This article was downloaded by: [University of Utah]

On: 05 April 2015, At: 17:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Social Service Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wssr20

Bridge Builders: A Qualitative Study Exploring

the Experiences of Former Refugees Working as
Caseworkers in the United States
Stacey A. Shaw
Published online: 08 May 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Stacey A. Shaw (2014) Bridge Builders: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Experiences of Former
Refugees Working as Caseworkers in the United States, Journal of Social Service Research, 40:3, 284-296, DOI:
10.1080/01488376.2014.901276

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2014.901276

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Journal of Social Service Research, 40:284–296, 2014
Copyright c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0148-8376 print / 1540-7314 online
DOI: 10.1080/01488376.2014.901276

Bridge Builders: A Qualitative Study Exploring

the Experiences of Former Refugees Working as
Caseworkers in the United States
Stacey A. Shaw

ABSTRACT. Individuals who come to the United States as refugees and work as resettlement case-
workers offer peer support, modeling, and assistance with integration to newly arriving refugees, despite
often having limited training or experience in social service provision. A phenomenological approach
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015

was utilized to gain understanding about the experiences of refugee caseworkers. Nine caseworkers
who came to the United States as refugees completed in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used
to identify primary themes, including: a) the caseworker’s bridge-building role with clients; b) their
role in building bridges with others in the community, including the resettlement agency; and c) the
caseworkers’ experience as bridge builders, including motivations, perspectives toward their role, and
needed supports. Refugee service providers face unique challenges in negotiating boundaries with
clients and meeting the expectations of their ethnolinguistic community members. Their strengths in
understanding household experiences and in building agency and community understanding highlight
their ability to contribute to positive resettlement outcomes. The findings from this study have impli-
cations for agencies serving refugees and for other social services that utilize peer-support strategies,
particularly in regards to staff training and support. Findings highlight the need for research examining
effective resettlement strategies and the perspectives of refugees toward resettlement approaches.

KEYWORDS. Refugee resettlement, casework, case management, peer support, migration

INTRODUCTION grounds of caseworkers who came to the United

I’m also [a] refugee, but not too different.
(Htay1)
Refugee resettlement caseworkers are key
providers of services to people who enter the
United States as refugees. Many of these service
providers are recently arrived refugees them-
selves, and they quickly take a position of lead-
ership within their communities in guiding new-
comers to access services and navigate life in the
United States. Although the professional back-
States as refugees vary, most do not have edu-
cational or professional training related to social
service provision or counseling. How refugee
service providers view their roles, what guides
their actions, and how they interact with newly
arriving refugees has not been extensively ex-
plored in prior research. Understanding the ex-
periences of refugee caseworkers may contribute
to knowledge regarding effective resettlement
services.
Refugee resettlement involves the legal mi-
gration of thousands of individuals per year who

Stacey A. Shaw, MSW, is a Ph.D. candidate at Columbia University, School of Social Work, New York,
NY.
Address correspondence to: Stacey A. Shaw, 1255 Amsterdam Ave., 809, New York, NY 10027 (E-mail:
sas2268@columbia.edu).
284
 Bridge Builders
settle permanently in the United States. All meet
the definition of a refugee, someone who has
left the country of his or her nationality due
to a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, member-
ship of a particular social group or political
opinion” (UN High Commissioner for Refugees
[UNHCR], 2013a). Approximately 10.5 million
people worldwide are outside their country of
origin and are considered refugees, with a small
fraction of these becoming eligible for reset-
tlement to a third country (UNHCR, 2013b).
During Fiscal Year 2012, 58,236 refugees re-
settled in the United States. They primarily
originated from Bhutan, Burma, Iraq, and So-
malia (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
Services, 2013). In 2011, 92,000 names were
submitted for resettlement consideration world-
wide and 62,000 people were resettled, with the
United States remaining the country that offers
asylum to the highest number of people (UN-
HCR, 2013b). In the United States, resettlement
services center on providing basic needs and
helping households become economically self-
sufficient. Resettlement agencies provide the
majority of postarrival assistance, with signifi-
cant variation in services according to location
and organization (Kenny & Lockwood-Kenny,
2011).
Former refugees are often employed as
refugee resettlement service providers and work
as caseworkers, interpreters, or in other mental
health, education, and resettlement roles (Abra-
hamsson, Andersson, & Springett, 2009; Dubus,
2009; Owen & English, 2005; Yohani, 2013).
