Search

In 2018, in response to increasingly oppressive and widespread federal immigration enforcement actions in the United States (U.S.) and around the globe - including family separation, immigration raids, detention, deportation of people who have lived in the country for much of their lives - the Society for Community Research & Action produced a statement on the effects of deportation and forced separation on immigrants, their families, and communities (SCRA, 2018). The statement focused exclusively on the impacts of deportation and forced family separation, documenting the damage done by oppressive U.S. policies and practices. We felt it was imperative to document this harm, and yet were uncomfortable producing a narrow paper that focused solely on harm. There are multiple ways immigrants and their allies resist deportation and other forms of oppression. This resistance is done individually, collectively, and in settings that vary in size and scope, including community-based, faith-based, direct care, and educational settings, as well as entire municipalities and transnational organizing settings. Settings facilitate resistance in many ways, focusing on those who are oppressed, their oppressors, and systems of oppression. In this statement, we describe the unique and overlapping ways in which settings facilitate resistance. We situate this review of the scientific and practice literature in the frameworks of change through social settings, empowering settings, healing justice, and decolonization. We also document recommendations for continued resistance.

Recently, community psychologists have re-vamped a set of 18 competencies considered important for how we practice community psychology. Three competencies are: (1) ethical, reflexive practice, (2) community inclusion and partnership, and (3) community education, information dissemination, and building public awareness. This paper will outline lessons I-a white working class woman academic-learned about my competency development through my research collaborations, using the lens of affective politics. I describe three lessons, from school-based research sites (elementary schools serving working class students of color and one elite liberal arts school serving wealthy white students). The first lesson, from an elementary school, concerns ethical, reflective practice. I discuss understanding my affect as a barometer of my ability to conduct research from a place of solidarity. The second lesson, which centers community inclusion and partnership, illustrates how I learned about the importance of "before the beginning" conversations concerning social justice and conflict when working in elementary schools. The third lesson concerns community education, information dissemination, and building public awareness. This lesson, from a college, taught me that I could stand up and speak out against classism in the face of my career trajectory being threatened. With these lessons, I flesh out key aspects of community practice competencies.

Coalition-based efforts that use a science-based approach to prevention can improve the wellbeing of community youth. This study measured several coalition capacities that are hypothesized to facilitate the adoption of a science-based approach to prevention in communities. Using data from 12 coalitions participating in a community-randomized trial of the prevention strategy Communities That Care (CTC), this paper describes select measurement properties of five salient coalition capacities (member substantive knowledge of prevention, member acquisition of new skills, member attitudes toward CTC, organizational linkages, and influence on organizations), as reported by coalition members, and examines the degree to which these capacities facilitated the community leader reports of the community-wide adoption of a science-based approach to prevention. Findings indicated that the five coalition capacities could be reliably measured using coalition member reports. Meta-regression analyses found that CTC had a greater impact on the adoption of a science-based prevention approach in 12 matched pairs of control and CTC communities where the CTC coalition had greater member (new skill acquisition) and organizational capacities (organizational linkages).

Coalition-based efforts that use a science-based approach to prevention can improve the wellbeing of community youth. This study measured several coalition capacities that are hypothesized to facilitate the adoption of a science-based approach to prevention in communities. Using data from 12 coalitions participating in a community-randomized trial of the prevention strategy Communities That Care (CTC), this paper describes select measurement properties of five salient coalition capacities (member substantive knowledge of prevention, member acquisition of new skills, member attitudes toward CTC, organizational linkages, and influence on organizations), as reported by coalition members, and examines the degree to which these capacities facilitated the community leader reports of the community-wide adoption of a science-based approach to prevention. Findings indicated that the five coalition capacities could be reliably measured using coalition member reports. Meta-regression analyses found that CTC had a greater impact on the adoption of a science-based prevention approach in 12 matched pairs of control and CTC communities where the CTC coalition had greater member (new skill acquisition) and organizational capacities (organizational linkages).

In the neighborhood effects literature, collective efficacy is viewed as the key explanatory process associated with the spatial distribution of a range of social problems. While many studies usefully focus on the consequences of collective efficacy, in this paper we examine the task specificity of collective efficacy and consider the individual and neighborhood factors that influence residents' perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy for specific tasks. Utilizing survey and administrative data from 4,093 residents nested in 148 communities in Australia, we distinguish collective efficacy for particular threats to social order and assess the relative importance of social cohesion and neighborhood social ties to the development of collective efficacy for violence, delinquency and civic/political issues. Our results indicate that a model separating collective efficacy for specific problems from social ties and the more generalized notions of social cohesion is necessary when understanding the regulation potential of neighborhoods.

In the neighborhood effects literature, collective efficacy is viewed as the key explanatory process associated with the spatial distribution of a range of social problems. While many studies usefully focus on the consequences of collective efficacy, in this paper we examine the task specificity of collective efficacy and consider the individual and neighborhood factors that influence residents' perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy for specific tasks. Utilizing survey and administrative data from 4,093 residents nested in 148 communities in Australia, we distinguish collective efficacy for particular threats to social order and assess the relative importance of social cohesion and neighborhood social ties to the development of collective efficacy for violence, delinquency and civic/political issues. Our results indicate that a model separating collective efficacy for specific problems from social ties and the more generalized notions of social cohesion is necessary when understanding the regulation potential of neighborhoods.

Community psychologists are increasingly using Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a way to promote social justice by creating conditions that foster empowerment. Yet, little attention has been paid to the differences between the power structure that PAR advocates and the local community power structures. This paper seeks to evaluate the level of participation in a PAR project for multiple stakeholder groups, determine how PAR was adjusted to better fit community norms, and whether our research team was able to facilitate the emergence of PAR by adopting an approach that was relevant to the existing power relations. We conclude that power differences should not be seen as roadblocks to participation, but rather as moments of opportunity for the researchers to refine their methods and for the community and the community psychologist to challenge existing power structures.