Breaking the Chains: Understanding the Damaging Effects of Institutional Betrayal in Social Work

The Evolution of Bureaucratic Control

Bureaucratic practices have long been a concern in social work, dating back 50 years. Social workers’ professional autonomy can sometimes clash with bureaucratic governance, where the distribution of power and authority within organizations may not align with the ethical principles and values of the social work profession. Bureaucratic structures can hinder decision-making, autonomy, and the delivery of services, making it challenging to explore new approaches and address systemic issues (Flinch, 1976). As a result, social workers who question bureaucratic norms may encounter internal conflict within their organization, leading to feelings of apprehension and disheartenment. Social workers must navigate intricate systems and hierarchies that may counter their values and aspirations (Flinch, 1976).

While bureaucracy is designed to organize large-scale human effort with structure, predictability, efficiency, and responsiveness, participation in these systems impacts social workers negatively (Pascoe et al., 2023). Practices tied to organizational priorities include data-tracking, participation in paperwork-oriented cultures, and the use of technology, which has led to constant surveillance. The strong emphasis on organizational needs often overshadows the needs of clients, families, and communities. This imbalance results in negative consequences for social work’s ability to adequately support service users, barriers to forming meaningful relationships based on trust, and adverse outcomes due to delayed or denied support (Pascoe et al., 2023). These barriers cause frustration among social workers, further contributing to burnout, anxiety, stress, and distress. Bureaucracy also contributes to deskilling the workforce; social workers are not getting their needs met in supervision and within their organizations. For example, supervision, ideally a space for learning and reflection, has increasingly become focused on problem-solving related to documentation and other administrative tasks (Pascoe et al., 2023).

Neoliberalism in Social Work

Bureaucratic regulation continues to uphold neoliberalism, a political and economic ideology that suggests the best way to promote human welfare is by allowing individuals to exercise their entrepreneurial freedoms. Neoliberalism is defined by significant private property rights, open markets, and unrestricted trade. The government’s responsibility is to establish and maintain an institutional framework suitable for these practices (Harvey, 2010). Neoliberalism has had a detrimental impact on the roles of social workers and has affected marginalized communities and service users by limiting services. This includes the reduced emphasis on preventive services, increased managerial oversight, and the transformation of government sectors to mirror corporate structures. These changes have negatively affected the social work profession, leading to a shift toward assessing needs and managing risk rather than focusing on effective practices. This shift undermines the professional skills required in social work (Spolander et al., 2014).

The professionalization of social work reflects neoliberal principles by emphasizing service provision over promoting critical thinking, community mobilization, and societal change. Neoliberalism has deeply affected social work through the privatization of services and the hyperfocus on profit-oriented social services through the implementation of business management approaches (Toft et al., 2023). Alongside its detrimental effects on the quality-of-service delivery, neoliberalism promotes the use of standardized approaches to social work practice contradicting the social work code of ethics (BlackDeer & Gandarilla Ocampo, 2022). This raises the question of how social workers can effectively operate within a quasi-business framework that emphasizes cost-cutting and efficiency at the expense of addressing their communities’ comprehensive, long-term needs (Toft et al., 2023).

Racism in Social Work Agencies

Racism in social work agencies manifests in various forms, including the lack of diverse leadership, insufficient intercultural training, and a limited structural focus on addressing the institutional factors that contribute to client problems (Crutchfield et al., 2020). Organizational practices such as workplace culture, leadership, values, and human resources play a significant role in promoting or perpetuating oppressive practices among workers, which are then passed down to client interactions (Ramsundarsingh & Shier, 2017). Patterns of racial belief systems shape racial attitudes and perceptions within institutions, and these same patterns are systematically perpetuated at an institutional level, penalizing and disadvantaging minoritized groups both overtly and covertly. Due to the deep history of racism and oppression in social work agencies, these practices are often normalized as standard procedures and, thus, remain unchanged (Ramsundarsingh & Shier, 2017).

For clients, experiencing racial discrimination in a supposed place of refuge can exacerbate trauma and hinder recovery. Although social work has an increasing responsibility to provide services to the most vulnerable populations, service users often experience oppression within these systems, leading them to avoid seeking help due to feelings of disempowerment. Services rooted in antiracism are frequently inaccessible, exacerbating this issue. For example, even in environments where user-centered services are considered vital, those working within oppressive workplaces often replicate the same oppressive practices on those they serve (Ramsundarsingh & Shier, 2017).

