48
SOCIAL WORK PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY IN THE FIELD IN SOUTH CAROLINA Ruth Fizdale Grant Summary By Aaron Guest, MSW, MPH and Carla Damron, LISW-CP NASW-South Carolina 2015
SOCIAL WORK PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY IN THE FIELD IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Ruth Fizdale Grant Summary
By Aaron Guest, MSW, MPHand
Carla Damron, LISW-CP
NASW-South Carolina
2015
Table of Contents
SUMMARY 3
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS 4
BACKGROUND 5
METHOLDOLOGY 6 RECRUITMENT 6ANALYSIS 6
RESULTS 7 PARTICIPANTS: DEMOGRAPHIC 7PARTICIPANTS: SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE 8PERCEPTIONS OF SOCIAL WORK SAFETY IN THE FIELD-SOUTH CAROLINA 11BULLYING AND HARASSMENT 12SAFETY BEHAVIORS AND KNOWLEDGE OF SAFETY RESOURCES 13INCIDENTS OF SAFETY IN THE FIELD & WORKPLACE 15
RECOMMENDATIONS 18
FUTURE STEPS 20
CITATIONS 31
APPENDIX 33 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 34APPENDIX B: RECRUITMENT E-MAIL 47
SUMMARY
The National Association of Social Workers-South Carolina Chapter conducted a needs assessment of perceptions and realities of social work safety in the field, in South Carolina. This work was supported through a Ruth Fizdale Chapter Grant from the NASW Foundation to the NASW-SC. The project was titled Perceptions of Social Work Safety: A Needs Assessment to Influence Policy & Inform Practice in South Carolina.
As highlighted by the National Association of Social Workers Guidelines for Social Work Safety in the Field: “The number and variety of people to whom social workers provide services and the variety of settings in which these services are provided have contributed to an increasingly unpredictable, and often unsafe, environment for social work practice. Social workers have been the targets of verbal and physical assaults in agencies as well as during field visits with clients. Tragically, some social workers have also been permanently injured or have lost their lives “in the line of duty (NASW, 2013).”
An electronic survey was promoted from October 2014 to June 2015. A total of 554 social workers at varying levels of their career filled out the survey. This needs assessment sought to gain a better understanding of the needs of social workers in the state of South Carolina in regards to safety. Results indicate that while many social workers are aware of policies and procedures, and perhaps may understand proper safety protocol, this does necessarily result into action in the field. Nearly sixty percent stated they had not received proper training and close to eighty percent stated that they felt unprepared to handle violent work situations. The results highlight potentially unsafe behaviors due to the nature of the social work position, job duties, organizational structure, and expectations. Of special notice is that clients, organizational policy, as well as fellow social workers influence social work safety.
Twenty-seven percent of respondents reported being victims of bullying and/or harassment in the workplace. Other vulnerabilities that might lead to unsafe consequences were explored; these include working alone, working in the field without anyone knowing where you are, or working in a setting with no alarm or warning system that can be engaged when
“I have so many experiences they could fill a book. Social workers are continually expected to do more with less. Safety is an issue.”
“There were budget cuts resulting in less Public Safety Officers, less Social Workers meaning more unmanageable and dangerous residents... staff repeatedly found themselves in unsafe environment resulting in increase of injuries. I was injured four times, resulting in a complete knee replacement and a diagnosis of PTSD.”
“The patient broke my nose.”-- Respondents
dangerous situations emerge. Well over half of our respondents cite these vulnerabilities.
Of perhaps greatest concern is the number of respondents who have been victims (22.5%) and/or witnesses (30%) of workplace violence. It is clear that social workers are in environments that put them in unsafe situations.
Recommendations to increase social work safety in the field include raising awareness of the issue among social workers, developing awareness among organizational leadership, education through trainings, and the involvement of the schools of Social Work in preparing future generations of social workers through field experiences and training.
There exist broad opportunity for the National Association of Social Workers Guidelines for Social Work Safety in the Field to be more fully integrated into the profession and professional practice. This should include the involvement of all levels of leadership within organizations that employ and work with social workers.
By ensuring social worker safety in the field, organizations may see it is possible to reduce staff turnover and better serve the clients and community.
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS(adapted from the National Association of Social Workers)
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the world, with 132,000 members NASW works to enhance the professional growth and development of its members, to create and maintain professional standards, and to advance sound social policies.
The NASW is composed of 55 chapters. These chapters, in addition to the broader national organization, are one organization legally, financially, and programmatically. The chapters are meant chapters serve its members through the creation of units, branches, regions, or divisions.
The National Association of Social Workers, South Carolina Chapter (NASW-SC) does this through enhancing the professional growth and development of its members. The NASW-SC, strives to provide:
Opportunities to network with others in our field Educational/training experiences to further your professional development Advocacy on issues important to our profession and the clients we serve Information about job opportunities and resources relevant to our profession and
our state NASW-South Carolina helps shape legislation that affects the health, welfare and education of all people.
The NASW also has developed the NASW Code of Ethics, which is intended to serve as a guide to the everyday professional conduct of social workers and offers continuing education and credentialing opportunities for social workers.
In 2013, recognizing the influence of a severe recession and other societal changes on the social worker client base, NASW released its Guidelines for Social Work Safety in the Workplace. The document points out that the “number and variety of people to whom social workers provide services and the variety of settings in which these services are provided have contributed to an increasingly unpredictable, and often unsafe, environment for social work practice. Social workers have been the targets of verbal and physical assaults in agencies as well as during field visits with clients. Tragically, some social workers have also been permanently injured or have lost their lives “in the line of duty.” (NASW, 2013).
BACKGROUND
In the Spring of 2014 the NASW-SC applied for and received a Ruth Fizdale Chapter Research Award for their project entitled “Perceptions of Social Work Safety: A Needs Assessment to Influence Policy & Inform Practice in South Carolina”. The Ruth Fizdale Awards are meant to provide support for chapter research that link practice and policy issues with relevant social issues.
The objective of this project was to examine perceptions of social work safety in the field in South Carolina and to better inform policy and practice in South Carolin. Since the demographic and socio-economic make-up of South Carolina mirrors that of other Southeastern states, the needs-assessment and the final recommendations should have wide-range applicability for other states with similar characteristics.
