Social Work During COVID-19 in Slovenia - Oxford Academic

Social Work During COVID-19 inSlovenia: Absent, Invisible or Ignored?

Nina Me�sl *, Vesna Lesko�sek, Tamara Rape �Zibernaand Tadeja Kodele

Faculty of Social Work, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia

*Correspondence to Nina Me�sl, Faculty of Social Work, University of Ljubljana, Topni�ska 31,

Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia. E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The article discusses the results of a research study on social work during COVID-19 in

Slovenia. Governmental measures to prevent the spread of the disease have increased

the need for assistance to various groups of people but at the same time limited their

access to social services. The main research question was to what extent social workers

and social services were able to reorganise and adapt to crisis conditions and how this

relates to the role of social work in society. Data were collected using mixed methods:

online survey and interviews with social workers. Content analysis and selective cod-

ing, thematic analysis and univariate descriptive statistics were used for data analysis.

The analysis shows that the ability of social workers to respond to the growing and

changing needs of people during the pandemic depended on the context in which

they worked. Social work was perceived as more effective and responsive in social

services where professional autonomy was assured and valued and where horizontal

relationships existed between staff and management. The study contributed to a

better understanding of the context in which the pandemic occurred and identified

some structural barriers to successful social work that are internationally comparable

and relevant.

Keywords: community engagement, crisis social work, new public management,

pandemic, professional autonomy

Accepted: July 2022

www.basw.co.uk

# The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf

of The British Association of Social Workers.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution,

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly

cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]

British Journal of Social Work (2022) 00, 1–18https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac149

Dow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com/bjsw

/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcac149/6661190 by guest on 01 O

ctober 2022

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-8686

Introduction

The role of social work in the 21st century has been widely discussed,most often in the context of the neoliberal global economic paradigm,which caused major changes in welfare systems around the world(Jordan, 2001; Hare, 2004; Lorenz, 2005; Hyslop, 2018; Trappenburget al., 2020; Zilberstein, 2021). This provoked a long, critical debate inthe framework of changed social, political, economic and environmentalcircumstances (Jordan, 2001; Ferguson, 2004; Lorenz, 2005; McKendrickand Webb, 2014; Hyslop, 2018; McGregor, 2019). A common criticism ofthe development of social work over the last decades is depoliticisa-tion—meaning the disengagement from the struggle for social changeand social justice—which is an additional obstacle for effective responsesto these changes (Reisch and Jani, 2012; Krumer-Nevo, 2017; Guptaet al., 2018).

The crises caused by the COVID-19 pandemic left social workers withthe sudden additional challenge of redefining their role and establishedway of working with people. Whilst it was vital to react quickly and de-velop new ways of doing social work, social workers also faced the leg-acy of past changes in the welfare system that have been implementedin many countries, including Slovenia, in the last two decades. After twoyears of working in emergency situations, several studies indicated thateven though many similarities exist between countries, different socialcontexts behind the pandemic also became transparent (e.g. Banks et al.,2020; Harrikari et al., 2021).

Drawing from the global definition of the profession (IFSW, IASSW,2014), social work should play an essential front line role in emergencysituations, as it entails skills and knowledge that contribute to adequateresponses of societies to new social circumstances (Lavalette andIoakimidis, 2011). However, international reports indicate that the re-sponse during the COVID-19 pandemic was characterised by the mar-ginalisation of social work, which in many countries was not involved indecision making about the local and national measures against the pan-demic (Dominelli et al., 2020; Harrikari et al., 2021). The focus was al-most exclusively on the health and economic consequences of thepandemic. Thus, the population’s need for support and coping abilitieswith the distress they experienced (due to measures such as social dis-tancing, ban on public life and isolation) remained overlooked. InSlovenia, the measures were implemented by the government in agree-ment with the medical profession, with no involvement of experts in theareas of social care and education (Me�sl and Lesko�sek, 2021). In theglobal discourse on the pandemic, social workers around the world havebeen called on to act, to step out from the background (Amadasun,2020; Walter-McCabe, 2020), and stand up for people whose social

of 18 Nina Me�sl et al.

Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

situations have further deteriorated after governmental measures againstthe pandemic (Berg-Weger and Morley, 2020; Saltzman et al., 2020).

The main aim of the study ‘Social work during COVID-19 inSlovenia’ was to gather information on the impact of measures againstthe spread of the virus on social work practices: how social services haveadapted to the new reality, what role social work has played in address-ing the problems caused by the pandemic on social and private lives andhow all of this relates to the role of social work in society. The opinionsand experiences of social workers at social work centres (public socialservices—hereafter SWCs) were recorded.

As the results of international studies (Dominelli et al., 2020; Harrikariet al., 2021) showed that the mode of conduct of social work in thepandemic situation cannot be interpreted beyond the context in which itoccurred, further analyses of data in the Slovenian study examined how, ifat all, social workers in Slovenia are active beyond the direct personalrelationship with service users at the level of advocating common good,well-being and social justice, following the global definition (IFSW,IASSW, 2014). There was an interest in several dimensions: absence/pres-ence/visibility of social work and inclusion/exclusion of social work in theprocesses of decision making. Although the data pertained to Sloveniaonly, the study is internationally relevant, as the results reflect internation-ally relevant issues in the development of social work and its role insociety.

