Abstract
Summary
Policy change is a core goal of community social workers. This study aims to identify the motivational and facilitating factors associated with community social workers’ engagement in policy practice, defined as policy involvement undertaken in the workplace context. The sample comprised of 106 community social workers employed by local government in Israel and the data were collected between June 2015 and February 2017.
Findings
The findings showed that community social workers are more likely to engage in policy when they enjoy higher professional status, possess more policy practice resources, have higher psychological involvement in politics, are more involved in political and professional networks, and sense that they enjoy greater organizational support for policy practice.
Applications
In seeking to enhance the engagement of community social workers in the policy process, social work education should provide future community social workers with policy practice skills and a sense of psychological engagement in politics. It should also encourage their participation in political networks and offer training that affords them opportunities to develop the organizational skills needed to further macro goals in a social service agency setting. In their workplace, community social workers seeking to engage in policy practice need to nurture an organizational culture that supports social workers’ policy involvement. Given that this study is on a single Israeli sample, future research on community social workers in additional work settings and in other countries is required in order to advance knowledge on this crucial, yet understudied, form of professional activity.
Social work discourse and its professional codes of ethics emphasize the importance of social workers’ influencing social policy. This is prevalent in Israel, the site of this study (Kaufman, 2004; Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Weiss-Gal, 2013), as it is in other countries such as the UK (British Association of Social Workers (BASW), 2014; Simpson, 2013), Australia (Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), 2010; Mendes, 2013), and the USA (Byers, 2014; National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 2017). Policy involvement in different arenas is typically seen as a major path for influencing policies that better address the social sources of their clients’ problems; prevent conditions that limit human and social rights; and contribute to the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. Recently, scholars have underscored the importance of social workers’ policy involvement in an era of neoliberalism (Makaros & Moshe Grodofsky, 2016; Reisch, 2016; Strier & Feldman, 2018).
Policy involvement is particularly strongly embedded in community social work. Despite the tendency in some countries to distinguish between social work and community development, in Israel, in the United States, and elsewhere, this type of practice is integrated into the social work profession (Mendes & Binns, 2018; Sadan, in press). Nearly from its inception, in these countries community social work has regarded accomplishing social change and furthering social justice by affecting policy, as one of its core professional principles (Das, O’Neill, & Pinkerton, 2018; Popple, 2015; Rothman, 2007; Rubin & Rubin, 2008; Sjöberg, Többe-Schukalla, Singh, & Martinss, 2018).
One of the professional routes for social workers to impact social policies is policy practice (on the other routes, see Weiss-Gal, 2017a). Here we regard policy practice as activities, undertaken by social workers as an integral part of their professional activity in diverse field and types of practice, that focus on the formulation and implementation of new policies, as well as on existing policies and suggested changes in them. These (on-the-job) activities seek to further policies on the organizational, local, national and international levels. . . . (Gal & Weiss-Gal, 2013, pp. 4–5)
Despite its apparent importance, policy practice is still a neglected area in social work research (Weiss-Gal, 2017b), not least with regard to community social workers. While there are case studies that describe the role of community social workers in social policy change (Bowen, 2015; Burghardt, 2013; Mendes, 2008; Staples, 1999), there is only limited knowledge pertaining to the degree to which community social workers actually engage in policy practice in the context of their workplace and to the factors associated with this. One of these is a study that compared the engagement of community social workers employed in local government social service agencies and other social workers in Israel (Weiss-Gal, Gal, Schwartz-Tayri, Gewirtz, & Sommerfeld, in press). It found that community social workers engage more in policy practice than direct social workers in local government social service agencies, in general hospitals, and in nonprofit human service organizations. This was attributed both to the fact that community social workers are more likely to be expected by their employers to be involved in policy-oriented activities than their direct practice counterparts and that their professional socialization places a greater emphasis on the policy role. The most common activities were bringing unaddressed policy issues to their colleagues’ attention; informing policy-makers about policy problems; and enhancing the awareness of service users, individuals, and groups in the community about policy issues. Least common were urging advocacy organizations or the social work union to pressure policy-makers to address a policy problem, the use of social media to further policy issues and participation in parliamentary committees.
This article draws upon the data of that study in order to go beyond confirming that community social workers engage more in policy practice than other social workers and detailing the forms that their policy practice takes. Rather, it seeks to explain community social workers’ engagement in policy practice by exploring the factors associated with this.
