The "Who" and "How" of Ecosocial Work Practice in the United States

Background and Purpose. Social workers, and the clients and communities with whom they work, are exposed to myriad environmental issues including limited access to fresh food and green spaces, as well as weather extremes and environmental injustice. This study sheds light on their responses to these issues by asking two questions. First, how do social workers incorporate ecosocial work strategies in their practice? Second, what demographic and professional characteristics are associated with practitioners who take ecosocial work action?

Methods. Data were collected in 2023 through online surveys completed by social workers residing in Colorado, Ohio, and Tennessee (n=264). The study team asked social work associations and CSWE-accredited programs to forward recruitment emails to their members, alumni, and field liaisons. The sample included micro (60.23%), micro-mezzo (12.50%), mezzo (11.74%) and macro (15.53%) practitioners, and, unlike some nascent research on ecosocial work practice, was not limited to people who identify as ecosocial workers.

Among other questions, survey respondents were asked about the frequency with which a list of climate and environmental issues arose in their practice. The list was followed by the open-ended question: “What responses or actions did you take, if any?” To understand the “how” of ecosocial work practice, we deductively coded these answers using five dimensions of ecosocial work practice as our codebook. To understand the “who” of ecosocial work practice, we used hierarchical logistic regression to assess demographic and professional characteristics of social workers associated with ecosocial work practice.

Results. Among the respondents who engaged in action following an environmental or climate issue, 72.35% engaged in interpersonal practices including holistic approaches to improve human well-being, 14.77% developed a community of practice or worked toward organizational change, 11.74% took social action, 10.23% engaged in a culturally sensitive community-based approach, and 2.65% reported personal growth towards connectedness with the natural environment. Notably, of those who took holistic interpersonal approaches, many reported that they could only give referrals, particularly when there was an urgent need for housing or food. The hierarchical logistic regression found that the characteristics of ecosocial work practitioners varied, and were largely shaped by their level of practice. Importantly, social workers who perceived that their clients experienced mental or physical health impacts associated with environmental issues were also more likely to engage in ecosocial work practices.

Conclusions and Implications. Our findings offer guidance to social work educational and professional organizations about the scope of practitioners' responses to environmental and climate crises. They point to areas where social workers are actively responding (e.g., addressing immediate needs relating to housing or food) and where the profession could strengthen ecosocial work practice. By understanding the “who” and the “how” of ecosocial work action, we are better able to plan for and address gaps in the ongoing development of truly transformative ecosocial education and practice.