First, the conceptual framework and context of the study are presented,followed by the results of social work’s role during COVID-19 in Slovenia.The discussion is future oriented: what can be undertaken in light of theresults to further develop social work in contemporary society, whereemergency situations are becoming more common.

The context of social work in Slovenia

Social work played an active role in Slovenian society in the 1970s and1980s, when social workers addressed relevant social issues (deinstitu-tionalisation, violence against women and children, poverty) and pro-moted new, action-oriented approaches and ways of working withpeople (community social work, social actions, involvement in socialmovements). However, from the 1990s, we saw a gradual decline in so-cially engaged social work. Whilst a period of activism re-emerged dur-ing the Occupy movement (like the feminist radical social workers,direct social work), it remained confined to a small group (Flaker, 2013).There is an extensive body of internationally relevant literature contex-tualising this issue within the global paradigm shifts towards neoliberali-sation and individualisation of responsibilities, indicating a gradualdepoliticisation of social work (Jordan, 2001; Reisch and Jani, 2012;

Social Work During COVID-19 in Slovenia of 18

Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

Mattocks, 2018). The basic assumption of these changes is that there is‘no alternative to the market’, which is a core element of the commonsense of many people, including those involved in social work(Ferguson, 2004, p. 1).

Slovenia, like other parts of the world (Ferguson, 2004; Mongkol, 2011;Spolander et al., 2014; Hyslop, 2018; Zilberstein, 2021), uncritically adoptedthe neoliberal mentality that resulted in the introduction of New PublicManagement (NPM) into the functioning of social care services. NPM wasintroduced in Slovenia in 2018 when SWCs, the major public social servicesproviders, were reorganised. The main objectives of the reform were ration-alisation, financial efficiency and control over the performance of socialworkers. In 2018, there were sixty-two independent SWCs in the country.The restructuring created a pyramid structure, resulting in sixteen regionalcentres with additional units, thus totalling sixty-three. In terms of numbers,there is not much difference, but in terms of independence and hierarchy,there is a significant difference, as only sixteen SWCs are now consideredlegal entities. This also implies less professional autonomy, more controlover staff and service users and complicated, costly computerisation and re-cording of the performance of employees. The volume of work is increasingwhile the staff are decreasing; Harris (2003) would call this ‘the business ofsocial work’, and Ferguson (2004) would call it ‘the managerialistapproach’.

SWC employees are civil servants who are expected to follow thesechanges and undertake gatekeeping or surveillance roles. They have lit-tle power in managing their own work lives and thus find it difficult toempower their users (Cree, 2013). The processes of adapting the publicsector to the organisational structure of the private sector have resultedin increased bureaucratisation, cost reduction, measuring performanceand surveillance of staff and service users, profoundly affecting the mo-rale of social workers (Ferguson, 2004). It has also resulted in the depo-liticisation of social work (Reisch and Jani, 2012; Krumer-Nevo, 2017;Gupta et al., 2018), which strengthens social work in public service asstreet-level bureaucracy (Trappenburg et al., 2020). The passive accep-tance of these changes legitimises the new role.

This social climate has only reinforced the dominance of direct ‘clini-cal’ services provided to individuals, families and small groups (Hare,2004). The focus on social justice and action is weakening and beingreplaced by individualism and therapeutic interventions (Mattocks,2018), defined by Lussi (1991) as the therapeutic colonisation of socialwork.

The editors of the international report on social work during the firstwave of COVID-19 (Dominelli et al., 2020) outlined the widespread effectsof the pandemic that affected not only physical health but also people’s so-cial and psychological state, which led to a crisis of broader dimensions anda partial collapse of social systems, disrupting the established ways of


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

connecting, communicating and acting. These changes have presented socialworkers with several challenges, new ways of engaging with people(McFadden et al., 2020; Pink et al., 2020; Bela et al., 2021; Harrikari et al.,2021), and some ethical considerations (Banks et al., 2020). Social controland repression of vulnerable groups tend to increase in times of social cri-sis; therefore, the primary task of social work is to respect and implementnational and international standards aimed at protecting the most vulnera-ble groups of people and safeguarding their fundamental rights. During thepandemic, the engagement of social workers should have been reinforced.

Methods and sample

In the mixed-method study, data were collected through an online sur-vey and interviews. The online survey collected data on the activity ofSWCs during COVID-19. The population of the study comprised SWCstaff. An invitation to participate in the online survey was sent to 796workplace email addresses and to the general email address of eachSWC and posted on social media (Facebook). The questionnaire wasvalidly completed by 294 respondents (27.3 per cent of the population).Of these, 54.1 per cent of the respondents had ten years of experienceor less in SWCs, while 9.5 per cent had more than thirty years of experi-ence. Social workers dominated 80.3 per cent of the sample, whilst law-yers were the second most represented profile (5.1 per cent). Thequestionnaire was designed using the 1KA survey software. Questionswere asked about the services provided during the first wave (mid-March to late May 2020) and second wave (mid-October to mid-December 2020) of the pandemic, as we were interested in the progressand changes that occurred over this period. The questionnaire was avail-able from December 7 to 21, 2020. For the analysis, data on satisfactionwith the way SWC units and on how their work is organised were used.Since we did not have a random sample, only descriptive statistics wereused (measures of central tendency and variability along with percen-tages). The responses from the open-ended questions in the question-naire were also used and presented along with the results of the analysisof the interviews. The statements from the open questions of the onlinesurvey were marked with the letter S (survey), followed by the sequen-tial number of statements.

