Bird's Eye View

Factors of Influence in Non-Profit Projects

The reality of the WELDP was shaped by the many factors involved in its execution. Such factors include anything ranging from time constraints to the overall cultural climate. These "factors of influence" affected not just the program and how it had come to evolve throughout its duration in contrast to our plans, but also my own research questions. In the beginning, our team had expectations for our surveys, activities, and schedule that would eventually become null. You may recall my original research question: "In what ways might a curriculum based on creative, emotional, and introspective expression create supportive connection and empower women both individually and relationally?" However, the course of the program ensued manners in which we as facilitators had to adapt with factors of influence to engage with the participants meaningfully. Soon enough, new questions arose, such as, "What barriers are in place that limit grassroots efforts in social services?" and "How do we as program facilitators adapt with real-time limitations to engage with resonant and relevant content with the women in our program?" 

To demonstrate the reality facing grassroots efforts in social services, I will point to elements of the WELDP explain the barriers that we encountered while also situating these factors of influence within the theory of Ecological Systems.

Ecological Systems Theory

A brief introduction to Ecological Systems Theory (EST) requires insight to its purpose and origin. Developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner in 1977 [1], EST utilizes an integrative model to formulate relevant interventions that allows for culturally-resonant adaptations of psychosocial support services. The model contextually integrates elements of support and risk throughout four environmental levels: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. Each level represents contexts that surround an individual and their interpersonal or systemic relationships including but not limited to: individual health, family life, neighbors, work environment, social welfare services, culture, and even time itself. EST is especially helpful in mixed-method psychosocial research, as the multi-level horizontal conceptualization has important implications for creating universal frameworks for research that can be easily adapted contextually (Onwuegbuzie et. al, 2013 [2]). For this study, the EST model will help to explain inter-systemic dynamics which shape practice and perhaps suggest interventions which might propose solutions to problems that plague the overall social ecosystem. 

The image below depicts the EST model with each circle labeled to describe the levels surrounding smaller units. To break it down, you will see that at the very center of the circle is the individual. Each level onwards contain indicators which affect the individual, as the arrows not only surround the center but also cross sectors, as each system affects the other. In the next level you see that family, school, and health services surround the individual at a microsystemic level. The mesosystem indicates the interaction between an individual's microsystem and exosystem, which includes mass media, social services, and friends of family. The surrounding macrosystem includes factors such as attitudes and ideology of culture (for example, the political climate). Finally, the last system to be integrated into this dynamic is the chronosystem, which describes time and sociohistorical conditions affect the encapsulated conditions across systems.

Though you see social and health services in the outer areas of the circle, I will be using EST to situate factors of influence surrounding grassroots efforts, which will require WELDP at the center. Interact with the arrows below the model to explore the Factors of Influence and how they are situated within the EST.

Microsystemic Factors of Influence

Family 

The WELDP took place in a small building off the I-17 in a small, commercial building space leased by LSS-SW. There was limited availability for a decent-sized room to fit 25ish people, and Wednesday mornings became the only option for hosting the program. As such, we had to figure out options for childcare to provide the women with an option to bring their children in to be looked after while they participated in the program. The childcare room had to be safe, clean, and had to have at least one fingerprint-cleared adult supervisor in with the children at all times. Unfortunately, LSS-SW was understaffed (an issue that I will describe in more detail later) and there were times when I would have to step away from facilitating to offer childcare for the participants in a separate room. While this proved difficult for our weekly plans, not providing childcare was not an option. Many of the women in our program are the primary care providers of their families and have mentioned that caring for their family/children is their top priority. 

In addition to this, the program relied on seeking support from the participants' families. Spouses played a significant part in supporting their wives and permitting their participation in the program. For example, spouses would pick-up and drop-off at the location and help with childcare. However, spouse involvement also created sensitive situations at times. For example, many of our professional development activities were specifically catered towards providing the women with resources and skill to aid their own individual empowerment. This ranged from mental wellness techniques to financial independence. Some of these topics could be controversial within the household dynamic and the cultural or gender roles that shape the participants' lives. As such, spousal support was crucial for the women's participation in the program, along with discretion and a "safe space" separate from household influences that would provide the participants with opportunities to bond among one another as individuals, not just wives and mothers. 