This work was undertaken due to the recognition that social workers by nature practice in a diverse range of fields, settings, and environments. With over 4.6 million residents South Carolina is spread over a geographically and regionally diverse landscape. Roughly 34% of South Carolinians currently live in rural areas and 66% live in urban areas. South Carolina has a higher percentage of individuals living in rural areas than the national average. South Carolina’s poverty rate ranks as one of the highest in the nation and it also holds the highest number of residents on welfare (US. Census Bureau, 2012;2014).
In dealing with the variety of complex issues that face South Carolina, social workers can be found working across the state from the urban city-centers of Greenville, Columbia, and Charleston, to rural I-95 surrounded by the “corridor of the shame”. The assistance provided by these social workers is invaluable to our citizens and our state. The NASW recognizes “the number and variety of people to whom social workers provide services and the variety of settings in which these services are provided have contributed to an increasingly unpredictable and often, unsafe environment for social work practice. (NASW, 2008).” The United States Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported in 2004 that social workers had an incident rate of 15 per 10,000 full-time workers for injuries resulting from assaults or acts of violence (OSHA, 2004). The NASW’s own assessment of members in 2004-2005 found that nearly 25% of social workers feel their safety concerns are not adequately addressed by their employer. This report further indicates that reported areas of concerns for social workers include: adult clients (41%), vandalization of vehicles (35%), car accidents in field (34%), physical assault from non-clients (32%), and fear of neighborhood in which they work (28%) (Whitaker & Arrington, 2008). The report indicates that social workers from differing practice fields experience these concerns at different levels, but that they are prevalent across the paradigm of employment. With nearly 10,000 self-identified social workers employed in South Carolina working with an exceptionally diverse population, the development of a set of specific policy recommendations and practice guidelines would provide the opportunity to examine ever growing concerns and issues in regards to safety and to proactively address these issues (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013).
METHODOLOGY
The NASW-SC study relating to social work perceptions of safety in the field was carried out through a mixed-method design including quantitative and qualitative survey measurements.
Development and pre-testing of materials occurred in Fall of 2014. Pilot-testing included a focus group regarding survey questions and pretest practice of survey materials within selected members of the focus group. The survey item was built utilizing pre-existing survey instruments as well as social work and state specific questions.
Items on the survey included measurements relating to experiences of violence, training and education around violence and safety, occurrence of violence situation, and knowledge of what to do in violent or unsafe situations. The survey also collected demographic and practice specific information (such as NASW-SC member, years as a practicing social worker, primary and secondary social work practice area, licensure status, and geographic practice area). Respondents were only required to answers whether or not they considered themselves a social worker. They could skip questions they felt uncomfortable with. The survey followed a skip-pattern based on previous responses and experiences. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.
Recruitment
Data Collection began on October 14, 2014 and continued until June 15, 2015 (n= 9 months). Data collection occurred through the use of the electronic survey mechanism, survey monkey. Paper copies of the survey were also available at NASW-SC events. Recruitment of survey participants took place through the e-mailing of the NASW-SC membership list, contacting the schools, colleges, and departments of Social Work within the state of South Carolina, and contact the state and non-profit agencies which employ social workers during the course of the survey period. In addition, a link to the survey was placed on the NASW-SC homepage and social media pages, as well as
being included in a mailing to all licensed social workers in the state of South Carolina. No incentives were provided for survey completion. An example of the initial recruitment e-mail can be found in Appendix B.
Analysis
Analysis of quantitative measures occurred through SPSS 22 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 22.RESULTS
Over the course of the recruitment period of a total of 664 individuals began the Social Work Perceptions of Safety in the Field Survey, of this total, 554 (83.4%) individuals self-identified as a social workers. The following are based on the individuals who self-identified as social workers (n=554). Due to skip-pattern, respondent choice, and attrition, each question response may not equal the total number of respondents.
Participants: Demographic
Of participants who provided information, the average age was 46.7 (Max=75, Min=22). A majority of respondents (89%, n=415) identified as female while roughly 10.3% (n=48) identified as male. Over half of the respondents (56.76%) identified as White/Caucasian, 37.5 as Black/African-American, and 3.4% as multi-racial.
Educationally, 40.8% (n=200) identified has having an MSW as the highest degree they have received, 24.7% (n= 121) bachelors- other (non-BSW), and 11.22% as BSW.
Table 1 provides a further breakdown of participant demographic.Table 1: Participants Demographics GenderGender Count PercentageFemale 415 89.1%Male 48 10.3%Transgender 2 .43%Other 1 0.21%Total 466Race/EthnicityRace/Ethnicity Count PercentageWhite/Caucasian 260 56.7%Black/African-American 172 37.55%Multiracial 16 3.5%Hispanic/Latino 6 1.31%Native American/Alaskan Native 3 .65%Other 1 .21%Total 458Highest Degree Received
Degree Count Percentage MSW 200 40.82%Bachelors [Other] 121 24.7%Masters [Other] 92 18.8%BSW 55 11.2%High School 9 1.8%PhD 9 1.8%Terminal Degree [Other] 4 0.8Total 490
Participants: Social Work Practice
Separate from general demographic information of respondents is specific information relating to the individuals social work practice and individuals type of social work practice.
Over half of the respondents (58%, n=322) identified as holding a social work license. The most common type of license held was the LMSW (44.4%) followed by the LISW-CP (27.9%), and LBSW (21.7%). Table 2 provides an overview of the social work licensures held by the 322 respondents who held licensure in South Carolina. This distribution of reported license mirrors the distribution of social work licenses in the state of South Carolina.j
Table 2: LicensureLicense Type Count Percentage in
AssessmentState Percentage
LMSW 143 44.4% 49%LISW-CP 90 27.9% 30%LBSW 70 21.7% 18%LISW-CP/AP 14 4.3% 1.5%LISW-AP 5 1.6% .4%Total 322
The average length of practicing social work in South Carolina was 13.6 years with a range of 41 (Min=0; Max=41). Interestingly, 261 (48%) of respondents identified as being members of the NASW-SC. There membership mirrored practice somewhat with the average length of membership being 11.39 years with a range of 45 years (Min=1; Max=45).
In examining social workers work behaviors 74% of respondents (n=398) stated that they were currently employed as a social worker.
