Public attitudes and knowledge about social workers in Israel

Abstract

Summary

This article presents the results of a survey on public attitudes and knowledge about social workers in Israel. Data were collected by means of structured questionnaires from a convenience sample of 1,417 participants aged 21 and older not treated by social services.

Findings

The findings indicate that side by side with fairly high recognition of general areas related to the social work profession, there was a certain lack of comprehension in regard to the roles performed by social workers. Attitudes toward social workers were ambivalent. Although on most parameters examined they received the lowest rankings of all professional fields with which they were compared, a fairly high percentage of respondents rejected critical and biased statements about social workers and defined them as people whose work is based on values, social ideology, and professional ethics, and also believed that it is necessary to increase the number of social workers in Israel and to improve their employment terms and conditions.

Applications

Understanding public attitudes and knowledge about social workers is important in terms of the public’s trust in them and the prediction of whether they will be approached for advice, treatment, or help when necessary. Furthermore, social workers’ ability to defend their interests and promote social policies requires wide public support, without which they will find it hard to attain sufficient social and political power and influence.

Keywords

Social work ethics and values social workers social work research social work values

Introduction

This article has two main purposes. The first is to examine the Israeli public’s general knowledge about social work and social workers. Are members of the public aware, for example, of the array of roles performed by social workers, the professional training necessary in order to practice the profession, and social workers’ employment terms and conditions? The second purpose is to examine the image of social workers as perceived by the Israeli public and in this context to explore attitudes toward social workers as well as their professional ranking compared to other helping professions and occupations.

Knowledge and attitudes shape public opinion about social workers. Higher levels of knowledge are associated with more positive attitudes toward professionals in this field (Kaufman & Raymond, 1995). Positive attitudes increase the public’s trust in social workers and predict whether they will be approached for advice, treatment, or help when necessary. In contrast, the negative image sometimes identified with social workers (who are perceived as those who remove children from their homes, unprofessional, and unable to genuinely help; LeCroy & Stinson, 2004) and the shame involved in approaching them, based on the biased conception that they primarily care for chronically problematic families and those on the margins of society, might restrict appeals to social workers.

Social work in Israel does not enjoy particularly high professional prestige (Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer & Weiss, 2002; Weiss & Gal, 2001). Many social workers feel that their employment terms and conditions are inadequate and battles to improve them have been waged for many years with no real success (Association of Social Workers, 2014). Change and social battles require wide public support, without which the campaigning group will find it hard to attain sufficient political power to defend its interests and promote social policies in society (Vogt, 1994). Furthermore, perception of the profession as less prestigious than similar or proximate professions might not only reduce people’s readiness to appeal to these professionals, but also significantly lower the probability of its choice as a career when more prestigious and profitable alternatives are available (Auger, Blackhurst, & Wahl, 2005).

The Israel Social Workers Law (Association of Social Workers, 1996) clearly defines who is entitled to engage in the profession (‘no person may engage in social work unless he is a social worker’, p. 3), and provides a detailed list of the terms of training. The social worker regulations and further amendments (Association of Social Workers, 2001/2006) list roles and positions that only social workers are entitled to fill, as well as those that may be occupied by other professionals as well. Some of the law’s regulations are not compatible with the increasing social and technological changes in the last two decades, which have led to an expansion of the variety of issues under social workers’ care and, accordingly, their array of roles. As a result, there have been academic attempts to construct models that define the roles of the social worker. These models refer to the varied roles of social workers in the context of their fields of practice and focus on problem diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, counseling, guidance and accompaniment of clients, advocacy, mediation and compromise between parties, planning actions, organization and development, as well as introducing and changing policy (Makaros, 2006). But lacking definition of clear updated role distinctions, the overlap between the practice of social workers and of a wide range of other helping professions and occupations is growing, and the certainty that they have the necessary training and authority to fulfill roles that are not explicitly mentioned in the regulations is losing its clarity. It is important to explore whether the public is aware of these issues and how they view the profession and its practitioners. In this context it is also essential to examine the association between the public’s demographic characteristics (gender, age, socioeconomic status, marital status, religiosity, and schooling) and awareness of the roles of social workers and between public attitudes toward them, including how they rank social workers on trustworthiness, professionalism, effectiveness, and appreciation.

The literature review leads to the dismal conclusion that the subject has received insufficient research attention and only few studies in the last decade have dealt with this topic (Krumer-Nevo, Slonim-Nevo, Hirshzon-Segev, & Ben-Yishai, 2005; LeCroy & Stinson, 2004). The current article presents the results of a survey intended to fill this gap and to clarify the knowledge and perceptions of the general public about social workers in Israel as of 2014.

Public knowledge and attitudes toward social workers

The current survey was conducted in 2014. Initial data retrieved on the occupational and demographic characteristics of social workers in Israel, the distribution of their employment in the various sectors, and their types of specialization, showed that the most recent comprehensive official survey on these topics in Israel was conducted in 2003. At present there are no public information reserves offering updated information. In 2003 the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Employment’s Manpower Planning Authority conducted an extensive survey on developments in the field of social work in Israel during 1990–2002 (Bar Zuri, 2003). After this time only partial details are available from a wide range of sources. This fact alone attests to the problems surrounding attempts to lend significance, transparency, and attention to the profession. According to the report from 2003, as of 2002, 12,100 social workers were employed in Israel in the role of community and welfare workers (i.e., general and community social workers, as well as those dealing with welfare, family counseling, rehabilitation, and probation officers). During 1990–2002 the number of those employed rose by 5,200. Other sources (Knesset Research and Information Center, 2010) indicate that this rise continued, and by 2008 the number of social work positions had increased by 22% compared to 2000. This increase is the result of factors associated with the many problems and issues under their treatment, as well as increasing public awareness of their professional involvement.