Decisions to hire former refugees are guided by
a preference for cultural and linguistic similar-
ity (Ivry, 1992) and a sense that their experi-
ences contribute to organizational effectiveness
(Smith, 2008). Resettlement caseworkers who
arrived as refugees have a unique role as they
become cultural brokers and advocates within
and between two systems: their community of
origin and new social and cultural systems in
their country of migration. This role often entails
mediating between refugees and other service
providers, providing information, and encourag-
ing integration (Abrahamsson et al., 2009). Pre-
vious research conducted with refugee parapro-
fessionals has identified that this bridge-building
285
role can provide both an empowering opportu-
nity to contribute and a challenging set of soci-
etal tensions to negotiate (Abrahamsson et al.,
2009). Cultural brokers may be overwhelmed
due to unclear task assignments, complex cul-
tural meanings, and inadequate supports. Ad-
ditionally, power structures may inhibit trust,
and professional boundaries may feel isolating
(Owen & English, 2005). Research from the re-
lated areas of peer support, modeling, and in-
tegration was utilized to guide study research
questions and analysis. This phenomenological
study examines the experiences of casework-
ers who came to the United States as refugees
to explore their roles, challenges, and percep-
tions. The research question guiding this study
is: What are the experiences of refugee case-
workers, and what challenges and strengths re-
sult from sharing similar language and cultural
backgrounds with the people they serve?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Peer Support
The peer-support approach to service provi-
sion has been utilized for addiction, trauma, can-
cer, and mental health services (Davidson, Chin-
man, Sells, & Rowe, 2006). Peer support has
shown promise in increasing motivation and skill
attainment (Chiaburu, 2005) and has demon-
strated positive outcomes in diverse settings
including with refugees in Sudan (Schechter,
2004) and other service recipients (Abu-Rasain
& Williams, 1999; Dennis et al., 2009; Hotaling,
Burris, Johnson, Bird, & Melbye, 2004; Schover
et al., 2006; Schwartz, 2005). Mental health ser-
vices provided by peers may have similar out-
comes when compared with those provided by
professional case management staff (Davidson
et al., 2006). Although the roles and backgrounds
of peers involved in these fields may vary, people
who have successfully navigated through an ex-
perience, or who share key background charac-
teristics, may have a unique ability to understand
the needs of people facing similar circumstances.
Refugee service organizations often prefer hir-
ing caseworkers with relevant language and cul-
tural knowledge (Ivry, 1992), with peer support
 286 S. A. Shaw
composing a large component of both formal
and informal resettlement services. This study
will explore how refugee caseworkers experi-
ence their peer-support role.
Modeling
The concept of modeling, based in social-
cognitive theory, suggests ways in which peer
support operates to influence the adaptation ex-
periences of incoming individuals. Although all
caseworkers may play a modeling role for the
newly arriving families and individuals they
serve, refugee caseworkers may provide a dif-
ferent form of modeling due to traits shared
between both parties. In addition to often shar-
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
ing language, nationality, religious, and cul-
tural similarities, refugee caseworkers have been
through the experience of displacement and the
resettlement system as a service recipient. Work-
ing with caseworkers who have overcome ob-
stacles successfully may enhance new arrivals’
skills and may help to build the confidence
needed to adjust to U.S. systems and navigate
services effectively, although the impact of mod-
eling varies based on how interaction occurs and
the skill levels of both parties (Bandura, 1977,
1991; Thierry, Drenth, Thierry, & de Wolff,
1998). Through interviews with refugee case-
workers, this study will examine how model-
ing may occur within resettlement contexts and
will consider unique forms of modeling that
take place when caseworkers have similar back-
grounds with those they serve.
Integration
Resettlement caseworkers have often been in
the U.S. for a short period of time and may be
undergoing a cultural and identity shift similar
to that of the refugees with whom they work.
The resettlement process involves a series of
factors to negotiate, including host–country re-
ception, differences between expectations and
reality, and cumulative stress resulting from ear-
lier phases of the migration process (Drachman,
1992). The ongoing immersion of refugee case-
workers in resettlement services may support
their adaptation process as they take on a va-
riety of roles (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Ger-
ton, 1993) and balance between cultures (de Do-
manico, Crawford, & De Wolfe, 1994). Refugee
caseworkers may approach integration for the
households with which they work as particu-
larly strong advocates and promoters of client-
driven goals, or they may do so in a punitive
manner, while enforcing state expectations such
as rapid employment (Nawyn, 2010). Service
provision from someone possessing the empa-
thy and understanding that comes with having
experienced the resettlement process may lead
to a particularly supportive environment (Smith,
2008) that may enhance integration experiences.
Alternatively, household integration may be hin-
dered by an over-reliance on the ethnolinguis-
tic community accompanied by a lack of in-
teraction with other Americans (Westermeyer,
2011; Westermeyer & Her, 1996). Support from
service providers with different religious, cul-
tural, and linguistic backgrounds may aid cross-
cultural understanding and job acquisition for
newcomers (Eby, Iverson, Smyers, & Kekic,
2011). This research will examine how case-
workers with limited formal training or social
service experience approach resettlement ser-
vices and view their role in the adaptation and
integration process.
METHODOLOGY
A qualitative phenomenological approach
was used to build understanding of the mean-
ing of caseworkers’ shared experiences through
exploring thought, intention, and the interac-
tion of understanding and behavior (Creswell,
2012; Maxwell, 2012). This study explores the
essence of the lived experiences of refugee case-
workers and the themes that arose during inter-
views through an interpretive process (Creswell,
2012; Starks & Trinidad, 2007). An interpre-
tive/constructivist paradigm was used as word-
ing and meaning of words were constructed
through a dialogue between the researcher and
the caseworkers interviewed. Rather than believ-
ing one objective reality exists regarding the ex-
perience of caseworkers from resettled groups,
this study explores the experiences of one group
of caseworkers (Haverkamp & Young, 2007).
 Bridge Builders
The study was conducted with nine reset-
tlement caseworkers who migrated to the U.S.
as refugees. The purposive case sample in-
cluded demographic variation by ethnicity and
age, as well as variation in experience, as case-
workers had been in the U.S. and working in
the agency for various periods of time (Sande-
lowski, 1995). Although reflection may change
the way interviewees view the experiences they
describe (Polkinghorne, 2005), expression and
self-exploration through language appeared to
be the most direct way to understand their ex-
periences. All caseworkers interviewed worked
for one agency located in a midsized city in the
Western U.S.
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
Data Collection
Institutional review board approval for study
procedures was obtained from Columbia Univer-
sity in New York, NY. The agency director also
approved study procedures and reviewed and
offered suggestions for the interview protocol.