The second method adopted was in-depth interviews conducted withsixteen social workers from each SWC between December 2020 and theend of February 2021. Fourteen of them were conducted via Zoom andtwo via e-mail correspondence. An ad hoc sample was used, and socialworkers from various professional networks were invited to participate.Fourteen women and two men who worked in various SWC areas (workwith families, foster care and adoption, mental health, work with the


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

elderly, violence prevention coordinator) participated. They were alleducated in social work (some with bachelor’s degrees, some withmaster’s degrees, one with a doctorate) and had varying years of expe-rience. The interview guidelines comprised six thematic parts. For thisarticle, two thematic parts were analysed, which are related to the def-inition of the role of social work during the first and second waves ofthe pandemic (who defined the role, what were the responsibilities,satisfaction with the role, supportive factors, factors that hindered so-cial work and [non-]engagement of social work in society during thepandemic). The statements taken from the interviews were marked bya code attributed to each individual social worker and the sequencenumber of the statement (e.g. SW1.1).

We have consistently followed the Guidelines for Ethical Conduct inResearch involving People, which is a code of conduct for researchers atthe University of Ljubljana. Participants were provided with detailed infor-mation about the research. The interviewees signed a printed informed con-sent form and participants in the online survey gave their consent bystarting the survey, which was clearly stated in the introductory text of thesurvey. The participation was strictly voluntary. During data processing,confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing all potentially identifiable data.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed using the 1KA survey software, whichallows partial data processing, and were further analysed using SPSS andExcel. Univariate descriptive statistics were applied (measures of centraltendency, variability and percentages). Some data are presented graphically.The qualitative data (interviews and open-ended questions of the onlinesurvey) were analysed using the MAXQDA qualitative data analysis soft-ware (categorisation of text into thematic codes, overall representation ofvarious codes and analysis of coded text). The content analysis was per-formed using selective coding (Glasser and Holton, 2004). A thematicanalysis was also performed (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Besides classicalqualitative analysis, the empirical data collected with the interviews wereanalysed in terms of the following categories: absent, present but invisible,visible (for the first and second waves of the pandemic separately), ignoredand included (for both waves together, as SW reflected this theme gener-ally and not specifically for each wave). These five categories were pre-determined based on reading the interviews multiple times, conducting abasic qualitative analysis (open coding), and a theoretical understanding ofthe topic (e.g. Jordan, 2001; Hare, 2004; Hyslop, 2018). Subsequently, indi-vidual statements from the open-ended questions of the survey were alsoclassified into the pre-defined categories of analysed interviews. The analy-sis of the interview material was conducted by one of the project


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

researchers, and the analysis of the material with the open-ended questionswas conducted by another. Both followed the guidelines for qualitativeanalysis and the use of the MAXQDA programme and adhered to the eth-ical principles of research. All four members of the project group reviewedthe results and analysis procedures several times and reflected on the analy-sis together. The trustworthiness of qualitative research guided the researchactions (e.g. preparation, organisation, reporting phase, methods triangula-tion, analyst triangulation) and was achieved through the availability of richdata (Elo et al., 2014). The limitations of this research are presented in thediscussion.

Findings

Although the questions focused on the period of the pandemic, respond-ents also reflected on their experiences with the role of social work insociety before the pandemic. The use of quantitative and qualitativemethods showed that the numerical results on (dis)satisfaction needed abroader interpretation, made possible through the analysis of the open-ended questions in the survey and the analysis of the interviews. Theresults of the survey are presented first, followed by those of the inter-views, which elaborate on the role of social work and the reasons for(dis)satisfaction.

Satisfaction with the organisation and role of social work duringthe first and second COVID-19 waves

Organisation of work followed the instructions given to SWCs by thegovernment and the ministry, either with or without further interpreta-tion by managers of the main SWCs. Working directly with people wasnot allowed, and being on the premises was restricted because SWCswere poorly equipped with information and communication technology(ICT) that would allow them to work remotely and virtually. Even afterinstructions mandating no contact in the first wave were given, the nec-essary equipment was not provided and only partially provided in thesecond wave. We enquired about satisfaction levels with regard to con-flicting information about the closure of SWCs, contacts with users andrules for operating SWCs. There was significant confusion regarding allof this among professionals, especially during the first wave of the pan-demic. The results of the survey showed that as many as 52 per cent ofthe respondents had little to no personal contact with service users dur-ing the first wave, while in the second wave, the percentage dropped to32 per cent. In the first wave, 80 per cent of the respondents made no orinfrequent field visits, compared to 65 per cent during the second wave.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

