Serving Evacuees: Identifying Needs and Sources of Strength

Background: The number of Afghan evacuees escalated starting in August 2021, with many fleeing suddenly to the United States (U.S.). Provider organizations were simultaneously contending with recent reductions in refugee admissions and reduced funding for resettlement. Navigating this unexpected context required providers to fill gaps in services with an insufficient workforce while also supporting individuals who had little time to prepare for evacuation from their home countries. The current study was designed to explore experiences of service providers engaged with this group of Afghans.

Method: Individual interviews were conducted with providers who served the 2021 cohort of Afghan evacuees in Nashville (n=6) and Chicago (n=4). Participants were recruited via email from refugee serving community organizations and all interviews were conducted via Zoom in English. Semi-structured questions inquired about experiences of providers during this period, in addition to provider-perceived experiences of Afghan evacuees. Transcribed interviews were coded using thematic analysis techniques. Each transcript was coded by two research team members, applying constant comparative methods. Deductive analysis was employed using a priori codes established based on research aims, in conjunction with inductive analysis to allow new codes and themes to emerge.

Results: Four primary themes emerged; all participants referenced each theme: 1) Stress among Afghans; 2) Strengths and Sources of Resilience among Afghans; 3) Challenges experienced by Providers; and (4) Lessons Learned for Service Provision. Subthemes for stress among Afghans included the sudden nature of evacuation, family separation, and learning life in the U.S. For strengths and resilience, subthemes related to working hard in the U.S., persistence in learning English, and emotional strength of evacuees. In terms of challenges experienced by providers, participants highlighted subthemes of limited preparedness for receiving high numbers of evacuees with reduced staffing, learning cultural norms of diverse Afghan groups, and coping with limited referral resources. Regarding lessons learned, subthemes included providers learning to prioritize needs by urgency, gaining insight into programming strategies (e.g., offering separate programs by gender or ethnic group), and engaging in intentional self-care as providers. One provider explained that despite the stress and chaos associated with receiving and serving evacuees during that crisis period, “we’re all people with the same wants and needs,” further elaborating that they were able to traverse the difficult period by listening to and learning from Afghans before making decisions about service provision approaches.

Conclusions: Findings highlight the distinct needs providers observed among evacuees who fled suddenly with little preparation. Some of the stressors among evacuees were atypical of refugees and particularly intense because evacuees had not planned to migrate. Providers were required to set aside their usual resettlement approaches in the context of the atypical needs and limited provider capacity, and instead work with Afghans to determine best approaches to providing supports and resources. Lessons by providers can be applied to future work not only with immigrants but also other groups in crisis situations. Future research should investigate experiences of Afghans during this period and what sources of support were most valuable in their resettlement and integration process.