Using Research to Measure and Increase Social Workers' Engagement in Activism

Background: According to the National Association of Social Workers' 2018 Code of Ethics, "Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs” (p. 30). Though social workers are charged to participate in social and political action, such activism is typically associated with macro-level rather than micro-level practice (Dodd & Mizrahi, 2017). Social work’s activist roots—Jane Addams’ work, for example—are much celebrated, but there is a question about how robustly frontline social workers engage in activism now. These questions are important as research suggests that activism may motivate individuals from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds to join the profession (Tijerina & Deepak, 2014), and activism is also considered a critical component of empowerment (Sewpaul & Jones, 2004) and human rights-based practices (McPherson, 2018). This paper seeks to identify factors that lead to increased activism among clinical social workers in direct practice.

Methods: Information on participants’ activism, social work practice experience, and demographics were collected from a convenience sample of 1,014 Florida-based LCSWs, as part of a larger cross-sectional survey on rights-based social work. The current study queries the effect of five variables on LCSW activism: race/ethnicity, clients’ socioeconomic status (SES), self-reported human rights knowledge (HRK), integrated micro/macro practice, and score on Human Rights Lens in Social Work (HRLSW) scale (McPherson, Siebert, & Seibert, 2017).

Activism was measured as participants’ score on the Activism scale (α = .885) from the Human Rights Methods in Social Work series of scales (McPherson, 2015). Variables were entered into a multiple linear regression analysis after meeting univariate and bivariate assumptions. Multiple imputation was used to address missingness (exceeding 10%) in the Human Rights Knowledge variable. Control variables in the analysis were age, gender, years of experience, and education.  

Results: The sample was predominantly older (M=53 years) females (82.7%) with an MSW (95.54%), and over ten years of social work experience (83%). As hypothesized, the model including race, client SES, HRK, integrated practice, and HRLSW scores effectively predicted activism among clinicians (F(14,843.1)=28.4, p <.01). Micro-level practice (β=-.18; SE B=.08; p<.01) was negatively associated with activism level, as compared to integrated micro/macro practice. Working with low SES clients (β=.12; SE B=.12; p<.01), higher HRLSW scores, (β=.04; SE B=.05; p<.01) and more HRK (β=.01; SE B=.03; p<.01) were significantly related to activism levels. Though included in the model, race/ethnicity was not significantly associated with activism (β =0; SE B=.11; p=.87).

Conclusions and Implications: Results indicate that LCSWs who report higher levels of HRK, who engage in integrated micro/macro practice techniques, and who see their clients through a human rights lens are more engaged in activism. Thus, promoting HRK, human rights-based practices, and integrating micro/macro practice in continuing education may be efficient ways to increase social work activism. Our findings did not support previous research suggesting that minority social workers were more likely to participate in activism. Additional findings and research implications are discussed.