Social Work Professionals Use of Social Media with Youth in Care

Background: Social workers are increasingly using social media to seek information about clients (DiLillo & Gale, 2011), as a way to communicate with clients (Hawn, 2009), for social-media supported interventions (Cavelo et al., 2012), or advocacy (Hickson, 2012).  They may also have obligations to educate clients about privacy on social media sites (Author, 2012). Although the ethical dilemmas encountered in online settings mirror those that are experienced in face-to-face settings, the ease of access to personal client information raises new questions about how and when to use social media as an adjunct to practice, and the role of the agency in supporting, limiting, or creating policy around its use.   

The purpose of this study was to understand the intrinsic motivation for why social media might be used. Prior research (Author, 2013) indicated three possible ethical perspectives: Deontological, e.g., due to information privacy concerns it is never permissible to use social media with clients; Utilitarianism, e.g., it is okay to use social media with clients much as we might use the mail or telephone; Social Justice, e.g., clients should be afforded the same right to

communicate as other youth. 

Methods: This study employed a survey design of all agency personnel from a consortium of agencies in the Midwest that provide a range of clinical services for at-risk youth from outpatient to residential care (219 respondents). Respondents included case workers/clinicians (62%), supervisors (16%), managers/directors/executives (22%). Survey categories included demographics, frequency of personal and professional social media use, types of social media use in the workplace, and information about policies, procedures, and training on social media use.

Findings: Few agencies had explicit policy guidelines related to the use of social media with clients. Despite that, a majority of respondents did use social media for utilitarian purposes, but more so for the utility of the agency over the client. Agency administrators were more likely to assume a deontological stance with clients regardless of utilitarian value. Less than 10% of the respondents even acknowledged social media as providing a voice to clients. Finally, less than 15% of the respondents had considered the use of multiple social media profiles, largely not considering the possibility of having a professional profile AND a personal profile to thus avoid the appearance of dual relationships. These findings demonstrate that our existing Code of Ethics, and the current EPAS standards, do not provide sufficient guidance for practitioners, managers, and agency directors.

Conclusion: Once policies are developed, it is imperative that future social workers have the competencies in using social media so that the client is best served.  Training materials for existing agency personnel need to be developed that move beyond the Deontological position to incorporate aspects of Utilitarianism and acknowledgment of the “voice” that social media provides to already disenfranchised youth, i.e., as a matter of Social Justice.