Alongside the rise in demand for social workers, no significant change occurred in their employment terms and conditions. According to the data of the Ministry of Finance’s Division in Charge of Wages, the initial monthly salary of a social worker is NIS 4,500–5,500 (approximately 950–1,160 EUR), before tax. The Association of Social Workers (2014) contends that aside from the relatively low salary, many factors associated with a social work career in Israel (such as long work hours, limited promotion, lack of employment security, and bureaucracy) contribute to pressure, stress, and burnout manifested in mental fatigue and social workers’ diminishing functional ability (Association of Social Workers, 2014). In addition to working in these conditions, social workers must often cope with criticism by society and by the media, a negative image, inflated expectations as a result of public misunderstanding of social workers’ roles and bias toward their conduct (Krumer-Nevo et al., 2005; Makaros, 2006). Yet most of the research on social work focuses on professional issues treated by social workers (e.g., Herman-Smith, 2013; Humphreys, Mullender, Thiara, & Skamballis, 2006; Spratt, 2011), while few studies attempt to explore the public’s knowledge and attitudes toward them.

One of the few studies on public knowledge and attitudes toward social workers is that of Condie, Hanson, Lang, Moss, and Kane (1978). Their research findings indicated that the American public’s awareness of social workers’ range of roles was relatively limited, although it had improved since the 1950s (Weinberger, 1967, cited in LeCroy & Stinson, 2004). Nonetheless, roles not occupied by social workers were still mistakenly attributed to them. Furthermore, social work was perceived as one of the less prestigious helping professions and the majority of respondents (about 90%) expressed reservations about approaching social workers with personal problems. Almost two decades later, a study conducted in Australia (Sharpley, 1986) examined, among other things, the public’s attitudes toward social workers as compared to psychologists, psychiatrists, and professional counselors, and found that the former are viewed as being the most effective and important of the four professions. A similar study was conducted in the United States (Fall, Levitov, Jennings, & Eberts, 2000). It compared the public’s confidence in the abilities of five mental health-related professions to treat psychological and emotional problems. The researchers presented respondents with five cases describing problems on various levels of difficulty. In all the cases, social workers were ranked lowest of all professions. Tower’s (2000) study, examining the attitudes of special education staff toward school-based social workers, found that due to the staff’s low exposure to the social work profession their knowledge of it was limited. The educational staff did not perceive the social workers as part of the school staff and did not see any need for social workers to be included in solving problems. Nonetheless, the greater educators’ knowledge about the roles of social workers in special education, the more positive was their evaluation of social workers. Kaufman and Raymond’s (1995) findings were less encouraging. Their conclusions indicated fairly negative attitudes toward social workers. Moreover, personal familiarity with and use of social work services did not contribute to more positive attitudes.

LeCroy and Stinson (2004) conducted extensive work examining the American public’s knowledge and attitudes toward social workers at the beginning of the current century. The researchers not only compared social workers and other helping professions and occupations (such as psychologists, psychiatrists, consultants, nurses, and clerics), as did their predecessors, but also compared their findings to those of previous studies and thus portrayed the changes that had occurred, or not, in the attitudes of the American public toward social workers over the years. Despite the almost 30-year difference between their study and that of Condie et al. (1978), almost no change was evident in the public’s perceptions both of facts related to social workers and of their stereotypes. For example, whereas in the 1970s, 93.2% of the public thought that social workers work with social groups on all levels of society, in 2004 this percentage had not changed significantly and reached 92.4%. Nonetheless, there was a rise in the stereotypical perception of social workers as those who remove children from their parents. The proportion of those who thought so rose from 19.6% in 1978 to 35% in 2004. Studies (Gibelman, 2004; Tower, 2000) attribute this misperception to the lack of endeavors by social workers to promote public awareness of their work and to shape public opinion on their profession. The public receives most of their information from the media, which is not necessarily committed to promoting the profession and often tends to depict social workers as insufficiently professional and to mention them in negative, sensational, and abnormal contexts rather than authentically portraying their work routine.

Similar to Sharpley (1986), LeCroy and Stinson (2004) also concluded that the contention that social workers are perceived negatively by the public is an overstatement. There is indeed room for improvement and change, but the data indicate a rise in public awareness of the contribution of social workers to the community, of the perception that there is need for more social workers, and of respondents’ support of their children’s choice of social work as a career. Furthermore, respondents’ familiarity with the full range of social worker roles (for instance, agents of social change and community coordinators) has improved over the years, although they did not always correctly identify which role is filled by social workers and which is not (e.g., they thought that social workers provide legal counseling and did not know that some engage in psychotherapy; LeCroy & Stinson, 2004).

Unlike the American studies, which compare knowledge about social work and social workers’ roles, as well as the public’s attitudes toward them, over time, in addition to comparing the field of social work to other helping professions and occupations, in Israel (to the best of my knowledge), no studies have been published on this issue to date. There is also a dearth of information on the contribution of conspicuous variables such as the public’s demographic characteristics and degree of awareness of social workers’ roles to explaining public attitudes toward them. The findings will be presented for the first time in the current article.

Method

Research population and sample

The study consisted of 1,417 respondents aged 21 and older not treated by the social services. Sixty percent of the respondents are female and 40% male. The mean age of respondents is 38.93 (SD = 12.18). Most of the respondents (66%) identified themselves as belonging to the middle class, 6.1% to the lower class, and 27.9% to the upper class. In the current study, the division into social classes was based on the neo-Weberian approach of Goldthorpe and McKnight (2002), which focuses on the individual’s occupation, employment, and level of income, primarily stressing the latter. Accordingly, a class division model used by official Israeli agencies, such as the National Insurance Institute, the Central Bureau of Statistics, and the Israeli Knesset, was utilized. Following this model, the lower class consists of households whose monthly income is less than NIS 7,600 after tax (approx. 1,610 EUR), the middle class consists of households whose income is NIS 7,600–18,600 (approx. 1,610–3,940 EUR), and the upper class consists of those with an income higher than NIS 18,600 (Knesset Research and Information Center, 2013).

The mean level of schooling is 14.38 years (SD = 2.91). Of all respondents, 88.9% are employed and most (54.8%) earn NIS 4,000–8,000 (approx. 845–1,690 EUR); 55.9% are married, 37% single, and the rest (7.1%) widowed or divorced. The respondents identified themselves as of Jewish Ashkenazi origins (42.5%), Jewish Sephardic origins (40%), or mixed origins (i.e., one of the parents is of Jewish Ashkenazi and the other of Jewish Sephardic origins) (17.5%). About half the respondents (49.8%) belong to the religious sector (2.8% ultra-Orthodox, 23.6% modern Orthodox, 23.4% traditional) and 50.2% are secular.