Reason’s for non-social work employment included equally few social work positions (n=19) and low levels of pay for social work positions (n=19) . This was followed next by a number of months spent for searching for a job (n=17) and personal reasons (n=8). Individuals in mid-size cities reported greater issue with searching for jobs for a number
of months while individuals in rural communities or small communities reported greater issues with few social work positions and inconvenience of hours. Individuals who selected the “Other” reasoning for non-employment stated generally they had left the social work profession.
Regardless of current social work employment status, all participants were asked to identify their primary and secondary area of social work practice. Table 3 summarizes the primary social work area of practice (most popular being Case Management, Child and Family Welfare, Mental Health, and Medical Health), while Table 4 summarizes the secondary areas of social work practice (most popular being Case Management, Aging, Mental Health, and Child and Family Welfare). Interestingly, Advocacy-which for coding purposes is separate from Legislative Advocacy-makes an appearance-under the secondary area but not the primary. The other category, calculated for percentage purposes as part of the primary area of work, allowed individuals to specify areas they felt were not included elsewhere. It included areas of social work practice such as: administration, quality assurance, and broader social justice issues (i.ee, human trafficking.)
Table 3: Primary Area of WorkArea Count Percentage Case Management 152 27%Child and Family Welfare 81 14.4%Mental Health 79 14.%Medical Health 49 8.7%Aging 30 5.3%Adolescent 21 3.7%School Social Work 20 3.6%Homeless and Displaced Persons 13 2.3%Addictions 10 1.8%Higher Education 10 1.8%Disability 4 0.7%Employee Assistance 4 0.7%Policy Primary 4 0.7%Community Development 3 0.53%Criminal Justice 2 0.36%Income Assistance 2 0.36%Research 2 0.36%Immigration and Refugee 1 0.18%Legislative Advocacy 1 0.18%Occupational Social Work 1 0.18%Other 72 12.8%
Table 4: Secondary Area of Work
Area Count Percentage Case Management 85 21.1%Aging 66 16.4%Mental Health 54 13.4%Child Welfare 31 7.7%Advocacy 29 7.2%Medical Health 29 7.2%Adolescent 20 4.97%Addictions 18 4.5%School Social Work 15 3.7%Community Development 9 2.2%Higher Education 7 1.7%Criminal Justice 6 1.5%Disability 6 1.5%Policy 6 1.5%Income Assistance 5 1.2%Research 5 1.2%Employee Assistance 3 0.75%Legislative Advocacy 3 0.75%Occupational Social Work 3 0.75%Immigration and Refugee 2 0.5%
The majority of respondents (45.8%) reported working in a mid-size city or community, this was followed by a rural area or small community (33%), and finally a large city or urban area (21.2%). This information is summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: Community of EmploymentArea Description Number Percentagemid-size city or community 239 45.8%rural area or small community 172 33%large city or urban area 111 21.2%Total 522
Over 50% of all respondents from a mid-size city or community held a social work license versus 26.7% from a rural area or small community, and 21.7% from a large city or urban area. In examining
Perceptions of Social Work Safety in the Field-South Carolina
The following sections of the results report on the bulk of the survey instrument including measurements on bullying, harassment, safety behaviors, perceptions of
safety in the field, and incidence of safety while performing social work duties. It is meant to serve as a needs assessment to explore safety issues that may contribute to turnover, burnout, and low job satisfaction among social workers and to raise awareness agencies and social work leadership about the importance of social work safety.
For social workers in our survey, 69.5% (n=354) stated they had the proper training needed to recognize and manage escalating hostile and assaultive behavior. This however means that nearly 30.5% of survey (n=155) feel as though they lack this skill. When asked how prepared they felt to handle a violent situation in the workplace only 8.0% (n=18) stated they were very prepared. The vast majority (78.3%, n=177) stated they were somewhat prepared, while 13.7% (n=31) stated they were not prepared. More individuals stated they were not prepared than very prepared.
When asked “How much training did you receive on safety from violence in the workplace during your formal social work course of study in school?” only 6.8% (n=18) stated they received sufficient training. The majority, 58% (n=153), stated they had not received sufficient training. The remainder, 35.2% (n=93) stated they did received moderate training while in their social work course of study. In the Council on Social Work Education’s 2015 Education Policy and Accreditation Standards, “supporting student safety” is mentioned in standard 2.2.7, but it makes no specific recommendations for assuring safety is adequately addressed.
When asked how concerned they are about their personal safety at work 53.2% (n=108), the majority, stated they were somewhat worried. Roughly 6.4% (n=13) stated they were very worried for their safety while at work, while, luckily, 40.4% (n=82) stated they were not worried
Bullying and Harassment
Within our survey 27% (n=141) stated that they had been victims of bullying or harassment at their place of work. The most common occurrence was being Ignored or Excluded (29.71%), Threatened (19.12%), Experiencing an Invasion of Privacy (17.94%), and being called named (13.82%). Table 7 provides further information.
Table 7: Incidence of Bullying or Harassment Activity Count Percentage Ignored or excluded 101 29.71%Threatened 65 19.12%
“I was also mentally/emotionally harassed by a toxic boss, but it was subtle, so it was difficult to do anything about it.” -- Respondent
Experienced invasion of personal space 61 17.94%Called names 47 13.82%Experienced sexual harassment 28 8.24%Personal property damaged or stolen 17 5.00%Internet/cyber bullying 11 3.24%Pushed, tripped, kicked, or hit (physical bullying) 10 2.94%
The most common responses to the bullying or harassment, as shown in Table 8, included telling someone (36.9%), ignoring it (24%), and avoidance behavior (23.6%).
Table 8: Response to Bullying and Harassment Response Count Percentage Told someone 86 36.9%Ignored it 57 24.4%Avoided the bully/person who harassed 55 23.6%Other 24 10.3%Stayed at home 8 3.4%Bullied back 3 1.3%
Roughly 23% (n=40) of Black/African-American and 28% of White/Caucasian respondents state they have been victims of bullying and/or harassment in the workplace.
Responses to bullying and harassment were near universal, however more minority respondents reported staying at home than White/Caucasian respondents. White/Caucasian respondents also appear to be more likely to report the bullying and/or harassment.
