Stepping-up social work services among families displaced by war

Introduction

According to latest global data, there were 55 million people living in internal displacement by the end of 2020. Most of these internally displaced people or IDPs (85%) were uprooted from their communities because of conflict or violence (the others because of disasters). These numbers are rising, from just 22.4 million in 2011 to 48 million IDPs in 2020. Though conflict-induced displacement occurs in parts of Latin America and Asia, Africa has the highest contribution to these numbers (Global Report on Internal Displacement [GRID], 2021). The appropriate and integral response to internal displacement has been outlined in the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement published in 1998. Governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) around the world use these guiding principles in effectively defining their roles in cases of internal displacement, which are descriptive of their obligation to protect IDPs and provide humanitarian assistance to them. Many countries have since then crafted laws and policies that reflected the ideals of the document (Wyndham, 2011).

Efforts that materialize the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement should be promoted considering the magnitude and complexity of the humanitarian crisis brought by internal displacement as the devastation of war leaves enormous consequences on people’s lives and communities. In some instances, people affected by war can become jobless for a long time, unusually hungry, and homeless over a sustained period. No words might ever suffice to describe the unspeakable misery of families under these circumstances. Forced to flee their communities, people’s narratives are contours of experiences that are psychologically challenging to say the least. While mental health issues are found among poor families, what is immediately distinct to families affected by conflict is their homelessness at the onset. The loss of physical dwelling seems to be the first and foremost visible impact of war among IDPs. At this instance, IDPs flee from their traditional communities and seek safer grounds. Government agencies and NGOs (both local and international) as first responders construct temporary settlements like makeshift tents in vacant lots, covered courts, and even unused buildings. These spaces become the evacuation camps so to speak. The ugly truth about these places is that while they can be places of momentary comfort at the onset of displacement, they are not ideal for decent human accommodation, even at a minimum. Water and electricity services are significantly problematic, if not lacking. The quality of ‘shelter’, if it can be called one, is extremely subpar, where privacy, among others, is a key issue. Deep concerns on sanitation, cleanliness, and outbreak of disease are also hallmarks of camp settings.

These characteristics discourage IDPs to seek refuge in camp spaces leading them to explore other options. Some pay for private accommodation, while others opt to stay with their friends and relatives (Alobo and Obaji, 2016). IDPs prefer to stay with a host family who is a close friend, family member, or distant relative for sense of familiarity and security. This is not surprising considering that choosing these familiar people with whom they stay is also to save themselves from feelings of shame and embarrassment in seeking help from strangers. While, on some occasions, cultural values and hospitality oblige people to accommodate IDPs (Brun, 2010), other host families, however, are motivated to open their doors due to empathy and feelings of ‘one-of-us’ as they almost became victims of similar event (Jacobs and Paviotti, 2017). Host families therefore become such through informal arrangement with the IDPs. Since many of these host families are also poor, international organizations and NGOs recognize the burden and provide assistance to them as well, such as shelter materials, food items, and even cash for utility bills.

Difficulties in the hosting environment

There is nothing more obvious than being dependent on host families though. Being homeless and jobless, hosted IDPs heavily rely on their host families. Their reliance is a coping strategy to survive on an almost daily basis. This is not easy for either the host or the hosted. The fact that (some) host families are also in a dire situation themselves seems to make the entire household suffer the same consequences of conflict-driven poverty. The increase of the household members also means the increase in the numbers of mouths to feed. The sharing of resources and spaces increasingly becomes a source of friction between the IDPs and their relatives, especially if the former cannot reciprocate materially. As the accommodation lasts longer, host families’ frustration grows. We can only surmise, albeit justifiably, that these feelings are perhaps rooted in the fact that the hosted is seen as a burden to the household. The hosted families are perhaps ‘dying of shame’ but could not do anything avoid the situation.