For social workers, especially those from racial minoritized groups, experiencing racism can lead to a sense of betrayal and disillusionment with their profession and workplace. Racism distracts social workers from centering their practice on client needs, causing emotional exhaustion as a result of adverse workplace experiences and placing them in a position where they question their professional capabilities. These dilemmas are often not recognized by organizations as legitimate practice concerns, leaving racialized workers without the support they need (Badwall, 2015). The profession’s commitment to maintaining an image of moral superiority and goodness often requires the erasure of race, making it impossible for racialized workers to be seen as effective, empathetic, or social justice-oriented when they address racism. This conflict challenges the very foundations of social work, revealing the need for a reevaluation of how power and racism are addressed within the profession (Badwall, 2015).

The research highlights a complex paradox: Social work education and practice, while oriented toward social justice, often collude with and disavow the operation of dismantling racism. When racism is named, the imperative to be empathic and client-centered often takes precedence over addressing racial injustices. These dynamics force racialized workers to suppress their experiences of racism, as naming these issues can threaten their professional identity, which is often constructed around empathy and moral goodness (Badwall, 2015). The silence surrounding racism in social work is maintained through competing tensions—racialized workers are expected to focus on client care, yet their own racial injuries go unacknowledged.

Institutional Betrayal in Social Work Agencies

Institutional betrayal occurs when systems fail to address or perpetuate inequalities, profoundly impacting both social workers and the communities they serve. Structural and systemic racism, continually reinforced by social systems, create ongoing disparities in access to essential resources like jobs, housing, and education (Castro-Ramirez et al., 2021; Jenkins Morales et al., 2022). As a result, many socially disadvantaged minoritized populations encounter stress-related issues such as lower economic status, which affect their physical and mental health. As indicated in Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs, populations that face oppressive practices on multiple levels (institutional mistrust, racial microaggressions, and interconnected systems of oppression) are incentivized to prioritize their basic needs, thus not attending to their mental health (Castro-Ramirez et al., 2021; V. L. Gregory & Clary, 2022).

When extended to broader systems, institutional betrayal occurs when organizations fail to prevent or address harmful events, thereby betraying individuals who rely on them for support. This betrayal can manifest through omission—where necessary actions are neglected—and commission—where harm is actively inflicted (C. P. Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2014). Initially examined in the context of sexual assault within universities, institutional betrayal has been linked to heightened anxiety, dissociation, and psychological distress among victims (C. P. Smith & Freyd, 2014). The concept has since been expanded to include various contexts, such as government-mandated actions and responses to social issues, where institutions, either through deliberate actions or negligence, harm those they are supposed to protect (Pinciotti & Orcutt, 2021; Smidt & Freyd, 2018; C. P. Smith, 2017). Contemporary research has applied institutional betrayal to issues such as government responses to social problems such as racism, the U.S. court system’s treatment of mothers, sexual abuse in religious institutions, and the historical trauma experienced by Indigenous people (C. P. Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2014). These studies underscore the significant psychological and physical health impacts, career setbacks, and diminished trust in institutions, particularly among marginalized groups (Christl et al., 2024).

The pervasive institutional betrayal within systems where social workers provide clinical care and are supposed to provide support to BIPOC clients not only fails to provide the necessary help but also perpetuates harmful effects that have a devastating impact on communities of color. Institutional betrayal leads to a myriad of traumatic stress that manifests through health issues, which contradicts the purpose of mental health services (Campbell & Raja, 2005). Campbell and Raja (2005) highlighted that service users place significant trust in health care systems and often risk experiencing refusal, disbelief, and blame when seeking support. When met with those experiences, that only further exasperates the trauma, also known as betrayal trauma, which deeply invalidates the interpersonal trauma of individuals, perpetuating existing disparities and causing posttraumatic symptoms.

Recognizing these toxic dynamics is crucial for social workers, who often operate within environments that perpetuate oppression under the guise of “just following orders” or adhering to “standard procedures.” The harm caused by betrayal trauma is severe, especially when inflicted by an entity the individuals depend on, such as a social work organization, leading to increased mental and physical illness and revictimization (Freyd, 1996, 1999). Institutional cowardice, a form of betrayal blindness, occurs when institutions prioritize stability over accountability, neglect complaints, avoid acknowledgment of harm, and justify inaction. This deepens the harm inflicted on victims and erodes trust within these institutions (Brown, 2021; Campbell & Raja, 2005; C. P. Smith & Freyd, 2014). Furthermore, these issues highlight systemic failures within the health care system that urgently need to be addressed.

