A systematic review of social service programs serving refugees

Year Published:

Abstract

Purpose: The global forced migration crisis calls for responsive, research-supported social services. This systematic review examines available research on social service programs implemented with refugees worldwide. Methods: Through accessing academic databases, reviewing article reference lists and websites, and contacting experts, we identified 1,402 sources, 68 of which met review inclusion criteria and were selected for analysis. Results: Studies were conducted primarily in high-income countries (n = 57). Programs examined were related to general adaptation (n = 13), relationships (n = 20), financial and employment support (n = 15), or a specific area such as sport or gardening (n = 20). Few studies used pre–post (n = 6) or experimental designs (n = 1), and in a majority of studies, the theory underlying the intervention was not specified (n = 41). Discussion: Additional research is needed to better understand social service programming with refugees, particularly in understudied contexts.

Citation

Relevant Evidence Summaries

The evidence was reviewed and included in the following summaries: 

What are the impacts of case management on refugees?

While rigorous evidence is limited, the literature suggests that case management is associated with numerous positive outcomes. The body of evidence is largely suggestive in rigor and yields generally positive outcomes, although some studies show mixed results. The one available impact study yields positive results. The available studies have examined diverse outcomes such as self-sufficiency, […]

About this study

AGE: Multiple Age Groups

DIRECTION OF EVIDENCE: Inconclusive or mixed impact

FULL TEXT AVAILABILITY: Free

GENDER: All

HOST COUNTRY: Multiple countries

HOST COUNTRY INCOME: Both

INTERVENTION DURATION: Various

INTERVENTION: Refugee social services

OUTCOME AREA: Multiple Outcome Areas

POPULATION: Refugees

REGION OF ORIGIN OF PARTICIPANT(S): Multiple Regions

STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE: Strong

TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review

YEAR PUBLISHED: 2019

More STUDIES