Families: Perspectives on Social
Work Practice & Education”, we suggest that factors such as
fostering a family approach, allotting careful attention to context
and culture, alongside an emphasis on linking the arts and
participation with social work practice, can be key social work
contributions to research, education, and practice with this
important and often overlooked population.
War and armed conflict form lasting impacts on children’s physical, social,
and psychological functioning and development and can lead to
destabilizing ruptures in the social fabric, networks, and services that
support well-being (Betancourt & Khan, 2008; UNICEF, 2009). These
breakdowns in curative and preventative processes particularly hinder the
protective capacities of the family, contributing to persisting
intergenerational effects (Denov, 2015; Devakumar, Birch, Osrin, Sondorp,
& Wells, 2014). Importantly, war itself is not the only challenge and
devastation. Displacement as a result of war, and its related consequences,
are significant. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR, 2017a) estimates that 65.6 million people are forcibly displaced
worldwide due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violations, which
represents a record high in recent decades. Although children make up 31%
of the global population, 51% of all forcibly displaced people are children
(UNHCR, 2017a; 2017b).
War and armed conflict are global phenomena yet are intimately linked to
North American children and families. Although wars may occur beyond
U.S. and Canadian borders, each year, thousands of children enter both
countries, fleeing from war zones (Betancourt et al., 2015; Stewart, 2011;
Zong & Batalova, 2015). The United States and Canada have historically
been global leaders in refugee resettlement.1 The United States has been a
significant refugee resettlement country, accepting more than three million
refugees since 1975 (UNHCR, 2018). An influx of children fleeing violence
seeking asylum in the United States has been evidenced at alarming rates,
compelling the establishment of an in-country refugee/parole processing
program for minors in 2015 to ensure their protected status (Dettlaff &
Fong, 2016). In September 2016, the United States admitted 84,995
refugees, with the highest numbers of admissions coming from the
Democratic Republic of Congo (16,370), followed by Syria (12,587), and
Myanmar (12,347) (Krogstad & Radford, 2017). However, these numbers
have been diminishing as a result of transformations currently underway in
U.S. refugee policy under the Trump administration, which have been
characterized by a rhetoric of rejection, exclusion, and restriction (Haines,
Howell, & Keles, 2017). This reduction is evidenced in UNHCR’s (2018)
US Refugee Resettlement Facts which reports a substantial decrease since
the preceding year, with numbers down to 53,716 refugees resettled to the
United States in the 2017 fiscal year. Several authors (Cox, 2017; Goodkind
& Hess, 2017; Hurley, 2017; Thomson, 2017) note that the Trump
administration’s “travel ban” executive orders have exacerbated existing
barriers in seeking refuge in the United States, resulting in excessive
deportation and detention, and effectively derailing resettlement efforts. In
an extreme measure to try and track illegal immigration in the U.S., the
Trump administration recently enacted a policy that effectively separated
more than 1,600 migrant children from their parents to be housed in “cage-
like detention centers” (The Guardian, 2018). Here, families are forcibly
separated for months, without any mechanism or infrastructure in place to
locate or reconnect the family.
Canada receives between 25,000 and 35,000 refugees every year. This
represents about 10% to 12% of the roughly 250,000 permanent residents
that settle in Canada annually (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2009).
In 2016, UNHCR lauded Canada’s resettlement of 46,700 refugees, a record
high in refugees admitted since the implementation of the 1976
Immigration Act (UNHCR, 2017b). This represents a 133% increase
compared to the previous year. Additionally, nearly one half (47%) of
refugees admitted to Canada in 2016 were children (Immigration, Refugees,
Citizenship Canada [IRCC], 2017). Currently, the Government of Canada
reports a total of 50,380 asylum claimants processed across the country in
2017. Based on recent figures reported by the IRCC, as of January 29,
2017, Canada has resettled a total of 40,081 Syrian refugees (IRCC, 2017).