The concept of “institutional courage” is essential to counter institutional betrayal. This approach emphasizes the need for accountability, transparency, and justice within institutions, urging them to challenge harmful practices, advocate for justice, and make reparations where necessary. Institutional courage involves a commitment to protect and care for those who depend on these institutions, ensuring they meet their ethical obligations (Gomez 2023; Redden, 2021; Smidt & Freyd, 2018). Addressing institutional betrayal is essential for fostering accountability, promoting social justice, and ensuring that organizations meet their ethical obligations to those they serve.

Research Design

The study utilized a phenomenological approach to investigate how organizational culture influences handling racism in social work. The phenomenological method delves into comprehending individuals’ lived experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2014).

Recruitment

Before recruitment, approval from a Northeast University Institutional Review Board was secured for conducting human subject research. Employing a purposeful sampling strategy, the first author enrolled individuals willing to engage in discussions regarding racism and antiracism in the field of social work. Eligibility criteria for inclusion encompassed the following: (a) being at least 18 years of age, (b) holding a master’s degree in social work, (c) possessing an active social work license in New York State, (d) currently involved in clinical practice, and (e) demonstrating a fundamental understanding of racism. This understanding was ascertained by inquiring whether social workers comprehended the manifestation of racism in the United States and were willing to discuss racism during the interview (Benedict et al., 2024).

Recruitment materials in the form of flyers were distributed via email and social media platforms, namely LinkedIn, with one participant recruited through a referral. Semistructured interviews were arranged via email and conducted using the Zoom platform. Prospective social workers who met the inclusion criteria were provided with an informed consent form via email and were requested to provide consent before the interview was conducted via Zoom. The informed consent encompassed a comprehensive overview of the study’s potential risks and benefits for participants, the study’s purpose, confidentiality assurances, provisions for mental health emergency services, and details on data utilization and dissemination. Social workers were encouraged to seek clarification or pose questions before, during, or after the interview. Notably, no compensation was offered for participation in this study (Benedict et al., 2024).

Sample

A diverse group of seven social work practitioners employed by nonprofit and for-profit mental health organizations in New York State participated in the study. Before the interviews, social workers self-identified their racial and gender identity. As shown in Table 1, two social workers were identified as Black women—one working in a crisis unit and the other in a hospital. In addition, two social workers self-identified as Black men—one working in a crisis center and the other in a hospital. Finally, the remaining three social workers were white women working in hospitals, schools, and crisis centers (Benedict et al., 2024).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Respondent Demographics.

Pseudonym	Gender	Race	Practice setting	Years in practice
Ashley	Female	Black	Crisis social worker	6 years
Colin	Female	White	Crisis social worker	22 years
Elizabeth	Female	White	Behavioral health social worker	1 year
James	Male	Black	Crisis social worker	6 years
Josie	Female	White	School social worker	3 years
Kayla	Female	Black	Mental health Hospital social worker	11 years
Paul	Male	Black	Behavioral health social worker	1 year

Data Collection

The first author completed all the interviews and the recruitment process. Data were collected from social workers through semistructured narrative interviews exploring the following questions: The first author (a) delved into the level of comfort social workers experienced when discussing issues of racism with their organization’s leadership, (b) explored whether social workers felt prepared to provide support for BIPOC clients, (c) examined how racism manifests within their organizations, and (d) investigated the measures taken by social workers to address this white supremacy in their organizations. Data were collected more than 2 months in 2022. Interviews were held via Zoom, audio was recorded via Zoom, and the duration was between 70–90 minutes per interview. After each interview, the first author created analytic memos via audio recording and written narratives, noting what went well, what could be changed, and what was surprising or noteworthy. Interview audio recordings were translated into written verbatim transcripts using transcription services. The first author reviewed the transcriptions for accuracy (Benedict et al., 2024).

Data Analysis

The first author completed an inductive analysis of the data. Thematic analysis was used to extract the underlying meaning of participants’ lived experiences and to elucidate the interconnectedness of these experiences (Clarke & Braun, 2016). Thematic analysis, as a method, enables researchers to discern and interpret recurring patterns in the data, aligning with the principles of phenomenology (Clarke & Braun, 2016; Sundler et al., 2019). This data analysis phase involved conducting a comprehensive initial coding process.