Violation of boundaries and privacy, depleting resources, as well as unruly IDP children are just some of the pressing issues for the host family (Caron, 2019) which can negatively influence the quality of interactions within the household. The hosting environment turns into a strained space of hospitality so to speak. Thus, it is no surprise that host families experience burnout as a result of the arrangement. While it is true that host families took the initiative to offer help, it is inherent in our system to expect reciprocity (Schaufeli, 2006). Failure to reciprocate can result in resentment and a decline in compassion for the hosted families. More so, the depleted spirit after prolonged helping can diminish the helpers’ ability to regulate their proper behavior (Lanaj et al., 2016). Inimical behaviors toward IDP families are expressed in a passive-aggressive or outright aggressive manner. For example, indirect communication patterns which aim to ‘discipline’ the hosted may reinforce confusion and misunderstanding. The desire to feel safe and secure in the hosting environment hence can become a feeling of insecurity and threats.

Potential social work intervention in hosting arrangements

These tensions in the host households are not helping build a healthy social context for the hosted IDPs and may further worsen their vulnerabilities. Harmony or peace, therefore, at the micro-level must be achieved in these host households. According to Berlowitz (1994), this making of micro-level peace may be attained by harnessing people’s attitudes, dispositions, and civil interpersonal communication in ways that promote amity. To achieve these, however, may need an outsider’s intervention and this can be the role of government workers, specifically those in social welfare agencies on the ground. Social workers are in the exact position to assist under these circumstances by legal duty; they need to be at the forefront of ensuring the welfare or well-being of people affected by war. Social workers may initially work on orienting parties to the hosting arrangement to have a clear understanding of what is ahead of them at the onset. To avoid miscommunication and misunderstanding, it is beneficial for both parties to know upfront the rules and conditions of staying and have them stipulated (which may also come in a written form to strengthen compliance). This may not be the norm in home-based accommodation, yet, however, doing such can encourage reciprocity in the relationship, a condition which helps avert potentially damaging blows in the relationship between the host and the hosted families. Moreover, providing them with some sort of orientation or psychoeducation can also facilitate preparedness for the entire course of hosting. Through the help of social workers, both families can be helped in managing their expectations and equipped with appropriate relational, problem-solving, and stress management skills to maneuver the complications of the hosting relationship. These measures may help sustain a positive, safe, and healthy hosting environment as such efforts can lead to mutual understanding and trust.

Ensuring that the hosting environment is habitable for everyone is crucial to the quality of the accommodation experience. Otherwise, it not only amplifies the vulnerabilities of the hosted, but it also undermines the potential durable solution that local integration offers. It is in this understanding that household harmony in these arrangements should be part of the desire among government agencies and humanitarian groups. If the goal is to help IDPs build back better or find long-term solutions, then social work practices must explore opportunities to assist beyond the usual dole-outs of tents, food, and cash among families displaced by war. In the case of IDPs being sheltered by their relatives, helping the host and the hosted maintain and sustain the peace of living together is a step toward a durable, enduring solution for the IDPs’ problem of homelessness, among others. Hence, to further concretize the desires for IDP protection, it is not only important to provide material assistance among hosted IDP families, but it is also essential to employ social work programs designed to mitigate potential tensions in the hosting environment like psycho-educational briefings to be attended by both the host and the hosted especially at the beginning of hosting.

This shapes the point where we understand that ‘little’ steps to durable solutions are already an extremely positive development for IDPs. A tension-filled hosting environment may pose serious mental health challenges, generate uncivil interactions, and may create occasions for verbal and physical violence. All these can drive hosted IDPs to look for alternative space. Hence, the unfriendly situations may potentially put the hosted on the path of displacement after displacement. The implication of such to the aspiration for a durable solution is fatal as being on-the-run does not promote stability. For IDPs (or anyone) who appreciate or see local integration as their most sensible durable solution, a degree of permanency is vital. Leaving the host family, willingly or unwillingly, may disrupt IDP children’s schooling or may dissolve the already established social capital which could have been a significant source of opportunities. The instability is counterproductive to efforts that aim to build a new life and to experience progress. These potential interventions re-affirm our understanding of the critical role of social work practices in the broader context of finding the durable solution for the IDPs. By engaging the host and the hosted in a dialogue prior to or at the beginning of the hosting, social welfare agents are placed to provide optimal assistance for IDPs to build back better. The author drew these insights from empirical research on the lives of IDPs in the southern Philippines.