This is due in part to Canada’s humanitarian transfer of Syrian refugees
with UNHCR’s support, as part of the Canadian government’s explicit
commitment to resettle refugees with a “renewed focus on reuniting
families” (IRCC, 2017). The government has also emphasized the
importance of combined efforts with civil society and service providers to
support refugees’ resettlement and integration (UNHCR, 2017b).
With growing numbers of asylum claimants and their families receiving
permanent residency and becoming interwoven in the North American
social fabric, it is critical that psychosocial programs and interventions
address their needs, as individuals, families, and communities. Moreover,
there is a greater need for culturally responsive practice with war-affected
refugee children and families that accounts for the diversity and
heterogeneity of their needs and experiences.
A significant body of literature has focused on war-affected populations,
highlighting the unique experiences of children and youth (Kingsley, 2017;
Machel, 1996, 2001; Macosko, 2000; UNICEF, 2009), as well as the
obstacles and challenges war-affected refugees must endure as a result of
forced migration (Wilson, Murtaza, & Shakya, 2010). The impacts of war
are often compounded by added stressors experienced in the displacement,
relocation, migration, and resettlement process—whether in the home
country prior to departure, in transit, upon arrival, as well as during the
extended resettlement process (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008; Fazel, Reed,
Panter-Brick, & Stein, 2012).
Refugee children and families are at substantially higher risk than the
general population for a variety of specific psychiatric disorders related to
their exposure to war, violence, torture, and forced migration (Kirmayer et
al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2010). Moreover, children who are separated from
their families pre- or postmigration are said to be at increased risk of
psychological and social challenges (Bean, Derluyn, Eurelings-Bontekoe,
Broekaert, & Spinhoven, 2007; Hodes, Jagdev, Chandra, & Cunniff, 2008).
Forced migration experiences are often characterized by disruption, loss,
and rebuilding key social networks and thus risk lacking sufficient social
support (Liamputtong & Kurban, 2018; Oppedal & Idsoe, 2015; Reed,
Fazel, Jones, Panter-Brick, & Stein, 2012). For refugee children, war-
related mental health distress may occur alongside poverty, discrimination,
isolation, and school difficulties (Denov & Bryan, 2014; Ellis et al., 2008).
Importantly, research has consistently shown that the mental health impact
of armed conflict is compounded or alleviated by contexts of migration and
resettlement, with postmigration stressors found to be as powerful a
predictor of distress as the exposure to war itself (Miller & Rasmussen,
2017). In this sense, the mental health of refugees is powerfully influenced
by war-related violence and loss combined with the conditions they
encounter en route to and within their host countries.
Although research on war-affected populations, particularly children, has
traditionally focused on risks and vulnerabilities—oftentimes at the cost of
pathologizing children—there has been a progressive shift toward efforts to
better understand what promotes resilience despite profound forms of war
and migration-related adversity (Betancourt & Khan, 2008; Fernando &
Ferrari, 2013; Kostelny & Wessells, 2013; Werner, 2012). Within this
burgeoning literature, children are accorded more agency in contributing to
their own development and well-being, situating children’s voices at the
center of analysis and understanding. In this way, children are viewed as
“reflexive subjects” who actively negotiate and make meaning of the social
spaces and relations around them (Chaudhry, 2017). Approaches that focus
on resilience can offer key insight on meaningful areas for strategic
intervention by bolstering protective processes identified within the child’s
social ecology (Betancourt & Khan, 2008; Shakya et al., 2014; Williams &
Drury, 2011). However, it is important to note that caution needs to be taken
in the attention scholars and practitioners accord to resilience. As Denov
and Akesson (2017) note, just as there may be a danger to overemphasizing
traumatic experiences and vulnerability of war-affected children,
researchers and practitioners may risk overemphasizing resilience in
children, assuming that all will or have the capacity to bounce back. As
such, recognizing the dynamic interplay of capacity and adversity, trauma,
and resilience—within unique sociocultural contexts are thus essential.