The first author completed the first coding stage, repeatedly immersing themselves in the data to gain familiarity, form preliminary interpretations, and engage in reflexive memoing. Line-by-line coding facilitated the development of a comprehensive code list and eligibility criteria. Subsequently, the interview transcripts were systematically processed, thematic elements were identified, and analytical memos were crafted using Microsoft Word. The coding process involved the assignment of labels and phrases to recurrent significant themes, utilizing varied colors to signify distinct meanings and facilitate a deeper understanding of the broader context.

The subsequent data analysis phase, the second coding cycle, involved uploading verbatim transcripts from the semistructured interviews to the Atlas—ti web version for qualitative coding and analysis. Building on the first coding stage, the first author systematically organized the codes into groups based on their relevance to the research questions. Line-by-line coding was once again employed, generating additional codes and refining themes. As part of this coding cycle, more than 70 codes were generated, reflecting a detailed and comprehensive data analysis.

The final phase, the third coding cycle, entailed a collaborative effort by the first and second authors. This involved a joint exploration of the data set, extensive discussions on the generated codes, and a reflexive assessment of how to represent the lived experiences of the social workers. The eligibility criteria for codes were critically redefined, and a consensus was reached through iterative discussions. The collaborative effort led to the generation of a comprehensive set of codes, with the researchers engaging in reflective discussions to discern the underlying representations of the data. Subsequently, the codes collapsed, creating 16 overarching themes, five of which are present in this article—effectively summarizing and representing the participants’ lived experiences. Notably, this process involved careful consideration and agreement on selecting participant quotes, marking the culmination of a trustworthiness and thorough data analysis process.

Findings

The subsequent excerpts pertain to the seven participant interviews that the researchers meticulously chose. The themes identified in the study are manifestations of institutional betrayal, as they do not align with the values and principles of the social work code of ethics. Analysis of the data uncovered five significant themes. Social workers recognized (a) Social Workers’ Perceived Lack of Preparedness for Antiracist Practice, (b) the Burden of Witnessing and Experiencing Racism and Oppression within Organizations, (c) the Lack of Racial Representation in Social Work Leadership, (d) The Absence of Organizational Antiracism Efforts, and (e) Emotional Exhaustion and Discomfort Navigating Domineering Cultures.

Social Workers’ Perceived Lack of Preparedness for Antiracist Practice

In the study, social workers were queried about their exposure to antiracist social work education in their master of social work (MSW) program. While some social workers reported receiving what they considered sufficient education in this area, most said they needed more comprehensive antiracist training in their social work education.

Kayla, a Black mental health hospital social worker, suggested that her antiracist social work education was not consistent throughout the program’s curriculum. However, specific professors addressed racism and how it showed up in health care and social work.

I don’t think [much preparedness by] the school of social welfare, as wonderful as they may be. It was a few—a handful of therapists [professors] that were like read the articles, we’re gonna talk about them, it’s gonna be on the test and, you know, introduce me to people like bell [hooks], you know. And it introduced me to a syphilis test [Tuskegee Syphilis Study] that I knew nothing about. I do think that certain individuals really did a beautiful job of educating us.

Elizabeth, a white behavioral health hospital social worker, suggested she did get an antiracist education but was unclear on the application of how to use it with clients.

As far as graduate school programs go, I think it did a good job preparing me to work, um, to do antiracist clinical work as it did any other modality that it reviewed. I mean, it’s like—you are responsible for yourself. It’s your responsibility [to understand antiracism]. I got to the end of the program. Just like in grad school, you want more. You’re like, can you just show me? Show me—Give me some more tools. Don’t tell me what it is. You know, give me some tools. Help me find the tools. And I think in a like in an individualistic culture it’s really hard for people to identify the tools. The tools are community. The tools are, you know, social support systems, people coming together, having conversations, sitting around tables, fires, whatever it is.

James a Black mental health crisis social worker, suggested he did not receive an adequate antiracist education in his MSW program; he stated,

I don’t think so. I think you have to actively seek it in your education. So you really have to envelop yourself in the situation to make it come to fruition. Like it can’t just be something that you think about every once in a while [thinking about antiracism]. You would imagine fight oppression—and fight racism and fight—gender issues. But organizations and, societal issues like health insurance, you know, requiring diagnoses, like just things like that make it harder for social workers to even practice in an antiracist manner.

