APA Final Paper on Immigration
Drosario99
U.S.SocialWorkPractitionersAttitudesTowardsImmigrantsandImmigration.pdf
Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 9:367–392, 2011 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1556-2948 print / 1556-2956 online DOI: 10.1080/15562948.2011.616801
U.S. Social Work Practitioners’ Attitudes Towards Immigrants and Immigration:
Results From an Online Survey
YOOSUN PARK School for Social Work, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts, USA
RUPALEEM BHUYAN University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
CATHERINE RICHARDS and ANDREW RUNDLE Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
The purpose of this work was to survey social work practitioners regarding their attitudes towards immigrants, and to develop a multidomain scale measuring these attitudes. A convenience sam- ple of 1,124 practitioners in 47 states participated in the survey, which was administered online. The 28 attitude questions were designed as Likert scale items probing five domains: immigrant as- similation, perceived threat, immigration policy, receipt of social services, and responsibilities of social workers towards immigrants. The practitioners exhibited positive attitudes towards immigrants in general, but were less favorable towards undocumented immi- grants, reflecting the bifurcation of immigrants into deserving and undeserving populations, a problematic trend evident in society at large. Scale scores for the five domains were all strongly intercorre- lated and did not appear to tap into different underlying domains around which attitudes varied. Thus, data from the five domains were collapsed into a single attitudes scale that had a test−retest reliability of 0.97 and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.95. More favorable attitude scales scores were predicted by Hispanic ethnicity, a liberal political outlook, higher income, and more community and pro- fessional contact with immigrants. Those working at organizations with “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies regarding client’s documenta- tion status and at agencies that provide services to undocumented immigrants had more favorable attitude scale scores. This study
Address correspondence to Yoosun Park, MSW, PhD, School for Social Work, Lilly Hall, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063. E-mail: [email protected]
367
368 Y. Park et al.
illustrates the need for social work to better address the impact of immigrant policies on access to services and clarify the professional ethics towards both legal and undocumented immigrants.
KEYWORDS Immigration, immigrants, undocumented, social workers, practitioners, attitudes
BACKGROUND
Immigrants constitute a significant portion of the population of the United States. In 2006, an estimated 37.6 million immigrants comprised 12.5% of the national population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). A substantial seg- ment of this immigrant population is relatively recent arrivals; an estimated 29.1 million arrived between 1980 and 2000 (Terrazas, Batalova, & Fan, 2007) and the period from 2000 to 2007 is said to represent “the highest seven- year period of immigration in U.S. history (Center for Immigration Studies, n.d.). Not only the sheer numbers but the characteristics of the population indicate that social work practitioners in all domains of the profession are likely to encounter a client population affected by the issues of immigration and immigration status. While there is considerable socioeconomic diversity among immigrants (Yang & Vesselinov, 2005), immigrants as a whole have disproportionately high rates of poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). They are overrepresented in the low-wage labor force (Shields & Behrman, 2004) and are less likely than U.S.-born workers “to have private, employer-provided health insurance for their children (55% vs. 72%) and themselves” (Shields & Behrman, 2004, p. 6). Despite the fact that “virtually all undocumented men are in the labor force” (Passel, Capps, & Fix, 2004, p. 1) at rates far higher than that of both citizens and authorized immigrants, the estimated 12 mil- lion undocumented immigrants (The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press & Pew Hispanic Center, 2006) are significantly poorer than both groups. In 2004, “the average annual income for unauthorized families was $27,400, compared with $47,800 for legal immigrant families and $47,700 for native-born families” (Merrell, 2007, p. 2).
The challenges of service provision to immigrants in the United States, moreover, no longer affect only niche resettlement agencies or large-scale urban organizations located in states such as California and New York, the traditional destinations of new arrivals. New immigrants are settling in in- creasing numbers in suburban and rural communities that have not been immigrant destinations in the past. Service providers unaccustomed to serv- ing ethnically and linguistically diverse populations thus face the challenges of providing services to diverse groups of economically, politically and so- cially marginalized newcomers.
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 369
Social work’s scholarship on immigration has traditionally focused on immigrants’ “cultural adaptation, namely an understanding of how practice can be sensitive to differences in the worldviews of immigrants given their unique cultural backgrounds” (Padilla, 1997, p. 595). Attention to multicul- turalism has contributed practice theory and modes for improving social worker’s response to immigrants and refugees, including increased aware- ness of cross-cultural differences and the systems of oppression that shape the lives of immigrants. But while immigration policy1 and its impact on immigrants and service provision to immigrants have garnered much pub- lic attention in recent years, social work literature has not reflected this trend.
An interdisciplinary body of scholarship examined the impact of 1996 welfare reform on noncitizens’ access to public benefits (Borjas, 2002; Estes et al., 2006; Fujiwara, 2005; Hook, 2003) in the last decades of the 20th century. But with some notable exceptions (Humphries, 2004; Kilty & de Haymes, 2000; Martinez & Gualda, 2006; Padilla, Shapiro, Fernández-Castro, & Faulkner, 2008; Ryan, 2002; Swingle, 2000), social work scholarship in re- cent years has not engaged in the debates on immigration and the effects of immigration policies on social work practice. In today’s climate of increasing restrictions and heightened public scrutiny on immigrants in general, and undocumented immigrants in particular, the general lack of attention to the topic of immigration in the professional literature seems at odds with so- cial work’s mission “to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and em- powerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty” (NASW, 2008).
An encouraging development is the growing call by social work schol- ars and practitioners for an increased attention to the topic of immigration (Furman, Negi, & Cisneros-Howard, 2008; Kitchen, 2005; Padilla et al., 2008). Our exploratory study of social work practitioners’ attitudes towards immi- gration and immigrants in the United States was undertaken with a similar intent: to draw scholarly and professional attention to the urgent need to attend to issues of immigration and immigration status and to begin to ad- dress this significant gap in the literature. We believe that an understanding of how practitioners currently view the issues of immigration—what they know, believe, and experience vis-à-vis this population—is a necessary pre- cursor to the development of effective education content for social work students and training for practitioners, as well as the development of models of practice with immigrants that address the sociopolitical realities of the practice environment. To our knowledge, ours is the first study of social work practitioners’ attitudes toward immigrants and the issue of immigration in the United States. In this article, we report the characteristics that pre- dict attitudes towards immigrants and immigration among a sample of 1,124
370 Y. Park et al.
post-BSW and post-MSW practicing social workers from 47 states who took part in an online survey we conducted in 2008.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Social workers’ attitudes towards and knowledge about immigration are likely to influence their practice with immigrant clients. Esses, Dovidio, and Hodson’s (2002) study of public attitudes towards immigrants and immigra- tion indicated that “favorable attitudes are likely to promote fair and equitable treatment whereas unfavorable attitudes are likely to promote discrimination (p. 7). In their study of public opinion in the U.S., Capps, Chaudry, and Santos (2007) indicated that attitudes towards immigrants and immigration, moreover, not only shape how social workers interact with immigrant pop- ulations but affect the willingness of immigrants to seek necessary social services.
In the general public, education and age are the strongest predictors for attitudes on immigration. High education levels, usually defined as col- lege and beyond, have been consistently found to be a strong predictor of nonrestrictionist or proimmigration attitudes (Chandler & Tsai, 2001; Citrin, Green, Muste, & Wong, 1997; Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996; Hood & Morris, 2000; Hoskins & Mischler, 1993). Age is another robust predictor of views on immigration; younger populations tend to be more proimmigrant and proimmigration than older U.S. populations (Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; Fetzer, 2000; Hood & Morris, 2000; Hoskins & Mischler, 1993).
