Social Work and Precarity: Impact on Practitioners, Service Users, and Organizations

Background: In the last four decades, the policies and protocols of neoliberalism, specifically privatization, austerity measures, and managerialism, has negatively impacted the human service sector (Omellas et al, 2020; Toft et al., 2023; Zelnick & Abramovitz, 2020). The COVID pandemic revealed the strain that the human services were under (Neely-Barnes et al, 2021). Current evidence suggests that human service agencies continue to operate under adverse political and financial conditions, trying to “do more with less,” to the detriment of both practitioners and service users.

Purpose: The aim of this paper is to elucidate the precarity experienced by practitioners and service users, as well as the overall impact on agency climate. Precarity, or extreme instability, is a well-documented byproduct of neoliberalism. Most of that literature focuses on participants in the “gig” economy (e.g., Uber drivers) and notes that these workers have tenuous ties to the labor force, significant economic challenges, and serious stress-related health problems (Kalleberg, 2018; Bhattacharya & Ray, 2021). Less often the focus are highly skilled or educated workers, yet research on adjunct faculty and fee for service counselors indicate similar concerns (Childress, 2019; author, 2020, 2021). This paper contributes to the emerging literature on the presence and impact of precarity in and on social work.

Methods: Data are from interviews with 60 human service staff members; 20 each of permanent direct service workers, contingency direct service workers, and full-time administrators. Interviewees worked in health, mental health, or counseling organizations. All had graduate degrees (mostly MSWs). The largest group of interviewees were white females in their early 40s; though white, non-MSW, males were disproportionately represented in the administrator category. Semi-structured interviews covered work experiences and expectations, challenges and successes, situations of service users, working conditions, career development, and future plans. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; data were then thematically coded and analyzed (Saldaña 2016).

Findings: Interviews revealed four types of precarity: economic, temporal, identity, and place-based. For staff, this included financial instability, unpredictable or inconsistent work schedules, role confusion, and fractured agencies; conditions that result in disengagement, “burnout”, and exit behavior. Interviewees noted the volatility manifested by service users from dire financial situations such as low or no income and challenges in obtaining benefits; unreliable employment; and unstable food, housing, and transportation. Direct service staff noted that since COVID, there seemed to be an increase in more complex concerns presented by service users. Interviewees described fissured worksites with little supervision or collaboration, thus making the work to address client issues more difficult.

Implications/Conclusions: Precarity in the human services undermines practice. Specifically, the widespread instability in purpose, role, and context disrupts the formation of relationships essential to practice. Precarity’s impact is exacerbated by the heightened challenges presented by service users as they seek assistance and support. The current political and economic climate is likely to further erode the human service sector, rendering human service work more unstable and ultimately, unsustainable. Discussion will further develop these themes and suggest strategies to mitigate instability in the human service arena.