Refugee-led organizations’ crisis response during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Scholarship on disaster response and recovery has focused on local communities as crucial in developing and implementing timely, effective, and sustainable supports. Drawing from interviews with refugee leaders conducted during the spring and summer of 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this study examines crisis response activities of refugee-led grassroots groups, specifically within Bhutanese and Congolese refugee communities in a midwestern metropolitan area in the US resettlement context. Empirical findings illustrate how refugee-led groups provided case management, outreach, programming, and advocacy efforts to respond to the pandemic. These findings align with literature about community-based and strengths-based approaches to addressing challenges stemming from the pandemic. They also point to local embeddedness and flexibility as organizational characteristics that may have helped facilitate crisis response, thereby warranting reconsideration and re-envisioning of the role of refugee-led grassroots groups in crisis response. (English)

Citation

Relevant Evidence Summaries

The evidence was reviewed and included in the following summaries: 

What are the best strategies for emergency preparedness and emergency information dissemination among resettled refugees?

The evidence in this area is suggestive. Within these suggestive studies, there is broad consensus on four key points related to emergency preparedness and emergency information dissemination among resettled refugees: Pre-existing partnerships among refugee communities, community-based organizations (CBOs), and local emergency planners are vital. People who serve as social bridges between refugee communities and governmental […]

About this study

AGE: Adults

DIRECTION OF EVIDENCE: No evidence about impact

FULL TEXT AVAILABILITY: Free

GENDER: All

HOST COUNTRY: United States

HOST COUNTRY INCOME: High

INTERVENTION: NONE

REGION OF ORIGIN OF PARTICIPANT(S): Multiple Regions

STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: No evidence about impact

TYPE OF STUDY: Suggestive evidence

More STUDIES