Facilitator Dynamics

As all three of us involved in the planning and facilitating were not full-time staff at LSS-SW and each have different roles as part of our execution in the program (Myself as a student/co-facilitator/researcher, Sadaf as a first-time Facilitator, and another student who volunteered with LSS-SW as a Women's Empowerment Coach) there were several different perspectives, priorities, and experiences to take into account when adapting to changes in the program. Each of us had different communication and learning styles, which sometimes led to tension, confusion, or miscommunication. It was important to remember that we worked as a team to take on any obstacles that we faced and that the program participants are the priority! We worked hard to trust and rely on each other to do their part, despite burnout, even if the task was daunting and each of us were tackling experiences we had never taken on before. Our support system was limited to each other, and we worked tirelessly to create a supportive dynamic for our participants and our team alike.

Language Barriers

In our preparations, LSS-SW recruited participants for the program through their caseworkers with the requirements that the participants had lived at least three years in Arizona and that they spoke/understood English. However, it only took as as long as the first week to realize that most of these women did not speak English or understand it fluently. Our main facilitator, Sadaf, spoke Farsi and conducted lessons in both English and Farsi, and since most of the women were native Farsi speakers, this worked out well enough. With Sadaf as a translator, the program was able to thrive, but as an English/Spanish co-facilitator, I personally struggled with answering questions, resonantly explaining, or inclusively engaging with the women in the program. LSS-SW services lacked an adjustment to the situation from the beginning; it's recruitment process spanning wide in order to attract participants to the program. While this worked out in a way that provided more women with the opportunity to participate, there was no appointed translator or alternative service provided to ensure that the program could succeed despite language barriers. It was rather lucky that of the participants who did not understand English, were women who spoke Farsi instead!

Exosystemic Factors of Influence

LSS-SW Services 

As I previously mentioned, LSS-SW Services provided many supportive aspects to the program, but they also provided barriers to the program and its success. Primarily, LSS-SW allowed for the program to be restructured, despite an already existing curriculum, and its openness and willingness to provide space for a Women's Empowerment Program is admirable. Without LSS-SW, this program and the resources that it provided for the women would have never happened. However, there were many areas which presented issues for the WELDP to truly take shape in the face of our efforts. For example, LSS-SW was severely understaffed. The childcare situation was only one example of this, as I had mentioned that there was a lack of cleared staff members/volunteers to assist in providing childcare. Another example of this shines through in the Professional Development Activities. 

Transportation

In the heart of downtown phoenix, LSS-SW is located in an area which requires having a car to visit. The public transportation system in the Phoenix Metro Area is limited, and was not an option for most of the women to use when attending class every Wednesday morning. LSS-SW did not provide a van or reimbursement program for travel costs. Instead, Sadaf often picked up several clients from all over the Valley to carpool to the LSS-SW location. 

Funding

Many of the factors of influence that shaped the program could be attributed to funding, or a lack thereof. With more funds, perhaps we would have been able to access more staff members to watch kids, provide translation and transportation services, and so forth. As facilitators, we had to keep in mind the program as it was presently as well as the future of the program. While we were not given any budget for the program, the issues we continued to face due to a lack of funding encouraged us to show LSS-SW and its financial representatives that the program was a worthwhile investment. To reflect this, there is one instance that comes to mind: the creative writing activity. As you read in the original project proposal, one component of this program was to incorporate expressional empowerment through a creative writing activity. As time constraints limited our ability to dedicate a section for writing, as well as language barriers and attitudes towards writing, this activity ended up being scrapped by the facilitators at around Week 6. Towards the end of the program, Sadaf instead encouraged the women to write a brief speech on what they learned in the program and why the program should continue. This was to be read at their graduation ceremony while donors and executives were in attendance. While I understand why this is a wise move in order to attract funding that could proivde more opportrunities for the program in the future, it was a complete change from what we had originally intended with the writing assignments.