Safety Behaviors and Knowledge of Safety Resources
In examining safety behaviors and knowledge of safety resources we looked at situations in the workplace that social workers may find themselves in.
“I have seen it in the workplace; it surely happens. The most serious case I witnessed was by a supervisor to a supervisee of a different race.”
“This has been going on for years and appears to be a part of the "old boy network", as been told by previous employers. Intimidation, spying and talking down to CM's has been the norm.” --Respondents
In response to the first situation, 47.85% (n=246) of respondents stated that they have found themselves working without knowing when others leave the workplace, leaving them alone without knowing it. Respondents stated this occurred most commonly, as described in Table 9, 0-5 times per month, and 16+ times per month.
Table 9: Working Without Knowing When Others Leave Occurrence Count Percentage 0-5 times per month 127 52.5%6-10 times per month 47 19.4%11-15 times per month 19 7.9%16+ times per month 48 19.4
As a separate question, over 75% of respondents (n=392) stated they find themselves working in a setting alone, most commonly 0-5 times per month and 16+ times per month. Table 10 summarizes the frequencies.
Table 10: Working Alone Occurrence Count Percentage 0-5 times per month 179 46.6%6-10 times per month 66 17.2%11-15 times per month 32 8.3%16+ times per month 107 27.9%
43.3% of respondents stated that they have worked without other individuals knowing where they are. This, once again, occurring most commonly 0-5 times per month and 16+ times per month. Table 11 summarizes this occurrence.
Table 11: Working Without Individuals Knowing Where You AreOccurrence Count Percentage 0-5 times per month 74 32.9%6-10 times per month 50 22.2%11-15 times per month 29 12.9%16+ times per month 72 32%
In relation to working alone and working without individuals knowing where you are, the instrument also asked individuals about working in remote locations with no backup or way to get assistance and working without communication devices or alarm systems present (in field or at agency). 35% stated that they work in remote locations with no backup or way to get assistance, 0-5 times per month and 16+ times per month being the most common occurrence (Table 12 summarizes) and 21.6% stated they work without alarms or communication systems present in agency or in field.
Table 11: Working Without Individuals Knowing Where You AreOccurrence Count Percentage
0-5 times per month 80 44.9%6-10 times per month 37 20.8%11-15 times per month 18 10.1%16+ times per month 43 24.2%
Only 33.4% (n=161) of respondents stated they were aware of the National Association of Social Workers Guidelines for Social Work Safety in the Work Place (accessible here: https://www.socialworkers.org/practice/naswstandards/safetystandards2013.pdf). Conversely, 65.4 (n=318) respondents stated they were aware of their work place written policies for addressing incidents of workplace violence. This however means that 34.6% are not aware of these policies.
Despite reporting a low level of education relating to safety through their formal social work education, and often finding themselves in what are considered to be unsafe professional situations, as Table 12 demonstrates, respondents all responded to the affirmative in a range of 57%-76% when asked whether they knew the appropriate response to certain situation. The lowest (57.2%) related to whether they knew what to do when working early mornings or late nights while the highest related to their office-setup in relation to safety protocols.
Table 12: Knowledge and BehaviorAre you aware of your workplace’s written policy for addressing incidents of workplace violence?Category Count Percentage Yes 318 65.4%No 168 34.6%TotalIs your office set-up according to safety protocols (placement of furniture, ease of exiting, etc)?Category Count PercentageYes 384 76%No 120 24%Total 504When to request help from a coworker?Category Count PercentageYes 328 67.7%No 156 32.3%Total 484What to do about a threat of physical violence?Category Count PercentageYes 349 72.2%No 134 27.8%Total 483What to do about working alone?
Category Count PercentageYes 291 60.1%No 193 39.9%Total 484What to do about working late at night or early in the morning?Category Count PercentageYes 278 57.2%No 207 42.8%Total 483What do to if assaulted?Category Count PercentageYes 324 66.94%No 160 33.06%Total 484
Across the board when examining the difference between community type (rural, mid-size, urban) there existed more similarities than difference.
Incidents of Safety in the Field & Workplace
In examining incidents of safety in the field and workplace we looked at both situations in which the respondent may have been involved in themselves, they could have been witness to, or could have occurred in their direct environment, and thus could have affect them psychologically, socially, and/or emotionally. Table 13 describes these events in greater detail.
Table 13: Incidents of Safety in the Field & Workplace Have you yourself been involved in a violent incident while at work or field?Category Count Percentage Yes 90 22.5%No 400 77.5%Total 490Have you ever been witness to a violent incident in the workplace or field?Category Count Percentage
“At the state prison, we had a hostage situation where the inmates took over prison… I was so terrified for my life. Didn't know whether I would ever see my husband/children again. Once it was over, I received a letter under my door the next day stating that I would be next. I did what I thought I had to do...I QUIT!!!”
“Client threatening to plant bombs on my car and blow up DSS building” --Survey Respondents
Yes 148 30.2%No 342 69.8%Total 490Have you ever noticed a situation that could lead to a violent incident?Category Count Percentage Yes 336 70.7%No 139 20.3%Total 475Have any of your colleagues ever been involved in a violent incident while at work or field?Category Count Percentage Yes 199 41.1%No 285 58.9%Total 484
As the table demonstrates, while 22.5% of respondents report being involved in a violent incident while at work or in the field, nearly 41% report having a colleague who has been involved in such an incident. Additionally, nearly a third (30.2%) have been witness to such an incident, while 71% report seeing a situation that could lead to a violent situation. It is clear that social workers are in environments that put them in unsafe situations.
Table 14 summarizes the experiences of individuals who have reported experiencing, witnessing, and knowing and/or hearing about a range of events that can occur in social work practice. With the exception of Verbal Threats, which the majority had within that category had experience, each category had primarily been affected by knowing about/hearing about.