Colin, a white mental health crisis social worker, stated that she did not receive a comprehensive antiracist education; she said,

I remember simply in the context of, like, you know, you ask, like the biopsychosocial type stuff. There was some like real cursory probably acknowledgment that, you know, being Chinese might impact who you are, um, and that we should talk about that. And that, you know, sometimes that influences your mental health. I don’t remember much, though otherwise.

Burden of Witnessing and Experiencing Racism and Oppression Within Organizations

When inquiring about the manifestation of racism in their organization, the social workers recollected various detrimental ways in which systemic racism persistently prevailed in their organizational structure. Specifically, when asking Elizabeth how racism has shown up in her organization, she stated that racism was predominantly manifested through the absence of those conversations pertaining to racism; she stated, “Do topics of microaggression or racism come up? No, not often”.

James expressed seeing oppression within the organizations he worked in:

I can only speak from my own experience. I feel like some of the organizations that I’ve worked in are just oppressive in nature and like the desire for capitalism overpowers humanity a lot of the time. And so, like at the basic level, like that continues white supremacy. Like—it’s the fine line of capitalism and like—Yeah, there’s a very fine line between capitalism and white supremacy. Um, but I think white supremacy like is enveloped in everything. The opposite of what we’re doing is antiracist work.

Josie, a white school social worker, recounted the ways racism showed up in social work and specifically in her organization, stating,

Just too many answers. Let’s see. I would say the biggest thing is the way that social workers work within really racist systems, and then we just perpetuate the system’s harm further. So, like, basically, in any harmful system, there are social workers, like in schools, child welfare, prisons, policing. Social workers are literally embedded in all of that. When embedded in those systems, I think they just continue to harm and reproduce the harm. They don’t do much, from what I’ve seen, to change the system. They just like to work in it. And usually, those are the most lucrative fields for social workers. So, they’re drawn to those jobs where you can get, you know, a pension and high pay. Um, you know, if you’re going to be in a field where you want to make a change, you usually have to compensate and make less money. I would say like the biggest thing I see at the schools now, from the social workers that are Department of Education social workers, they do a lot of things like calling CPS on families of color at higher rates.

Ashley, a Black mental health crisis social worker, explored the harmful ways racism showed up within her organization while working in a social work department of a correctional facility and signaled that this is an institutional practice.

It’s the elephant, but it’s flagrant. There’s a divide. There is a barrier because, unfortunately, there are more people of color in the correctional system than those who are not. So, when I speak, even though I’m on their side of the bars and it’s like it’s unfortunate, but that’s how they refer to it, like people who have keys or people who don’t have keys, people who are on the outside of the bars versus who are not, incarcerated versus not incarcerated. So even though I’m on the other side and I have keys because my skin color is similar to those, they’re not looking at me through the same standard or through the same lens as they would if I was, say, male and white or even female [white female]. So, it’s like they’re looping us all together. And it’s like you don’t want to ruffle feathers because retaliation, or not even retaliation, it is just what I’ve seen, bear witness to—it’s called a horn. If there’s any type of behavioral dysregulation, we can press a personal alarm, where it sets off, basically a response saying that wherever the person that presses the alarm, it alerts people to say, hey, this particular location, we need assistance. At the jail, it was called like a horn. So, I’ve seen firsthand officers take their time responding to a horn based on if they like that individual or not. So, ruffling the wrong feathers could be life or death.

Lack of Racial Representation in Social Work Leadership

When asked about strategies for promoting antiracism within their organizations, all social workers conveyed a shared aspiration for greater representation and diversity across all levels. They noted the tendency for individuals from BIPOC communities to occupy lower-level positions and the lack of diversity in positions of power and stated this is just one of the ways their organizations perpetuate white supremacy by gatekeeping and blocking people of color from being in positions of authority. Kayla emphasized the significance of hiring individuals from diverse backgrounds, taking the time to understand them, and setting aside personal biases as a crucial first step.

When asked how white supremacy showed up within her organization, Colin stated,

I think that we really have to think about how we recruit diverse individuals to work in our community, you know, in our social work community. Um, you know, for example, and, this isn’t just for Black or brown communities, but like we have a large Burmese population here. There’s a refugee population here. Try to find a Burmese social worker—to talk to somebody or who’s done some refugee work, right? And, you know, I think that there’s just a failure to recognize I could be the best clinical social worker in the world, I don’t look like you. So how is that? So, I think there’s some definite systemic issues there too around making sure that we’re promoting a population of social workers that reflects the population we’re serving. The majority of social workers in our system are white ladies. The majority of the population we’re serving are not white ladies.