As shown in Figure 1, there were some differences between the firstand second waves. The average satisfaction with work organisation in-creased from 3.5 (on a 5-point scale, with a standard deviation of 1.1) inthe first wave to 3.7 (with the same standard deviation) in the secondwave. A slight increase in the percentage of ‘very satisfied’ social work-ers and a significantly higher percentage of ‘satisfied’ social workers wasobserved. In total, 68.7 per cent of the respondents were ‘satisfied’ and‘very satisfied’ in the second wave, compared to 56.8 per cent in thefirst. In the first wave, 21 per cent were ‘dissatisfied’ and ‘very dissatis-fied’ compared to 14.4 per cent in the second. A high level of satisfac-tion with the organisation of work is surprising, since in the first wave,more than half of the respondents had no contact with service userswhatsoever, and the reasons for this were sought in the interviews (seeFigure 2).

Our findings showed that the interviewees associated the role of socialwork with the way the work was (re)organised. For the questions, ‘Howwould you define the role of social work during the first wave of thepandemic?’ and ‘How satisfied are you with the role of social work dur-ing this period?’ the responses also included topics of the consequencesof the reorganisation of SWCs. The role of social work was thereforeclosely associated with its organisational context. The selective coding ofthe interviews revealed that (dis)satisfaction with the role of social workand organisation of work during COVID-19 can be interpreted accord-ing to several factors, some of which encourage social work (indicatedby bold lines) and others that hinder it (indicated by dotted lines). Forexample, although SWC overload is a negative aspect, it is included inthe table under satisfaction with social work because the analysis showedthat SWCs rated their satisfaction with the role of social work during

Figure 1: Satisfaction with the organisation of work during COVID-19 (n¼ 247).


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

the pandemic highly, even though they were closed and inaccessible tousers, because this allowed them to rest, do paperwork, etc. The arrowsshow how the codes are connected.

The reasons for dissatisfaction are associated with the way work wasorganised in a particular SWC. Survey data show that respondents whoindicated that the way they did their work in the pandemic dependedmostly on instructions from managers were less satisfied with the overallorganisation (average of 3.4 in the first wave and 3.6 in the second waveon a 5-point scale) than respondents who indicated otherwise (averageof 3.8 in the first wave and 3.9 in the second wave). Data from inter-views showed that in SWCs where management was based on demo-cratic negotiations and participation, the staff were more satisfied thanin SWCs with authoritarian management. This is particularly crucial inemergency situations when clear actions and instructions are needed, butflexibility and adaptability are even more important (Banks et al., 2020).The latter is possible in a collaborative environment where professionalautonomy is not restricted. There are exceptions based on the personalattitudes and commitment of each social worker; that is, despite beingunder authoritarian management that restricts the autonomy of socialwork, some employees decided to sought innovative solutions to estab-lish direct contact with service users, regardless of the ban on social con-tact. In the first wave, 19.2 per cent behaved this way, while 23.9 percent did so in the second. The dissatisfaction with the organisation of

Figure 2: (Dis)satisfaction with organisation of work and the role of social work during

COVID-19—selective coding.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

work in the first wave was higher and related to the fact that staff couldonly carry out urgent tasks related to child protection and domestic vio-lence cases. Moreover, poor ICT equipment did not allow remote collab-oration with people. The increase in satisfaction in the second wave wasrelated mostly to possibilities of working from home and having moreface-to-face contact with users. In some cases, satisfaction was related toless stressful workloads, catching up on paperwork and having less con-tact with service users. These findings point to a changed understandingof what social work is supposed to be and internalisation of the bureau-cratic institutional context (Evans and Harris, 2004).

The (non-)engagement of social work during COVID-19: absence,(in)visibility

As already noted, healthcare was at the forefront of public concerns dur-ing the pandemic, while social work was not present in the media anddid not play any significant role in determining the measures against thepandemic, which was also confirmed in the research. The intervieweesexpressed dissatisfaction with the engagement and visibility of socialwork in society, especially during the first wave of the pandemic, withsix of the sixteen interviewees reporting the absence of social work.

I just think that we should have more professionals at our SWC to meet

people. How we would protect the staff is another thing, even if we had

to wear these masks, but if people could come, they do not feel now

that we are really helping because we are just closed. (SW3.24)

Very few felt that social work was sufficiently engaged (two of sixteenduring the first wave and three of sixteen during the second); moreover,they did not feel they were available to people during the pandemic orable to perform their regular tasks. The key difference in satisfactionwith the engagement and visibility of social work during the pandemicwas noted from interviewees who came from SWCs that were well-embedded in the local community and actively involved in local crisisteams.

We have three programmes, which are financed by the local community,

and we have partnered with Civil Protection. Within these programmes,

we agreed to check the situation with all our users. (SW4.2)

Some interviewees stated that they took over the work of other serv-ices that ceased operations, such as administrative services where peo-ple could obtain documents, and whose disruption made life evenmore difficult for some. Thus, social work was present but invisible(eight of sixteen interviews in the first wave and twelve of the sixteenin the second, where interviews previously categorised as absent weremoved to the present but invisible category). Social workers dealt


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

with different types of paperwork, helped find accommodation forpeople who were quarantined or released from the hospital andneeded care, and helped support families with children who needed tobe home-schooled through the procurement of ICT equipment or byproviding the skills and capacity for parents to support their childrenin remote education.

