Knowing poverty: Social workers’ perceptions of poverty knowledge

Social work and poverty

Poverty is a social problem that affects individuals, families, and communities. Those living in poverty face numerous challenges manifested in economic distress, difficulty in claiming their rights, and a lack of opportunities in health care and education, to name only a few (Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Lister, 2004). Ever since its inception, the social-work profession has been associated with responding to poverty (Davis & Wainwright, 2005). Social workers have worked with individuals, families, and communities in poverty in order to alleviate their situation. The International Federation of Social Workers defines the solidarity and support of populations living in poverty as one of the profession's principal tasks.

Due to the importance of this mission, research into social work in relation to poverty is ample and usually focuses on three main topics: the implications or effects of poverty on individuals, the efficacy of intervention programs that aim to liberate people from poverty, and the study of poverty as experienced by different groups (Feldman, 2019; Saar-Heiman & Krumer-Nevo, 2020). However, little research attention has been given to the type of knowledge required of social workers in order to care for this population. Cummins (2018) relates to the “Poverty Paradox” in the context of knowledge development, in which social workers are “blind” to poverty when they treat service users even though the poverty problem is often fundamental to their intervention.

Over time, many attempts have been made to define shared principles for working with people in poverty, based on diverse paradigms and sources of knowledge. However, these have achieved limited consensus (Parrot, 2014). Furthermore, intervention methods and relief programs for poor and socially excluded populations have varied widely over the years, commensurate with changing socioeconomic zeitgeists (Davis & Wainwright, 2005).

Social services may represent an important source of poverty knowledge. In the course of their activity, much experience is accrued through a combination of practice and professional knowledge derived from academic and on-the-job training (Buchbinder et al., 2004). In order to build the resources that allow this knowledge to be utilized optimally, organizations act on different areas such as generating knowledge development processes and nurturing learning organizational cultures. They also manage their knowledge by collecting, organizing, disseminating, and re-using it in the realization that it may also enhance their efficiency (Abell & Oxbrow, 2006).

When referring to the development of knowledge, one should also relate to the organizational culture of social services as a reflection of its accepted values, norms, and specific behavioral practices (Barger, 2007). It may also include prioritization in defining what the most relevant knowledge is. Furthermore, it may create opportunities for knowledge-sharing, establishing norms, documenting and disseminating knowledge, and controlling the transfer of personal, group, or organizational knowledge among members of the organization. As stated, organizations create and assimilate knowledge via processes, practice, norms, documents, peer learning, and dialogue between staff and management (Ipe, 2003).

One of the most significant challenges for organizations is how to promote the generation and management of knowledge as well as the creation of intellectual capital that is shared by the entire organization (Bassi & Van Buren, 2000). Based on extensive interviews with social workers in the public services, this study examines the place and status of knowledge in providing care for people living in poverty from the perspective of social workers in the public social services in Israel. In this respect, Israel represents an interesting case study to examine these questions for many reasons: Israel has experienced high levels of poverty compared to developed economies (OECD, 2020). In response to poverty growth, in the last years, the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services has supported the introduction of poverty-aware services and programs in the public services (Krumer-Nevo, 2016) and the promotion of welfare reform through the paradigm of new public management and evidence-based practice (EBP) (Ajzenstadt, 2009). In this changing context, the study specifically asked what kind of knowledge social workers require in order to care for this population—What are the main sources that contribute to creating it, and what obstacles and opportunities present themselves in developing it?

Knowledge and poverty knowledge

Knowledge is a complex concept, extensively discussed in theoretical debates that exceed the boundaries of this article. Many studies deal with the nature of knowledge and organize it into a typology: “explicit knowledge” based on the guiding perception of knowledge as objective, factual, and able to explain various phenomena (Närhi, 2002); “formal knowledge,” relating to concepts and information conveyed in formal ways, for example, official documents and procedures (Rulke & Zaheer, 2009); “declarative knowledge,” the kind that people have about the world (phenomena and facts); “tacit knowledge,” a personal resource that people build by accumulating and working through their experiences (Herbig et al., 2001; Lam, 2000; von Krogh, 2009); and “procedural knowledge,” which helps people to put processes into action by following rules, patterns, defined stages, and so on. This knowledge, by and large, is based on experience with familiar procedures (e.g., regulations). Finally, there is “conceptual knowledge,” a general holistic understanding of interdependent relations and sets of concepts in a given context (Healy & Wairire, 2014). As stated, “knowledge” is also created by discourse, words, texts, and nonverbal communication (Parton, 2008).