Explanations of the importance of demographic characteristics can be divided into two broad theoretical categories. Economic, also called interest- based (O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006), theories focus on factors such as labor- market competition. Noneconomic, also called ideology-based (O’Rourke & Sinnott, 2006) or cultural theories (Pettigrew, Christ, Wagner, & Stellmacher, 2007), focus on factors such as values, beliefs, and norms about intergroup relations (Wilkes, Guppy, & Farris, 2008). Perhaps the most commonly used of the economic/interest-based theories is that of labor market competition which posits, in essence, that persons with lower socioeconomic status are less likely than those with higher status to hold favorable views of immi- grants and immigration, because low-wage, low-skill workers compete with immigrants for jobs (Garcia & Bass, 2007).
Complicating the role of economics on attitudes, however, researchers have posited that actual economic circumstances have a limited role in ex- plaining anti-immigration prejudice (Citrin, Green, Muste, & Wong, 1997; Pettigrew, Wagner, & Christ, 2007). Chandler and Tsai (2001) reported that since the 1980s, levels of anti-immigration sentiment have not reflected the state of the U.S. economy: the former has remained relatively constant
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 371
“despite fluctuations in the economy” (p. 186). Scholars have suggested, instead, that subjective views of the economy rather than objective measures (such as unemployment rates) better explain attitudes on immigration (Pet- tigrew et al., 2007b; Rajiman, Semyonov, & Schmidt, 2003). The robust link between labor-market skills and immigration attitudes Scheve and Slaughter (2001) found, for example, is not to be understood as a simple effect of economic competition but as a “complex attitude resulting from an inter- play between various concerns and moderating beliefs about immigration’s consequences” (Palmer, 1996, p. 180). High education or skill level is not, in other words, a straightforward economic indicator but a combination of economic and ideological factors, capturing “wider knowledge, more critical habits of thought, greater security, or merely a more sophisticated defense of their class interests” (Chandler & Tsai, 2001, p. 186) which shape greater tolerance.
Noneconomic theories attempt, in part, to explain these subjective dif- ferentials. One such group of theories focuses on models of perceived or symbolic threat. They posit that “fear and perceptions of threat play an im- portant role in prejudice toward outgroups in general and immigrants in particular” (Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan, & Martin, 2005, p. 2), and that intergroup contact can modify such fears and perceptions of threat by re- ducing prejudice between groups (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001, p. 398). A 2006 Pew study found, for example, that “exposure to and experience with immigrants results in a better impression of them” (The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press & Pew Hispanic Center, 2006, p. 3) among native-born Americans.
Noneconomic theories also encompass models of group identification and intergroup relations. Social dominance theory, a model of group identi- fication assumes that those “who see intergroup relations in terms of group competition will be especially prejudiced and discriminatory toward out- groups” (Esses et al., 2001, p. 398). Individuals with high social dominance orientation who, thus, believe in the appropriateness of social hierarchies and unequal socioeconomic outcomes are more likely to hold anti-immigration views (Esses et al., 2001). Conversely, a low social dominance orientation and pro-diversity attitudes are “key components of a multicultural ideology” (Ward & Masgoret, 2006, p. 672) which predicts a proimmigration view. Sim- ilarly, Pantoja (2006) posits that “sociopolitical values” (2006, p. 516) play a role in shaping opinions on immigration, and “prosocial or compassion values” (p. 521) are related to proimmigrant attitudes. Haubert and Fussell’s “cosmopolitanism” (2006, p. 497), “measured by a white-collar occupation, having a university education, holding more liberal values, rejecting eth- nocentrism, and having lived abroad, is strongly related to more favorable perceptions of immigrants” (p. 490) is an analogous concept.
Given that most research on attitudes towards immigrants has surveyed the general public, our study investigated predictors of attitudes towards
372 Y. Park et al.
immigrants and immigration policy among social work practitioners. We investigated whether factors such as demographic characteristics, level of contact with immigrants, and ideological or cultural values that have been found to predict attitudes in the general public, do so for our sample of so- cial work practitioners. Given the literature, we anticipated that social work practitioners were likely to be favorable to immigrants. We expected that a sample of post-baccalaureate and post-graduate practitioners, working in a field whose code of ethics endorses social justice principles, would have more favorable views towards immigrants relative to the general popula- tion. But, with the understanding that an individual’s views and social work practice may be shaped by systemic constraints, we included questions on workplace characteristics and organizational policies relating to immigrants and immigration status to explore the relationship between practitioners’ attitudes and the settings in which they work.
METHOD
An 81-item anonymous Internet survey (SurveyMonkey.com) was admin- istered to a national sample of social work practitioners (N = 1,124). A test−retest reliability study was conducted for the 28 attitudes questions in which the online survey was completed by 17 post-MSW social workers. The same subjects were retested 2 weeks later (DeVellis, 1991). These par- ticipants in the test−retest study were not included in the national survey portion of the study. Study protocols were approved by the Smith College School for Social Work Human Subjects Review Committee.
Sample
Social work practitioner was defined as an individual who had completed a BSW or an MSW degree and was employed at the time of the survey in the social work field in the United States. Students and full-time academics were excluded from the study; the respondent’s own nativity was not used as an exclusion or inclusion criteria. As we were unable to obtain from social work organizations the membership and sociodemographic data re- quired to design a probability sample, convenience sampling was used. The convenience sample recruited between June 2008 and September 2008 us- ing targeted and snowball-sampling strategies netted respondents from 47 states. Snowball sampling was accomplished through requests sent via the researchers’ personal and professional networks, and through requests to forward the survey invitation placed on the survey Web site and on every recruitment communication.
As a part of the targeted sampling, we sent recruitment requests to the administrators of a wide range of regional and national social work orga- nizations. The many organizations who distributed the survey recruitment
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 373
information to their membership included: Migration and Child Welfare Na- tional Network, Council of Social Work Education (CSWE), National Asso- ciation of Black Social Workers, Latino Social Workers Organization, Asian Pacific Islander Social Work Educators Association, Child Welfare League of America, Association of Oncology Social Work, Clinical Social Work Associ- ation, Catholic Social Workers National Association, Association of Baccalau- reate Social Work Directors, National Association of Forensic Social Workers, Georgia Society of Clinical Social Workers, Asian-Pacific Islander Social Wel- fare Caucus in the San Francisco Bay Area, and various regional chapters of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). These organizations did not however, provide us with data on their membership.
We also targeted the top 10 states with the largest overall increases in the foreign-born population: California, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Arizona, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, and Georgia (Camarota, 2007); and the top 10 states with the highest percent of foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000: North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada, Arkansas, Utah, Tennessee, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, and Kentucky (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). Within these target states, field offices of CSWE accredited BSW (N = 207) and MSW programs (N = 97) were contacted and asked to disseminate an email invitation to social workers affiliated with their school’s field office (e.g., field instructors, field liaisons).