I feel that we have an important role to play, because some of our

systems are collapsing. Children are released early from hospitals due to

COVID-19. Children with special needs should go back to school, as

their distress is just too severe. Most counselling is not taking place due

to COVID-19; all these people are turning to SWCs. We help them, we

talk to them; that’s the least we can do. We try to find solutions with

them. We connect them with organisations that can help them. We have

a relevant role to play and a huge amount of responsibility. First and

foremost, we have to be human. (S149)

To tackle these problems, it was necessary to look for innovative ways be-yond the established methods of working. The lack of visibility in thiskind of work was particularly painful for many social workers, which theyattributed to several issues. Poor public opinion of SWCs—associatedwith unjustified interventions in the private sphere or lack of help forpeople in need—was the most cited reason. The lack of visibility is con-nected to the general role of social work in society.

It is also connected with the fact that the profession of social work is not

given recognition in our society. I think this is the general belief among

social workers. Sometimes, we say that anyone with five minutes of

spare time will tell us how to do our job, yet they have no idea

whatsoever about anything that has to do with exercise of public

authority. We are missing a space in our society where our profession

would be given recognition. (SW13.8)

Some interviewees highlighted the continued and long-standing over-looking of the needs of SWCs and their staff (e.g. work overload, under-staffing, inadequate ICT equipment) as well as the bad attitude of theauthorities towards SWCs (e.g. exclusion from systemic decisions affect-ing SWC). The decades of neglect are reflected in the passive attitude ofthe staff who are tired of constantly pushing for change with no effect.There is also a fear that the workload will become even heavier in thefuture if they keep pushing for change.

Drawing the attention of the decision makers to the unbearable situation

and inefficiency of SWCs due to bad functioning of the system [. . .], all

the problems that already existed are now even more serious. SWCs are

understaffed. I fear the future when the full impact of the pandemic will

be felt. I wonder who will help all those people, and how? Social

security will end up in the same position as healthcare. (S55)


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

They expressed concern regarding the increased bureaucratisation andthe focus of SWCs on efficiency, which put users second in terms ofpriority.

All this was a problem long before the COVID-19, but because we were

totally unprepared for the outbreak [. . .], the numbers to be cut have

only increased. Instead of working for the good of the people, we are

working to meet the status quo like factory workers. (S200)

Social work during COVID-19: ignored or included?

We aimed to see whether social workers were involved in decisions re-garding the measures adopted and provision of help during the pan-demic. In eleven interviews (sixteen total, categorised together for bothwaves), social workers stated that social work was ignored and even ex-cluded from the processes of decision making and had no impact on thepoliticians who created the framework of the SWCs’ activities.

No, I do not think we are mentioned anywhere, I really do not think we

are mentioned, not by the ministry, not by the municipality, not by the

chamber, not even by our bosses. (SW12.18)

However, in five interviews, social workers mentioned that social workwas involved in the decision-making and action-planning processes; mostof them mentioned this being at the local level. Only one social workerfelt that involvement at the national level slightly improved in the sec-ond wave of the pandemic when the professional associations and organ-isations received more attention from the media.

Ignoring or excluding social work in terms of adopting measures dur-ing the pandemic and active involvement in the processes of decisionmaking is associated with the lack of visibility and poor reputation of so-cial work in society.

Some interviewees attributed their rejection and exclusion to thedeeds of other actors. They feel that professional associations and organ-isations should put more effort into changing the societal role of socialwork. There was also frustration among social workers because theywere not invited to participate in (local) crisis groups, and their effortswere not recognised despite being actively involved during thepandemic.

We were not invited to participate, but we did our job; however, there is

a general impression that we don’t work. (SW11.22)

Other interviewees reflected critically on their own involvement, whichthey believed contributed to their exclusion. Some associated this withthe way SWCs operate—they do not operate as open-access institutionsand are slow to respond to changed circumstances.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

I think that we are, and this is my subjective view—my colleagues

wouldn’t want to hear this—but I think that we are still a pretty closed

institution. We’re not innovative enough; we don’t react as quickly as we

should [. . .]. (SW7.24)

The more social workers are excluded from policy making, the more invisi-ble and excluded social work as a profession becomes in society and thepractices become less visible. This process seems to be related to social pol-icy created by various governments over recent decades, with little, if any,participation from the community of experts, despite the changes having afatal impact on practice. The long and gradual exclusion of the professionfrom the processes of policymaking has contributed to the current role ofsocial work: out of sight, out of mind.

Discussion

Social workers were asked to reflect on the impact of the pandemic ontheir professional actions and how they adapted their work to the newcircumstances. The results showed that the work is closely connected tothe context in which the pandemic occurred, as social workers pointedto the institutional and conceptual changes that were introduced by thegovernment before the pandemic. This context is not unanimously un-derstood as negative or positive. The data showed a contrast betweensocial workers’ criticisms of increasing control over their work andrestrictions on their direct contact with service users, on the one hand,and their satisfaction with institutional changes and adjustments duringthe pandemic, on the other, which has also been found in other studies(Dominelli et al., 2020; Harrikari et al., 2021).