Table 14: Experiences of Violence At Work PlaceCount Percentages
Physical Assault from Adult Client
Experienced 32 7.1%Witnessed It 43 9.5%Knew About It/Heard About It
123 27.2%
Not Occurred 254 56.2%Physical Assault from Adolescent or Child Client
Experienced 39 8.9%Witnessed It 52 11.8%Knew About It/Heard About It
91 20.7%
Never Occurred 258 58.6%Physical Assault from Non-Client
Experienced 5 1.1%Witnessed It 17 3.9%Knew About It/Heard About It
96 21.9%
Never Occurred 321 73.1%Verbal Assault or Threats
Experienced 181 38.3%Witnessed It 67 14.2%Knew About It/Heard About It
105 22.2%
Never Occurred 120 25.4%Vandalization of Vehicle or Other Property
Experienced 42 9.4%Witnessed It 23 3.9%Knew About It/Heard About It
146 32.8%
Never Occurred 321 73.1%Robbery Experienced 44 10%
Witnessed It 12 2.7%Knew About It/Heard About It
129 29.3%
Never Occurred 255 58.0%RECOMMENDATIONS
Feeling safe on the job is fundamental to one’s job satisfaction. When that sense of security isn’t there, social workers feel vulnerable. This contributes to job stress and staff turnover. In addition, the client population served by social workers is always changing. In recent years, social and economic changes have created pressures in social work practice settings as more people seek social work services from agencies that have often experienced budget cuts and sometimes lack adequate resources to meet the needs of people desperate for help. Our results follow similar findings by Ringstad (2005) in his analysis of a national survey of NASW members. Like the national survey, our survey population experienced similar levels of physical and verbal assault. Unlike the Ringstad survey, we also looked at bullying and harassment n the workplace and found this to be an issue over a quarter of social workers reported facing.
To address safety concerns the National Association of Social Workers-South Carolina Chapter recognized the need for a multi-pronged approach to improve the conditions of social workers in the state. The NASW-SC recommends action along four domains: Awareness Building, Education/Training, Early Social Work Training and Social Work Guidelines on Safety.
Awareness BuildingAwareness building around the realities of social worker duties, responsibilities, and the environments social workers find themselves in must be more broadly discussed across organizations and between social workers.
OrganizationsOrganizations that employ social workers must be more aware of the nature of social work. Focus should be on the development of organizational specific policies and procedures that assist in protecting social workers while in the field
and office. While social workers may be aware of policies and procedures, these policies and procedures may not adequately protect social workers.
Basic safety measures like setting up an office so that the social worker can clearly see the door, installing panic buttons, and regular trainings on safety and de-escalation techniques are ways organizations can improve staff safety.
When social workers are doing home visits, organizations should assure that they use safe vehicles, that they have access to cell phones, and that someone within the agency knows where they are and when they are due to return. Without specific protocols in place, social workers may resort to their own methods of assuring safety, perhaps causing more risk of harm:
Organizations must also be sensitive to the incidence of workplace bullying. Of particular concern are incidents that target African Americans or other minorities, creating a hostile work environment.
Social WorkersSocial workers should be made aware of the resources available to them. They should be informed of safety procedures and activities and should be encouraged perform work in line with these procedures, rather than being put in situations which limit their ability to feel safe and to perform their work in a safe environment. Social workers should feel confident in the support they receive from their employers and organizations.
In addition, social workers must be allowed to report safety issues, including harassment and/or bullying, without fear of retaliation. This information can be used to improve the workplace environment, perhaps reducing job dissatisfaction and staff turnover.
Education/TrainingOver 85% (n=421) of respondents stated they would be interested in continuing education training on promoting safety in the social work workplace. A further 34% (n=162) expressed interest in other topics related to violence.
Lights are not always operable. Windows in offices however workers backs are to the windows. Windows are not bullet proof. Key pads for entry to building does not work at times and during these times anyone entering the building can just open the door and have access to DSS offices. –Respondent
“I keep a can of wasp spray near.”“I used to take my taser and knife with me when I did home visits”—Respondents
There exist opportunities for the development of organizational, school/programmed based, and broader social work community based continuing education around the topics of safety and the social work profession.
Employing organizations should seek to provide on-the-job specific training relating to the nature of work the social worker will be conducting. Programs of social work have the opportunity and responsibility to provide education and resources to students matriculating through their programs. Finally, fellow social workers and the NASW have the opportunity and responsibility to develop opportunities for social workers to learn more about safety.
Early Social Work Training Programs of social work in the State of South Carolina, due to the size of the state, are in a particularly strong place to provide early social work training in safety to students in social work.
As previously mentioned, only 6.8% (n=18) stated they received sufficient training in safety in school. While within the Council on Social Work Education’s 2015 Education Policy and Accreditation Standards, “supporting student safety” is mentioned in standard 2.2.7, it makes no specific recommendations for assuring safety is adequately addressed.
Programs of social work should seek to develop early career training for social work students and provide opportunities for alumni involvement. This would provide a student entering workforce in South Carolina with the foundational resources to be safe practitioners of social work.
Social Work Guidelines for SafetyOverarching these themes of awareness building, education/training, and early social work training the NASW Guideline’s Domains for Social Work Safety should be paramount. These Guidelines, most recently released in 2013, highlight eleven domains of with recommendations for the improvement of social worker safety in the context of the type of work social workers do. These domains are:
1. Organizational Culture of Safety and Security2. Prevention3. Office Safety4. Use of Safety Technology5. Use of Mobile Phones6. Risk Assessment for Field Visits7. Transporting Clients8. Comprehensive Reporting Practices9. Post-Incident Reporting and Response10. Safety Training
Importantly, these guidelines recognize that “Social workers who report concerns regarding their personal safety, or who request assistance in assuring their safety, should not fear retaliation, blame, or questioning of their competency from their supervisors or colleagues (NASW, 2013).”
Through the process of working to build awareness and developing innovative education and training opportunities the NASW Guidelines for Social Work Safety in the Workplace should be utilized as a tool and resources.
FUTURE STEPS
NASW-SC believes that the safety of its members and other social workers must be a primary concern for agencies and leaders in the social work community. The findings of this research will be shared with NASW National, as well as with NASW-SC membership and with agency heads throughout South Carolina. In addition, discussions will be held with Deans and Department Chairs of Social Work schools and programs about including safety within their curriculums.