Measures
The survey did not distinguish between refugees and immigrants and did not use the term refugee. Explanations regarding the complicated legal dif- ferentiation between refugees, as well as asylees and those under Tem- porary Protected Status, and immigrants were too lengthy to include in the survey and was deemed more likely to create confusion rather than clarity. The survey distinguished only those who came to and/or remain in the United States through authorized measures and those who did not. This differentiation is congruent with vernacular usage of the term “immi- grant” which indicates foreign-birth and implies settlement in the United States, as well as official usage by, for instance, Department of Homeland Security which subsumes refugee numbers under “immigration statistics” (http://www.dhs.gov/files/statistics/immigration.shtm).
The survey included a series of questions eliciting data on the respon- dent’s sociodemographic characteristics, the respondent’s professional and social contact with immigrants, immigration-related policies at the respon- dent’s current social work employment site, and questions on attitudes to- wards immigrants, which comprised the attitudes scale. The contact and attitude questions were modeled on prior surveys of general populations and other professional groups.
374 Y. Park et al.
Questions on Professional and Social Contact With Immigrants
Drawing from previous attitude surveys that measured contact with immi- grants (Center for Social Science Research, 2007; Statistics Norway, 2008), respondents were asked to provide their “best guess” on how many immi- grants live in their neighborhood and work at the businesses they frequent, using the response items most, many, some, few, or none. They were also asked how many immigrants are served overall at their social work employ- ment site and how many clients the respondents personally serves.
Work Site Characteristics
A series of questions gathered information regarding the respondent’s work site. For the type of work site categorization, respondents saying they worked for the federal (N = 44) state (N = 126), county (N = 160) or city govern- ment (N = 39) were grouped as governmental. Because some individuals responded that their work site was part of multiple levels of government (e.g., county and city), the total people categorized into the governmental group is less than the sum of the aforementioned individual responses. The other major categories were private not-for-profit agencies and for-profit agencies and those responding that they were self-employed (N = 44) were grouped with those responding “other.” For questions enquiring about worksite poli- cies on citizenship status, social workers answering “yes” were compared to those answering “no”; those responding “I don’t know” or that the question was “not applicable” were excluded from analyses.
Attitude Scale
The attitude questions were modeled on prior surveys of general popu- lations conducted by national media and research organizations. For each question on attitudes, respondents were asked whether they strongly agreed, somewhat agreed, somewhat disagreed, or strongly disagreed with a series of statements about immigration or immigration policy (see Table 1). The series of questions included subsets of questions designed to tap into several conceptual areas around which social workers were expected to have dif- ferent attitudes. The first subset contained three questions related to the ex- tent to which immigrants assimilated into American culture. Seven questions pertaining to the immigrant threat hypothesis (e.g., “Illegal/undocumented immigrants take jobs away from American workers”) were drawn from a 2007 telephone survey of 1,072 English-speaking Virginia residents (Center for Social Science Research, 2007). Seven questions related to immigration policy and citizenship management (e.g., “There are too many immigrants overall ad legal immigration should be decreased”) were drawn from the
T A
B L E
1 Sc
al e
It e m
s M
e as
u ri n g
So ci
al W
o rk
e rs
’ A
tt it u d e s
to w
ar d s
Im m
ig ra
n ts
an d
Im m
ig ra
ti o n
A g re
e A
g re
e D
is ag
re e
D is
ag re
e A
tt it u d e
q u e st
io n
st ro
n g ly
(% )
so m
e w
h at
(% )
so m
e w
h at
(% )
st ro
n g ly
(% )
A ss
im il at
io n
su b sc
al e
it e m
s In
g e n e ra
l, im
m ig
ra n ts
w h o
co m
e to
th e
U n it e d
St at
e s
to d ay
h e lp
th e
co u n tr y
an d
m ak
e it
a b e tt e r
p la
ce to
li v e .
4 5
4 4
9 1
T o d ay
’s im
m ig
ra n ts
ar e
le ss
w il li n g
th an
im m
ig ra
n ts
o f th
e p as
t to
in te
g ra
te in
to U
n it e d
St at
e s
so ci
e ty
.a 1 0
2 7
3 8
2 5
Im m
ig ra
n ts
d o
n o t w
an t to
le ar
n E n g li sh
.a 5
1 5
4 0
4 0
P e rc
e iv
e d
th re
at su
b sc
al e
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra ti o n
e n d an
g e rs
A m
e ri ca
n cu
st o m
s an
d w
ay o f li fe
.a 6
1 5
2 5
5 3
Le g al
im m
ig ra
ti o n
e n d an
g e rs
A m
e ri ca
n cu
st o m
s an
d w
ay o f li fe
.a 0 .3
3 2 0
7 7
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
ta k e
jo b s
aw ay
fr o m
A m
e ri ca
n w
o rk
e rs
.a 5
1 8
3 4
4 4
H av
in g
il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
in th
e n e ig
h b o rh
o o d
h u rt s
p ro
p e rt y
v al
u e s.
a 5
2 2
4 1
3 2
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra ti o n
in cr
e as
e s
th e
d an
g e rs
o f te
rr o ri sm
.a 7
1 9
2 8
4 6
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra ti o n
in cr
e as
e s
th e
ra te
s o f cr
im e .a
7 2 3
3 6
3 4
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n t d ri v e
u p
m e d ic
al co
st s
fo r
e v e ry
o n e .a
1 5
2 9
2 7
3 0
P o li cy
su b sc
al e
it e m
s T h e re
ar e
to o
m an
y il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
li v in
g in
th e
U n it e d
St at
e s
to d ay
.a 1 6
3 1
2 7
2 7
T h e re
ar e
to o
m an
y im
m ig
ra n ts
o v e ra
ll , an
d le
g al
im m
ig ra
ti o n
sh o u ld
b e
d e cr
e as
e d .a
2 8
2 8
6 2
O b ta
in in
g ci
ti ze
n sh
ip sh
o u ld
b e
m o re
d if fi cu
lt fo
r im
m ig
ra n ts
th an
it is
to d ay
.a 3
7 2 8
6 3
Lo ca
l la
w e n fo
rc e m
e n t sh
o u ld
b e
re q u ir e d
to ch
e ck
th e
im m
ig ra
ti o n
st at
u s
o f p e o p le
th e y
e n co
u n te
r d u ri n g
ro u ti n e
ac ti v it ie
s su
ch as
tr af
fi c
v io
la ti o n s.
a
8 1 9
2 2
5 1
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
li v in
g in
th e
U n it e d
St at
e s
sh o u ld
b e
g ra
n te
d a
le g al
p at
h to
ci ti ze
n sh
ip .
4 6
3 6
1 1
8
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
li v in
g in
th e
U n it e d
St at
e s
sh o u ld
b e
d e p o rt e d .a
7 1 5
3 4
4 5
C h il d re
n b o rn
to il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
li v in
g in
th e
U n it e d
St at
e s
sh o u ld
b e
co n si
d e re
d ci
ti ze
n s.
5 9
2 1
1 4
7
(C o n
ti n
u ed
o n
n ex
t p a
ge )
375
T A
B L E
1 Sc
al e
It e m
s M
e as
u ri n g
So ci
al W
o rk
e rs
’ A
tt it u d e s
to w
ar d s
Im m
ig ra
n ts
an d
Im m
ig ra
ti o n
(C o n
ti n
u ed
)
A g re
e A
g re
e D
is ag
re e
D is
ag re
e A
tt it u d e
q u e st
io n
st ro
n g ly
(% )
so m
e w
h at
(% )
so m
e w
h at
(% )
st ro
n g ly
(% )
So ci
al se
rv ic
e s
su b sc
al e
P u b li c
sc h o o ls
sh o u ld
p ro
v id
e b il in
g u al
e d u ca
ti o n .