Factors associated with policy practice engagement (PPE): The PPE framework
The theoretical framework employed in this article is the PPE conceptual framework, which seeks to explain social workers’ levels of involvement in policy practice (Fargion, 2018; Gal & Weiss-Gal, 2015). The model posits that there are, at least, three types of factor categories that affect levels of social workers’ policy practice involvement: motivation, facilitation, and opportunity.
Motivation
This category focuses on what motivates the policy engagement of individual social workers and it assumes that this will be associated with personal factors, among them skills, knowledge, and perceptions. The “Civic Voluntarism Model” (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), which predicts the extent of citizens’ participation in politics, serves as a useful source of specific factors in this context and indeed previous studies have found that (with some adaptations) it can contribute to understanding the engagement of social workers in politics (Ritter, 2008) and policy practice (Gewirtz-Meydan, Weiss-Gal, & Gal, 2016).
Three main types of factors influence individual political participation, according to this model: personal resources, psychological engagement, and recruitment networks. As the focus in this study was on social workers’ engagement in policy-related activities undertaken as part of their day-to-day practice, the assumption was that two types of resources had particular resonance: professional status (tenure, managerial position, and seniority in social work) and professional resources (policy practice skills and policy practice training). Community social workers with higher professional status (e.g. with tenure, with managerial positions, and with more seniority) were expected to be more likely to engage in policy practice. This was because they enjoyed more job security and had had more social work experience that, in turn, enabled them to be better able to identify the limitations of existing social policies.
Professional resources related to policy practice refer to the various analytical, political, and interactional skills needed to engage in policy practice (Jansson, 2014), as well as to training in policy practice. Reflecting the findings of existing studies on the policy practice of social workers (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2016; Jansson et al., 2016; Tayri-Schwartz, 2015), it was assumed that community social workers with greater exposure to policy practice training and with relevant policy practice skills would be better able to engage in this type of practice.
Verba et al. (1995) identify psychological engagement in politics, i.e. the degree to which people are interested in politics and believe that they can have voice, as an additional motivational factor. This is examined here by way of political interest and political efficacy. The first of these posits that people who are interested in politics will be more politically active, while the second refers to the impact of perceived control over the policy process (i.e. an ability to influence policy-makers) on the motivation of social workers to engage in policy practice. Indeed, the literature shows that higher levels of political interest and political efficacy among social workers are indeed associated both with political activism (Ritter, 2008) and with involvement in policy practice (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2016).
A third motivational factor, that emerges from the Verba et al. (1995) model, is membership in recruitment networks. These are diverse institutions of adult life (such as voluntary associations) that nurture political engagement and develop civic skills, thereby motivating political participation. Membership by social workers in the NASW in the US (Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Ritter, 2008) and a trade union in Canada (Hardina, 1995), and in social networks among social work students (Swank, 2012), have been shown to contribute to political participation. Here, the presumption was that social workers actively participating in political and professional organizations will cultivate perceptions, knowledge, and skills relevant to policy practice and thus be more confident of being involved in policy practice within the context of their workplace. Support for this claim was found in a study on social workers in nonprofits in Israel (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2016).
Facilitation
Facilitation refers to factors associated with the social worker’s workplace, which enable, encourage, or impede engagement in policy practice (Gal & Weiss-Gal, 2015). The focus of this study being on the policy engagement of social workers within the context of the organizations in which they are employed, we surmised that organizational rules, structures, and norms will influence social workers’ policy practice (Marston & McDonald, 2012; Mosley, 2013). Social services that encourage social workers to engage in policy practice will create organizational cultures that nurture and facilitate actual involvement in policy practice (Jansson et al., 2016). As such, the current study examined the relationship between workplace support for policy practice and the engagement of community social workers in this type of practice.
Opportunity
The third category suggested by the PPE framework is opportunity. It refers to the accessibility of policy institutions for social workers. As this category assumes that divergences in access to the policy process explain levels of involvement in policy practice, the place of opportunity factors is best examined through cross-national studies or those that enable us to distinguish between involvement in policy activities in diverse policy arenas in which the degrees of accessibility can be clearly identified and quantified. As such, opportunity is not incorporated in the current study.