Sampling method and data collection

The sample is a convenience sample. Questionnaires were administered to a very diverse Jewish population in 60 cities and towns in Israel by research assistants (graduate students). Israel is divided into seven administrative districts (three urban districts: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa; and four regional districts: North, Center, South, and Judea and Samaria). The research assistants were instructed to sample respondents from each of the districts by the size of its population (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2013a) and in each district to sample as closely as possible to the distribution of the population by sex, ethnic origin, marital status, and religiosity (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2013b). Potential respondents were located in workplaces, schools of higher education and professional training, at home, in public areas, and even in public transportation. They received a short explanation of the study and were asked to participate. Some of the questionnaires were administered online and some in person, maintaining strict anonymity of respondents. Respondents were given the opportunity to receive clarifications of the questions by emailing the interviewers or the primary researcher.

Research instruments

In the absence of a uniform validated questionnaire examining all the issues referred to in this survey, a new questionnaire was constructed based on previous research literature (Condie et al., 1978; Fall et al., 2000; LeCroy & Stinson, 2004; Sharpley, 1986). Some of the questions required replies on a Likert scale and some were dichotomous questions to which respondents were asked to reply whether the statement was true or false. Additionally, several open-ended questions were presented in the first part of the survey which gathered data on sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. The second part of the survey examined the public’s knowledge about social work (questions were asked on topics such as social workers’ salary, professional training, whether Israel has a Welfare Minister). The third part examined the public’s knowledge about social workers’ professional roles in Israel.

Respondents were presented only with some of the various roles for which social workers are responsible as well as roles that are not their responsibility (see Table 1). Some of the social worker roles dealt with treatment, rehabilitation, counseling, and guidance (such as assistance with improving the personal and social functioning of individuals and families, providing mental and psychological care, treatment of the issue of child abuse and neglect, care and assistance of the elderly, assistance of intellectually disabled people and their family), some with planning action, organization and development, and leading change (such as assistance with group/community endeavors, assistance with promoting ideas for community projects), and some with advocacy, mediation, and compromise (such as treating the issue of foster families and adoption and assistance with finding venues for volunteer work). Some of the roles had absolutely no connection to social workers (such as prevention of suicidal behavior, providing legal counseling, and supplying prescriptions for medication). Respondents were asked to state whether the roles presented are the responsibility of social workers or not. Aside from the distinct reference to each role, a measure was calculated for ‘public’s knowledge about social workers’ professional roles’ by counting how many times a respondent gave a correct answer to each of the questions in this questionnaire. The maximal score that could be achieved by a respondent who gave correct answers about social workers’ areas of responsibility was 27 (identical to the number of questions, see Table 1) and the minimal score was 0. The fourth part examined the public’s attitudes toward social workers. It presented 18 statements about social workers and respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1–5 to what degree they agree with these statements. In addition, a measure of respondents’ attitudes toward social workers was designed by calculating the mean of all items in this part, with a higher score indicating a more positive attitude toward social workers (see Table 2). The final part compared social workers and other practitioners of helping professions and occupations through their subjective ranking by respondents on issues of trustworthiness, professionalism, effectiveness, and appreciation on a scale of 1–5 (with a higher score indicating more positive ranking).

Table 1.

Distribution of respondents’ replies about the roles of social workers.

Statements about the roles of social workers	Characterization of respondent replies (%)
Statements about the roles of social workers	False	True
Assistance with improving the personal and social functioning of individuals	8.7	91.3
Assistance with improving the family’s functioning	4.4	95.6
Providing legal counseling	78.4	21.6
Providing administrative assistance	44.4	55.6
Providing mental and psychological treatment	33.9	66.1
Supplying medical prescriptions to clients	86.7	13.3
Supplying documentation in order to receive discounts	40.5	59.5
Treating child abuse and neglect	3.8	96.2
Treating and assisting the elderly	6.3	93.7
Guiding and assisting parents with child education	23.7	76.3
Help in coping with alcohol and drug problems	15.8	84.2
Helping people with disabilities	15.5	84.4
Helping the developmentally disabled and their families	14.9	85.1
Help with issues of housing	32.6	67.4
Providing stipends to the needy	50	50
Helping cope with learning disabilities	51.9	48.1
Treating issues of foster families and adoption	9.5	90.5
Accompanying and rehabilitating prisoners	16.8	83.2
Preventing suicidal behavior	27.4	72.6
Providing employment counseling	55.2	44.8
Treating marital problems	49.5	50.5
Treating issues of sexual abuse	14.4	85.6
Treating issues of domestic violence	7.3	92.7
Activities aimed at promoting policy changes on various topics	54.5	45.4
Help with group/community organization	55	45
Help with promoting ideas for projects in the community	42.3	57.7
Help with finding locations for volunteer work	42.4	57.6

Table 2.

The Israeli public’s attitudes toward social workers (SWs).

Statements	Mean	Standard deviation	Distribution of respondent replies (%)
Statements	Mean	Standard deviation	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Partially agree	Agree	Strongly agree
Social work is a profession more suited to women	2.71	1.26	22.1	22.8	25.9	20.6	8.6
The media usually portrays social workers (SWs) negatively	2.74	1.14	15.3	28.5	30.1	18.9	7.2
SWs work with groups that are not held in high esteem by the general public	3.23	1.18	9.6	16.7	29.8	28.9	15.0
Social work is a prestigious profession	2.14	0.96	28.4	38.7	24.3	7.3	1.3
Social work is an interesting profession	3.69	1.09	5.1	7.9	24.7	37.1	25.2
SWs show prejudice in their work	2.74	1.04	13.2	25.1	40.4	16.5	4.8
SWs decide people’s fate hastily	2.20	1.01	28.0	36.3	25.8	7.3	2.6
SWs often become tools in the hands of interested parties (e.g., divorced spouses conflicted over their children’s education and upbringing)	2.53	1.02	17.0	32.2	35.1	12.1	3.6
SWs are capable of influencing social policy on the issues under their care	2.89	1.07	11.0	23.9	36.5	22.5	6.1
SWs have an interest in influencing social policy only when it involves their own employment terms and conditions	2.06	0.98	32.1	39.9	20.0	5.7	2.3
SWs’ work is based on values and social ideology	2.06	0.98	32.1	39.9	20.0	5.7	2.3
SWs can decide to remove children from their homes	3.05	1.11	10.1	20.0	33.7	27.7	8.5
SWs are given too much authority	2.36	0.92	16.9	41.4	32.5	6.7	2.5
SWs often only aggravate the situation under their care	2.20	0.95	23.9	43.0	24.5	6.2	2.4
SWs’ work is based on professional ethics	3.57	0.98	3.5	9.2	29.7	41.8	15.8
SWs don’t really care about their clients. They are only doing their job.	1.83	0.96	45.4	35.3	12.4	5.0	1.9
SWs in Israeli society have a problematic image	3.07	1.19	11.6	19.4	32.7	22.8	13.5
It is necessary to increase the number of SWs in Israel	4.06	1.02	1.9	6.2	18.6	30.1	43.2

