Covid-19 Employment Patterns and Protections: Findings from a Statewide Survey of Licensed Social Workers

Overview: In Covid-19, social workers have been on the frontlines despite significant risk. This paper examines employment patterns and protections including an analysis from the organizational management perspective. The findings have implications for the protection of workers by centering the voices of frontline social workers and examining organizational policy.Proposal text:

Background:
Since the Covid-19 pandemic emerged, social workers have been on the frontlines, mitigating the public health crisis, despite infrequently being recognized as essential workers (Guerrero et al. 2020). Research on direct-line social workers during the pandemic has illustrated an increased risk of Covid contraction, negative impacts on mental health, disproportionate burden for the lowest paid workers, and ultimately extended impact on workers’ families (Brown et al. 2020; Gaitens et al. 2021; Sen et al. 2021). Less attention has been paid to organizational management perspectives that influence Covid employment patterns and protections. As part of a state-wide study in Minnesota of all licensed social workers, this paper examines the impact of Covid-19 on employment, protections and working conditions with a dual focus on the perspectives of direct-line workers and organizational management.

Methods:
This research is part of a large-scale exploratory study; all Minnesota licensed social workers (Nf14,469) were sent an online survey via Qualtrics regarding the impact of the pandemic on employment, working conditions, and workplace safety. Over 2,800 licensed social workers took the survey including 2,528 direct-line workers and 283 in organizational management. Analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics and thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions which asked how their work-life had changed since the pandemic began.

Results:
Generally, in the first year of the pandemic licensed social workers not only stayed employed (77%), but reported increased work hours (15.4%). Thematic analysis illustrated change in work including increased workloads, stress and burnout, lost connection with colleagues and collaborators, less face to face client connection, and significant job changes. The majority shifted to remote practice, many of whom reported difficulty in finding balance between work and personal life. Particular direct-line workers, such as medical and school-based practitioners, reported increased vulnerability and noted a lack of compensation despite this risk.

When differentiated, there were notable differences between the responses of direct-line workers and organizational management. Managers and direct-line workers had fairly similar perceptions regarding required in-person contact (45.3% and 51.5%, respectively). Yet, when it came to workplace protections, direct line workers were significantly more likely to report not having enough protection (18.1%) than organizational managements’ perception of workers not having enough protection (7.7%) (2=7.26, p=0.007).

Conclusions:
This paper provides a broad-scale view of all licensed social workers’ employment patterns and protections in Minnesota. The findings illustrate that social workers have been essential to the public through maintaining and increasing employment while some balance remote work and/or precarious in-person practice. Future research is needed to understand the nuances between sectors and types of practice. Additionally, the difference in perception of workplace protections is noteworthy. Organizational management may not have an objective view of safety, and could be pivotal to understanding and advocating for the protections of social workers as essential workers. Future programmatic and policy decisions regarding employee protections must center the lived experiences of our most vulnerable social workers.