National Association of Social Workers Safety Standards
Guiding Principles
The development of these guidelines is informed by the following principles:
Acknowledgment of the Context of Social Work PracticeThese guidelines address safety and risk factors associated with social work practice, but they should not be interpreted to infer that social work is an inherently or unusually dangerous profession. Social workers acknowledge and understand that interaction with clients is a cornerstone of many practice settings. Most clients and families that social workers serve do not present threats or pose danger. In cases where threats are present, the majority of social workers find that their employers address these issues appropriately (Whitaker, Weismiller, & Clark, 2006). There are, however, social work settings (for example, child welfare, adult protective services, mental health, criminal
I feel that I could always be better prepared and learn more! We are always at a disadvantage when taken by surprise... ---Respondent
justice, domestic violence shelters) where social workers may face increased risks of violence.
These guidelines are meant to support social workers in practice but are not meant to stereotype or denigrate client populations who receive services from social workers.
Social Workers’ Rights to Report Safety ConcernsSocial workers have the right to work in safe environments and to advocate for safe working conditions. Social workers who report concerns regarding their personal safety, or who request assistance in assuring their safety, should not fear retaliation, blame, or questioning of their competency from their supervisors or colleagues.
Application of Universal Safety Precautions
Social workers should routinely practice universal safety precautions in their work. Violence can and does occur in every economic, social, gender, and racial group. To avoid stereotyping particular groups of people and to promote safety, social workers should practice safety assessment and risk reduction with all clients and in all settings. A thorough understanding of the risk factors (individual/ clinical, environmental, and historical) associated with elevated risk for violence can inform safety assessments. Social workers should also be aware of the potential that their personal information on the Internet, particularly social networking sites, can be accessed by anyone. Universal safety precautions also include the establishment of safety plans as a matter of routine planning. The adoption of universal safety precautions should not preclude agencies from establishing particular safety precautions when social workers are asked to perform dangerous tasks. In those situations, agencies should establish specific policies (for example, law enforcement accompanies social workers when involuntarily removing a child from parents or an incapacitated adult from a home) to reduce the risk of harm to social workers.
Goals of the Guidelines
These guidelines address safety within the context of social work practice. Ideally, these guidelines can stimulate the development of agency policies and practices to enhance social worker safety. In addition, social workers can use these guidelines to assess agency culture of safety and to advance professional and personal well-being. As well, schools of social work can better assure that their curriculums and field placement practices are in line with the goals of a safer profession. The specific goals of the guidelines are
to inform social workers, policymakers, employers, and the public about the importance of social worker safety in agency and field work
to provide a basis for the development of social work undergraduate, graduate, and field placement practice; and agency in-service programs, continuing education materials, and tools related to social work safety
to advocate for social workers’ rights to work environments that promote safety
to support the exploration of technology that enhances social worker safety
to encourage social workers to participate in the development and refinement of public policy that addresses social worker safety through licensing, regulation, and resources
to encourage social workers to participate in the development, refinement, and integration of best practices in promoting social worker safety.
Guidelines for Social Worker Safety in the Workplace
Standard 1. Organizational Culture of Safety and SecurityAgencies that employ social workers should establish and maintain an organizational culture that promotes safety and security for their staff.
Interpretation
Social workers should be able to practice in environments free from physical, verbal, and psychological violence and threats of violence. Workplace safety demands diligence from organizational leadership at every step of the safety continuum—from violence prevention and organizational responses to violent acts to providing resources and supports to social workers who experience acts of violence.
Therefore, agencies that employ social workers should demonstrate their ability to address issues of safety for their staff. Social work employers must protect their employees by instituting policies and procedures that maximize safety and security in the office as well as in the field. A culture of safety includes the followingSafety Policies that
provide an oral and written commitment by agency leadership to promote the safety of all staff, including support, paraprofessional, and professional staff
govern the management of dangerous (or hostile and violent) behavior in the workplace (including clients, coworkers, and supervisors)
establish safety teams or safety committees to ensure adherence to policy and procedure, as well as to provide peer support during and after an incident.
A Safety Committee that oversees the conscientious adoption, use, and ongoing review of the agency’s
policies that underscore the commitment to safety for staff, clients, administration, and governing boards ensures that safety protocols that are instituted, updated, and practiced regularly
identifies and investigates physical measures and technology that contribute to and promote the safety of social work staff
provides ongoing proactive risk assessment that identifies line staff at risk for violence, precarious settings and working conditions, as well as orientation and
in-service training on practices that can reduce or minimize or eliminate factors associated with elevated risk.
Data Management and Reporting Activities that develop and implement an incident reporting system to document and track
instances of threats, acts of violence, and damage to property. The reporting system
should allow for analysis of data on type of incident, location, pervasiveness, and occurrence.
create a mechanism for reporting and collecting data on an ongoing basis on incidents of assaults, threats, and abuse that can be analyzed to inform the agency about the incidence and prevalence of violence to guide the development of safety protocols and allocation of resources.
regularly gather and disseminate information about all safety risks including assaults, threats, and abuse and develop strategies for managing them via case consultations, training and education, and policy development.
Standard 2. PreventionThe goal of organizations that employ social workers should be to create a culture of safety that adopts a proactive preventative approach to violence management and risk.
InterpretationPrevention activities use available information to minimize the risk of future incidents of violence. Therefore, a preventative approach involves analyzing and understanding past incidents and determining actions that can circumvent or avoid their reoccurrence. In assessing past incidents, the following factors should be considered:
type of incident (for example, verbal threat/ abuse, intimidation, attempted or actual physical assault, property damage, stalking)
severity of the incident (costs to the well-being of people or organizations)o physical health (bodily physical harm)o mental health (psychological and emotional harm/toll/impact)o financial (monetary costs to property, people, or organization)
staff, clients, and witnesses involved in or witnessing the incident weaknesses/breaches of protocol or gaps in protocol or policies that
facilitated/contributed to, or did not deter, the incident (procedural, environmental, errors in assessment or misunderstanding of the safety protocol)
orientation and training needs of staff for risk reduction and safety promotion assessment of current safety measures and policies and gaps in
protocols/procedures.
Standard 3. Office Safety
Social workers’ office environments should promote safety for social workers and their clients.
InterpretationThe office/agency environment where social workers work should not only be safe, but should actively promote and encourage safe practices. These practices can include, but are not limited to
working spaces that allow for social workers to exit easily in potentially violent situations
access to alarm systems that can alert others to a safety risk or breach access to visually open meeting spaces (“Risk Rooms”) or presence of another
staff team member when meeting with a client who may be verbally abusive or aggressive
restricted access to objects that may be used as weapons (for example, stapler, paper weights, scissors, molded plastic chairs or office décor that can be picked up and thrown, and so forth)
secure entry and access (for example, monitored, restricted access security guard, metal detector screening, bulletproof glass)
well-lit hallways that lead to employees’ workspaces secure entrances to employees’ workspaces that are separate from public
spaces.
