This urban ethnography examines state-led social work's role in engaging precaritized migrants experiencing homelessness within Northern and Western European welfare states. These migrants navigate constrained access to social rights while contending with intersecting forms of class- and race-based discrimination. Integrating the concepts of precarity and social work as a human rights-based profession, the study focuses on outreach social workers in Ghent, Belgium, through participant observations and qualitative interviews with 14 practitioners.
Findings
The findings reveal complex layers of precarity shaped by global, state, and market dynamics, identifying four strategies employed by outreach social workers: adopting a spatial and lifeworld-oriented approach, fostering an inclusive interpretation of citizenship, facilitating access to humanitarian and charity-oriented support, and addressing precarious legal statuses. Despite their efforts, outreach social workers operate within a welfare system that fails to recognize the rights of those they support, leaving them vulnerable to the challenges posed by prevalent anti-migrant and anti-homelessness sentiments, which threaten their human rights orientation.
Applications
These findings underscore the need to expand outreach social worker theorization beyond its current welfare state framework, presenting a critical decision point: either continue within a harm reduction logic or prioritize advocacy for more inclusive legal frameworks within government policy. Staying true to their human rights approach, such a shift is essential to resisting the existing hierarchical perception of human worth and the criminalization of homelessness. Moreover, taking this stance would ultimately support individual social workers by reducing their vulnerability to the negative perceptions of precarious migrants experiencing homelessness present in broader society.
AndreettaS. (2019). Writing for different audiences: Social workers, irregular migrants and fragmented statehood in Belgian welfare bureaucracies. Journal of Legal Anthropology, 3(2), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2019.030206
2.
BalletS.VandevoordtR. (2025). Piloting sanctuary? Negotiating inclusive policies towards illegalised migrants in Ghent, Belgium. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2516608
3.
BauderH.GonzalezD. A. (2018). Municipal responses to ‘illegality’: Urban sanctuary across national contexts. Social Inclusion, 6(1), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v6i1.1273
4.
BazurliR.de GraauwE. (2023). Explaining variation in city sanctuary policies: Insights from American and European cities. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49(14), 3649–3670. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2023.2198811
5.
Björngren CuadraC. (2015). Encounters with irregular migrants in social work “collateral damage” and reframing of recognizability in Swedish public social services. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 13(3), 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2015.1037518
6.
BrochmannG. (2020). Controlling immigration in Europe. In BrochmannG.HammarT. (Eds), Mechanisms of immigration control: A comparative analysis of European regulation policies (pp. 297–334). Routledge.
7.
ButlerJ. (2004). Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. Verso.
8.
ButlerJ. (2009). Performativity, precarity and sexual politics. Revista de Antropología Iberoamericana, 4(3), i–viii. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.040303e
9.
CastelR. (2009). La montée des incertitudes. Travail, protections, statut de l'individu: Travail, protections, statut de l'individu. Média Diffusion.
10.
CefaïD. (2015). Outreach work in Paris: A moral ethnography of social work and nursing with homeless people. Human Studies, 38(1), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9328-y
DeanH. (2015). Social rights and human welfare. Routledge.
13.
De DeckerP. (2019). ‘Tina’ out, ‘Tamara’ in. Met een moonshot voor wonen naar een waaier van collective winsten. In SomersM. (Ed.), Fundamenten: Sociale zekerheid in onzekere tijden (pp. 324–355). Minerva.
14.
DewaeleC.BonteJ.CastermansE.RotenS.VrevenE.Van der CamM.ChristoffelsT. (2021). Straathoekwerk: het boek. SAM.
15.
DuboisA.GaddeL. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8
16.
DüvellF. (2006). Irregular migration: A global, historical and economic perspective. In DüvellF. (Ed.), Illegal immigration in Europe: Beyond control? (pp. 14–39). Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
DwyerP.BowpittG.WeinsteinM.SundinE. (2014). Places of sanctuary for ‘the undeserving’? Homeless people's day centres and the problem of conditionality. British Journal of Social Work, 44(5), 1251–1267. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs196
18.
FelderM.FneichS.Stavo-DebaugeJ. (2023). Social workers and irregular migrants in the assistance circuit: Making sense of paradoxical inclusion. Social Inclusion, 11(3), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v11i3.6764
19.
GarrettP. M. (2018). Welfare words: Critical social work and social policy. Sage.
20.
Good GingrichL. (2010). Single mothers, work(fare), and managed precariousness. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 21(2), 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428230903301410
21.