Santiago and Smith (2020) conceptualised this as the politics of thepandemic and emphasised that the response to the pandemic must becontextualised in the neoliberalism and populism. Structural changes,such as the introduction of neoliberal managerialism (NPM) and market-isation of the public sector), along with numerous other reforms ofSWCs, have weakened professional work and restricted the professionalautonomy of social workers. The introduction of the NPM has affectedthe autonomy of professional conduct in the public sector in many coun-tries (Thomas and Hewitt, 2011; Chandler et al., 2017).

It has also been shown that social work in Slovenia is becoming in-creasingly individualised and during COVID-19 times reduced to onlyemergency contacts with service users. Santiago and Smith (2020) simi-larly state that social work is reduced to the micro level and less visibleat the macro level. McGregor (2019) stated that on the continuum ofthe maintenance—reform and individual—collective axes, social workhas recently tended towards maintenance and individual work. Thesechanges are also highlighted in Slovene study by the rather high level of


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

satisfaction with the measures taken and the performance of SWCs, de-spite the measures being restrictive and cutting off contacts with serviceusers. This may be interpreted as reinforcing the role of social workersas street-level bureaucrats, moving away from service users by minimis-ing contact (Trappenburg et al., 2020). Researchers around the worldhave suggested that an increasingly authoritarian social work practicehas emerged under COVID-19 (e.g. Sen et al., 2021; Santiago and Smith,2020; Itzhaki-Braun, 2021), what might have consequences for the futuredevelopments of social work practice.

In general, respondents were critical of the role of social work in society.They feel that social work should be more engaged in and recognised bysociety, but they have not been willing to expose themselves and act publi-cally. They have rather outsourced the responsibility to the professional as-sociation and other organisations that by their opinion should raise theprofile and visibility of the profession in the public. Similarly, Mattocks(2018, p.14) found that a majority (89 per cent) of study participants fromthe National Association of Social Workers’ members in Maryland, agreedthat social workers have a responsibility to engage in social action, but 11per cent of the social workers in that sample felt that it was not their re-sponsibility. This can also be a result of being ignored and not having animpact on decision-making processes, which has been the case in Sloveniafor decades. Social workers have been increasingly becoming bitter and an-gry, often conveying the message, ‘We cannot do anything about it’. Asshown, social work was excluded from decision making during the pan-demic, and social workers attribute their poor status and professional pow-erlessness to organisational changes. Main reasons are high workloads,exhaustion due to the various demands at the workplace, neoliberalchanges of the welfare state and social systems (Ferguson, 2004; Hyslop,2018; Trappenburg et al., 2020), and changes in NPM (Mongkol, 2011). Theeffects of structural changes, based on the limitations of professional auton-omy and the increasing fear of job loss, which make workers comply sincethey are controlled and can be punished, should not be overlooked.

The study also highlighted the impact of each social worker’s personalcommitment to service users. The fact that a social worker does a good jobis relevant, of course, but the adequacy of support and help that SWC usersget should not depend on personal (non-) commitment but rather on theSWC’s institutional functioning, including accessibility, inclusion and respectfor professional autonomy. There is another aspect worth mentioning thathas been addressed by Bertotti (2016) and Trappenburg et al. (2020): it isnot only sufficient for social workers to use their own networks and per-sonal engagement in their work but also crucial to be critically engagedand in touch with higher management to discuss organisational or proce-dural improvements necessary to provide good service for everyone. Reischand Jani (2012, p. 1132) highlight that misunderstandings around the mean-ing of politics and its relationship to professional practice may discourage


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

social workers from challenging the status quo, which ultimately sustainsexisting institutional power arrangements.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, it was difficult to define purecategories when analysing the material, since there were often overlapsand combinations of aspects. In such cases, the interviews were groupedaccording to the predominant focus.

In describing the work of the SWC and its role during the pandemic,the interviewees provide an individual perspective on a particular SWC(some were more critical than others), which is a complex organisationwith many employees in different areas of work.

When conducting the survey, we intended to conduct a census, but notall population units were available to us. Therefore, the results are basedon a non-probability sample based on practitioner self-selection, which mayinduce some bias (response rate was 27.3 per cent). Due to the non-probability sample, inferential statistics were also not performed.

Conclusion

Based on the current findings on social work during COVID-19, it isclear that discourse on the need for transformative changes in the systemof social security and the delivery of social services in times of crisis hasbecome necessary (Bela et al., 2021). Social work in Slovenia was absentfor a few weeks at the beginning of the first wave of the COVID-19pandemic when SWCs were unexpectedly closed, but soon after, it waspresent but invisible. It was excluded from national action planning forthe entire duration of the pandemic. The findings of the study are rele-vant globally, as there are many discussions worldwide on the reducedimpact of social work, individualisation and minimised contact with peo-ple (Ferguson, 2004; Hyslop, 2018). The situation in Slovenia indicatesthe fact that these problems have become visible due to their worseningstate during the pandemic, thereby revealing the conceptual and struc-tural environment in which social work takes place.