The researcher had previously been employed
by the agency and thus had worked with many
of the potential participants and other agency
staff members. Casework supervisors passed out
flyers giving details about the study but did not
recruit participants and did not know who chose
to participate in the study. The flyer stated clearly
that participation had no bearing on employment
and was completely voluntary and that all inter-
views would be kept confidential. To be eligible
for participation, respondents were required to
have come to the U.S. as a refugee and to have
worked as a caseworker in resettlement during
2010.
Those interested in being interviewed inde-
pendently contacted the researcher to arrange
a time to be interviewed that worked for their
schedule. Interviews were conducted at a public
library near the office in a private room, or in
one case, at a participant’s home. Interview data
and participant names were kept confidential and
were not shared with the agency. Nine casework-
ers were interviewed during December 2010,
with interviews lasting from 45 min to 95 min.
The semistructured interviews included open-
ended questions that asked about caseworkers’
experiences working for the agency and being a
287
member of their ethnic community. For example,
caseworkers were asked, “When you first started
in the job, did you see any changes in the way
your community viewed you?” and “As a case-
worker from your community, do you find your-
self in multiple roles?” If respondents answered
“yes,” they were asked, “How do you deal with
this?” Questions also explored the caseworkers’
resettlement experiences and their views on re-
settlement, including: “When you first came as
a refugee, what did you think about the reset-
tlement process?”; “What are your views now
about the resettlement process?”; and “What do
you think now about the importance of refugee
clients having a caseworker from the same coun-
try of origin?”
Data Analysis
Interviews were audio-taped with participant
permission and were transcribed. A thematic
analysis approach was utilized. This included
immersion in the data, generating initial codes,
and identifying themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
First-cycle coding methods including structural,
magnitude, and in-vivo coding were used to
identify content related to the specific research
questions, various directions of responses, and
participants’ viewpoints. Second-cycle coding
methods included axial coding, in which data
were assembled into categories and dimensions
of categories were identified (Charmaz, 2006;
Saldaña, 2012). Although research questions re-
garding the caseworkers’ experiences existed
prior to the data analysis, the analytic process
shaped the categories and themes presented, with
the following in-vivo code informing the overar-
ching theme for the study: “There was a bridge,
and that bridge needs to be gapped, we need to
have somebody who can help those people un-
derstand better about the services, of the agency,
and also about the resources available within the
community.”
The following example demonstrates the pro-
cess of coding and identifying themes. One
caseworker described: “I know how these peo-
ple [are] feeling, and I know how these people
[were] suffering out there, when they were out
of USA, so I try to do something for these peo-
ple.” This caseworker then later mentioned, “we
 288 S. A. Shaw
have to deal with all clients in the same way;
the problem [is] that your community will not
understand this. They [are] always thinking that
you are one of them and you have to do more
for them.” The first quote was coded as a posi-
tive aspect of having shared experience with the
client, while the second was coded as a negative
aspect of having a shared experience and back-
ground. These codes were later categorized into
the theme of “benefits and drawbacks of shared
experience” and were merged with the larger
theme of the study by adding the title “views of
bridge builders.”
At the time of the interview, the researcher
asked participants if they would be willing to
be contacted to review study findings in the fu-
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
ture. All were willing to be contacted to par-
ticipate in member checking. One year after
the interviews were conducted, the researcher
privately contacted and invited interviewees to
review coded categories and themes. These
meetings were conducted individually, again in
a private room in a nearby public library set-
ting. Two thirds of study participants were avail-
able to meet and review findings and provide
feedback, which has been incorporated into the
findings. This member-checking process was
used to address accuracy of interpretations and
solicit additional thoughts from interviewees
(Sandelowski, 1993).
FINDINGS
Participant Characteristics
The nine caseworkers interviewed were orig-
inally from four different countries of origin lo-
cated in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and
Southeast Asia. The duration of time since reset-
tlement varied from less than 2 years to 10 years.
Time working as a caseworker in the agency var-
ied from 6 months to 3 years. Most caseworkers
had worked full or part time within resettlement
services before being hired as a caseworker, of-
ten as an interpreter. Three had worked in other
fields since their arrival to the United States be-
fore taking their current positions. Gender, age,
and other individual characteristics will not be
described to protect respondent confidentiality.
The Caseworker’s Role: ‘That Bridge
Needs to be Gapped’
When describing their work, caseworkers
spent most time and emphasis discussing their
role in helping clients to learn and under-
stand life in the U.S. The caseworker’s bridge-
building role thus primarily involves building
understanding of U.S. life and systems with
refugee clients or bringing service recipients
toward the perspective that caseworkers have
achieved through their resettlement and work
experiences. A secondary component of bridge
building that caseworkers addressed was around
needing others (primarily other service providers
and refugee ethnic communities) to understand
refugee client realities and caseworker limita-
tions. This smaller component of bridge build-
ing was more focused on the caseworkers’ need
to handle and respond to the lack of provider
and community understanding rather than the
caseworker being responsible for addressing and
changing the information gap. The bridge can
thus be conceptualized as meeting their refugee
clients on one side and meeting others including
service providers and refugee ethnic communi-
ties on the other side. The caseworkers’ expe-
rience between the two sides of the bridge is
a third component of this overarching theme,
which considers motivations behind their bridg-
ing roles, perspectives toward their role, and the
support they need to successfully fill the bridging
role.
Bridge Building With Clients
Caseworkers discussed giving meaning, ad-
vice, and examples to clients, and most men-
tioned encouraging, explaining, and educating
the people they served. For example, Nasser de-
scribed, “I try to do something for these people,
I try to help them, I try to educate them . . . .”