Community social workers in local government social services in Israel
Community social work in Israel was strongly influenced by community organization and community practice in the USA (Itzhaky & York, 1998). Initial steps in the introduction of community practice within social work in Israel were taken in 1953 (a quarter century after social work was first practiced in the country) with the establishment of the Welfare Ministry’s Service for Community Work (Sadan, in press). Schools of social work and the Israeli Association of Social Workers rapidly integrated community work into the profession and this continues today with specializations or courses on community practice being offered in all schools of social work (Cohen & Shenaar-Golan, 2018).
Local government social services are the country’s primary providers of comprehensive social work services (Spiro, Sherer, Korin-Langer, & Weiss, 1997), which are focused on families and individuals in distress, be it economic hardship, family relations, aging, disability, or additional problems. These services also incorporate diverse activities with groups and communities, and policy practice. In accordance with the Social Services Act of 1958 (State of Israel, 1958, p. 103), local authorities in Israel are required to establish a social service agency to provide social welfare services within their jurisdiction for any individual, group, or community in need of assistance. Funding for these agencies is split between the national government (75%) and the local authority (25%). Apart from providing a major source of funding for services, the Ministry of Labor, Welfare and Social Services (MLWSS) is responsible for determining the tasks undertaken, services provided, and populations served by these bureaus, and it regulates these services.
Community social workers have worked in local government social service agencies for over six decades and are currently employed by local governments throughout the country. As the community social workers are funded primarily by the MLWSS and serve in the social service agencies on the basis of ministry regulation, the decision to employ community social workers in these services is not dependent upon the political composition of the local authorities. The MLWSS defines the roles of a community social worker (social work regulation number 2.4, 1999. Section 21) as preparing plans for community development; initiating data collection about social problems in the community and identifying of social needs and problem in the community; encouraging local leadership; and organizing community members in order to enhance participation in the planning of social services and community centers for social, educational, and cultural activities. Community social workers are expected to establish interdisciplinary teams for the coordination of community planning and activities and to enhance the cooperation of different professionals in the community (Korazim-Kõrösy et al., 2007). The coordinator of community work in the local government social service (social work regulation number 2.4, 1999, section 5) is responsible for accomplishing the aims of community work in the local authority, for preparing plans for community development and participating in social planning of economic and physical projects in the local authority. The ministry describes community social work as a social work method that seeks to ease social deprivation through interventions intended to further social change on the organizational level. It notes that the goal of community work, among others, is to influence the formulation of social welfare policy (social work regulation number 7.1, 1995).
The study
The aim of the study was to expand knowledge on the factors that contribute to the level of local government community social workers’ engagement in policy practice by exploring the place of motivational and facilitating factors. More specifically, it explores the impact of motivational factors derived primarily from the “Civic Voluntarism Model” (Verba et al., 1995): professional status, professional resources, psychological engagement in politics, activity in political and professional networks, and of a facilitating factor—organizational support for community social workers’ engagement in policy practice. The study examined five hypotheses (see Figure 1):
The research model: motivational and facilitation factors associated with policy practice.
The higher the professional status (tenure, managerial position, and seniority) of community social workers, the greater their PPE.
The greater the professional resources (policy practice skills and policy practice training) of community social workers, the greater their PPE.
The greater the psychological engagement in politics (political interest and political efficacy) of community social workers, the greater their PPE.
The higher the level of community social workers’ activity in political and professional networks, the greater their PPE.
The greater the perceived organizational support for policy practice, the greater the PPE of community social workers.
Method
Sample
The research population comprised of community social workers employed by local government social services in Israel. The study questionnaires were distributed through the use of Qualtrics software to all the 320 community social workers employed in local government in Israel at the time of the study, based on a list provided by the MLWSS. Of the 120 community social workers who returned questionnaires, 106 questionnaires were fully completed and useable. As such, the respondents comprised 33% of all the local government community social workers in Israel. Most of the participants were women (88%) and Jewish (97%) and their mean age was 36.9 (SD = 9.74). The mean number of years of seniority in social work was 9.52 (SD = 8.16). Most of the participants enjoyed tenure (74%) and 41% had some sort of managerial position. Just over half (53%) had an MSW degree and the rest had a BSW degree (in Israel a BSW is a prerequisite for a license to engage in social work and an MSW degree is an advanced professional degree).