Findings

General knowledge about social work and social workers’ roles

General knowledge: most respondents (82.6%) answered the question of whether Israel has a Welfare Minister correctly (positively), 5.2% thought that Israel has no such minister, and 12.2% stated that they do not know. In answer to the question ‘What is the minimal training necessary in order to work as a social worker?’, most respondents (74.3%) gave the correct answer of a Bachelor’s degree with practical training. The percentage of respondents who thought that at least a Master’s degree was necessary was 15.8%. Almost all respondents (96.7%) knew that in Israel most of those employed as social workers are women (Shatil, 2012). The percentage of respondents who knew that social workers are employed in either the public, business, or third sector was 73.7%, while 20.3% thought that they are only employed in the public and third sector but not in the business sector. Regarding the average monthly salary of social workers (before tax), which according to the Ministry of Finance (2011) is about NIS 7,800 (approx. 1,650 EUR; although the Association of Social Workers (2014) claims that many earn much less), there was a fairly wide range of answers. Relatively accurate answers were given by 35.6% of respondents, who stated that they assume that social workers earn on average NIS 6,000–8,000 (approx. 1,270–1,690 EUR) a month, while 53.3% gave a lower figure and 11.1% a higher figure.

Knowledge about the roles of social workers: respondents were presented with statements about some of the professional roles of social workers (see Table 1). Some were true and some false. Respondents’ replies indicate an interesting trend: in the case of disadvantaged groups (such as children who have been neglected or abused, people with developmental disabilities, alcoholics and drug addicts, etc.) or in crisis or complex situations (such as foster care and adoption, domestic violence, or sexual abuse) most replied correctly and knew that the responsibilities of social workers encompass these areas. For example, 92.7% of respondents knew that social workers are responsible for treating domestic violence, 95.6% knew that they are charged with helping improve family functioning, 96.2% knew that they also treat child abuse and neglect. On most issues related to the involvement of social workers in the community, however, the proportion of correct responses dropped significantly. For example, only 57.7% of respondents knew that social workers help promote ideas for projects in the community and only 45% knew of their part in helping group/community organization. A similar trend was evident in regard to roles shared by other professionals. For example, only 66.1% of respondents knew that some social workers provide mental and psychological care, 50.5% knew about marital counseling, and only 48.1% were aware of their help in coping with learning disabilities. Particularly conspicuous are the proportions of agreement with the false statements. Of all respondents, 21.6% mistakenly thought that social workers are responsible for providing legal counseling, 55.6% thought that their role is to provide administrative assistance, 67.4% believed that social workers are supposed to help with housing. Half the respondents claimed that social workers give stipends to the needy, 44.8% believed that they are charged with providing employment counseling, 13.3% believed that they supply medical prescriptions, and 72.6% thought that they are supposed to prevent suicidal behavior.

Attitudes of the Israeli public toward social workers

Respondents were presented with a list of attitudes toward social workers and social work as a profession. They were asked to state to what degree they agreed with the statements on a Likert scale, where higher scores indicate stronger agreement. The distribution of respondents’ replies to the attitudes questionnaire is presented in Table 2. The findings draw an interesting picture of how social work is viewed as a profession. While 43.9% of respondents stated that social workers work with groups that are not held in high esteem by the general public and 67.1% did not perceive social work as a prestigious career, 62.3% defined it as an interesting profession. Despite the fact that in practice most of those who work in the profession are women, 44.9% of respondents did not think that it suits women in particular. The biased view whereby social workers can decide to remove children from their homes was held by 36.2%, and 21.3% believed that social workers themselves demonstrate prejudice in their work. The media was perceived as tending to portray social workers in a negative light by 26.1% of respondents, while 43.5% did not agree with this statement, similar to 49.2% of respondents who did not agree with the statement that social workers often become tools in the hands of various interested parties while 15.7% thought that this is true.

Of all respondents, 28.6% believed that social workers have the ability to influence social policy on issues under their care, while 34.9% thought that they do not. Seventy-two percent rejected the statement that social workers show interest in influencing social policies only when these involve their own employment terms and conditions, while only 8% thought that this is true.

Although 36.3% of respondents claimed that social workers have a problematic image in Israeli society, most of the respondents (80.7%) did not agree with the statement that social workers do not really care about their clients. Moreover, a significant proportion of respondents (58.3%) did not agree with the common claim whereby social workers are given too much authority or the statement that they decide people’s fate hastily (64.3%). Many (66.9%) also rejected the statement that social workers often aggravate the situation under their care. Furthermore, 51.8% of respondents claimed that social workers’ work is based on values and social ideology and on professional ethics (57.6%). Seventy-five percent of respondents believed that social workers are insufficiently compensated for their work and 73.2% thought that it is necessary to increase the number of social workers in Israel.

Comparison between social workers and other helping professions and occupations

The social workers were compared to other helping professions and occupations with regard to public trust and appreciation for them and the professionalism and effectiveness of their work as perceived by respondents. The comparison group may be divided in two: professions (which include social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses) and occupations (which include life coaches, clerics, and spiritual advisors). While professions require extensive professional training, occupations are activities for a fee that normally require only limited professional or unprofessional training.