Multiple caseworkers mentioned feeling a
need to “make people understand” and also used
words like “convincing” and “managing” when
discussing how they ensure clients understand.
In contrast to this directive or didactic approach,
caseworkers also described listening and trying
to understand their clients. Trina explained:
 Bridge Builders
. . . I understand right now [the] agency
role, which I didn’t understand at first.
But on the other hand my perspective on
refugees and my attitude [toward] refugees
[has]n’t change[d] a lot . . . Even [though]
they . . . are so demanding . . . They blame
the caseworkers, and then they . . . [do] not
keep appointments . . . But I still feel like I
understand.
This quote illustrates some of the challenges
caseworkers feel when interacting with clients,
including frustration toward client actions as
well as empathy with their frustration. A con-
flict is apparent between client expectations and
the resettlement agency’s role. Trina expressed
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
understanding the agency’s role, or the agency’s
ability to help in proscribed ways and provide
specific services. But she also continued to iden-
tify with client demands or frustrations and put
herself in a position to respond to the client with
empathy. She sees the need for clients to keep ap-
pointments as well as the need for the agency to
be flexible and responsive. Part of the conflict is
also related to Trina’s memory of her experience
as a client. She stated that at first, she also did not
understand the agency’s role. Although she now
understands, she remembers what it was like to
be frustrated and unable to keep appointments.
Caseworkers talked about both the content
they felt clients needed to understand and how
they ensured understanding occurs. The content
that caseworkers described imparting to their
clients included limits and policies of the agency
as well as the caseworker’s role. For example,
Nasser said:
I know it’s not enough sometimes, but I
can’t change it. [The agency] can’t change
it, [the welfare office] can’t change it, no-
body can change; it’s the government pol-
icy. And even if we needed to change it, it
will take years and years.
In explaining the limitations of benefits avail-
able, Nasser emphasized that these resource lim-
its were beyond his control. He also identified
with the client’s request and stated that resources
were not enough. Although caseworkers want
clients to know what services are available and
289
see the caseworker’s role in helping clients ac-
cess services, they also want clients to recognize
that they cannot modify services or increase ben-
efits. Caseworkers portrayed that many aspects
of the other side of the bridge to which they
connect, which includes social service organiza-
tions, policies, and the resettlement agency, can-
not be changed, and thus, they focus on helping
the client adjust to systems as they are. Speak-
ing to the role of the caseworker and how he
changed the way he described his role to clients
over time, Tahir said:
I used to feel very bad explaining my role.
Because I didn’t want to be rude . . . but
now I feel I have to tell them because I can’t
meet their expectation anyway . . . they will
feel bad at the beginning, and after some
time as we work with them, as they see
we work for their benefits, they will under-
stand our boundaries also. They will un-
derstand our obligations also . . . and it will
go better. It’s from my own experience.
Caseworkers thus may struggle with their role
as bridge builders in not wanting to offend clients
and feeling frustrated with the limitations of the
systems in which they work, as well as being
frustrated with their own limitations of time and
ability. Tahir realized that stating what he can
and cannot do from the beginning and encour-
aging clients not to call him after hours may
upset clients initially but would help them over
time. Having such boundaries in place may allow
caseworkers to play a bridge-building role with a
larger number of clients and reduce burnout, but
it also may result in stress and cultural conflict.
Additional content that caseworkers de-
scribed emphasizing with clients was the impor-
tance of becoming self-sufficient and learning
how to deal with problems. Nasser described:
It’s hard, I’m not lying, it’s not heaven
here in [the] United States; forget about
like the Hollywood movie you watched in
your home . . . you coming to shovel gold
from the streets, that’s not right. It’s hard,
you have to work hard. Sometimes it’s get-
ting to the point that you can’t handle the
stress. But eventually you can do it . . .
 290 S. A. Shaw
This example points to caseworkers’ efforts
to change client expectations and help them see
the reality of U.S. life. Caseworkers may under-
take their bridge-building role through utilizing
imagery and humor to build alliances and reduce
tension.
Caseworkers’ approaches to imparting con-
tent to clients varied across a spectrum from be-
ing careful and sensitive—for example, to “treat
[people] very politely always”—to being “just
a little bit tough with them.” Caseworkers men-
tioned using repetition and detail and describing
reality truthfully. As specific strategies, some
talked about the importance of asking particu-
lar questions, talking to clients while in the car,
or not letting clients wait for a long time in the
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
lobby before being greeted by their caseworker.
They also mentioned the importance of prepar-
ing forms in advance and not delaying or ne-
glecting to apply for services. Some caseworkers
mentioned that they adjust their approach ac-
cording to client circumstances—for example,
providing additional explanation to clients with
lower levels of literacy.
Needing Others to Understand: The Other
Side of the Bridge
To a lesser extent, caseworkers discussed their
role in helping others, including the agency, so-
cial service providers, their ethnic communi-
ties, researchers, and their families to understand
client realities and the caseworker’s role. The
smaller focus on supporting others suggests that
the bulk of a caseworker’s energy and attention
is concerned directly with clients.
Discussion in the area of helping others un-
derstand refugee client needs encompassed three
primary strategies for how caseworkers respond
to a perceived lack of understanding or need
for bridge building: advocacy, explanation, and
resistance. Within the category of advocacy, a
few caseworkers described going beyond pro-
gram policies and limitations to ensure client
needs are addressed. Jason said, “[The] agency
may have some kind of boundaries, but if the
family is suffering, and if I sleep, that may
not be good.” Another caseworker discussed
working to reduce wait time and improve com-
munication from staff members in the public
benefits office so that food stamps would not be
cut without notice. The second strategy of ex-
planation or providing information captures the
caseworkers’ efforts to help others understand
what they do and the circumstances clients face.