Research tools
All the questionnaires were developed in previous studies (Tayri-Schwartz, 2015; Teush, 2012).
Level of engagement in policy practice scale (α=.85)
The scale consisted of 29 items which reflected a range of on-the-job activities that comprise policy practice (Figueira-McDonough, 1993; Jansson, 2014). For example, contacting policy-makers concerning a policy problem, serving on a policy committee, or writing a letter to a newspaper editor concerning a policy problem related to service users. Each respondent was asked to indicate (“yes” or “no”) whether he/she undertook the activity as part of his/her in-work professional practice during their career as social workers in order to influence policy (either on an organizational, local, or national government level). Each respondent’s scores was calculated as the percentages of items answered as “yes” from the 29 items. The score was then recalculated on a continuum ranging between 0 and 1. A higher score reflected a greater degree of PPE.
Level of perceived policy practice skills scale (α=.96)
This 29-item scale was based on Jansson’s (2014) conceptualization of competencies required for engagement in policy practice. The scale measured the degree to which participants assessed that they had relevant policy practice skills such as the capacity to analyze social policy, to draw the attention of policy-makers to a policy issue, to draft a position paper with policy ideas, to find relevant information on the internet or other data resources, or to mediate between professional colleagues during a conflict between them. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent) was employed. A principal component yielded six components with eigenvalue greater than 1. The first component had an eigenvalue of 14.83 and explained 48% of the items’ variance. The next components had eigenvalues of 1.75–1.01 and explained 6–3% of the variance. All items were highly loaded on the first component with loadings ranging from .53 to .82. In light of this pattern of results and the scree test, we decided to regard this scale as one component. The Cronbach’s alpha for the entire scale was high (α=.96), similar to the internal consistencies in previous studies (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2016; Tayri-Schwartz, 2015). The respondent’s score was the average of all the items. The higher the score, the greater the perceived policy practice skills.
The assessment of psychological engagement in politics was undertaken based on two scales based on Verba et al. (1995) that were translated and modified to the Israeli context (Teush, 2012):
Political interest scale (α=.86)
This four-item scale included two questions each relating separately to the local and national levels: “How often do you discuss politics and current affairs with friends, neighbors or relatives?” and “How interested are you in politics and current affairs?”. Answers were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent). An average of all the items in the scale was calculated to create the respondent’s score.
Political efficacy scale (α=.70)
The scale comprised of two questions, each asked twice, with regard to local and to national politics. The questions were “How much attention do you think that a member of the government (minister, member of parliament, senior official) would pay to a complaint regarding a government activity or policy that you raised with him or her?” and “How much influence do you think someone like you can have on government decisions?”. A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a large extent) was employed. Here again, the score was based on a calculation of the average of all the items, with a higher score reflecting a greater sense of political efficacy.
The extent of activity in political networks scale
This three-item scale focused on the extent to which the respondent was active in three types of political organizations. The participant was asked to indicate the degree of activity in each organization on a scale ranging from 1 (not active at all) to 3 (highly active). A higher score (which was calculated as the average of the three answers) indicated a greater level of activity in political networks.
The extent of social worker’s activity in professional networks scale
This five-item questionnaire examined the extent of activity in five social work organizations. A scale ranging from 1 (not active at all) to 3 (highly active) was employed with the score for each respondent being the average of all the items. A higher score indicated a greater level of activity in professional networks.
Level of exposure to policy practice education in the undergraduate/graduate degree scale (α=.90)
This five-item scale measured the extent of exposure to classes or field training on ways of influencing policy. For example, during your undergraduate/graduate studies, how much did you learn about ways to influence policies? Or how much did you learn about motivating and employing the community as a tool to influence policies? An average of the four responses created the score, with a higher score reflecting greater exposure to policy practice training during the BSW program or MSW program.
Organizational support for engagement in policy practice scale (α=.87)
This eight-item scale measured the perceived tangible signs of support for PPE from a respondent’s organization. Among the items were “In my agency, social workers’ involvement in policy practice contributes to their professional advancement” or “In my agency, policy issues are discussed during staff meetings.” A scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (very much agree) was employed. The score was the average of all the items. The higher the score the greater the organizational support for PPE, as perceived by the community social worker.