Social workers received lower rankings than all professionals on all parameters aside from trustworthiness. Nevertheless, they received higher rankings than unprofessional occupations on all parameters (see Table 3). For example, for effectiveness of treatment and assistance, psychiatrists were ranked first, followed by psychologists and nurses with similar scores. Social workers were ranked fourth. For professionalism as well, psychiatrists were ranked first, followed by psychologists and nurses, with social workers coming in fourth and last among the professionals. For appreciation, nurses were ranked first with a mean of 4.17 (SD = 0.97), followed by psychologists and psychiatrists, and then social workers with a fairly large difference (M = 2.95, SD = 0.92). As stated, only for trustworthiness were social workers ranked second, after nurses.

Table 3.

Comparison between social workers and other helping professions and occupations.

	Effectiveness Mean (SD)	Professionalism Mean (SD)	Appreciation Mean (SD)	Trustworthiness Mean (SD)
Social workers	3.77 (0.83)	3.91 (0.80)	2.95 (0.92)	3.91 (1.41)
Psychologists	3.94 (0.84)	4.23 (1.81)	3.86 (0.97)	3.88 (1.41)
Psychiatrists	3.98 (0.89)	4.29 (0.81)	3.73 (1.04)	3.84 (1.44)
Nurses	3.94 (0.99)	4.13 (0.89)	4.17 (0.97)	4.10 (0.92)
Life coaches	3.13 (1.11)	2.98 (1.11)	2.90 (1.25)	2.79 (1.18)
Clerics	2.85 (1.22)	2.78 (1.69)	2.68 (1.35)	2.58 (1.32)
Spiritual advisors	2.49 (1.19)	2.37 (1.18)	2.27 (1.24)	2.16 (1.16)

The contribution of the public’s demographic characteristics and knowledge about social workers’ professional roles to explaining public attitudes toward social workers

Multiple linear regressions were conducted in order to examine whether respondents’ knowledge about social workers’ professional roles, together with their demographic data (gender, age, socioeconomic status, marital status, religiosity, and level of schooling) can predict their attitudes toward social workers, including how they rank social workers on trustworthiness, professionalism, effectiveness, and appreciation (see Table 4). Some of the demographic variables were not entered in the regression due to statistical considerations such as a lack of suitable frequency proportions (e.g., most respondents, 88.9%, were employed) or due to content considerations. Respondents’ knowledge about social workers’ professional roles, gender, and socioeconomic status were found to positively predict their attitude toward social workers. The more respondents were able to correctly identify which roles belong to social workers and which do not, and the higher their socioeconomic status, the more positive their attitude. Women were more inclined to have a positive attitude toward social workers than men. These variables also predict respondents’ subjective evaluation of social workers as effective practitioners. Nonetheless, level of schooling contributed negatively to the explanation of this variable, and the more educated the respondents the more they evaluated social workers’ practice as being ineffective. Similarly, respondents’ knowledge about social workers’ professional roles, gender, and socioeconomic status positively predicted their conception of social workers’ professionalism. However, respondents’ age and level of schooling negatively predicted this variable. The older and the more educated the respondents the less they perceived social workers as professional practitioners. Respondents’ knowledge about social workers’ professional roles and socioeconomic status also positively predicted their perception of social workers’ trustworthiness. Nonetheless, age was found to have a negative effect – trustworthiness decreased with age. None of the independent variables managed to significantly predict respondents’ appreciation of social workers. While knowledge about social workers’ professional roles, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and level of schooling contributed significantly to explaining the dependent variables in some of the regressions, religiosity and marital status had no effect.

Table 4.

Results of linear multiple regressions for predicting respondents’ attitudes toward social workers and subjective ranking on issues of effectiveness, professionalism, appreciation, and trustworthiness.

	Attitudes toward social workers					Effectiveness					Professionalism					Appreciation					Trustworthiness
Variable	B^d	S.E^d	β	t	p	B^d	S.E^d	β	t	p	B^d	S.E^d	β	t	p	B^d	S.E^d	β	t	p	B^d	S.E^d	β	t	p
Public’s knowledge about SWs’ Professional roles	.02	.03	.13	4.93	.00	.03	.01	.17	6.00	.00	.02	.01	.09	3.16	.00	.01	.01	.04	1.54	.12	.04	.01	.10	3.76	.00
Gender^a	.12	.03	.13	4.89	.00	.13	.05	.08	2.86	.00	.21	.04	.13	4.67	.00	−.06	.05	−.03	−1.09	.27	.09	.08	.03	1.07	.28
Age	2.00	.00	.01	.02	.98	.00	.00	−.04	−1.29	.20	−.01	.00	−.09	−3.03	.00	.00	.00	.02	.52	.60	−.01	.00	−0.07	−2.34	.02
Socioeconomic status	.10	.02	.13	4.84	.00	.08	.04	.06	2.00	.04	.16	.04	.12	4.17	.00	−.06	.04	−.04	−1.42	.16	.18	.07	.08	2.69	.01
Family status^b	−0.02	.03	−.02	−.71	.47	−.04	.05	−.02	−.77	.44	−.05	.05	−.03	−1.11	.27	−.03	.06	−.01	−.46	.65	−.15	.09	− .05	−1.70	.09
Religious sector^c	.01	.01	.01	.22	.82	−.03	.02	−.05	−1.65	.10	−.01	.02	−.01	−.32	.75	.02	.02	.03	1.08	.28	.01	.03	− .01	−0.36	.72
Level of schooling	.01	.01	.01	.27	.79	−.03	.01	−.09	−3.12	.00	−.02	.01	−.09	−3.05	.00	.02	.01	.07	2.32	.20	− .01	.01	− .02	− .70	.49
(Constant)	2.59	.14		18.84	.00	3.18	.26		12.39	.00	3.36	.25		13.65	.00	2.62	.29		9.02	.00	3.05	.45		6.77	.00

1 – male, 2 – female. ^b1 – married, 2 – non married. ^c1 – ultra-Orthodox, 2 – modern Orthodox, 3 – traditional, 4 – secular. ^dUnstandardized coefficients.

Discussion

According to the ethical code of the American National Association of Social Workers,

the primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2008, p. 1)

It would seem that a profession defined thus would be perceived by the public as essential and vital, one that sets itself ethical and important social goals, while its agents (i.e., social workers) who fulfill these goals, would be perceived as performing a holy mission for the country, community, family, and individual. However the research findings show, on the contrary, that the image of social workers as perceived by the Israeli public is far from this portrayal.