Multiple caseworkers described explaining their
role and limitations to their ethnic communities.
For example, Deidre said, “[W]e have to have
a lot of explaining the things to them . . . we re-
ally have to work hard to make it clear to them.”
Deidre described calling community meetings
to address misunderstandings. The strategy of
resistance appeared when caseworkers felt the
agency or other service providers were expecting
something unrealistic. Tek said, “[W]e have been
over-pressurized officially.” One caseworker de-
scribed explaining to parties within and outside
of the agency why specific initiatives would be
unsuccessful with clients, but when suggestions
were not followed, he felt caseworkers would
let the initiative continue, considering it irrele-
vant. This resistance suggests a feeling of power-
lessness to convince service providers, including
colleagues, about the importance of their per-
spectives as well as their knowledge regarding
the community. It also suggests that casework-
ers spend minimal time building understanding
with others when they feel their energy is bet-
ter spent elsewhere—namely, in helping clients
understand and adjust.
On the Bridge: What Guides
the Caseworker
When caseworkers discussed what guides
their work, they mentioned learning from col-
leagues, supervisors, agency regulations, and
clients. A few described that the way they
worked was determined by who they are, specif-
ically their personality or desire to help. Addi-
tionally, their own refugee experience and other
experiences impacted or guided their work. The
resettlement experiences of most caseworkers
may have a less overt influence on daily service
provision than do agency guidelines and col-
leagues, but because this background is unique
among caseworkers who came to the U.S. as
refugees, additional exploration into the influ-
ence of their resettlement experiences on current
practices was conducted.
 Bridge Builders
Most caseworkers talked about either using
their resettlement experience to openly guide
their interaction with clients or being careful
with how they utilized or shared their experi-
ences. Caseworkers who purposefully used their
experiences talked about being more patient due
to remembering the difficulties they faced and
encouraging clients to not make the same mis-
takes they did. Some caseworkers also said they
encouraged clients to follow practices or steps
that were helpful for them. For example, Bahir
described:
I try just to tell them that when we came
here we were like you, a refugee, and look
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
now . . . I am doing this, this . . . so I try just
to give them hope, to continue, and you
have do all these things by yourself . . . so
maybe you encourage them to keep going,
and don’t just sit down and wait [for] other
people who come to help you.
Other caseworkers talked about being care-
ful with their own experience, as every case is
different and they did not want to pressure the
client or “stereotype.” For example, a caseworker
talked about only providing basic background
information about his experience when asked,
and another said he generalized the experience
of others to encourage clients. Some casework-
ers said they talked about their own experience
to provide encouragement in some ways but told
clients that their circumstances may be different.
For example, Nasser explained:
Being a refugee here is like having already
a lot of pressures, and if I came and put
more pressures and expectations on the
client, [saying] you have to work within 3
months because I worked within 3 months
or something like that, that could destroy
the self-confidence of the client . . . so I will
try to take the positive part of my experi-
ence: [I]t’s hard I know, but I can do it,
you can do it. But if I did it this way, you
don’t have to do it my, the same way that I
did . . .
291
Caseworkers utilize their experiences in var-
ious ways. This may be further complicated by
the caseworker’s own integration process.
Some caseworkers described learning from
or emulating the example of their resettlement
caseworker. Htay described, “I think some ideas
and some ideologies are maybe different. But
some conditions and maybe some actions or
some treatments . . . are the same. I got a lot
of things from her, from my caseworker.” One
learned from the resettlement experience that he
wanted to provide more assistance for his clients
than what he received. Multiple caseworkers de-
scribed that learning how to access resources and
problem-solving experiences they had as new-
comers were helpful in their current work or
contributed to how they now help people under-
stand and solve problems.
Views of Bridge Builders: Benefits and
Drawbacks of Shared Experience
Caseworkers described both positive and neg-
ative aspects of having similar language, culture,
and refugee experiences in serving clients. A
primary benefit they discussed was not having a
language barrier, which allows for exchange, lis-
tening, and understanding. Also, they described
having fewer delays in accessing services, as in-
terpreters were not needed. Related to having a
common language, multiple caseworkers men-
tioned that through their shared characteristics,
the caseworker is able to better understand the
client. They described being able to understand
client feelings, challenges, expectations, points
of view, and cultural and family issues. Case-
workers also discussed how having a similar
culture, language, and experience helped clients
feel comfortable and understood. Multiple case-
workers mentioned that clients feel free to dis-
cuss issues openly and ask questions when their
caseworker is from the same community. Trust
and honesty were also mentioned as benefits for
having shared backgrounds. As Tahir described,
“We tell them the truth, what we faced, what
other people are facing here, what’s the truth,
what’s the reality.”
Another benefit of having a caseworker with
a background similar to clients that intervie-
wees discussed was the opportunity for voice and
 292 S. A. Shaw
increased power that this position provides to the
community. Indra explained that:
When . . . the agency start[ed] hiring people
from the same culture and community, I
think they (the community) felt a little bit
empowered, because now they feel we have
somebody in a good position, like in a high
position that would understand our needs
as a community, as individuals even.