Administrative position was queried by one question: I have a managerial position (responsibility for other workers, training workers, team leader, department head, branch head): yes/no. Seniority was based on a response to a question regarding the number of years of service as a social worker, while tenure was assessed on the basis of a response to a yes/no question concerning the respondent’s current place of employment.
Procedure
The data were collected between June 2015 and February 2017 due to the need to reach out directly to community social workers in a wide range of settings and to achieve a satisfactory number of respondents. In an attached letter received by the participants, it was explained that participation is voluntary and that there would be no sanctions for nonparticipation. The respondents were asked to confirm that they agreed to participate in the research and they were guaranteed anonymity.
Results
The descriptive statistics and the correlations with engagement in policy practice are presented in Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and correlations with policy practice (PP) engagement (N = 106).
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
a1 = no tenure; 2= tenured.
b1 = without managerial position; 2= with managerial position.
cp = .07.
dn = 56 (participants with an MSW degree).
As can be seen, statistically significant correlations were found between all the predictors apart from policy practice education during the undergraduate degree (which was p < .07).
In order to determine the contribution of the predictor variables to variance in PPE, a five-step hierarchical multiple regression analysis was undertaken. In the first four steps, the motivational variables were entered. Following these, the single facilitation variable was added. Initially, the professional status variables (tenure, seniority, and managerial position) were entered. In the second step, policy practice training during undergraduate studies and policy practice skills were entered. Policy practice education during the MSW program was not included since it was relevant for only 56 of the participants. In the third step, political interest and efficacy (the two political psychological engagement variables), which were significantly correlated with PPE, were added. It can be presumed that these variables reflect primarily socialization processes that preceded the social workers’ current employment. In the fourth step, two variables depicting the extent of activity in political and professional networks were entered. In the fifth and final step, the facilitation variable, organizational support for policy practice, was entered. The selection of variables in each of the steps included in the regression model was undertaken by a step method (minimal p level p < .05). The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 2.
A hierarchical regression for policy practice (PP) engagement (N = 106).
***p < .001.
As can be seen, the variables explained a total of 40% of the variance in PPE. From the first step (professional status variables), only managerial position remained (β = .19, p = .03), which explained 11% of the variance. In the second step, only policy practice skills (β = .20, p = .03) were significant and added 9% to the explained variance beyond the managerial position. None of the psychological engagement variables included in the third step remained in the regression model. Of the two variables entered in the fourth step, only activity in political networks was significant (β = .24, p = .004), and it added 6% to the explained variance. Critically, organizational support, that was included in the fifth step, contributed another 14% to the explained variance and was statistically significant (β = .38, p < .001). All the beta coefficients were positive, implying that community social workers who hold higher managerial positions, have policy practice skills, are involved in political networks and enjoy greater organizational support for PPE will be more involved in policy practice. The motivational variables that contributed most were managerial position and policy practice skills. The facilitation variable, organizational support for policy practice, contributed most of the explained variance of community social workers’ engagement in policy.
Discussion
Social and policy change have always been central concerns of community social work (Reisch, 2016; Soska, Gutierrez, & Santiago, 2016). Indeed, this is arguably a major element in what defines the individuals who choose to engage in this type of social work practice (Mizrahi & Dodd, 2013). It is then hardly surprising that community social workers have a greater commitment to social justice (Makaros & Weiss-Gal, 2014). This study endeavored to move beyond these observations in that it focused specifically on policy-related activities that community social workers in Israel undertook within their work setting when employed by local government. In other words, it sought to better understand which factors can be associated with the efforts by community social workers to influence policy in a clearly defined professional context with all the restraints (and perhaps advantages) that this entails, but not with what community social workers do to further social justice as active committed citizens seeking to change their society or community.
The study findings revealed that both motivational and facilitating factors were associated with the level of community social workers’ policy practice. Community social workers employed by local government in Israel are more likely to engage in policy practice when they enjoy higher professional status (tenure, seniority, and managerial position), possess more policy practice resources (policy practice skills and policy practice education during their MSW degree), have higher psychological involvement in politics, and are more involved in political and professional networks. In addition, community workers who sense that they have greater support for policy engagement from the agency in which they are employed are also more likely to engage in policy practice.
