This Perspectives essay is adapted from Inah Kaloga’s original framing paper, From Humanitarian Protection to Social Work in Crises.
The protection field was born out of the urgency to uphold rights, call out violations, and mitigate risks. Historically shaped by human rights activists and lawyers, it has developed into a rich and complex area of practice that continues to provide the equity and rights-based lens of humanitarian action.
This story of origin remains central to the sector’s identity. It is reflected in the principled nature of protection work and in its critical role across humanitarian operations. But it is also reflected in assumptions that increasingly struggle to withstand the realities of protracted crises, displacement, and polycrisis.
Among these assumptions is the idea that protection work is primarily about addressing vulnerabilities. While reducing vulnerability remains essential, there is growing recognition that protection outcomes require a broader approach that addresses threats and strengthens capacities alongside vulnerability reduction.
Another assumption is that violence, exclusion, discrimination, and abuse are inevitable features of emergencies. Yet societies across the world have demonstrated for centuries that violence can be prevented, contained, and disrupted. Public health, law, behavioral science, social and economic planning, local governance, and policing have all contributed to safer communities. These approaches should not be considered beyond the reach of populations affected by crisis.
Other assumptions have also shaped humanitarian protection practice: that individually tailored services cannot be scaled without sacrificing quality; and that crises lack systems worth investing in. Together, these ideas have encouraged specialized and often project-based protection services that are well suited to acute emergencies but less capable of addressing today’s increasingly protracted crises.
This stands in contrast to the evolution of social work and broader social change practice. Across much of the world, social work has increasingly embraced evidence, measurement, public financing, and system-wide approaches to achieving social outcomes. Humanitarian protection, by comparison, has often evolved as a set of self-contained interventions with limited connections to wider policies, systems, and institutions.
Yet the reality is that humanitarian actors have long contributed to building systems, even if they rarely describe them as such. Community networks, case workers, legal assistance, family tracing, post-rape care, information desks, case management systems, and risk monitoring mechanisms are all components of functioning protection systems. In many contexts, humanitarian action has helped shape the foundations of local social welfare systems.
At a time when humanitarian actors increasingly seek to influence and strengthen systems in protracted crises, there is a need to recognize the systemic potential of social work. Humanitarian practitioners often have limited understanding of how social welfare systems emerge, adapt, and function during crises. This gap limits our ability to scale protection rapidly during emergencies and to sustain gains as crises evolve.
A social work in crises approach offers a way forward. It can help ensure that immediate assistance is connected to longer-term systems, that protection outcomes are delivered at scale and at local levels, and that support remains accessible as crises move through different phases. It can help emerging protection systems take root, strengthen mature ones, and support recovery for those affected by crisis.
For all its limitations, humanitarian action has generated decades of experience in protecting people under extraordinary conditions. The challenge now is not simply to deliver protection services, but to connect them more deliberately to the systems that sustain social change over time.
The challenge now is not simply to deliver protection services, but to connect them more deliberately to the systems that sustain social change over time.
The future of protection may depend not on choosing between humanitarian action and social work, but on recognizing how closely the two have always been connected.