When discussing drawbacks of having a case-
worker with shared characteristics, caseworkers
spoke of higher client expectations, some clients
wanting a caseworker from a different culture,
and the difficulties they experienced in balanc-
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
ing both community and caseworker roles. Case-
workers said clients may make demands and ask
for favors because of their shared cultural back-
ground. As Nasser described, clients may tell
caseworkers to make exceptions to policies and
may demand that, “you have to help me, I’m one
of your community.” Trina said that clients may
not respect the caseworker, as clients assume cor-
ruption in their home country will remain preva-
lent among people from their community in the
United States.
Multiple caseworkers said clients might be
reluctant to talk to other agency staff or ser-
vice providers and may come to the caseworker
“for everything.” This suggests that clients may
become dependent on the caseworker because
of their shared background or language skills.
Caseworkers also described that it can be diffi-
cult for a caseworker from the same culture to set
boundaries. Bahir noted “. . . it’s hard for a case-
worker from a certain culture to say to his, some-
body from his same country, to say that I can’t
help you. No.” Additionally, Nasser talked about
the need for supervisor support in explaining and
supporting decisions with which the client is un-
happy regarding services, so the client will know
the decision is a result of agency policy rather
than the caseworker’s personal preference.
A few caseworkers mentioned that some
clients prefer American caseworkers because
they feel that an American caseworker may ed-
ucate them more or will “give them anything
they want.” One caseworker also mentioned that
some clients do not want to share personal infor-
mation with a caseworker from the same com-
munity as they fear that the caseworker will not
maintain confidentiality and others in the com-
munity will find out about their concerns. The
caseworker’s position as a bridge builder is thus
precarious, as they balance pressure to make ex-
ceptions and maintain professional, equal, and
confidential services.
Speaking about the challenges of being in
the casework position as a community member,
caseworkers said it can be difficult to differen-
tiate roles, and the expectations of the commu-
nity are high. Tahir explained that, “[the com-
munity’s] expectation is unlimited of us . . . they
think we are in power, they don’t think we
are just employees.” Multiple caseworkers men-
tioned that community involvement was ex-
pected for someone in their position and it was
important for them to interact socially as well
as professionally within their ethnic community.
However, some mentioned that when they see
clients during social occasions or when visiting
friends and relatives, it can be difficult to sepa-
rate professional from personal roles. Address-
ing boundary issues around accepting food was
a common challenge.
Although caseworkers expressed benefits and
drawbacks of having caseworkers hired from
refugee communities, a few spoke of this as be-
ing insignificant or irrelevant. For example, Hus-
sein said that “every caseworker who is helping,
even if . . . from another culture, knows how to
help the people who come.” Thus, some feel that
the service provided is more important than the
caseworker’s common experience or language
abilities.
Supporting Caseworkers
When asked how caseworkers can be success-
ful in their jobs, most respondents pointed to
the importance of training and support. The im-
portance of being honest about limitations and
boundaries, especially with clients, was also ad-
dressed by multiple caseworkers as a need for
success in the casework position. Interviewees
said they need ongoing training around systems
and resources, how to interact with colleagues
and clients, and how to act and communicate
with clients who may be upset or frustrated.
 Bridge Builders
Caseworkers said they wanted opportunities for
certification and professional training. Multiple
interviewees talked about wanting qualifications
beyond their experience; for example, Jason sug-
gested that a social work certification program
specifically for refugee resettlement is needed.
Caseworkers also mentioned the importance of
supervisor support and specifically how valuable
it is for a supervisor to have experience in case-
work service provision.
DISCUSSION
Former refugee caseworkers are often the
primary service providers for newly arriving
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
refugees, and their bridge-building responsibili-
ties center on building client understanding and
encouraging adaptation to life in the United
States. As Bahir said, “. . . you’re the face, the
first face to smile at their face, in the country.”
A great deal of responsibility may be placed on
caseworkers to meet primary needs facing new-
comers, which include language barriers, a lack
of information, and changing social networks
(Stewart et al., 2008). Interviewees suggested
that providing peer support through shared lin-
guistic, cultural, and refugee experiences is im-
portant and helpful for clients. Most caseworkers
felt an obligation and responsibility to ensure
clients gain necessary understanding, although
approaches toward client interaction and per-
spectives about their bridge-building roles var-
ied.
These findings have implications for reset-
tlement agency costs and programming needs.
Employing refugee caseworkers through a peer-
support model may be more cost-effective as
the need for interpreters is reduced. Addition-
ally, refugee caseworkers may provide extra
services to meet client and community expec-
tations. However, if additional services are ren-
dered, these should be acknowledged as part of
the caseworkers’ duties and caseworkers should
be compensated for their time. When resettle-
ment agencies do not have adequate resources,
caseworkers may feel caught between following
agency protocols and meeting the unstated as-
sumption of the agency that they will address
the client’s needs. This pressure, in addition to
293
the extra work in which caseworkers regularly
engage, may lead to unfair treatment or burnout.
The demands facing refugee caseworkers as well
as their ongoing integration process highlight the
need for open dialogue around the challenges of
setting boundaries, risks for burnout, and clear
role definitions (Owen & English, 2005).
Study findings also describe how refugee
caseworkers utilize modeling and point to ongo-
ing integration processes experienced by refugee
caseworkers. Modeling was utilized by all case-
workers in both tacit and direct ways. All spoke
about their role in providing education, infor-
mation, and orientation to new clients. While
some caseworkers openly described encourag-
ing clients with their own experiences, others
focused on each client’s experience being differ-
ent. Some caseworkers suggested clients would
be discouraged by being pressured to follow oth-
ers and suggested that certain types of model-
ing could negatively impact client self-efficacy.