4 4
3 1
1 6
1 0
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
d ra
in so
ci al
se rv
ic e s.
a 1 0
2 3
3 4
3 3
C h il d re
n w
h o
ar e
il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
sh o u ld
b e
al lo
w e d
to at
te n d
p u b li c
sc h o o l.
7 5
1 5
7 4
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
sh o u ld
b e
al lo
w e d
to p ay
in -s
ta te
tu it io
n ra
te s
at p u b li c
co ll e g e s
an d
u n iv
e rs
it y
in th
e st
at e s
w h e re
th e y
re si
d e .
4 7
2 2
1 6
1 6
Le g al
im m
ig ra
n ts
sh o u ld
h av
e as
m u ch
ac ce
ss to
so ci
al se
rv ic
e s
as U
.S .
ci ti ze
n s.
8 7
1 0
2 0 .5
Il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
sh o u ld
h av
e as
m u ch
ac ce
ss to
so ci
al se
rv ic
e s
as U
.S . ci
ti ze
n s.
3 2
3 5
2 0
1 4
R o le
o f so
ci al
w o rk
su b sc
al e
It is
a so
ci al
w o rk
e r’ s
re sp
o n si
b il it y
to re
p o rt
il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
to im
m ig
ra ti o n
au th
o ri ti e s.
a 2
6 1 6
7 6
So ci
al w
o rk
’s p ro
fe ss
io n al
co m
m it m
e n ts
in cl
u d e
an e th
ic al
o b li g at
io n
to se
rv e
an d
ad v o ca
te fo
r il le
g al
/u n d o cu
m e n te
d im
m ig
ra n ts
. 6 7
2 5
5 3
It is
a so
ci al
w o rk
e rs
’ re
sp o n si
b il it y
to b e
k n o w
le d g e ab
le ab
o u t th
e la
w s
an d
p o li ci
e s
co n ce
rn in
g cl
ie n ts
’ im
m ig
ra ti o n
st at
u s.
5 2
3 9
6 3
It is
a so
ci al
w o rk
e rs
’ re
sp o n si
b il it y
to b e
k n o w
le d g e ab
le ab
o u t th
e cu
lt u ra
l tr ad
it io
n s
o f im
m ig
ra n t cl
ie n ts
. 7 8
2 1
1 0 .4
So ci
al se
rv ic
e s
sh o u ld
b e
p ro
v id
e d
in th
e cl
ie n t’ s
la n g u ag
e o f ch
o ic
e .
5 5
3 4
7 3
a I n d ic
at e s
it e m
s th
at ar
e sc
o re
d in
v e rs
e ly
.
376
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 377
a survey on 2000 adults nationwide (The Pew Hispanic Center, 2006). We designed six questions regarding the provision of social services to immi- grants that are currently being debated across the United States with regard to immigrants’ use of and eligibility for social benefits (e.g., “Children who are illegal/undocumented, should be able to attend public school”). And finally, we developed five questions to explore social work professional ethics and responsibilities related to undocumented immigrants (e.g., “It is a social worker’s responsibility to report illegal/undocumented immigrants to immigration authorities”).
For each positively phrased question, a score of 1.5 was given if the response was strongly agree, 0.5 for agree somewhat, −0.5 for disagree somewhat and −1.5 for disagree strongly. Responses to negatively phrased questions were scored inversely, such that, those strongly disagreeing with a negatively phrased question were scored with a 1.5 for that item. The scor- ing system creates a scale that preserves the 1 unit difference in response items traditionally used in Likert scales and that will produce a mean score of 0 when used with a population with generally balanced or neutral atti- tudes (DeVellis, 1991). Populations with generally positive views will have a mean score above 0 and populations with generally negative views will have a mean score below 0. The battery of 28 attitude questions included 12 positively phrased questions that were keyed in the positive direction and 16 negatively phrased questions keyed in the negative direction. The scores for the items were summed to generate scale scores for each sub- scale, and an overall scale score was created summing the scores for all 28 questions. The Assimilation subscale has a possible score range of −4.5 to 4.5 and was designed to reflect the extent to which respondents feel that current immigrants integrate into U.S. society. The Perceived Threat subscale has a possible score range of −10.5 to 10.5 and was designed to reflect the extent to which respondents do not perceive immigrants as a threat to U.S. society. The Policy subscale has a possible score range of −10.5 to 10.5 and was designed to reflect the extent to which respondents support policies that support immigrants and immigration. The Social Services subscale has a possible score range of −9 to 9 and was designed to reflect the extent to which the respondents support the provision of social services to immi- grants. The Role of Social Workers sub-scale has a possible score range of −7.5 to 7.5 and was designed to reflect the extent to which the respondents feel social workers should support immigrants and proimmigrant policies. The Full scale sums the subscale scores and has a possible score range of −42 to 42 was expected to reflect an overall attitude towards immigrants and. The internal consistency of the items in subscales and overall scale was formally tested using Cronbach’s alpha with stepwise removal of one scale item at a time. The internal consistency analyses were performed using data from the full population of national survey respondents.
378 Y. Park et al.
Data Analysis
Intraclass correlation analyses were used to analyze the data from the test−retest study to estimate the reliability of each of the attitude subscales and the overall favorability scale (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Descriptive anal- yses of the respondent’s demographic characteristics were conducted and the results compared to a recent report on the demographic characteristics of the profession. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to estimate the mutually adjusted association between a suite of sociodemographic, ge- ographic, and education variables and the scale score. These variables were selected a priori as likely predictors of attitudes and were entered simultane- ously into a linear regression model. Analyses and plots of the residuals were used to assess normality and homoscedasticity and tolerance and variable inflation factor statistics were used to assess independent variables for mul- ticollinearity (Fox, 1997). The multivariate analyses include those who had complete data for all variables in the model. Likewise, multivariate linear re- gression analyses were used to assess associations between the “contact with immigrants” variables and the attitudes scale scores and between the “work site variables” and the attitudes scale scores. Due to multicollinerity issues among the contact variables and among the work site variables, associations with the attitudes scale score for each contact or work site variable were assessed in separate regression models that also included variables for the sociodemographic, geographic, and education characteristics. Unstandard- ized beta coefficients and p values for predictor variables and the R-squared and F test for each regression model are presented in Tables 4–6 (Greenland, Schlesselman, & Criqui, 1986).
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
In total 1,365 respondents gave consent and took the survey. Of these 241 were subsequently removed from the data because they did not meet eli- gibility criteria, leaving a sample of 1,124 respondents. Because the sample involved self-selection of Internet users, a response rate cannot be calculated. A total of 1,039 respondents completed all of the attitude questions and the Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale was calculated for this portion (92%) of the sample. A total of 968 subjects completed all of the attitude-, sociodemographic-, geographic-, and education-related questions and were included in the final multivariate analysis of sociodemographic predictors of attitudes.