It is also vital to recognize that war and migration do not simply affect
individual children, but the entire family system. Families are often
displaced from their homes and separated from one another, and the
associated emotional stress may impair the ability of adults to provide care
and nurturance to young children (Betancourt et al., 2015). Here, it is
important to acknowledge the fluid nature of “the family,” in determining
family construction or who constitutes “family members,” and the
meanings attached. For example, consideration of “the family” is not
exclusive to blood/kinship or marital relations. This is particularly relevant
to the realities of war-affected populations where family composition and
structure may shift profoundly as a result of war. Keeping in mind such
broad and expansive meanings of family, war affects children and their
families in numerous ways, including a disruption to various traditional
family systems of support, challenging psychosocial well-being and
capacities to heal and cope (Boothby, 2008). Family history and disruptions
to the family unit are significant factors in consideration of young refugees’
mental health outcomes (Fazel et al., 2012). The mental health of parents
remains intimately connected to children and vice versa. Family support
and cohesion are related to better mental health for young refugees
(Kovacev & Shute, 2004; Rousseau, Drapeau, & Platt, 2004), as is parental
mental health (Hjern, Angel, & Jeppson, 1998). Annan, Blattman, and
Horton (2006) underscored the integral role of the family in the healing and
well-being of war-affected youth, with those with high levels of family
connectedness and support found to have better social functioning and
lower levels of distress.
Mental health issues, affecting a family’s ability to function, can persist
long after the conflict has ended. Family stressors such as low
socioeconomic background, precariousness of status, limited employment
opportunities, and lack of official language ability have all been linked to
higher rates of child mental health problems and long-term developmental
problems (Fazel et al., 2012), as well as lower educational outcomes.
Betancourt et al. (2015) argued that given the vital role that family plays in
shaping children’s mental health in postconflict settings, policy makers and
service providers must understand and take into consideration not only the
war exposure histories and mental health of children and adolescents, but
also the mental health of their adult caregivers.
Approaches to social work practice with war-
affected children and families
Given its broad approach and careful consideration of context, social work
as a profession and discipline, has a great deal to offer to research and
practice with war-affected populations—within war and conflict settings, as
well as following forced migration and resettlement. And yet, aside from a
few articles (Baum, 2007; Bilotta & Denov, 2017; Bragin, Taaka, Adolphs,
Gray, & Eibs, 2015; Bragin et al., 2016; Fennig & Denov, 2018; Nelson,
Price, & Zubrzycki, 2017; Ramon, Campbell, Lindsay, McCrystal, &
Baidoun, 2006; Yan & Anucha, 2017), relatively little has been written on
social work practice with war-affected populations, particularly refugees.
We suggest that a family approach, as well as attention to context and
culture, alongside an emphasis on linking the arts with social work practice,
can be key social work contributions to research, education, and practice
with this important population. We address each of these below.
A family approach
Youth are nested in meaningful social spheres that interact to either
mobilize risk factors or bolster protective factors to reinforce resilience and
community stabilization (Boothby, 2008; Boothby, Strang, & Wessells,
2006; Wessells, 2002). To best support war-affected children, it is critical to
assess existing protective capacities and deficits in the systems that
surround them to form a “protective shield” to reduce the full impact of
socioecological shocks, such as those posed by war and war-induced
migration (Boothby, 2008). In this way, protective elements can be
specifically supported to promote protective environments that help to
mitigate risks confronting war-affected refugee youth and their families.
A family approach can be particularly helpful in identifying the various
risk and protective factors present in the multiple supportive layers, or
social ecologies, that surround children and youth. Bronfenbrenner’s (1986,
2009) classic socioecological model purports that children’s development is
shaped by dynamic reciprocal processes at multiple levels of the human
social ecology, such as within the family, community, and society. Several
authors have applied this model to the realities of refugees to gain a more
holistic understanding of refugee well-being. Miller and Rasco (2004)
highlight the significance of interactional relationships between
environmental demands and available adaptive resources on shaping
refugee healing and adaptation. McGregor, Melvin, and Newman (2016)
described the importance of family as a supportive factor, for emotional and
social support during the resettlement process. The presence of family
members can transform adversity into a source of strength, by aiding in the
rebuilding of a meaningful universe. This strength may help ensure the
psycho-social, cultural, and economic survival of the family and the larger
group. The family therefore can act as an anchor, for emotional security and
identity, in exile (Rousseau, Mekki-Berrada, & Moreau, 2001).