Caseworkers also talked about a spectrum of in-
teraction approaches with clients from a more
didactic, tough strategy to an open listening
style. The type of modeling caseworkers pro-
vide and the way in which they interact with
refugee households may be influenced by their
own integration process as well as the training
and support they receive from the resettlement
agency. When caseworkers feel comfortable in
both cultures and possess an ability to negoti-
ate between cultures, they will be more effective
as bridge builders (Abrahamsson et al., 2009).
Regular supervision, training, and ongoing dia-
logue to promote reflection and address stress are
necessary to ensure these bridge builders have
the skills necessary to work empathically with
clients and address their own ongoing accul-
turation process (Yohani, 2013). Additionally,
power structures and attitudes may impede ef-
forts to build trust and open communication be-
tween refugee caseworkers and their colleagues.
Openness and availability on the part of a su-
pervisor as well as access to necessary training
and resources may help promote egalitarian rela-
tionships (Owen & English, 2005). Resettlement
agencies may need to consider new ways of pro-
viding services if caseworkers are not able to
meet the needs of their clients within the confines
of agency policies. Agencies that can creatively
 294 S. A. Shaw
consider ways to address emergency and late-
night needs, client expectations about food and
social gatherings, and other challenges arising
from cultural differences and newcomer adjust-
ment can more effectively serve clients while
incorporating the strategic knowledge of bridge
builders.
Additional research is needed to consider how
resettlement outcomes vary according to service
approaches and service provider characteristics,
as refugee paraprofessionals will increasingly be
relied upon in efforts to provide culturally ap-
propriate services to incoming refugees (Dubus,
2009). The involvement of refugee staff mem-
bers may promote the ability of resettlement
agencies to provide culturally relevant services
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
and advocate for newcomers despite heavy em-
phasis on rapid employment and self-sufficiency
(Cannedy, 2011; Nawyn, 2010). The presence
of refugees in positions of agency leadership
may also improve relationships in communi-
ties or agencies where refugees are seen merely
as victims or service recipients (Ludwig, 2013).
Research regarding refugee perspectives is lim-
ited but suggests that households being served
by a caseworker who shares their linguistic and
cultural background may be less satisfied with
agency services but more satisfied with their
household’s health care situation when com-
pared with respondents without this casework
match (Shaw & Poulin, 2014). More research
on client perspectives could further examine
benefits and challenges of utilizing peer sup-
ports in resettlement work. Additional research
is also needed to explore the impact of parapro-
fessional employment on ethnolinguistic com-
munity power dynamics. Especially for newly
arriving groups, selection for employment in re-
settlement services may place certain individu-
als in positions of power and change leadership
structures.
This study has a number of limitations and
strengths. The previously established work-
ing relationship between the researcher and
the agency may have impacted caseworker re-
sponses and led to potential biases. The benefits
of this shared history include knowledge of re-
settlement services and familiarity on the part of
the researcher, which may have contributed to
increased openness and rapport and an ability to
discuss topics in more depth. As all interviewees
worked in the same agency, the generalizability
of findings to resettlement services elsewhere
may be limited. The agency was involved in cre-
ating case management and additional health and
community services that go beyond those pro-
vided by many other resettlement agencies. Em-
ployment in an agency with more comprehensive
resettlement services may have influenced the
perspectives of those interviewed. Despite these
challenges, questions addressed issues that may
be similar to those faced by resettlement service
providers across the U.S. Additionally, the study
included respondents from a variety of back-
grounds and nationalities, which increased the
relevance of these findings to currently arriving
refugee groups. Another strength of the study
is the use of member checking 1 year after the
initial data collection. Attention to perspectives
over time improves the accuracy of study find-
ings and accesses multiple aspects of long-held
views.
Conclusion
This study examines the experiences and per-
spectives of former refugees working as case-
workers in refugee resettlement and identi-
fies the unique bridge-building role that these
individuals possess. These findings have im-
plications for service providers working with
refugees in multicultural settings internationally
and highlight the strengths these cultural bro-
kers or bridge builders bring to understanding
migrant needs. The findings also stress the im-
portance of attention to challenges that bridge
builders face in negotiating between cultures,
boundaries, service requirements, and their own
integration needs.
The perspectives of refugee staff members
as well as refugee clients must be integrated
into agency leadership, program planning, and
community initiatives. The dynamic experiences
and viewpoints that refugee service providers
possess have much to contribute to understand-
ing and adaptation on the part of community
partners and agency services. Resettlement ser-
vice providers can benefit from considering the
challenges that refugee caseworkers face and
discussing these openly. Support and dialogue
 Bridge Builders
are needed on a regular basis to address roles,
boundary issues, skill building, and effective
strategies to most appropriately provide com-
prehensive services to newly arriving refugees.
Refugee caseworkers can help define appropri-
ate boundaries and create realistic service strate-
gies when their perspectives are incorporated on
both agency and policy levels. The experiences
and views of refugee service providers can also
contribute to training and sensitivity of agency
staff members and others who work with incom-
ing refugees. Refugee service providers are in
a unique position to assist newcomers in advo-
cating for themselves and for changes needed in
resettlement approaches.
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
NOTE
1. Names have been changed to protect confiden-
tiality.
REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, A., Andersson, J., & Springett, J. (2009).
Building bridges or negotiating tensions? Experiences
from a project aimed at enabling migrant access to
health and social care in Sweden. Diversity in Health
and Care, 6, 85–95.
Abu-Rasain, M. H. M., & Williams, D. I. (1999). Peer
counselling in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Adolescence,
22, 493–502.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying the-
ory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84,
191–215.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-
regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human De-
cision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis
in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,
77–101.