The demographic characteristics of our sample are presented in Table 2 (Column 1). The majority of respondents are women (87%), White (76%), have earned an MSW (92%), and describe their political views as liberal
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 379
TABLE 2 Race/Ethnicity Breakdown this Sample as Compared to Characteristics of Social Work Profession in 2006 (Schilling et al., 2008)
Study Schilling population et al. (2008)
Race/ethnicity N % N %
NonHispanic Black 58 5.2 4186 15.6 Non-Hispanic White 836 74.4 18,695 69.9 Hispanic 115 10.2 1,729 6.5 Asian 51 4.5 680 2.5 Native American and
Alaska Native 20 1.8 234 0.9
Other 17 1.5 606 2.3 Not reported 27 2.4 629 2.4 Total 1124 26,759
Note. Chi square = 133.4, p < .001 for difference in proportion of respondents in each race/ethnicity category compared to Schilling et al. Schilling et. al study reported Chicano/Mexican American respon- dents separately from the Puerto Rican respondents. We collapsed these two categories into the category Hispanic, for better comparison with our study’s sample.
(92%). The ethnicity breakdown of non-White respondents was 5% African American (n = 58), 10% Hispanic (n = 115), and 8% other (n = 88). For statistical purposes, other includes respondents who reported Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American, in addition to people who wrote in ethnic- ities that did not fall into one of the aggregate categories, or people who reported multiple ethnicities. Reported household incomes were generated in increments of $25,000 with the largest group reporting less than $50,000 (29%) and the smallest group reporting a household income greater than $150,000 (8%). Half of the respondents were located in urban or metropoli- tan areas, 30% in suburban areas, and 20% in small towns or rural areas. With regard to region, the highest percentage of respondents were from the West (40%), followed by the Midwest (23%), the South (20%), and the Northeast (17%). A small portion of respondents were themselves immigrants (8%), while nearly one quarter reported that a close family member (e.g., parent, spouse/partner, or parent of spouse/partner) immigrated to the United States (26%).
Our sample closely resembles demographic profiles of U.S. social work- ers profiled in two recent sources: CSWE data on social work graduates reported by Schilling, Morrish, and Liu (2008) and NASW membership re- ports. Neither is an accurate reflection of the practice field as a whole, since the former tallies graduates who may or may not be currently employed in social work, and the latter tallies only the membership of one professional organization. However, since no comprehensive national registry of prac- ticing social workers exists, we used the two together to approximate how well our convenience sample reflects the profession. Compared with CSWE data on social work graduates, our sample has a slightly higher proportion
380 Y. Park et al.
of White, Hispanic, Asian, and American Indian respondents and slighter fewer African American respondents (Shilling et al., 2008). Like the NASW membership, our sample was predominantly female, but had an even lower proportion of males than the NASW membership (p < .001). Our sample also had a higher proportion of respondents with less than 5 years of expe- rience than NASW members overall (p < .001), which may reflect the use of a Web-based survey (NASW, 2003).
Descriptive Statistics
Overall, our sample reported favorable views towards immigrants (see Table 1). Respondents, however, appeared to report more favorable views towards legal immigrants than towards illegal/undocumented immigrants on several items. 77% of the sample strongly disagreed that legal immigration endangers American customs and way of life, while only 53% strongly dis- agreed that illegal immigration endangers American customs and way of life. With regard to access to social services, 87% strongly agreed that legal immi- grants should have as much access to social services as U.S. citizens, while only 32% strongly agreed that illegal/undocumented immigrants should have similar access. With regard to social work ethics and values, a small portion of respondents agreed that it is a social worker’s responsibility to report un- documented immigrants to immigration authorizes (8%), while the majority (92%) agreed that social work’s professional commitments include an ethical obligation to serve and advocate for illegal/undocumented immigrants.
Psychometric Properties of the Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale
Table 3 documents the psychometric properties of the attitudes scale and its subscales. The reliability study included 17 subjects who each completed the Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale once and then again two weeks later. Intraclass correlation analyses show that the overall scale and its sub-scales are quite reliable with reliability scores ranging from 0.83 to 0.97. When administered to the full survey population the overall scale was highly internally consistent, as were the Assimilation, Perceived Threat, Policy, and Social Services subscales (see Table 3). Stepwise removal of one scale item at a time did not have a substantial impact on the Cronbach alpha scores. Table 3 also shows the Spearman rank correlations between each of the subscales and the total scale, which ranged from 0.53 to 0.93. As would be expected with such high correlations between the sub-scales and the overall scale, sociodemographic predictors of scale scores were consistent across the sub-scales and the overall scale (results available from the author
T A
B L E
3 P sy
ch o m
e tr ic
p ro
p e rt ie
s o f th
e A
tt it u d e s
Sc al
e
C o rr
e la
ti o n
b b e tw
e e n
sc al
e s
R 2
In te
rn al
co n si
st e n cy
D e sc
ri p ti v e
P e rc
e iv
e d
So ci
al R o le
o f
T e st
−r e te
st C ro
n b ac
h ’s
al p h a
st at
is ti cs
A ss
im il at
io n
th re
at P o li cy
se rv
ic e s
so ci
al w
o rk
F u ll
Sc al
e re
li ab
il it y
(r an
g e
a ) M
(R an
g e )
su b sc
al e
su b sc
al e
su b sc
al e
su b sc
al e
su b sc
al e
sc al
e
A ss
im il at
io n
su b sc
al e
0 .8
6 0 .7
6 (0
.6 2 , 0 .7
3 )
1 .7
7 (−
4 .5
0 , 4 .5
0 )
— 0 .6
9 ∗
0 .7
0 ∗
0 .6
6 ∗
0 .5
3 ∗
0 .8
0 ∗
P e rc
e iv
e d
th re
at su
b sc
al e
0 .9
5 0 .8
7 (0
.8 3 , 0 .8
8 )
4 .4
7 (−
9 .5
0 , 1 0 .5
0 )
— —
0 .8
0 ∗
0 .7
6 ∗
0 .5
6 ∗
0 .9
1 ∗
P o li cy
su b sc
al e
0 .9
3 0 .8
9 (0
.8 6 , 0 .8
7 )
5 .0
1 (−
1 0 .5
0 , 1 0 .5
0 )
— —
— 0 .8
0 ∗
0 .6
2 ∗
0 .9
3 ∗
So ci
al se
rv ic
e s
su b sc
al e
0 .8
9 0 .8
1 (0
.7 4 , 0 .8
3 )
4 .2
8 (−
8 .0
0 , 9 .0
0 )
— —
— —
0 .6
1 ∗
0 .9
0 ∗
R o le
o f so
ci al
w o rk
e rs
su b sc
al e
0 .8
3 0 .6
1 (0
.4 8 , 0 .6
3 )
5 .3
1 (−
6 .5
0 , 7 .5
0 )
— —
— —
— 0 .7
1 ∗
F u ll
sc al
e 0 .9
7 0 .9
5 (0
.9 5 , 0 .9
5 )
2 0 .8
4 (−
3 3 .0
0 , 4 2 .0
0 )
— —
— —
— —
N o te
. Lo
w e st
an d
h ig
h e st
al p h a
sc o re
af te
r st
e p w
is e
re m
o v al
o f o n e
sc al
e it e m
at a
ti m
e . Sp
e ar
m an
ra n k
co rr
e la
ti o n .
∗ p <
.0 0 1 .
381
382 Y. Park et al.
upon request). Since the subscale scores did not appear to reflect different underlying aspects of respondent’s attitudes towards immigrants, further analytical results are presented for predictors of the overall scale score.