As noted above, it is also important to (re)consider the notion of family
itself. The enormous societal changes in our increasingly globalized world
require that social workers contend with the transformations of what
constitutes “family” in their practice and education. Indeed, conventional
conceptualizations of the nuclear family no longer reflect current family
realities (Woodford, 2006, p. 136). This is particularly important when
considering war-affected populations who may have lost their entire family,
may be separated from family, and may create new family structures in the
postwar and postmigration contexts—ones that are not simply based on
traditional bloodlines and kinship structures (Denov & Blanchet-Cohen,
2014).
The importance of culture and context
Traditional approaches to refugee psychosocial support have
overwhelmingly been dominated by Western perspectives, which center on
individualism and individualistic approaches to practice, intervention, and
treatment (Bilotta & Denov, 2017). The individualistic, sometimes
pathologizing, and biomedical emphasis of many intervention services in
the Global North may be highly ineffective (Di Tomasso, 2010), as they
may be experienced by clients as isolating, overemphasizing trauma and
adversity, and overlooking important cultural meanings and idioms of
trauma, distress, and recovery (Blanchet-Cohen, Denov, Fraser, & Bilotta,
2017). Privileging individual, trauma-focused Western interventions may
risk imposing ethnocentric assumptions and marginalizing indigenous
conceptualizations, which can result in harmful power asymmetries
between the “helpers” and the “helped” (Kostelny, 2006). Rather, it is
critical that a “therapeutic alliance” through collaboration be established to
discern clients’ contextualized understanding of wellness, illness, and
coping.
Western paradigms of intervention may neglect to unpack key concepts
such as “childhood,” “family,” and “well-being” to reveal the ways in
which they are socially constructed and culturally relative in their meaning
and implications. Culture describes a shared social system of knowledge,
beliefs, values, and assumptions continuously guiding and shaping our
behavior and our interrelations (Baldwin et al., 2006; Geertz, 1973;
Keesing, 1974; Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). Culture gives meaning to the
physical experience, acting as a prism through which we not only perceive,
but also make sense of the world around us. As such, culture plays a
prominent role in how individuals conceptualize and experience illness,
healing, and coping. In their review of the mental health and psychosocial
well-being of war-affected Syrians, Hassan et al. (2015) demonstrated that
services aimed to mitigate experiences of illness and promote psychosocial
well-being must be tailored to the particular culture and context of clientele
to have effective and sustainable impacts. In their work with war-affected
Syrians, careful consideration was given to individual expressions and
idioms (e.g., of distress, of “the self,” of well-being/health) specific to the
Syrian context; for example, this included more generally the
interconnectedness of somatic (body) and psychological (soul) symptoms,
the use of specific metaphors to explain and express suffering, and a
“sociocentric” and “cosmocentric” conceptualization of the self. Although
specific to Syrian cultural frameworks, much can be learned from their
consideration of local idioms of distress to recognize the many ways people
experience “illness.” Granting specific considerations to cultural systems of
knowledge and contextualized explanatory models of illness is essential in
social work, as they have critical implications for help-seeking behavior,
treatment expectations and concerns, and coping.
Although many scholars have highlighted the dangers of privileging
individual, trauma-focused approaches, particularly with war-affected
populations (Miller, Kulkarni, & Kushner, 2006; Miller & Rasco, 2004),
social work practice and education continue to over-rely on approaches
premised on these same assumptions (Fennig & Denov, 2018; Houston,
2014). These examples highlight the ways in which clinical assessments
must be grounded in cultural and social contexts; they must include an