The public’s views often differ considerably from the facts. In the absence of factual information or in the absence of awareness of it, members of the public develop attitudes toward social workers based on their personal experience, rumors, and the media, which often chooses to report sensational and abnormal cases rather than their routine work (Gibelman, 2004). The findings of this survey indicate that while most respondents had reasonable general knowledge about social work (for example, 73.7% of respondents knew that social workers may be employed in the public, third, or business sector, and 74.3% were aware of the professional training required in order to work in the profession), when focusing specifically on their roles the answers were divided.

Similar to previous studies (Condie et al., 1978; LeCroy & Stinson, 2004), this survey found that while the familiarity of respondents with some roles filled by social workers was fairly high, respondents still mistakenly attributed incorrect roles to social workers, and, vice versa, were not aware of roles that they do fill. Interestingly, in the case of most roles that involve caring for disadvantaged populations (such as children who were neglected or abused, the developmentally disabled, alcoholics and drug addicts, prisoners, the elderly, people with disabilities, etc.) or for crisis or complex situations (such as foster families and adoption, domestic violence, sexual abuse, and difficulties with individual and family functioning) most respondents knew that these issues are among social workers’ responsibilities. This relatively high recognizance may be attributed to how social workers are portrayed in the media. Most of the population, in the absence of personal experience with social workers, forms their image of the latter through exposure to the media, which not only often presents them negatively as professionals, but rather, also mentions them mainly in the context of disadvantaged populations and people in problematic circumstances (Freeman & Valentine, 2004; Gibelman, 2004; Tower, 2000).

At the same time, public awareness of the fact that some social workers deal with community-based issues (such as activities promoting policy change in various areas, helping with community organization, helping to promote ideas for projects in the community, and helping find locations for volunteer work) was much lower. Many people do not personally encounter social workers in these contexts. Moreover, these issues are rarely portrayed in the media and even when they are, lacking as they do entertaining, news-related, or sensational value, they do not attract much public interest and, as a result, public awareness of them is low (Gibelman, 2004).

Recent decades have seen the emergence of many professions and occupations that deal with personal, marital, family, and even group and community therapy. In time, some of these have come to overlap significantly. This makes things difficult for the public, whose members lack understanding of the depths and intricacies of each profession, in deciding which of the fields to approach when a certain problem or issue arises and in understanding all the points of difference and overlap. The survey findings indicate a certain confusion among the general public in regard to the range of roles shared by social workers and others, such as mental and psychological treatment, marital counseling, and help coping with learning disabilities. In some cases about half the respondents were completely unaware that social workers can operate in these areas. Moreover, the survey findings show that in addition to misperceptions of the roles occupied by social workers, some respondents tend to attribute to social workers roles that are not under their purview or that they cannot perform by virtue of the law, their training, or for other objective reasons. Lack of knowledge about a social worker’s role may prevent people from asking for assistance in an issue related to this role, but misperception of certain roles as part of the social worker’s duties might lead to unrealistic expectations, anger, disappointment, and criticism by applicants, clients, and the general public. For example, 72.6% of respondents thought that social workers are responsible for preventing suicidal behavior. Some social workers undoubtedly treat and help people whom they know to harbor suicidal intentions. They often cooperate with other professional teams (such as psychologists and doctors) as well as with the family, but it is doubtful whether a social worker, or for that matter any therapeutic professional, can prevent or predict suicidal behavior with any certainty. Furthermore, stories of difficulty finding work or housing are often portrayed in the media, with accusations aimed at social workers for not helping. The present survey showed that social workers were perceived as responsible for helping with housing by 67.4% of respondents, half of the respondents claimed that social workers give stipends to the needy, and 44.8% believed that social workers are responsible for providing employment counseling, although these are not part of their responsibilities. This does not mean to imply that the state should not provide help with these issues, but the mistaken association of these roles with social workers brings many citizens to direct their expectations and demands at the wrong agency.

The very revelation, that quite a significant part of the public is not only unaware of many areas treated by social workers, namely those that are less sensational and publicized, but also expects them to fulfill roles that do not fit their abilities or skills, might explain a fair amount of their complex public image. The complexity of this image emerges from the ambivalent findings of this survey.

When comparing the effectiveness and professionalism of social workers and the trust and appreciation they arouse, as perceived by the public, to those of other helping professions, they were found to rank lowest on all parameters (aside from trustworthiness), as shown by previous studies (Condie et al., 1978; Fall et al., 2000). Nonetheless, on all parameters they consistently received higher scores than nonprofessional practitioners such as life coaches, clerics, and spiritual advisors. This indicates that the public values professional areas more than nonprofessional practices, but then again, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses were ranked as more effective, professional, and appreciated. These findings are incompatible with those of Sharpley (1986), who showed that the public perceives social workers as more effective and important than psychologists, psychiatrists, and professional consultants. Nonetheless, it is hard to arrive at far-reaching conclusions based on this comparison. The real difficulty in comparing the studies stems not only from the fact that they were conducted in different periods and do not take into consideration social changes and changes in social work as a profession, and not only from the fact that they were conducted in different countries, among populations with different features, but also as a result of significant methodological differences in formulation of the questions, structuring the study, and its administration.

A large range of factors determines the prestige of the profession. Professions such as social work, socially perceived as ‘feminine’, normally tend to suffer from low prestige. Furthermore, professions with a low salary and that involve work with population groups that are not highly esteemed by the general public are also considered less prestigious (Auger et al., 2005; Charles, 1992; Jacobs, 1999; Shatil, 2012). The survey findings show that almost all the respondents (96.7%) knew that in Israel most social workers are women. Moreover, a considerable proportion of the population believed that the monthly salary of most social workers is NIS 6,000–8,000 (approx. 1,270–1,690 EUR) or lower, that they are insufficiently compensated for their work, and that they work with population groups that are not held in high esteem by the general public, and accordingly, 67.1% defined the profession as not prestigious. The ambivalent perception of social workers was manifested by the fact that side by side with the perception of social work as a non-prestigious and feminine profession about half the respondents believed that it does not necessarily suit only women. Lacking the ability to hold comparisons with previous data and without any far-reaching conclusions, this finding hopefully reflects the chance of a more egalitarian gender concept of the profession, which may lead in time to a larger proportion of males among its practitioners. This may contribute to an improved understanding of needs, difficulties, and processes experienced by male clients and to better treatment of these issues in research, theory, and practice (Baum, 2006).