Similarly, when asking Josie how white supremacy showed in her organization, she stated,

Well, you can literally like see it: so like the lower-level people at my agency are almost all people of color. And then as you get higher in the ranks, it’s almost all white women in like—the higher levels that are making more money and making the decisions. And I think most nonprofits are like that if you really look at the composition. So maybe outwardly it looks like they’re diverse, but not really.

When asking Elizabeth how white supremacy showed up in her organization, she stated, similarly to Colin and Josie, that there is a lack of representation.

Yeah, I mean, top down, it’s- it’s- it’s, again, most of the CEOs, the administrative staff are white. Yeah. I mean, there are no providers of color. My practice is pretty much they’re all white. There’s one—there’s a Black woman who’s in the receptionist’s office. You know, she’s in the reception area. There’s one nurse who’s Black. but it’s mostly—It’s pretty homogenous. There isn’t a whole lot of [racial] diversity.

The Absence of Organizational Antiracism Efforts

Social workers were asked if their organization had engaged in antiracism work. All expressed that their organizations lacked the necessary resources, while some suggest that their organization’s efforts were only surface level. Social workers expressed a need for more resources, training, and opportunities to improve their practices. They also reported that their supervisors did not offer enough support for their antiracist identity development. When asked about their thoughts on how their organization addresses racism and if they received resources for antiracist development, all social workers unanimously agreed that their agency had yet to provide sufficient resources that addressed racism.

Josie was asked if her organization had adequate antiracism resources, she stated,

There’s a lot of focus on listening to our concerns and doing all these studies about practicing antiracism, but it doesn’t actually get into action. It’s just more like let’s just talk about it and analyze it, but never take concrete steps to change it. Um, so we still have this antiracism committee that meets like once a month to address the things in the report and also to just analyze agency poll to see if it’s equitable. From what I’ve heard from my colleagues in that committee is that the white executive director of my agency mostly like co-ops the discussions, strikes down any like real changes, and roots more for like superficial things like, you know, like acknowledging certain things or like,—I guess, yeah, mostly like very superficial like, oh, we’re gonna like talk about Black history more. Um, so it’s a lot of just like talk. And I think they’ve taken some meaningful first steps, but it just feels like it’s plateaued since then, unfortunately.

When asking James if he had received support from his organization regarding antiracism, he stated,

I’m sorry. There was, you know, a little bit of diversity training, you know, videos. Like celebrate Black History Month. Those things that make Black individuals or BIPOC individuals feel, like, worse. I feel like—and this is an opinion—that like the white people were also just like, come on, let’s get through this [when participating in a training]. Like everything is always let’s just get through this as a training [rather than reflecting]—first. Like, wow, let me actually think about this [would be more effective to white social workers]. Let me actually implement this [the training]. Where is my stance and positionality in affecting change [reflective question for social workers to examine]? It’s kind of disheartening.

When asking Elizabeth about her organization’s antiracism efforts, she stated,

And so, it can be really difficult to get—to provide services to a community without—I mean, what am I trying to say? What I’m trying to say is that I think that this—particular hospital, I get the sense that, they’re struggling to provide basic healthcare to the community. And so, adding an element of antiracism, um, or infusing the organization with antiracist policies and practices, it’s just not on their to-do list.

Emotional Exhaustion and Discomfort Navigating Domineering Cultures

The social workers expressed that their respective organizations had implemented a system that bred discomfort, dominance, and, in certain cases, a harmful environment. They harbored apprehension about potential consequences of speaking about racism in their agencies. Paul, a Black mental health crisis social worker, stated “Currently, at this point in time, I don’t feel comfortable, uh, discussing race with my colleagues,” signaling that there was not a safe space to have meaningful discussion.

Kayla expressed what it was like to have her first experience of what a domineering culture looks like within her organization. She stated,

At the hospital, one of my painful memories is having overheard a conversation with a nurse and a bunch of the mental health aides talking about a local building, which was subsidized housing and housed a number of African American families, East Indian families. The nurse was talking at the conference table and saying, you know, why is it they wanna be called African Americans? Why don’t they just go back to Africa? ‘Cause the reality is that—they’re living at the [xxx apartments]. And I flipped out. I turned to a colleague, and I talked to her about it, you know. I was like that’s not okay. And my colleague was like, look, you have to choose your battles, you know? Yeah. I was like, well, there’s my first impression of what I can say or not say.

