As defined by the International Federation of Social Workers, social work is a human rights profession. This is explicitly stated in the professional codes of ethics in many nations. However, the most recent version of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers continues to exclude any mention of human rights, fitting in with the history of U.S. exceptionalism on this subject. Social workers around the world have a long history of working for the achievement of human rights, including an explicit grounding of practice in human rights principles: human dignity, nondiscrimination, participation, transparency, and accountability. Utilizing these principles, U.S. social workers can move from the deficit model of the needs-based approach to competently contextualizing individual issues in their larger human rights framework. In this way, social work can address larger social problems and make way for the concurrent achievement of human rights. This article explains these principles and provides a case example of how to apply them in practice.

This study examined health/mental health status, family functioning, and resiliency among a sample of bereaved parents ( N = 503). Participants were recruited from an online support community to complete an online survey instrument (response rate = 51.75%). The questionnaire contained an array of self-report instruments, such as the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and the Family Assessment Device (FAD), as well as open-ended questions. Many respondents scored over the clinical cut-off for the HSCL-25 (51.3%, n = 258) and IES-R (42.3%, n = 213). IES-R scores were negatively correlated with years-since loss ( r = −0.24, p < .05). In narrative responses, participants described a wide range of deeply impactful mental and physical health problems. The results indicate significant clinical distress in this sample of bereaved parents, with many reporting enduring psychological, familial, and health consequences following the death of a child.

Objectives: Advancing human rights is a core competency of U.S. social work education; yet, human rights attitudes and behaviors have never been measured in the social work literature. Thus, this article describes the development and initial validation of two scales, Human Rights Engagement in Social Work (HRESW) and Human Rights Exposure in Social Work (HRXSW). Method: The scales were validated using a purposive sample of 287 social work students. Results: Factor analysis supported a 25-item HRESW and an independent 11-item HRXSW. Reliability was assessed: HRESW (α = .894) and HRXSW (α = .734). Conclusions: The HRESW and the HRXSW have direct applicability to social work education. Through measuring exposure and engagement, we can begin assessing the quality of human rights education in social work.

This article introduces a measurable framework for rights-based social work practice and an accompanying set of instruments, the Human Rights Methods in Social Work (HRMSW) scales: (i) ‘participation’, (ii) ‘non-discrimination’, (iii) ‘strengths perspective’, (iv) ‘micro/macro integration’, (v) ‘capacity-building’, (vi) ‘community and interdisciplinary collaboration’, (vii) ‘activism’ and (viii) ‘accountability’. These scales, designed for use by researchers, educators and practitioners, are the first to measure social workers’ use of rights-based methods. An electronic survey was used to collect data from a convenience sample of 1,014 licensed US social workers, and a confirmatory factor analysis was used to validate the scales’ psychometric properties. A respecified model using eight error covariances fit the data (χ2/df ratio = 2.9; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.91; tucker lewis index (TLI) = 0.90; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.04; standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.07). Thus, factor analysis yielded a set of eight related scales—collectively called the HRMSW—each measuring a different human rights practice method that social workers can use to promote human dignity and the rights-based principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination. Scholars argue that ‘human rights’ are a more appropriate yardstick for measuring the impact of social work intervention rather than our traditional aim of social justice; the HRMSW scales can help us begin to test this proposition.

Objective: This article reports the initial validation of the Human Rights Lens in Social Work (HRLSW) scale, a tool designed to measure a social worker’s ability to see individual and social problems as resulting from human rights violations. The purpose of the research was to gather evidence regarding the validity of this multidimensional measure of a new construct, i.e., human rights lens. Method: Data from a convenience sample of 1,014 licensed clinical social workers were collected by electronic survey, and the sample was split to conduct discrete exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The exploratory factor analysis was performed on half of the sample (n = 507) to establish the underlying factor structure of the construct; the other half of the sample (n = 507) underwent a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the subsample’s psychometric properties. Results: A respecified model using only one error covariance fit the data very well. All fit indices were within their critical values (χ²/df ratio = 1.5; CFI =.99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .03). Thus, factor analysis confirms a two-factor, 11-item model for the HRLSW scale, consisting of two subscales, clients seen as experiencing rights violations, and social problems seen as rights violations. Conclusions: This scale is a useful tool for educators, researchers, and practitioners who want to practice—or promote the practice of—social work as a human rights profession.

Purpose: This review examines the effectiveness of narrative exposure therapy (NET) , a short-term intervention for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in survivors of mass violence and torture, who have often suffered multiple traumas over several years. Methods: Randomized control trials were reviewed if they measured PTSD outcome and were published in English-language, peer-reviewed journals since 2000. Eight studies reviewed here report results with 482 diverse participants, including Sri Lankan children, Rwandan orphans, adult African refugees, and elderly Romanian prisoners. Results: NET produces a significant decrease in PTSD as compared to other treatments, waitlist, or treatment as usual (TAU) . Study strengths include treatment fidelity, use of standard measures, and experimental design. Applications to Practice: Preliminary evidence supports use of NET; evidence may be strengthened by larger trials, independent researchers, and further attention to blinding. Social workers who are concerned with refugee mental health should be trained to use effective methods.