What works to build welcoming and inclusive communities?
Evidence Database | Advanced Evidence Search | Evidence Summaries
Evidence Summary
March 2021
Numerous interventions to build welcoming and inclusive communities are available, with varying degrees of evidence of effectiveness.
- Strong evidence supports the effectiveness of structured, facilitated contact-based interventions and bystander interventions in reducing ethnic prejudice and improving well-being of people targeted by racism. Suggestive evidence specific to foreign-born groups is consistent with these findings.
- Strong evidence supports the effectiveness of child and youth programs in reducing prejudice toward outgroups in general. However, suggestive evidence specific to foreign-born groups finds mixed results.
- Moderate and suggestive evidence indicates that message framing impacts attitudes toward refugees and immigrants.
- Suggestive evidence indicates that employer-based and law enforcement interventions may promote welcoming and inclusive communities for immigrants.
- Suggestive evidence further indicates that intentional community efforts promote welcoming and inclusion.
The evidence has clear implications for practice and research.
- Contact-based and bystander interventions appear most promising for building welcoming and inclusive communities.
- Child and youth interventions appear promising but require further evaluation.
- Messaging that draws on race-neutral shared values, such as fairness and prosperity for all, can create support for welcoming and inclusion.
- Employers, law enforcement, and other community actors should be engaged in welcoming and inclusion coalitions.
Studies included in the database focused on high-income or upper middle-income countries, including but not limited to the United States. Studies included must have been published since 2000. To identify evidence related to emergency preparedness among refugees, we searched the following websites and databases using the following population, methodology, and target intervention terms:
Websites and Databases | Population Terms | Methodology Terms | Target Problem Terms |
Campbell Collaboration |
refugee OR immigrant OR “unaccompanied minor” OR asylee OR “temporary protected status” OR “victims of traffick*” OR “traffick* victims” OR T-Visa OR U-Visa OR Cuban OR Haitian OR Amerasian |
evaluation OR impact OR program OR intervention OR policy OR project OR train* OR workshop OR review OR meta-analysis OR synthesis |
discrimination OR racis* OR prejudice OR anti-immigrant OR xenophobi* OR nativis* OR inclusi* OR welcoming OR multicultural OR divers* OR “shared community” |
For databases or websites that permitted only basic searches, free-text terms and limited term combinations were selected out of the lists above, and all resultant studies were reviewed for relevance. Conversely, for databases or websites with advanced search capability, we made use of relevant filters available. All search terms were searched in the title and abstract fields only in order to exclude studies that made only passing mention of the topic under consideration.
After initial screening, Switchboard evidence mapping is prioritized as follows: First priority is given to meta-analyses and systematic reviews, followed by individual impact evaluations when no meta-analyses or systematic reviews are available. Evaluations that are rated as impact evidence are considered before those rated as suggestive, with the latter only being included for outcomes where no evidence is available from the former.