Predictors of Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards Immigrants
Table 4 shows the results of multiple linear regression analyses of sociode- mographic, geographic and education related variables as predictors of the overall attitudes scale score. Compared to Whites, who served as the refer- ent group, Hispanic social workers reported more favorable views towards immigrants (5.53 scale points, p < .001) and African American reported es- sentially equivalent views. Social workers located in suburban geographical areas reported significantly less favorable views towards immigrants than those living in urban or metropolitan areas (−4.72 scale points, p < .001). Those with a MSW degree scored higher on the attitudes scale than those who had only a BSW, although the difference was of only borderline statisti- cal significance. For three variables; age, income, and time since graduation the results showed an inverse J relationship with increasing variable cate- gory. For instance the scale score declined monotonically with age, but then in the oldest category rebounded slightly.
Respondents were asked to report their degree of contact with immi- grants in their neighborhoods, in stores and businesses they frequent, in their employment site, and among the clients they personally serve. In all arenas, more contact was associated with more favorable views towards immigrants (see Table 5). Unsurprisingly, those who reported having an immigrant in their family scored significantly higher on the attitudes scale than those did not have an immigrant in their family.
Table 6 presents the results of analyses of work site characteristics and social workers’ mean scores on the attitudes towards immigrants scale. The mean score on the attitudes scale was significantly lower for social workers working for governmental bodies or for-profit agencies as compared to those working for not-for-profit agencies. Social workers who worked for sites with “don’t ask don’t tell” policies regarding immigrant’s legal status had a significantly more positive attitude score, as did social workers at sites where undocumented immigrants were eligible for services. Social workers working at sites requiring clients to document their status had significantly lower scores on the attitudes scale than social workers employed at sites not requiring documentation.
DISCUSSION
Much of our findings are congruent with the literature. As expected, our sample exhibited an overall favorable view of immigrants and immigra- tion; surveyed practitioners fit both the demographic profile (high educa- tion) and ideological characteristics (prodiversity) of individuals who are
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 383
TABLE 4 Associations Between Sociodemographic and Education-Related Factors and Score on the Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale
Independent variables N Beta coefficienta
Gender Female 846 Ref Male 122 −0.22
Age 20−29 167 Ref 30−39 308 −2.13 40−49 179 −4.10∗ 50+ 314 −2.25
Race White 739 Ref Black 47 0.18 Hispanic 103 5.53∗∗∗
Other 79 0.93 Political leaning
Liberal 891 Ref Conservative 77 −20.40∗∗∗
Income <= $50,000 257 Ref $50,001−$75,000 264 −1.41 $75,001−$100,000 192 −1.68 $100,001−$150,000 176 −3.87∗ More than $150,000 79 −2.31
Urbanicity Metropolitan/urban 496 Ref Suburban 288 −4.72∗∗∗ Small town/country 184 −1.96
Region Northeast 170 Ref Midwest 224 −2.95 South 187 −1.14 West 387 −0.58
Highest social work degree BSW 87 Ref MSW 889 3.29
Years since graduation <5 274 Ref 5–<10 197 −2.79 10–<15 157 −2.99 15 or more 340 −1.21
Note. Model R2 = 0.21, F statistic = 11.97, p < .001. Beta coefficients mutually adjusted for other variables in the model. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.
generally found to be less restrictionist and more proimmigrant. In line with the contact theory of prejudice reduction (Ward & Masgoret, 2006), higher levels of contact are correlated with pro-immigration views in our sample. Congruent with the specification that “close contact” (Ward & Masgoret, 2006, p. 673) between ethno-cultural groups is indicative of prejudice reduction,
384 Y. Park et al.
TABLE 5 Associations between Contact with Immigrants and Mean Score on the Attitudes Towards Immigrants Scale
Contact with immigrants N Beta coefficientsa
Neighborhood contact Most/many 284 Ref Some 348 −2.07 few/none 335 −4.33∗∗
Model R2 = 0.22, F statistic = 11.54, p < .001. Stores/shops
Most/many 453 Ref Some 422 −2.23∗ Few/none 97 −4.74∗
Model R2 = 0.22, F statistic = 11.61, p < .001. Immigrant clients at work site
Most/many 412 Ref Some 337 0.62 Few/none 211 −2.64∗
Model R2 = 0.22, F statistic = 11.24, p < .001. Immigrant clients personally seen
Most/many 294 Ref Some 248 −0.45 Few/none 347 −4.15∗∗
Model R2 = 0.23, F statistic = 11.32, p < .001. Family member is an immigrant
No 711 Ref Yes 247 2.50∗
Model R2 = 0.21, F statistic = 11.54, p < .001. aEach “contact with immigrants” variable analyzed separately with beta coefficients adjusted for variables included in Table 4. ∗p < .5. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.
respondents who reported having the most number of immigrants as direct clients were the most likely to hold proimmigrant views.
Following previous research that shows younger populations to be more proimmigrant than older U.S. populations (Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Espenshade & Calhoun, 1993; Fetzer, 2000; Hoskins & Mischler, 1993), the youngest group (age 20–30) in our sample was the most favorably inclined toward immigrants. But in contrast to previous studies, the least favorably inclined in our sample was the age 40–49 group, with the oldest group (age 50+) showing nearly the same proimmigrant views as the youngest (age 20–30) cohort. One possible explanation for this difference is that our cohort of older social workers differs ideologically from the general population of older Americans. In the general population, older individuals are less likely to hold proimmigrant views because they are more likely to be “enmeshed in their national cultures and traditions” (Pettigrew et al., 2007b, p. 28). Our oldest group represents the generation of social workers whose views were informed by the civil rights era. As the cohort of professionals who heralded
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 385
TABLE 6 Social Worker’s Employment Site Characteristics and Attitude
Site characteristics N Beta coefficientsa
Type of work site Not for profit agency 477 Ref Government 305 −2.45∗ For profit agency 79 −3.66∗ Self or other 100 0.45
Model R2 = 0.22, F statistic = 10.91, p < .001. Site has a “don’t ask don’t tell policy” regarding immigrant’s legal status
No 490 Ref Yes 240 2.86∗
Model R2 = 0.22, F statistic = 8.84, p < .001. Employment site requires that immigrants document their status.
No 599 Ref Yes 182 −4.63∗∗∗
Model R2 = 0.24, F statistic = 10.58, p < .001. Undocumented immigrants are eligible for services at the employment site
No 92 Ref Yes 735 3.78∗∗∗
Model R2 = 0.23, F statistic = 10.70, p < .001. aEach work site variable analyzed separately with beta coefficients adjusted for variables included in Table 4. ∗p < .5. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.
in the era of multiculturalism in social work, their proimmigrant views may be an extension of their pluralistic view of society.
A finding of particular interest was the correlation between work place practices and policies and practitioners’ attitudes. Practitioners employed in government organizations held less favorable views towards immigrants than those employed in not-for-profit organizations. More specifically, re- spondents whose workplace requires citizenship identification reported less favorable attitudes than respondents who did not work in such organizations. Conversely, respondents whose workplace has “don’t ask don’t tell” policies reported more favorable attitudes than respondents who did not work in such organizations. In post hoc analyses, neither the presence of “don’t ask don’t tell” policies nor a policy requiring documentation of citizenship or legal im- migration status were associated with respondents’ reports of numbers of im- migrants served at their site, indicating that level of work site contact does not explain the effect of these work site characteristics on practitioners’ attitudes.