GrymonprezH.RooseR. (2022). Towards a clearer understanding of the transformational potential of outreach work. European Journal of Social Work, 25(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1567468
22.
HallT.SmithR. J. (2014). Knowing the city: Maps, mobility and urban outreach work. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112469623
HermansK.RoetsG. (2020). Social work research and human rights: Where do we go from here?European Journal of Social Work, 23(6), 913–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2020.1838086
25.
HombergerA.KirchhoffM.Mallet-GarciaM.AtaçI.GüntnerS.SpencerS. (2022). Local responses to migrants with precarious legal status: Negotiating inclusive practices in cities across Europe. Zeitschrift für Migrationsforschung, 2(2), 93–116. https://doi.org/10.48439/zmf.179
26.
IfeJ. (2001). Local and global practice: Relocating social work as a human rights profession in the new global order. European Journal of Social Work, 4(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/714052835
27.
IsinE. F.NielsenG. M. (2008). Acts of citizenship. Zed Books.
28.
JacquetN.Van HauteD.SchiettecatT.RoetsG. (2022). Stereotypes, conditions, and binaries : Analysing processes of social disqualification towards children and parents living in precarity. British Journal of Social Work, 52(6), 3425–3442. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab254
29.
JefferessD. (2022). Humanitarianism and white saviors. In RavuloJ.OlcońK.DuneT.WorkmanA.LiamputtongP. (Eds), Handbook of critical whiteness: Deconstructing dominant discourses across disciplines (pp. 1–15). Springer Nature Singapore.
30.
JustW. D. (2012). The rise and features of church asylum in Germany: ‘I will take refuge in the shadow of thy wings until the storms are past’. In LippertR.RehaagS. (Eds), Sanctuary practices in international perspectives (pp. 135–147). Routledge.
31.
KarlsenM.-A. (2021). Migration control and access to welfare: The precarious inclusion of irregular migrants in Norway. Routledge.
32.
KesslF.SchonevilleH. (2014). Mitleidsökonomie. Beltz Juventa.
33.
LambertS.SwertsT. (2019). “From sanctuary to welcoming cities”: Negotiating the social inclusion of undocumented migrants in Liège, Belgium. Social Inclusion, 7(4), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i4.2326
34.
LewisH.DwyerP.HodkinsonS.WaiteL. (2014). Hyper-precarious lives: Migrants, work and forced labour in the Global North. Progress in Human Geography, 39(5), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514548303
MaeseeleT.RooseR.Bouverne-De BieM.RoetsG. (2014). From vagrancy to homelessness: The value of a welfare approach to homelessness. British Journal of Social Work, 44(7), 1717–1734. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct050
37.
MisjeT. (2022). The precarious inclusion of homeless EU migrants in Norwegian public social welfare: Moral bordering and social workers’ dilemmas. Critical Social Policy, 42(3), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/02610183211036580
38.
NewmanJ.TonkensE. (Eds). (2011). Participation, responsibility and choice: Summoning the active citizen in Western European welfare states. Amsterdam University Press.
39.
OcejoR. E. (2012). Ethnography and the city: Readings on doing urban fieldwork. Routledge.
40.
OrnellasA.SpolanderG.EngelbrechtL. K. (2018). The global social work definition: Ontology, implications and challenges. Journal of Social Work, 18(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017316654606
41.
O'SullivanE.PleaceN.Busch-GeertsemaV.HrastM. F. (2020). Distorting tendencies in understanding homelessness in Europe. European Journal of Homelessness, 14(3), 109–135. Retrieved from: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/173957/
42.
ReaA.MartinielloM. (2003). Belgium’s immigration policy brings renewal and challenges. Migration Information Source.
SamynS.CioartaI.WagenerM.HermansK.RoetsG. (2024). ‘We reach out but we also expect something in return’: Social work engaging with Roma people in temporary container homes at the edge of the city. The British Journal of Social Work, 54(2), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad253
45.
TimmermansS.TavoryI. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
VandevoordtR.VerschraegenG. (2019). Citizenship as a gift: How Syrian refugees in Belgium make sense of their social rights. Citizenship Studies, 23(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2018.1561827
49.
WarmingH.FahnøeK. (Eds). (2017). Lived citizenship on the edge of society: Rights, belonging, intimate life and spatiality. Springer.
50.
WilliamsC. (2020). Politics, preoccupations, pragmatics: A race/ethnicity redux for social work research. European Journal of Social Work, 23(6), 1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2020.1751590
51.
ZackaB. (2017). When the state meets the street: Public service and moral agency. Harvard University Press.