About one third of respondents claimed that social workers have a problematic image in Israeli society and one quarter claimed that the media usually portrays social workers in a negative light. For example, one of the most prevalent myths whereby social workers can decide to remove children from their homes showed similar results to those of LeCroy and Stinson (2004) in their study conducted about a decade earlier in the United States. This was grasped as true by 36.2% of respondents in the current survey and 35% of respondents in the American study. The frequency and manner in which the media portrays professions and professionals, determines the public’s exposure to and attitude toward them (Parenti, 1999). The media do not often portray social workers in a positive or realistic light (Freeman & Valentine, 2004). The stereotypical patterns in which social workers are perceived, which have become entrenched in news reports and television series, refuse to disappear and are very difficult to change. Nonetheless, they are not the only ones to blame. We must not give the media all the responsibility for shaping attitudes and public opinion (Hetzroni, 2006) while disregarding the social ranking of the profession as non-prestigious since most of its practitioners are women and most of its clients are recognized by the public as belonging to disadvantaged, marginal, and unpopular groups.

At the same time, similar to Sharpley (1986) and LeCroy and Stinson (2004), the findings of the current survey support the assertion that the claim whereby social workers are perceived by the public negatively is exaggerated. Side by side with stereotypical attitudes toward social workers, who are perceived by some respondents as prejudiced in their work, unable to affect social policy on issues under their care, and entitled to reach decisions about removing children from their homes, fairly high percentages of the respondents rejected critical and negative statements about them (e.g., that they only aggravate the situation under their care, receive too much authority, decide people’s fate hastily, often serve as tools in the hands of various interested parties, or are not really interested in their clients or in social policies unrelated to their salaries and terms of employment). Moreover, over half the respondents believed that social workers base their work on values and social ideology and on professional ethics. Similar to Sharpley (1986) and LeCroy and Stinson (2004), who indicated a rise in public awareness of the contribution of social workers to the community and the view that there is need for more social workers, in Israel as well, a significant proportion of respondents believed that the number of social workers should be increased and their employment terms improved.

Furthermore, the current study shows that the greater the public’s knowledge about social workers’ professional roles the more positive public attitudes are toward them and the more they are perceived as professional and effective as well as trustworthy. Hence, this study provides more evidence of the important association between knowledge and attitude shaping (Kaufman & Raymond, 1995; Tower, 2000). Nonetheless, knowledge does not contribute to explaining the degree of appreciation for social workers (which was fairly low compared to all the other parameters examined).

There are only few studies on public knowledge of social workers and attitudes toward them, and in this light the almost complete lack of information on the association between public socioeconomic characteristics and attitudes toward social workers is particularly conspicuous. The current study provides only initial findings and therefore the attempt to explain them is based on assumptions that must be further examined in future empirical studies. The greater inclination of women to positively evaluate social workers and their perception of social workers as more effective and professional might be a result of women’s greater identification with the social work profession, perceived as it is as a feminine profession (Shatil, 2012). Many women undergo a process of socialization (Dahle, 2012) in which they choose caregiving or educating professions, and therefore, based on their familiarity and association with these fields, they might perceive social workers more positively. Consistent with previous research, there is also an association between respondents’ socioeconomic status, age, and schooling – and their attitudes toward populations with a fairly low social image or public stigma (such as social workers) (Evans-Lacko, Henderson, & Thornicroft, 2013; King, Winter, & Webster, 2009; Landén & Innala, 2000). While high socioeconomic status predicts a more positive attitude toward social workers, the older the respondents, the more they tend to perceive social workers as less professional and trustworthy, and the more educated the respondents, the tendency is to evaluate social workers as less professional and less effective. As stated, explaining these initial findings will require additional in-depth research.

Limitations of the study

The non-random sampling method employed by the present survey might have created research bias, that is, overrepresentation of parts of the population and underrepresentation of others, thus making it difficult to infer from the sample to the general population and to hold comparisons with other studies. In order to consistently follow trends in the development of public knowledge and attitudes toward social workers it will be necessary to conduct a study based on a representative sample with a uniform well-formed methodological structure, one that will hold longitudinal intra-cultural and inter-cultural comparisons (for example, it is very important to hold a similar study among Israeli Arabs, who according to the data of the Central Bureau of Statistics (2014), constitute about 20% of the entire population of Israel).

Conclusions

In light of the ambivalent image of social workers in Israel, social workers are confronted with the serious challenge of improving their professional image. The significant dearth of research on public opinion in regard to social workers indicates that social workers are insufficiently aware of the topic and that there is a lack of strategic, planned, and organized techniques for improving the professional image and expanding the public’s knowledge of the profession. If the media does not help social workers achieve this goal of its own initiative, social workers and particularly those heading the professional associations must learn to work with the media and to utilize this platform in order to ‘market’ the profession in a more positive light and expose the public to all its aspects. Furthermore, it is necessary to think of other planned actions, on the level of cooperation with other fields and agencies, and to act to promote publicity and raise awareness of the profession in the community.

Footnotes

Ethics

The Ethics Committee of the Ariel University School of Social Work, chaired by Prof. Menachem Ben-Ezra, gave its approval for this study. The protocol number of the ethical approval for the research is helsinkapproval061013a.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Ester Zychlinski for her useful notes for improving the questionnaire especially constructed for this study and for her important comments on the issues raised in this article.

References

Association of Social Workers. (1996). Israel social workers law. Retrieved from http://www.socialwork.org.il/upload/docs/aigud/hok_aos.doc [Hebrew].

Association of Social Workers. (2001/2006). Social worker regulations. Retrieved from http://www.socialwork.org.il [Hebrew].

Association of Social Workers. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.socialwork.org.il [Hebrew].

Auger, R. W., Blackhurst, A. E., & Wahl, K. H. (2005). The development of elementary-aged children’s career aspirations and expectations. Professional School Counseling, 8(4), 322–329. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42732626.