An alternative explanation is that organizational settings affect attitudes. The presence of “don’t ask don’t tell” policies can be understood as an indication of an organization’s commitment to serve all regardless of immi- gration status; to decouple service providers’ role from that of immigration enforcement. While it is possible that such organizations attract practitioners who already hold positive views of immigration and immigrants, an alterna- tive possibility is that working in such organizational environments fosters
386 Y. Park et al.
supportive views toward immigrants. The converse possibility, of course, is that organizational environments that require citizenship identification, and thus more restrictionist service provision to immigrants, fosters less favorable views towards immigrants among its individual practitioners. This person-in- environment nexus highlights the need for further research targeting not only practitioner education and training but for organizational policies and practices.
The outlined findings suggest that it is important to continue the recent emphasis on pluralism in U.S. social work’s professional code of ethics and educational curricula. But while the sampled social workers’ relatively fa- vorable views toward immigrants may be a positive sign for the profession and its aspiration to attend to the problems of social inequality, oppres- sion, and injustice, our less encouraging findings on attitudes toward un- documented immigrants suggest that the issue is more complex. While 79% disagreed that illegal/undocumented populations in the country should be deported, only 67% disagreed that they drain social services. The responses were, moreover, inconsistent across items that solicited views on theoretical ethics and those that sought views on their application. For example, while 92% agreed that “social work’s professional commitments include an ethical obligation to serve and advocate for illegal/undocumented immigrants,” only 67% agreed that the “illegal/undocumented immigrants should have as much access to social services as U.S. citizens.” Of the 842 (87%) respondents who “strongly agree” with the statement “legal immigrants should have as much access to social services as U.S. citizens,” 149 (18%) said they “somewhat dis- agree” and 94 (11%) said they “strongly disagree” with the statement “illegal/ undocumented immigrants should have as much access to social services as U.S. citizens.” These views appear to replicate the sociolegal bifurcation of immigrants into a deserving and an undeserving population evident in U.S. society at large.
This bifurcation is a concern for several reasons. While legal status has never guaranteed protection from anti-immigrant sentiment, undocumented immigrants, lacking even the limited legal protection and social safety nets afforded their legal counterparts, are particularly at risk in the United States. Views that likely impede the access to and delivery of services to this already most vulnerable undocumented population are, therefore, a serious concern for a profession whose primary mission “is to enhance human wellbeing and help meet the basic human needs of all people” (NASW, 2008). Moreover, the differential allotment of rights and resources, the deserving/undeserving divide, cuts across families. One in 10 U.S. children lives in a mixed status family, comprised of at least one noncitizen parent and one citizen child; 15% of all poor children (living under 200% of the federal poverty level) live in mixed status households (Fix, Zimmerman, & Passel, 2001; Hood & Morris, 2000). Approximately 5 million children in the U.S. have at least one undocumented parent (Capps et al., 2007, p. 1), and the recent intensification
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 387
of immigration enforcement have put “children at risk of family separation, economic hardship, and psychological trauma” (Capps et al., 2007, p. 1). Practitioners’ views of undocumented immigration have implications, there- fore, not only for the immigrants themselves but for entire families, including its citizen members.
Service provision to families comprised of individuals with radically different sets of social rights and legal relationships to public authorities requires informed analysis and debate. But the profession has not adequately grappled with the ethical, legal and political considerations involved when, for instance, citizen children are placed in the foster care system because their parent or guardian has been detained or deported, or when the limited aid provided to eligible children is inevitably shared with ineligible family members. Examinations of the history of social work with immigrants show that the profession, like other segments of society, has always exhibited a conflicted stance on immigration and immigrants (Park, 2006; Park & Kemp, 2006). This is to say, simply, that social workers live and practice within a particular sociopolitical context; their views are shaped by prevailing beliefs and mores of their society in its particular historical moments, just as their practices are delimited by laws and policies formulated within those specific environments.
There are several limitations to the study. While our demographic data indicates that a broad representation of social work professionals took part in the survey, we recognize that our study design and sampling methods present limitations to generalizability. The social work profession lacks a central national registry and the national, regional and specialty professional organizations we approached were unable to provide us membership data, so probability sampling approaches could not be used. Furthermore, the lack of sociodemographic data from the organizations precluded comparisons of the characteristics of the convenience sample to membership roles or to the profession overall. Comparisons to published CSWE graduation data and to NASW data are illustrative but limited by the ways in which those data sets were collected. We approached the study as an exploratory venture, to de- velop the attitudes scale, generate initial data for future research, and to test the possibilities for recruiting a large sample of social work practitioners. While we were able to reach a sizeable population of practitioners across 47 states, our numbers for ethnic minority respondents were disappointingly low. While the small number of ethnic minorities did not particularly un- dermine statistical power (most of beta coefficients for these groups were significant), the low numbers prevented a complex analysis of race/ethnicity outside the categories of Caucasian, African American and Hispanic. Another limitation of the study is that differences in the psychometric properties of surveys administered via the internet as compared to in person or via mail have not been studied extensively. Although the extant research shows few differences (Im et al., 2005; Ritter, Lorig, Diana Laurent, & Matthews, 2004),
388 Y. Park et al.
the mode of survey administration may have influenced the psychometric properties of the attitudes scale.
Social work practitioners’ attitudes towards immigration and immigrants has not been previously studied. Instruments to measure these attitudes, par- ticularly around issues germane to social work policy and practice, are thus lacking in the field. We undertook this effort, in part, to develop an attitudes scale, designed to include sub-scales expected to tap into different aspects of the respondent’s attitudes towards immigrants. The subscale scores were, however, highly intercorrelated with each other and with the overall score, and had similar Cronbach’s alpha scores. As would be expected from these high intercorrelations, the associations between the sociodemographic and education variables and the attitude score were similar across each subscale. It appears that the subscales and the overall scale reflect a similar general- ized underlying attitude towards immigrants that do not vary greatly across questions related to assimilation, perceived threat, policy and citizenship, resource usage, and the role of social workers. The analyses of sociode- mographic predictors of the scale score suggest that the scale has construct validity and is useful for survey research. Work is ongoing to create a short- ened attitudes scale that has similar psychometric properties to the full scale described here.
Today’s social workers practice in an uncertain legal and ethical terrain. Practitioners throughout the nation are ever more likely to encounter clients whose lives are shaped by vastly differential experiences of migration and settlement and the unequal social and political rights afforded them accord- ing to their immigration and citizenship status. Social work must begin to make sense of the issue of immigration and clarify the professional ethics with regard to service delivery to both authorized and undocumented immi- grants. Our goal was to explore how practitioners—as members of a society rife with conflicting perspectives on the costs and benefits of immigration and immigration enforcement—make sense of the issue of immigration and service provision to immigrants. The need for further research in this arena, and the need for continued discussions about the formulation of educa- tional policies and interventions to aid practitioners to deliver ethical and appropriate services to immigrant populations, is urgent.
NOTE
1. We use the term immigration policy, to refer to both the federal terms for entry into the United States and policies that structure how newcomers are incorporated (or excluded) from political, economic, and civic life.
REFERENCES
Borjas, G. J. (2002). Welfare reform and immigrant participation in welfare programs. The International Migration Review, 36, 1093–1123.
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 389
Burns, P., & Gimpel, J. (2000). Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, public opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115, 201–225.
Camarota, S. A. (2007). Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A profile of America’s foreign-born population. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies.
Capps, R. M. C. R., Chaudry, A., & Santos, R. (2007). Paying the price: The impact of immigration raids on America’s children: a report by the Urban Institute. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza.