Standard 4. Use of Safety Technology Organizations that employ social workers should use technology appropriately and effectively to minimize risk.
Interpretation
Risk assessments may highlight the need to introduce technology to minimize risk of harm to social workers. Although technology is not a solution in and of itself, it can be a helpful tool in establishing and maintaining a culture of safety. It is important that staff understand that technology will not prevent incidents from occurring. Technology is not a substitute for safety planning.
As with all technological tools, consideration should be given to their limitations as well as the legal and ethical implications of their usage. Successful use of technology relies on a comprehensive and inclusive approach to identifying an appropriate system(s), and a commitment by all staff to use it appropriately. Technology can augment, but not replace, other important and critical requirements in these guidelines. Reliance on technology alone can promote a false sense of security.
The introduction of safety technology must be accompanied by clear protocols and training regarding the limits and proper usage, by whom, and under what circumstances. Technological tools to consider include the following:
Internal alert systems that can be activated from panic buttons in offices Internal alert systems that can be activated from key fobs or other mobile devices Panic buttons that are linked to public safety departments (police, emergency
rooms, fire departments) Mobile safety devices that may incorporate GPS and/or audio/video recording Personal safety devices (for example, silent panic buttons, identification card
holder with audio monitoring) Security cameras where appropriate.
Clients and staff must be informed about the use of safety technology, particularly if audio/video recording is involved. Although clients need not be informed about the location of internal alert systems, the knowledge that safety technology is in use may deter violent behavior. However, under no circumstances should technology be used to intimidate or coerce clients or staff.Safety technology should not be used to “spy” on staff or to provide undetected supervision without staff members’ knowledge.
Standard 5. Use of Mobile PhonesSocial workers should be provided with mobile phones to promote their safety in the field.
InterpretationMobile phones have become a necessity for communication outside the office. Wherever possible, social workers should use agency phones, rather than personal phones, to reduce exposure of their personal information.
Although excellent tools for communication, a mobile phone can also potentially escalate an aggressive situation, and the social worker should therefore use it in a sensitive and sensible manner. To increase the safety provided by a mobile phone, social workers should
keep the mobile phone fully charged, have a replacement battery on hand for emergencies, and keep a phone charger in the car
be familiar with limitations of cell phone coverage in areas where they may visit ensure that they know how to use the phone properly before going into the field keep emergency contacts on speed dial keep GPS-enabled mobile phone applications activated at all times while in the
field agree on and use “code” words or phrases to help social workers convey the
nature of threats to their managers or colleagues remember to not use handheld mobile phones while driving send text messages of knowledge of circumstances, instead of calling, but not
while driving use the phone discreetly, so as not to inadvertently escalate a potentially volatile
situation and to avoid becoming a possible target for robbery.
Standard 6. Risk Assessment for Field Visits Social workers should assess and take steps to reduce their risk for violence prior to each field visit.
InterpretationSocial workers who make visits to clients in the field may be subjected to a range of safety risks. Prior to each field visit, social workers should conduct a risk assessment that includes the following:
Assessment of environmental factors Does the worker have a complete and exact address of the visit, to avoid
appearing lost or confused? Does the neighborhood pose risks for violence? Is the visit scheduled at a time of day that is more risky than other times? Are there other factors that may pose a risk for violence or danger (weather or
disaster conditions, extreme heat or cold, icy roads)? Have any events occurred in the neighborhood within the last 48 hours that might
increase risk (for example, homicides, abductions, robberies, drug raids,)? Does the area have reduced reception for mobile devices (for example, tunnels,
rural areas)? Will identification of the social worker’s agency (for example, vehicle logo)
increase risk? Are there groups or individuals in the path to the home or near the location of the
visit? Assessment of client’s living space Does accessing the space require the use of an elevator or flights of stairs? Are common spaces well-lit and clean?Are exits easily accessible? Who is likely to be in the client’s home during the visit?
o childreno parentso other relatives or friendso pets, including guard dogs
Is/are the client, family members, or friends of the client known to engage in criminal or dangerous activities in the home?
Is there an increased risk of disease, infection, or pests in the home environment?
Is the family known to have weapons?
Assessment of proposed work activities Will the social worker engage in high-risk activities during the visit (for example,
removing a child, notifying of reduction in benefits, terminating parental rights, executing a civil commitment procedure, helping a domestic violence victim to a safe house, delivering other potentially unwelcome information)?
Assessment of increased risk due to client’s condition
Does the client have an active substance abuse problem, particularly with alcohol?
Does the client have a mental illness or personality disorder, particularly if untreated?
Does the client have a history of or frequent violence or threatening behavior? Does the client have a communicable disease?
Assessment of worker vulnerability Working alone Visible physical conditions that may increase vulnerability (pregnancy,
disabilities, use of cane or walking aid) Lack of experience Appearing timid, vulnerable, lost, or confused Lax attitude and/or overconfidence Worker bias or stereotyping that causes over-
or underreaction to safety threats Attire (wearing jewelry and other valuables, high-heeled shoes, and so forth) that
adds to vulnerability Accessories (political buttons, religious jewelry) that may trigger reactions Appearance (for example, tattoos, body piercings) that cannot be covered and
that might attract/increase attention Lack of a safety plan
Assessment of condition of emergency equipment that may be needed Vehicle in good repair and working condition Mobile device fully charged Two-way radio working Emergency telephone numbers available.
Discussion of the issue of safety with the client, formally as a mutual safety contract or informally as a discussion of mutual safety
Social workers should be well trained in the use of their agency’s risk assessment instrument and supervised to ensure consistency in practice.
When a risk is identified, a safety plan must be created and adapted as necessary throughout the case planning and a plan of action to reduce or minimize that risk implemented. When the risk is determined to be too great or is unable to be minimized through the use of normal precautions, the social worker should have the opportunity, with management support, to state his or her concerns and develop an alternative plan until the risk is minimized by changed conditions or when appropriate support is available. The appropriate support may include being accompanied by a colleague or supervisor, being accompanied by law enforcement, changing the day or time of the visit, changing the site of the visit to a safer venue, or postponing the visit.