Macrosystemic Factors of Influence

Women in Society

Our WELDP participants were all women who had faced hardship before. From planning to executing the empowerment curriculum for women, it was crucial that the curriculum reflected discussion and space to be shared among women. The violence that women face through institutional (e.g. health-care or structural discrimination) and interpersonal violence (e.g. microaggressions or domestic abuse) increases the body's stress response over time, and is linked to a range of poor health-related behaviors and mental health outcomes (SteelFisher et. al, 2019 [4]). With this in mind, It was important that in every step of our process, be it in planning content, or even asking available LSS-SW staff members for support, that we had what we referred to as a "sacred space" for women, where they did not have to worry about having the proper headscarves to be seen by men or feel discomfort while speaking up about their experiences as women. 

Xenophobia/Refugees in Society

Our program specifically aimed to support refugee women. The majority of the women are Afghan, and as such, it was a priority to have the program be facilitated by someone who has lived experience and knowledge in refugee women's empowerment. Sadaf was the backbone of this program, from relating to the women, translating, and becoming their support system as they got to know one another. Sadaf was able to create curriculum based on her own experiences in empowering herself and others despite xenophobia, islamophobia, and discrimination. Xenophobia creates barriers to accessing basic services and has significant effects on mental health outcomes and social stress (Suleman et. al, 2018 [5]). As a white woman with a U.S. birth certificate, this was not something for which I could offer the women expertise, but instead offer a listening heart and support as Sadaf led with compassion in the curriculum.

Chronosystemic Factors of Influence

Capitalism & Non-Profit-Industrial Complexes

The truth is, that many of the factors of influence that I explore in the underlying systems relate to the grander ecology of our sociopolitical structures. In fact, I argue that this dynamic can be attributed to capitalism and the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC). Social services receive funds dispersed through federal and state agencies, which has a twofold effect: 1) Non-profit will always have a vested interest in what will secure future funding, and 2) these policies significantly influence the sway of the status quo (Stid, 2012 [6]). That is to say, that if there is a status quo system in place that might work to address the problem, then it is more of a risk to explore new frontiers or efforts with those same funds instead. Stid (2016) aptly remarks, "The result is ingrained inertia that makes it harder to shift resources to programs that could provide better outcomes and do so more efficiently." In the case of WELDP, the program was new and 'experimental' despite evidence that points to issues in LSS-SW's previous practice and the significant effect of psychosocial techniques, like empowerment and support, on refugee women's health. To LSS-SW, the WELDP was not guaranteed a worthwhile investments for funds, despite it being an intensive and important resource for 20 different women's lives. The dynamic between capitalism and the NPIC subverts grassroots social justice movements and hinders services that would not survive otherwise in the NPIC (Samimi & DeHerrera, 2021 [7]).

Colonialism and The Crisis

Over 100 million people worldwide are now estimated to be displaced as of 2022 (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [8]). This staggering number has been an accumulation of sociopolitical factors and attitudes that has ultimately led to mass displacements worldwide. History has shaped the "refugee crisis" (and subsequently the WELDP) through a history of colonialism. Refugees do not just sprout from the ground and appear at the border out of nowhere. Time and history can pinpoint eras such as Europe's history of colonialism, slavery, imperialism, settler colonialism, and transatlantic migration, which have had consequences for groups of people like Afghans (Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 2018 [9]). The long history of empires has created the refugee crisis through subjugation and instability. As such, the "refugee crisis" has been shaped by time and the history of colonialism and is a direct result of these influences.

Despite these factors, the WELDP provided an excellent example of the successes in participatory psychosocial support and empowerment programs, as well as the potential for wide-scale, radical solutions for refugee women's services. To read more about the overall success of the program and recommendations for LSS-SW going forward, visit the Reflections page.