Center for Immigration Studies. (n.d.). Current numbers. Retrieved from http://www. cis.org/CurrentNumbers
Center for Social Science Research. (2007). Mason Project on immigration. Retrieved from http://cssr.gmu.edu/immigration/Immigration%20survey/immigration% 20survey.html
Chandler, C. R., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2001). Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: An analysis of data from the General Social Survey. The Social Science Journal, 38, 177–188.
Citrin, J., Green, D., Muste, C., & Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. Journal of Politics, 59, 858–881.
DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Espenshade, T., & Calhoun, C. (1993). An analysis of public opinion toward undoc- umented immigration. Population Research and Policy Review, 12(3), 189–224.
Espenshade, T., & Hempstead, K. (1996). Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S. immigration. International Migration Review, 30, 535–571.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G. (2002). Public attitudes toward immigration in the United States and Canada in response to the September 11, 2001 “Attack on America.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(2), 69–85.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigra- tion dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412.
Estes, C. L., Goldberg, S., Wellin, C., Linkins, K. W., Shostak, S., & Beard, R. L. (2006). Implications of welfare reform on the elderly: a case study of provider, advocate and consumer perspectives. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 18, 41–63.
Fetzer, J. (2000). Public Attitudes toward Immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fix, M., Zimmerman, W., & Passel, J. (2001). The integration of immigrant families in the United States. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Fox, J. (1997). Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fujiwara, L. H. (2005). Immigrant rights are human rights: the reframing of immigrant entitlement and welfare. Social Problems 52, 79–101.
Furman, F., Negi, N., & Cisneros-Howard, A. L. M. (2008). The immigration debate: Lessons for social workers. Social Work, 53, 283–285.
Garcia, C., & Bass, L. E. (2007). American identity and attitudes toward English language policy initiatives. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34(1), 63–82.
Greenland, S., Schlesselman, J. J., & Criqui, M. H. (1986). The fallacy of employ- ing standardized regression coefficients and correlations as measures of effect. American Journal of Epidemiology, 123, 203–208.
390 Y. Park et al.
Haubert, J., & Fussell, E. (2006). Explaining pro-immigrant sentiment in the U.S.: Social class, cosmopolitanism, and perceptions of immigrants. International Migration Review, 40, 489–507.
Hood, M. V., & Morris, I. L. (2000). Brother, can you spare a dime? Racial/ethnic context and the Anglo vote on Proposition 187. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 194–210.
Hook, J. V. (2003). Welfare reform’s chilling effects on noncitizens: changes in nonci- tizen welfare recipiency or shifts in citizenship status. Social Science Quarterly, 3, 613–631.
Hoskins, M., & Mischler, W. (1993). Public opinion toward new migrants: A com- parative survey. International Migration, 21, 440–462.
Humphries, B. (2004). An unacceptable role for social work: implementing immi- gration policy. The British Journal of Social Work, 34, 93–107.
Im, E.-O., Chee, W., Bendera, M., Cheng, C.-Y., Tsai, H.-M., Kang, N. M., & Lee, H.. (2005). The psychometric properties of pen-and-pencil and internet versions of the midlife women’s symptom index (MSI). The International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42, 167–177.
Kilty, K. M., & de Haymes, M. V. (2000). Racism, nativism, and exclusion: public policy, immigration, and the Latino experience in the United States. Journal of Poverty, 4, 1–25.
Kitchen, A. (2005). Undocumented patients—Healthcare dilemmas, social work chal- lenge. Social Work Today, 5(3), 32.
Martinez, B. E., & Gualda, E. (2006). US/Spanish comparisons on temporary immi- grant workers: implications for policy development and community practice. European Journal of Social Work, 9, 59–84.
Merrell, M. (2007). The Impact of unauthorized immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments. Washington, DC: The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office.
National Association of Social Workers. (2003). Demographics. Practice Research Network, 2(2), 1–2.
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/ pubs/code/code.asp
O’Rourke, K. H., & Sinnott, R. (2006). The determinants of individual attitudes to- wards immigration. European Journal of Political Economy, 22, 838–861.
Padilla, Y. C., Shapiro, E. R., Fernández-Castro, M. D., & Faulkner, M. (2008). Our nation’s immigrants in peril: An urgent call to social workers. Social Work, 53, 5–8.
Padilla, Y. C. (1997). Immigrant policy: Issues for social work practice. Social Work, 42, 595–606.
Palmer, D. (1996). Determinants of Canadian attitudes toward immigration: More than just racism. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 180–192.
Pantoja, A. (2006). Against the tide? Core American values and attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy in the mid-1990s. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 515–531.
Park, Y. (2006). Constructing Immigrants: a historical discourse analysis of the repre- sentations of immigrants in U.S. social work, 1882–1952. Journal of Social Work, 6, 169–203.
Attitudes Towards Immigrants 391
Park, Y., & Kemp, S. P. (2006). “Little Alien Colonies”: representations of immigrants and their neighborhoods in social work discourse, 1875–1924. Social Service Review, 80, 705–734.
Passel, J. S., Capps, R., & Fix, M. (2004). Undocumented immigrants: Facts and figures. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2007a). Direct and indirect intergroup contact effects on prejudice: a normative interpretation. Interna- tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 411–425.
Pettigrew, T. F., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2007b). Who opposes immigration? Com- paring German with North American findings. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 4(1), 19–39.
Ryan, A. S. (2002). Immigrant and refugee concerns in human services. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Services, 1(1), 1–3.
Swingle, D. B. (2000). Immigrants and August 22, 1996: will the public charge rule clarify program eligibility? Families in Society, 81, 605–610.
The Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). The state of American public opinion on immigra- tion in spring 2006: A review of major surveys. Washington, DC: Author.
The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press; The Pew Hispanic Center. (2006). America’s immigration quandary: No consensus on immigration prob- lem or proposed fixes. Washington, DC: Author.
Rajiman, R., Semyonov, M., & Schmidt, P. (2003). Do foreigners deserve rights? De- terminants of public views toward foreigners in Germany and Israel. European Sociological Review, 4, 379.
Ritter, P., Lorig, K., Laurent, D., & Matthews, K. (2004). Internet versus mailed questionnaires: A randomized comparison. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(3), e29.
Scheve, K. F., & Slaughter, M. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145.
Schilling, R., Morrish, J. N., & Liu, G. (2008). Demographic trends in social work over a quarter-century in an increasingly female profession. Social Work, 53(2), 103–114.
Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2004). Children of immigrant families: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(2), 1–12.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intra-class correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Statistics Norway. (2008, December 16). Attitudes towards immigrants and immigra- tion. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/innvhold en/
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1–18.
Terrazas, A., Batalova, J., & Fan, V. (2007). U.S. in focus: Frequently requested statistics on immigrants in the United States, October 2007. Retrieved from http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=649#7
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). The foreign-born population: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007, August 28). Household income rises, poverty rate declines, number of uninsured up. U.S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved
392 Y. Park et al.
from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income wealth/010583.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2008). 2006 American Community Survey: Data profile high- lights. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A.-M. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immi- grants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671–682.
Wilkes, R., Guppy, N., & Farris, L. (2008). “No thanks, we’re full”: Individual char- acteristics, national context, and changing attitudes toward immigration. Inter- national Migration Review, 42, 302–330.
Yang, Y., & Vesselinov, E. (2005). Wealth inequality: Differences among five Asian immigrant groups in the U.S. Paper presented at the Annual American Socio- logical Association Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, August 13–16.
Copyright of Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
