Individual, School, and Community Factors Associated with Victimization Against School Social Workers, Psychologists and Counselors By Students: A Social-Ecological Analysis

Abstract

Background/Purpose: In recent years, an increasing number of studies have focused on violence against teachers. However, the variables contributing to victimization against school social workers, psychologists, and counselors (referred to as pupil personnel) remain underexplored. Compared to teachers, pupil personnel workers may experience victimization by students differently because of their role definition. They are school professionals who interact often with students and parents with behavioral difficulties in the class or playground, which may expose them to higher rates of victimization. Previous research has not examined how collectively school social workers, psychologists, and counselors experience violence. Exploring pupil personnel victimization, given their roles in providing safety and mental health services in school, is important from an ecological and multidisciplinary service perspective.

To address the current research gaps, this study tested the impacts of individual (e.g., gender, race, year of experience, and educational background), school (e.g., school level, number of students, and school climate problems), and community factors (e.g., urbanicity, district support, and neighborhood climate) on victimization against social workers, psychologists, and counselors by students.

Methods: The sample of this study is from the second wave data of a national online survey designed by the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Violence Against Educators and School Personnel. The survey was conducted from 2021 to 2022 and open to pre-K-12 school personnel. Participants were from all 50 states and Puerto Rico, yielding a large convenience sample. The final sample includes 1713 school pupil personnel workers including social workers, psychologists, and counselors.

Results: The multiple regression analysis results indicated that individual factors including year of experience (β = -.06), educational background (β = -.07), school factors including school level (β = -.07), the number of students (β = .13), and school climate problems (β = .18), and community factors including urbanicity (β = .11), district support (β = -.05), and neighborhood climate (β = -.07) were significantly associated with verbal victimization. In addition, individual factors including year of experience (β = -.12) and educational background (β = -.09), school factors including school level (β = -.30) and school climate problems (β = .08), and community factors including urbanicity (β = .07) and district support (β = -.07) were significantly associated with physical victimization.

Conclusions and Implications: By employing the social-ecological framework, our findings underscore years of experience, educational background, school climate problems, the number of students, urbanicity, and district support emerge as crucial determinants of both verbal and physical victimization experiences of social workers, psychologists, and counselors. It suggested schools might consider professional development focused on safety training, especially for staff with fewer years of experience or those in high-risk environments. Enhancing school climate through policies that foster respect and address discrimination could mitigate some risk factors. Moreover, social workers could play a key role in strengthening district support and community engagement may serve as a protective factor against victimization of pupil personnel workers.