Standard 7. Transporting Clients
Social workers should acknowledge particular safety concerns when transporting clients.
InterpretationWhen transporting clients is an expectation of the job, employers should ensure that policies and practices are in place to protect both social workers and clients. At the time of pick up, the social worker should assess
the client’s level of agitation (if any), use of intoxicants, and the meaning of the appointment to the client
the possibility that the client has a weapon their own perception of a safety risk.
The social worker should also assess the condition of the vehicle:
Is the interior of the vehicle free from potential weapons (for example, pens, pencils, magazines, books, handheld devices, hot beverages)?
Is the vehicle in good working condition (for example, ample gas, working brakes, headlights/tail lights)?
Is the vehicle equipped with proper safety equipment in case of an emergency (for example, flares, battery cables, spare tire)?
When transporting a child, the social worker shouldo engage the child safety locks in the vehicleo know the proper use and installation of a child safety seat that is
appropriate for the child’s age and sizeo use a “buddy system”—that is, have a second social worker in the vehicle
when transporting a client.
If the client is assessed to be unsafe to transport, or the vehicle is assessed to be unsafe to operate, agency policies should prohibit the social worker from transporting the client.
Standard 8. Comprehensive Reporting Practices Social workers should engage in comprehensive reporting practices regarding field visits.
InterpretationSocial workers who are in the field should ensure that their in-office setting (supervisor, manager, coworker) is aware of their whereabouts and plans. This information should be kept in a secure location, accessible only to staff who need it. Prior to each field visit, social workers should
provide addresses of visit and appointment times in the order they are scheduled provide information about the clients being visited indicate the length of each visit (estimated arrival and departure times)
provide information about the vehicle they will use (license number, make, model, color)
report change of plans to their supervisor or designated agency representative (for
example, if a visit or appointment is canceled or delayed) provide information on how to reach them (for example, cell phone) carry agency identification cards at all times
Following each visit, the social workers should report should report back to their supervisor or designated agency representative when the meeting is concluded or as soon as it is safeto do so. Social workers should also report completion and progress toward the next scheduled appointment or close of business. Agencies should develop and strictly adhere to systems that support verification of worker safety in the field and establish that social workers have safely completed their visits. If a social worker misses an appointment, these systems should be activated to track the social worker and ensure her or his safety. If normalcontact cannot be made with the social worker in the field, agencies should develop policies about when law enforcement is called.
Standard 9. Post-Incident Reporting and ResponseEmployers of social workers should develop protocols that follow an incidence of violence or abuse.
InterpretationDespite an agency’s best intentions, every incidence of violence or abuse cannot be anticipated or avoided. However, employers of social workers have an obligation to develop policies and protocols following a violent or abusive incident that seek to ameliorate the current victim’s condition and to avoid futureincidents. The protocols can include the following:
Providing prompt assistance to the employee Assessing medical need and obtaining medical assistance Debriefing with staff and witnesses Completing an incident report that details the incident, where and when the
incident occurred, who was present/involved, a description of injuries, factors contributing to the event and whether or not medical services were advised and/or accessed.
Developing a safety plan in response to the incident Intervening with other clients and observers of the incident Addressing the caseload distribution of the affected social worker Offering technical and legal assistance as needed Providing financial compensation for damage to property Offering voluntary referrals to Employee Assistance program services Following up on safety plan
Implementing a quality assurance review of policies and procedures
Standard 10. Safety TrainingSocial workers should participate in annual training (or case supervision as needed) that develops and maintains their ability to practice safely.
InterpretationSafety training can include skill building in risk assessment, risk management, risk reduction, apreviously constructed Safety Plan of Action that includes exit strategies, verbal de-escalation techniques, effective strategies for clinical interventions with violent or potentially violent clients, and nonviolent self-defense and the impact of secondary trauma. Safety training can also include the use of safety technology devices and advocating for self-care to effectively manage secondary trauma in the workplace.
Standard 11. Student SafetySocial workers need to be prepared for safe social work practice during their student years.
InterpretationAs practicum experiences are an important part of the social work curriculum, schools of social work are responsible for ensuring that social work students are educated about concepts and techniques related to safety as well as supervised in safe environments. Social work safety should be part of the curriculum/training of field practicum instructors. Schools should place students in settings with sound safety policies and procedures that should be reviewed with students in school and in the placement setting. Professional safety should be part of the school and agency orientations. Students who have safety concerns about their placements must be provided with supports until the safety concerns have abated. If the concerns cannot be adequately addressed, the student must be offered an alternative placement.
CITATIONS
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). May 2012 state occupational employment and wage estimates South Carolina. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_sc.htm#21-0000
National Association of Social Workers. (2013). NASW guidelines for social work safety in the workplace. Retrieved from: http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/naswstandards/GuidelinesforSocialWorkSafety/NASW%20Guidelines%20for%20Social%20Work%20Safety%20in%20the%20Wor place%20Draft.pdf
OSHA (2004) Guidelines for preventing workplace violence for health care and social service workers. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3148/osha3148.html
Ringstad, R. (2005). Conflict in the Workplace: Social Workers as Victims and Perpetrators. Social Work, 50(4), 305-313.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, July). South Carolina: 2010 population and housing unit counts.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Selected economic characteristics 2012 American community survey 1-year estimates. Retrieved from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_DP03&prodType=table
Whitaker, T., Weismiller, T., & Clark, E. (2006). Assuring the sufficiency of a frontline workforce: A national study of licensed social workers [Executive summary]. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Whitaker, T., and Arrington, P. (2008). Social workers at work. NASW Membership
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Appendix B: Recruitment E-Mail
Hello, Social Workers,
Recently, the NASW-SC Chapter was awarded a Ruth Fizdale Chapter Research Grant from the NASW to study the perceptions of social worker safety in South Carolina. This survey is completely voluntary. Your participation is confidential. The information you provide will be used to inform future recommendations and to provide information and guidance as NASW-SC advocates for the safety of social workers practicing in South Carolina. You can access the survey here:
########################
The link is also posted on our website: www.scnasw.org
Feel free to share this with others. We'd like as many responses as we can get!