To achieve the necessary changes in the future, it is essential to de-velop a new social work policy that requires strong action to counter thepower system that has sought to limit and reject social work’s core val-ues (McKendrick and Webb, 2014). Trappenburg et al. (2020, p. 1685)highlighted that this requires breaking the cycle of fear of redundancythat has been created and reinforced by neoliberalism. We must allowprofessionals to speak their minds and express doubts regarding policieswithout risking their jobs.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at British Journal of Social WorkJournal online.

Conflict of interest statement. The authors declare that there is no con-flict of interest. They did not have any direct or indirect financial inter-ests or connections that would compromise the results and theconclusions of the research presented in the article. They do not haveany commercial benefits and are not in relationships that might compro-mise their work, presented in the article.

References

Amadasun, S. (2020) ‘Social work and COVID-19 pandemic: an action call’,

International Social Work, 63(6), pp. 753–56.

Banks, S., Cai, T., de Jonge, E., Shears, J., Shum, M., Sobo�can, A. M., Strom, K.,

Truell, R., Uriz, M. J. and Weinberg, M. (2020) ‘Practising ethically during

COVID-19: social work challenges and responses’, International Social Work,

63(5), pp. 569–83.

Bela, B., Broka, A., Rajevska, F. and Rasna�ca, L. (2021) ‘Transformative change in

social service delivery and social work practice in Latvia during the COVID-19

pandemic’, European Journal of Social Advance Access published September 17,

2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2021.1977255.

Berg-Weger, M. and Morley, J. E. (2020) ‘Loneliness and social isolation in older

adults during the Covid-19 pandemic: implications for gerontological social work’,

The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging, 24(5), pp. 456–58.

Bertotti, T. (2016) ‘Resources reduction and welfare changes: tensions between social

workers and organisations. the Italian case in child protection services’, European

Journal of Social Work, 19(6), pp. 963–76.

Chandler, J., Berg, E., Ellison, M. and Barry, J. (2017) ‘Reconfiguring professional

autonomy? The case of social work in the UK’, in Blom, B., Evertsson, L. and

Perlinski, M. (eds), Social and Caring Professions in European Welfare States:

Policies, Services and Professional Practices, Bristol, Policy Press.

Cree, V. (2013) ‘New practices of empowerment’, in Gray, M. and Webb, S. A. (eds),

The New Politics of Social Work, Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan.

Dominelli, L., Harrikari, T., Mooney, J., Lesko�sek, V. and Kennedy Tsunoda, K.

(eds) (2020) Covid-19 and social work: a collection of country reports, available

online at: https://www.iassw-aiets.org/covid-19/5369-covid-19-and-social-work-a-col

lection-of-country-reports/ (accessed June 1, 2021).

Elo, S., Kaariainen, M., Kanste, O., Polkki, T., Utriainen, K. and Kyngas, K. (2014)

‘Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness’, SAGE Open, 4(1),

pp. 215824401452263.

Evans, T. and Harris, J. (2004) ‘Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the

(exaggerated) death of discretion’, British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), pp. 871–95.

Ferguson, I. (2004) ‘Neoliberalism, the third way and social work: the UK experi-

ence’, Social Work and Society, 2(1), pp. 1–9.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/bjsw/bcac149#supplementary-data

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2021.1977255

https://www.iassw-aiets.org/covid-19/5369-covid-19-and-social-work-a-collection-of-country-reports/

https://www.iassw-aiets.org/covid-19/5369-covid-19-and-social-work-a-collection-of-country-reports/

Flaker, V. (2013) Direktno socialno delo [Direct social work]. Ljubljana, Zalo�zba cf.

Glasser, G. B. and Holton, J. (2004) ‘Remodeling grounded theory’, FQS Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 5(2), available online at: https://www.qualitative-re

search.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1316 (accessed November 5, 2021).

Gupta, A. and Blumhardt, H.; ATD Fourth World (2018) ‘Poverty, exclusion and

child protection practice: the contribution of “the politics of recognition &

respect”’, European Journal of Social Work, 21(2), pp. 247–59.

Hare, I. (2004) ‘Defining social work for the 21st century: the International

Federation of Social Workers’ revised definition of social work’, International

Social Work, 47(3), pp. 407–24.

Harrikari, T., Romakkaniemi, M., Tiitinen, L. and Ovaskainen, S. (2021) ‘Pandemic

and social work: exploring Finnish social workers’ experiences through a SWOT

analysis’, British Journal of Social Work, 59(5), pp. 1644–1662.

Harris, J. (2003) The Social Work Business, London, Routledge.

Hyslop, I. (2018) ‘Neoliberalism and social work identity’, European Journal of Social

Work, 21(1), pp. 20–30.

IFSW, IASSW (2014) Global Definition of Social Work, available online at: http://

ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/ (accessed June 15, 2021).