When asked if she felt safe discussing racism within his organization, Elizabeth stated,

No, I don’t really feel that comfortable. It’s pretty status quo. You know, when we go into these administrative meetings, someone shows up and asks us about our experiences. They say things like, if you have questions or need to, contact, we’re always here. We’re very interested in your experience, and you’re the frontline and da da da, but there’s never a specific invitation to, like, [ask] if we could be more culturally competent or be sort of open to hearing about that. That’s not—never been an invitation [discussing racism]. Never been explicitly stated. So, in the absence of that explicit invitation, I don’t feel 100% confident that I could ask why they’re not asking about something happening [racism]. [Trying to address racism] I think that they would just find it to be a hassle, or they’d be like, you know, she’s kicking up dust. Keep an eye on that.

When asked if Josie felt comfortable calling out white supremacy within her organization, she stated,

I wouldn’t feel comfortable necessarily with the higher up people at my agency just ‘cause I’ve heard in the past that they’re not very open to it and they get very sensitive about it. Like they think they’re being attacked when it gets brought up. So, I discussed it a lot with my colleagues, but not with the higher up folks at my agency. And I’ve heard stories of colleagues in the past where they try to do that work and it just doesn’t go anywhere. I think a lot of us just feel kind of like, well, I don’t know how else to make those changes.

Organizational Responsiveness

Administrative leadership, climate, and organizational structure shape one another and the services delivered (Larkin & Records, 2007). In this study, all participants indicated that increased diversity and representation, especially in positions of authority, would be key to promoting antiracism. Thus, an important step is to increase diversity throughout agency programs and ensure diverse individuals who are committed to antiracism are in positions of power that hold authority. Zeitlin and colleagues’ (2023) findings further illustrate that supporting leadership development for workers of color, bolstering the practice of leadership, and enhancing job satisfaction among all workers were key to retaining workers of color. Current findings bring even more attention to core elements beyond diverse representation in leadership positions—people do not want to be harmed or perpetuate harm within their organizations. Moreover, social workers identify the need to be supported in a comprehensive antiracist practice approach that includes the organization, the community, and social workers’ consciousness development. This is in keeping with the recognition that organizational culture and structure can either facilitate or pose obstacles when introducing new practices. Once agency staff develop an awareness of the value of new practices and engage in exploring how to implement them, it becomes important to consider how the program structure can support the new practices. For these reasons, there is increasing attention to including organizational context within social work intervention research and in the adoption of practices (Larkin et al., 2012).

Another concern expressed by social workers was the use of an operating system based on dominance in their organizations, which in turn created an uncomfortable and even harmful environment. This concern highlights the importance of intervening with system design as an essential element within a holistic, integrated approach (Larkin & Records, 2007; Robertson, 2015; Wilber, 2005, 2006). Findings from this study speak to the pain and dissonance created for social workers relying on income and benefits from systems, embedded in the system of capitalism, that perpetuate and reproduce racist harms. It is important to emphasize the unsustainability of efficiency-focused administrative approaches that negatively affect the health of employees, leading both to staff turnover and harm to the community (Mariappanadar, 2012).

Institutional Courage and Organizational Transformation

Brewer (2021) suggested it is possible to re-establish trust following institutional betrayal by admitting mistakes and addressing harms through authentic, transparent, and faithful actions maintained by administration to promote equity, justice, and healing through policy changes and resource investments over time (Brewer, 2021). While this process could begin as frontline social workers challenge oppressive administrators (B. D. Smith & Headley Resendez, 2024), the possibility for institutional courage described by Brewer (2021) ultimately requires that administrative leaders acknowledge transgressions and commit to daring, new, and transformative movement forward. Not only can this be a remedy to betrayal, but the institution is also enhanced through the transformational behaviors of all members (Gómez, 2023). Best et al. (2022) pointed out that the elimination of bias, discrimination, and microaggressions begins when organizational leaders admit their existence and prioritize raising administrative and staff awareness about the influence of bias and microaggressions throughout decision-making and workplace practices. Achieving an antiracist system involves unlearning and comprehensively addressing racist practices throughout the system (Collins-Camargo & Winters, 2023). This would involve organizational accountability for incorporating new learning and data-driven institutional development, calling for more agile organizational and institutional designs allowing for the evolution of systems. Thus, institutional courage involves leaders and members working together to recreate program culture and transform structures to facilitate new practices (Larkin & Records, 2007; Wilber & DeVos, 2022).