The strongest predictors that emerged in the study were managerial position, policy practice skills, political networks, and organizational support. These variables were also found to be important in predicting PPE among other groups of social workers (Gewirtz-Meydan et al., 2016; Sommerfeld & Weiss-Gal, in press). Community social workers with managerial positions probably enjoy more self-confidence with regard to participation in policy processes and have greater legitimacy from their place of employment to engage in policy practice. Indeed, they will not only be likely to have witnessed both social problems and the impact of policies on them more than other community social workers, but their managerial role in the social service may well require their engagement in policy processes within their agency or vis-à-vis other local government departments or external organizations.
Policy practice skills also play a role in, and conceivably enhance, the motivation and willingness of community social workers to engage in policy practice. This may also facilitate more success in policy change, which then contributes to greater motivation to engage in policy practice. Social workers who are members of political networks probably gain more political skills and greater awareness of policy issues and problems, which impact policy engagement in the work setting. Finally, community social workers who enjoy overt organizational support for policy practice may feel that they enjoy more opportunities to demonstrate their skills, values, and willingness through PPE. The findings suggest that community social workers as organizational-based practitioners need to sense that they have tangible support for their policy engagement.
The study has three main limitations. First, its cross-sectional structure does not enable us to make claims for causality but rather to identify associations between the motivational and facilitating factors and engagement in policy practice. Second, the study questionnaire was completed by a third of the population of community social workers in Israel which inevitably raises questions concerning who chose to respond to it. Third, the study is based on self-report. Though self-report is the most common tool employed in studies on professional practice, it draws solely upon the responses of the community social workers themselves and can be subject to social desirability.
With these limitations in mind, this study has implications for social work practice and education. The findings showed that the level of policy practice training during graduate studies was positively associated with the level of PPE. This offers support for the calls for enhancing policy training in social work education (Pritzker & Applewhite, 2015; Reisch, 2016) in order to strengthen the recognition that this type of practice is integral to social work and, in particular, to community social work practice. Moreover, the study suggests that education (both by schools of social work and training by professional associations) should focus on providing policy practice skills, enhancing psychological engagement in politics, and encouraging participation in political networks. Previous studies showed that this may happen through a combination of traditional teaching methods and hands-on active experimental learning in which students are exposed to activities aimed at influencing policy either in the class or in the ‘real world’ (Henman, 2012; Sherraden, Guo, & Umbertino, 2015).
The finding that organizational support is crucial in facilitating policy practice among community social workers also has implications for education and practice. Social work education needs to offer training and internships that affords community social work students opportunities to develop the organizational skills needed to further macro goals in a social service agency setting (Hill, Erickson, Plitt Donaldson, Fogel, & Ferguson, 2017). Community social workers seeking to engage in policy practice will need to be able to nurture an organizational culture within their workplace that supports this type of practice. They will also have to develop the political acumen required to ensure that the support for their engagement in policy practice by the social service agency be maintained given the often sensitive nature of involvement in the policy formulation process. This will necessitate their learning on how to navigate the complexities and dilemmas that engagement in macro practice can entail (Makaros & Moshe Grodofsky, 2016). No less important, the representative organizations of social work need to advocate for incorporation of policy involvement as an integral and legitimate part of the job descriptions of social workers, in general, and of community social workers, in particular. In countries where issues of licensing can serve as an impediment to this (Plitt Donaldson, Hill, Ferguson, Fogel, & Erickson, 2014), creative initiatives in the public and policy arenas are needed to ensure that agencies and their leadership recognize the role that community social workers can play in advancing the needs of service users through policy practice (Lightfoot, Nienow, Moua, Colburn, & Petri, 2016).
Finally, given that the study pertains to community social workers in local government agencies in Israel, research on community social workers in additional work settings and in other countries is required in order to advance knowledge on this crucial, yet understudied, form of professional activity. In particular, more scholarly work is needed in order to better understand the motivational, facilitating, and opportunity factors that can be associated with the policy practice of community social workers. This could take the form of comparable survey data or the adoption of qualitative methods to explore the factors impacting individual community social workers.
Footnotes
Ethics
The study was approved by the Tel Aviv University ethics committee and by the Research Division of the MLWSS and the Division of Community Work.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Talia Meital Schwartz-Tayri for her useful assistance and Baruch Sugarman, Director of the Community Work Service at The Ministry of Welfare, Labor and Social Services, for his encouragement and assistance.