Cannedy, S. (2011). Crafting citizens: Resettlement agen-
cies and refugee incorporation in the US. Practicing
Anthropology, 33(4), 29–34.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A
practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Chiaburu, D. S. (2005). What predicts skill transfer? An ex-
ploratory study of goal orientation, training self-efficacy
and organizational supports. International Journal of
Training and Development, 9, 110–123.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research de-
sign: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
295
Davidson, L., Chinman, M., Sells, D., & Rowe, M. (2006).
Peer support among adults with serious mental illness:
A report from the field. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32,
443–450.
de Domanico, Y. B., Crawford, I., & De Wolfe, A. S. (1994).
Ethnic identity and self-concept in Mexican-American
adolescents: Is bicultural identity related to stress or
better adjustment? Child and Youth Care Forum, 23(3),
197–206.
Dennis, C. L., Hodnett, E., Kenton, L., Weston, J., Zupan-
cic, J., Stewart, D. E., & Kiss, A. (2009). Effect of peer
support on prevention of postnatal depression among
high risk women: Multisite randomised controlled trial.
British Medical Journal, 338, 1–9.
Drachman, D. (1992). A stage-of-migration framework
for service to immigrant populations. Social Work, 37,
68–72.
Dubus, N. (2009). Creating a bridge to healing: A profes-
sional/paraprofessional team approach. Journal of So-
cial Work Practice, 23, 327–336.
Eby, J., Iverson, E., Smyers, J., & Kekic, E. (2011).
The faith community’s role in refugee resettlement
in the United States. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24,
586–605.
Haverkamp, B. E., & Young, R. A. (2007). Paradigms,
purpose, and the role of the literature formulating a
rationale for qualitative investigations. The Counseling
Psychologist, 35, 265–294.
Hotaling, N., Burris, A., Johnson, B. J., Bird, Y. M., &
Melbye, K. A. (2004). Been there done that: SAGE,
a peer leadership model among prostitution survivors.
Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 255–265.
Ivry, J. (1992). Paraprofessionals in refugee resettlement.
Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 2(1), 99–118.
Kenny, P., & Lockwood-Kenny, K. (2011). A mixed bless-
ing: Karen resettlement to the United States. Journal of
Refugee Studies, 24, 217–238.
LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L., & Gerton, J. (1993).
Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395–412.
Ludwig, B. (2013). ‘Wiping the refugee dust from my
feet’: Advantages and burdens of refugee status and the
refugee label. International Migration. (Advance online
publication). doi:10.1111/imig.12111
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An
interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nawyn, S. J. (2010). Institutional structures of opportu-
nity in refugee resettlement: Gender, race/ethnicity, and
refugee NGOs. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,
37, 149–167.
Owen, C. L., & English, M. (2005). Working together as
culture brokers by building trusting alliances with bilin-
gual and bicultural newcomer paraprofessionals. Child
Welfare, 84, 669–688.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data
collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 137–145.
 296 S. A. Shaw
Saldaña, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative re-
searchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). Rigor or rigor mortis: The prob-
lem of rigor in qualitative research revisited. Advances
in Nursing Science, 16(2), 1–8.
Sandelowski, M. (1995). Sample size in qualitative re-
search. Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 179–183.
Schechter, J. A. (2004). Governing ‘lost boys’: Sudanese
refugees in a UNHCR camp. Boulder: University of
Colorado.
Schover, L. R., Jenkins, R., Sui, D., Adams, J. H., Marion,
M. S., & Jackson, K. E. (2006). Randomized trial of peer
counseling on reproductive health in African American
breast cancer survivors. Journal of Clinical Oncology,
24, 1620–1626.
Schwartz, M. D. (2005). The past and the future of violence
against women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20,
7–11.
Downloaded by [University of Utah] at 17:12 05 April 2015
Shaw, S. A., & Poulin, P. (2014, January). Findings from
an extended case management U.S. refugee resettlement
program. Paper presented at the Society for Social Work
and Research Conference, San Antonio, TX.
Smith, R. S. (2008). The case of a city where 1 in 6 residents
is a refugee: Ecological factors and host community
adaptation in successful resettlement. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 42, 328–342.
Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). Choose your method:
A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis,
and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17,
1372–1380.
Stewart, M., Anderson, J., Beiser, M., Mwakarimba, E.,
Neufeld, A., Simich, L., & Spitzer, D. (2008). Mul-
ticultural meanings of social support among immi-
grants and refugees. International Migration, 46(3),
123–159.
Thierry, H., Drenth, P., Thierry, H., & de Wolff, C. (1998).
Motivation and satisfaction. Handbook of Work and Or-
ganizational Psychology, 4, 253–289.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2013a). Refugees:
Flowing across borders. Retrieved from http://www.
unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c125.html
UN High Commissioner for Refugees. (2013b). Resettle-
ment: A new beginning in a third country. Retrieved
from http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013).
Fiscal year 2012 refugee arrivals. Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/fiscal-
year-2012-refugee-arrivals
Westermeyer, J. J. (2011). Refugee resettlement to the
United States: Recommendations for a new approach.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199, 532–
536.
Westermeyer, J., & Her, C. (1996). Predictors of English
fluency among Hmong refugees in Minnesota: A longi-
tudinal study. Cultural Diversity and Mental Health, 2,
125–132.
Yohani, S. (2013). Educational cultural brokers and the
school adaptation of refugee children and families:
Challenges and opportunities. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 14, 61–79.