Jordan, B. (2001) ‘Tough love: social work, social exclusion and the third way’,

British Journal of Social Work, 31(4), pp. 527–46.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2017) ‘Poverty and the political: wresting the political out of and

into social work theory, research and practice’, European Journal of Social Work,

20(6), pp. 811–22.

Itzhaki-Braun, Y. (2021) ‘Community social workers’ perspectives on the challenges

and opportunities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic’, The American Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 91(6), pp. 714–23.

Lavalette, M. and Ioakimidis, V. (eds) (2011) Social Work in Extremis. Lessons for

Social Work Internationally, Bristol, Policy Press.

Lorenz, W. (2005) ‘Social work and a new social order-challenging neo-liberalism’s

erosion of solidarity’, Social Work & Society, 3(1), pp. 93–101.

Lussi, P. (1991) Systemische Sozialarbeit, Bern, Haupt.

Mattocks, O. N. (2018) ‘Social action among social work practitioners: examining the

micro–macro divide’, Social Work, 63(1), pp. 7–16.

McFadden, P., Gillen, P., Moriarty, J., Mallett, J., Schroder, H., Ravalier, J.,

Manthorpe, J., Harron, J. and Currie, D. (2020) COVID-19 Health and Social

Care Workforce Study May–July 2020, available online at: https://www.sabin.scot.

nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HSC-Survey-Executive-Summary.pdf (accessed

February 24, 2021).

McKendrick, D. and Webb, S. (2014) ‘Taking a political stance in social work’,

Critical and Radical Social Work, 2(3), pp. 357–69.

McGregor, C. (2019) ‘A paradigm framework for social work theory for early 21st

century practice’, The British Journal of Social Work, 49(8), pp. 2112–29.

Me�sl, N. and Lesko�sek, V. (2021) ‘Delovanje centrov za socialno delo v �casu prvega

in drugega vala epidemije covida-19 [Functioning of social work centres during

the first and the second wave of Covid-19 epidemic]’, Socialno delo, 60(3), pp.

233–51.

Mongkol, K. (2011) ‘The critical review of new public management model and its

criticisms’, Research Journal of Business Management, 5(1), pp. 35–43.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1316

https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/607/1316

http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/

http://ifsw.org/get-involved/global-definition-of-social-work/

https://www.sabin.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HSC-Survey-Executive-Summary.pdf

https://www.sabin.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/HSC-Survey-Executive-Summary.pdf

Pink, S., Ferguson, H. and Kelly, L. (2020) ‘Child protection social work in

COVID-19. Reflections on home visits and digital intimacy’, Anthropology in

Action, 27(3), pp. 27–30.

Reisch, M. and Jani, J. S. (2012) ‘The new politics of social work practice: under-

standing context to promote change’, British Journal of Social Work, 42(6), pp.

1132–50.

Saltzman, L. Y., Hansel, T. C. and Bordnick, P. S. (2020) ‘Loneliness, isolation, and

social support factors in post-COVID-19 mental health’, Psychological Trauma:

Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12, pp. S55–S57.

Santiago, A. M. and Smith, R. J. (2020) ‘Community practice, social action, and the

politics of pandemics’, Journal of Community Practice, 28(2), pp. 89–99.

Sen, R., Kerr, C., MacIntyre, G., Featherstone, B., Gupta, A. and Quinn-Aziz, A.

(2021) ‘Social Work under COVID-19: A Thematic Analysis of Articles in

‘SW2020 under COVID-19 Magazine’, The British Journal of Social Work, avail-

able online at: https://doi-org.nukweb.nuk.uni-lj.si/10.1093/bjsw/bcab094.

Spolander, G., Engelbrecht, L., Martin, L., Strydom, M., Pervova, I., Marjanen, P.,

Tani, P., Sicora, A. and Adaikalam, F. (2014) ‘The implications of neoliberalism

for social work: reflections from a six-country international research collaboration’,

International Social Work, 57(4), pp. 301–12.

Thomas, P. and Hewitt, J. (2011) ‘Managerial organisation and professional auton-

omy: a discourse based conceptualisation’, Organization Studies, 32(10), pp.

1373–93.

Trappenburg, M., Kampen, T. and Tonkens, E. (2020) ‘Social workers in a modernis-

ing welfare state: professionals or street-level bureaucrats?’, The British Journal of

Social Work, 50(6), pp. 1669–87.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013) ‘Content analysis and thematic

analysis; implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study’, Nursing &

Health Sciences, 15(3), pp. 398–405.

Zilberstein, K. (2021) ‘Neoliberalism in clinical social work practice: the benefits and

limitations of embedded ideals of individualism and resiliency’, Critical and

Radical Social Work, 9(3), pp. 339–52.

Walter-McCabe, H. A. (2020) ‘Coronavirus pandemic calls for an immediate social

work response’, Social Work in Public Health, 35(3), pp. 69–72.


Dow


ic.oup.com/bjsw


ctober 2022

https://doi-org.nukweb.nuk.uni-lj.si/10.1093/bjsw/bcab094

Social Work During COVID-19 in Slovenia - Oxford Academic

Documents

Transcript of Social Work During COVID-19 in Slovenia - Oxford Academic