The types of concerns expressed by social workers in this study align with recent organizational and leadership literature recognizing that professional and personal development of employees can be repressed within traditional management hierarchies that establish and underpin disparities in status (Kegan, 1998; Lee & Edmondson, 2017). Furthermore, while traditional management hierarchies have been historically effective in stable, homogeneous contexts, this structure is insufficient for complex, diverse, and rapidly changing environments (Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Robertson, 2015). Thus, there has been a call to reinvent organizations, with holacracy serving as an exemplar that offers a clear process making room for everyone to have a voice (Laloux, 2014; Robertson, 2015).

Thus, holacracy may offer a well-defined route for an organization delivering mental health services and adopting antiracist practices to transform its operating system. A structural transformation such as this is embraced within a whole person–whole community–whole systems approach to addressing adversity and trauma (Larkin & Records, 2007). By way of a group’s own determination to carry out holacracy, this organizational governance approach differentiates people from roles and sanctions the distribution of authority throughout circles comprised of roles. Circles have responsibility for defined domains related to the organization’s purpose, and each role has specific accountabilities. Each person is the leader of their own role and contributes to organizational governance, including participating in a transparent policy development process (Lee & Edmondson, 2017; Robertson, 2015; Weirauch et al., 2023).

Social Work Education: A Pathway Forward

To effectively sustain antiracist practice developments, schools of social work will need to provide leadership and set an example. This is reinforced by the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards updated by the Council on Social Work Education in 2022 that now require antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) approaches throughout social work’s explicit and implicit curriculum (CSWE; Keeney et al., 2024). Yet, a Eurocentric colonial approach persists through the social work curriculum and the university context, maintaining existing power dynamics without actively challenging the status quo. Social work students are socialized within the profession and the university system by reinforcing behaviors that perpetuate white dominance (BlackDeer & Gandarilla Ocampo, 2022). Furthermore, educational content that values white contributions but devalues or ignores the contributions of BIPOC social workers perpetuates white supremacy and instills a sense of dominance in new generations of social work students (Wright et al., 2024).

While Keeney et al. (2024) offer a useful scoping review to support schools of social work to ensure ADEI is foundational within the explicit curriculum, additional actions are needed to transform social work education. For example, L. Smith and Mak (2022) set forth a Trajectory of Awareness model, describing a developmental process crucial to liberation from internalized racial oppression—necessitating a context that facilitates the consciousness development of students to ensure they can assist clients in this process (L. Smith & Mak, 2022). Similarly, diversity maturity has been described as a process involving consciousness development and transformational learning (Green, 2013; Gregory & Raffanti, 2009, 2011). Furthermore, a transformative approach is required to address colonialism in social work education—this includes acknowledging and addressing systems that create white privilege (BlackDeer & Gandarilla Ocampo, 2022). Critical consciousness development (Freire, 1973) facilitates an awareness of social position and the pursuit of liberation. Liberation is multidimensional and includes structural transformation (Wilber & DeVos, 2022).

According to integral theory, meditation and contemplative practices assist the development of multiperspectival awareness, a level of consciousness that values inclusion (Wilber, 2000, 2006). Transformational learning is pivotal in nurturing this capacity (Green, 2013), potentially facilitating the integration of new theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches, and social work practices. Notably, anti-oppressive practices (AOP) and critical race theory (CRT) offer complementary frameworks for researchers to challenge systemic racism and oppression within social work organizations. Social workers engaging in AOP actively participate in political processes and social justice advocacy to subvert oppressive policies (Baines, 2011). CRT enriches this approach by emphasizing the systemic racial disparities entrenched in U.S. laws and institutions, prompting social workers to develop an awareness in their practice to combat the pervasive influence of racism (Bousseau & Martell, 2021; Mazzone, 2020).

The study’s findings underscore the significance of equipping social workers with the tools to cultivate institutional courage within their organizations in the face of institutional betrayal. This necessitates fostering the ability to advocate for transparency, accountability, and justice and championing policies that safeguard both clients and practitioners. Social workers must be prepared to undertake critical actions, such as implementing policy reform, whistleblowing, and establishing support networks for marginalized colleagues and clients. By fostering environments aligned with the fundamental values of social work, they can uphold institutions’ ethical obligations and address systemic inequities contributing to institutional betrayal (Gomez, 2023; Smidt & Freyd, 2018). This underscores the imperative of robustly supporting social work students, staff, and faculty in collectively acquiring and honing these skills, commencing within the university setting.