Bar Zuri, R. (2003). Social workers in Israel: Review of developments in the field from 1990–2002. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Employment. Retrieved from http://www.moital.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/26E55D17-24C2-41CA-AD76-D6FB05030FA0/0/X5608.pdf [Hebrew].

Baum

(2006) The silent gender: The attitude of social work to men as clients. Society & Welfare 26(3): 219–238. [Hebrew].

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013a). Selected data from the statistical abstract of Israel. Retrieved from www.cbs.gov.il/www/hodaot2013n/11_13_255b.doc [Hebrew].

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2013b). Society and population. Retrieved from www.cbs.gov.il/reader/?MIval=cw_usr_view_SHTML&ID=629 [Hebrew].

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Press release. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_template.html?hodaa=201411111 [Hebrew].

10.

Charles, M. (1992). Cross-national variation in occupational sex segregation. American Sociological Review, 57(4), 483–502. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096096.

11.

Condie

C. D.

Hanson

J. A.

Lang

N. E.

Moss

D. K.

Kane

R. A.

(1978) How the public views social work. Social Work 23(1): 47–53. doi:10.1093/sw/23.1.47.

12.

Dahle, R. (2012). Social work: A history of gender and class in the profession. Ephemera, 12(3), 309–326. Retrieved from http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-3dahle.pdf.

13.

Evans-Lacko

Henderson

Thornicroft

(2013) Public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding people with mental illness in England 2009–2012. The British Journal of Psychiatry 202: 51–57. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112979.

14.

Fall

K. A.

Levitov

J. E.

Jennings

Eberts

(2000) The public perception of mental health professions: An empirical examination. Journal of Mental Health Counseling 22(2): 122–134. Retrieved from http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/3312968.

15.

Freeman

M. L.

Valentine

D. P.

(2004) Through the eyes of Hollywood: Images of social workers in film. Social Work 49(2): 151–161. doi:10.1093/sw/49.2.151.

16.

Gibelman

(2004) Television and the public image of social workers: Portrayal or betrayal? Social Work 49(2): 331–335. doi:10.1093/sw/49.2.331.

17.

Goldthorpe

J. H.

McKnight

(2002) The economic basis of social class, Oxford, England: Nuffield College.

18.

Hetzroni

(2006) The weak effects of the strong influences of the media. In: Lazarovich

Haimov

Chishinsky

Shaharabani

(eds) Researchers in the valley, Jezreel Valley, Israel: Jezreel Valley College, pp. 248–258. [Hebrew].

19.

Herman-Smith

(2013) Do preschool programs affect social disadvantage? What social workers should know. Social Work 58(1): 65–73. doi:10.1093/sw/sws049.

20.

Humphreys

Mullender

Thiara

Skamballis

(2006) ‘Talking to my mum’: Developing communication between mothers and children in the aftermath of domestic violence. Journal of Social Work 6(1): 53–63. doi:10.1177/1468017306062223.

21.

Jacobs

J. A.

(1999) Gender and the stratification of colleges. The Journal of Higher Education 70(2): 161–187. doi:10.2307/2649126. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649126.

22.

Kaufman

A. V.

Raymond

G. T.

(1995) Public perception of social workers: A survey of knowledge and attitudes. Arete 20(2): 24–35.

23.

King

M. E.

Winter

Webster

(2009) Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health 21(1): 17–34. doi:10.1080/19317610802434609.

24.

Knesset Research and Information Center. (2010). Analysis of the proposed budget of the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services for the 2011–2012 financial year. Retrieved from http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m02688.pdf [Hebrew].

25.

Knesset Research and Information Center. (2013). Middle class weight and analysis of changes in recent years. Retrieved from http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m03157.pdf [Hebrew].

26.

Krumer-Nevo

Slonim-Nevo

Hirshzon-Segev

Ben-Yishai

(2005) The perceptions of ‘veteran’ applicants to the welfare bureau regarding social workers. Society & Welfare 25(4): 533–555. [Hebrew].

27.

Landén

Innala

(2000) Attitudes toward transsexualism in a Swedish national survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(4): 375–388. doi:10.1023/A:1001970521182.

28.

LeCroy

C. W.

Stinson

(2004) The public’s perception of social work: Is it what we think it is? Social Work 49(2): 164–174. doi:10.1093/sw/49.2.164.

29.

Makaros

(2006) The role of the social worker in a changing society from the perspective of social workers and their clients. Society & Welfare 26(2): 135–152. [Hebrew].

30.

Ministry of Finance. (2011). Report of salary expenditures in the state service, security agencies, and prison service for 2011. Retrieved from www.mof.gov.il [Hebrew].

31.

Parenti

(1999) Methods of media manipulation. In: Hiebert

R. E.

(ed.) Impact of mass media: Current issues, 4th ed. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, pp. 120–124.

32.

Sharpley

C. F.

(1986) Public perceptions of four mental health professions: A survey of knowledge and attitudes to psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and counsellors. Australian Psychologist 21(1): 57–68. doi:10.1080/00050060600726320.

33.

Shatil. (2012). Women in the therapeutic professions: State of affairs and campaign. Retrieved from http://www.shatil.org.il. [Hebrew].

34.

Spiro

S. E.

Sherer

Korin-Langer

Weiss

(2002) The development of Israeli social work. Society & Welfare 22(2): 135–152. [Hebrew].

35.

Spratt

(2011) Families with multiple problems: Some challenges in identifying and providing services to those experiencing adversities across the life course. Journal of Social Work 11(4): 343–357. doi:10.1177/1468017310379256.

36.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp.

37.

Tower

(2000) In our own image: Shaping attitudes about social work through television production. Journal of Social Work Education 36(3): 575–586. doi:10.1080/10437797.2000.10779029.

38.

Vogt

W. P.

(1994) What is tolerance and why should we teach it? Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies 16(3–4): 277–296. doi:10.1080/1071441940160304.

39.

Weinberger

(1967) Assessing professional status in social welfare. Personnel Information 10: 44–47.

40.

Weiss

Gal

(2001) Professional preferences of beginning social work students in Israel. Society & Welfare 21(2): 159–176. [Hebrew].