Contingency Workers in the Human Services: An Exploration of Choices and Consequences

Background/Purpose: Estimated at 30 to 40% of the paid workforce (Newman & Winston, 2016), contingent workers are “… persons who do not expect their jobs to last or who reported that their jobs are temporary. They do not have an implicit or explicit contract for ongoing employment” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). Promoted as a means of increasing flexibility and innovation, contingency work can impact income and benefit security, work engagement and stability, career development, and work-life balance (Cummings & Kreiss, 2008; Holm, et al, 2016; Lambert, 2008). Most scholarship on contingency work focuses on “gig,” service, and low skill segments of the labor market (Guerrina, et al, 2011; Hacker, 2008; Heller, 2017). Yet increasingly, jobs with higher skill and educational requirements are being filled through contingency arrangements, including positions in the human service sector. Largely driven by economic efficiencies and welfare state devolution (Abramovitz & Garrow, 2012; Caplin & Ricciardell, 2016; Hasenfeld & Garrow, 2012), contingent employment from the workers’ perspectives has not been examined. This paper concentrates on understanding the choices of and consequences for individuals employed as contingency workers in the human services.

Methods: Data are from a pilot study in which 15 direct service providers were interviewed. All held a graduate degree and were employed on a fee for service basis. In-depth interviews gathered information on factors that contributed to obtaining contingency work, and the effects of that decision. With each respondent, a detailed life trajectory map (Kolar, et al, 2015; Padgett, 2008) was constructed that captured key decisions and events from age 20 to the present with emphasis on education and training, work, family, and other significant developments. Interviews (taped and transcribed) probed these key events and especially the decisions to obtain and remain with contingency work arrangements, including the benefits and challenges. Thematic data analysis was guided by the constant comparison method. Analysis of the life trajectory maps focused on clustering similar events and sequences across respondent narratives.

Results: All interviewees were women; 11 white, 3 African American and 1 Asian; mean age of 34. Four respondents sought contingency work as a means of returning to the workforce. They appreciated the flexibility and did not rely on their jobs for benefits or economic security. In contrast, the other 11 respondents accepted contingency work because of economic pressures and lack of viable job options. They reported being stressed by the job demands including building their own client pools, inadequate income, and insufficient professional support.

Conclusions/Implications: While a small group of respondents felt that contingency work was an asset to themselves and their families, most interviewees framed their decisions to accept contingency work as one of economic necessity. They were concerned about wage security, benefits, supervision and professional development. They felt detached from their worksites; their stories conveyed frustration with and fragmentation of human service work. Discussion centers on policy and practice implications of contingency work and on this study’s next steps including gaining employers’ perspectives of contingent work in the human services.