The definitions of knowledge can be divided into objective and absolute outlooks, and relativistic and interpretive ones. In brief, positivistic outlooks define knowledge as the systematic discovery of truth, which according to the literature includes analysis, processing, and interpreting information (Gray & Schubert, 2013). Poststructuralist views, in contrast, see knowledge as a dynamic, constructivist process, a subjective one that depends on perspective (Philp, 1979; Schön, 1983). According to the latter view, knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is influenced by social, political, and historical contexts and the power matrices that arise from them (Gray & Schubert, 2013; Ife, 1997).

The concept of “poverty knowledge” was coined by O’Connor (2001), to signal the need to develop a body of knowledge tailored to the complex nature of the poverty problem. The concept of poverty knowledge fuses two multifaceted concepts that have provoked years of theoretical and philosophical controversy, and which cannot be surveyed within the limits of this article (Antes & Clarke, 2012). Similar to knowledge, “poverty” is also a complex concept that triggers far-reaching theoretical disputes (Antes & Clarke, 2012). However, it is worth noting, in this context, that the beginning of scientific inquiry into poverty knowledge is deeply rooted in the history of the social-work profession. Charles Booth's pioneering studies in England marked the beginning of scholarly research into the phenomenon of poverty (Booth, 1903). studies were based on data gathered in the slums of London by female activists in the Settlement House Movement, which is credited with providing the foundation for the field of social work. The development of social-workers’ knowledge is a topic that attracts increased research attention (Feldman, 2019). In recent years, it has become increasingly recognized that social workers require vast, mutable knowledge in order to do their work. Given the profusion of social problems that social workers encounter today, it is necessary to broaden their areas of knowledge so that they may holistically address their service users’ changing needs.

Much like the concept of knowledge, the poverty concept has also ignited theoretical discussions with clear implications for the development and application of knowledge in various domains, including in social work. The processes of social-work knowledge development concerning poverty raise many questions—methodological, ontological, epistemological, and theoretical (Krumer-Nevo, 2016). According to O’Connor (2001), the ways in which poverty knowledge is framed and represented reflect the economic, political, cultural, and institutional context of the poverty problem. Few studies, however, have dealt at length with the questions of what poverty knowledge means for social workers, how it is created, and what factors support its construction and assimilation. The first of these questions—what knowledge would help lift people out of poverty—remains unanswered and is subject to dispute (Feldman, 2019; O’Connor, 2001).

Social work within the Israeli context

Israel offers a unique context in which the answer to the question at the focus of the present study may be sought. Firstly, it offers the case of a welfare state that has made a sharp neo-liberal transition and is noted for some of the developed world's highest rates of poverty and inequality (OECD, 2020). Second, due to its high poverty rates, in recent years it has made major investments of effort and resources in its public social services in order to develop poverty-aware services and programs (Davis & Wainwright, 2005; Krumer-Nevo, 2016). Concurrently, its social services have applied various reforms predicated on EBP in order to define, measure, and evaluate the various problems that service users face (Ajzenstadt, 2009).

In addition, in Israel, following the introduction of new public-management methods, social workers are presently defined as “Case Managers” (Krumer-Nevo, 2016; Lavee, 2017). As such, their new job description includes designing and managing intervention programs, referring service users to available services and resources in the community (Zanbar & Nouman, 2021), managing and establishing contact among multiple caregivers, and evaluating and wrapping up the interventions (Krumer-Nevo, 2016). The involvement of case managers in the provision of services requires social workers to acquire and maintain knowledge of current theory, evidence-informed practice, policy issues, research, and evaluation methods relevant to case management (NASW, 2013). As such, Israel's social services can serve as a unique case study.

Thus, in light of the importance of knowledge concerning providing care to people living in poverty and in the absence of sufficient reference to poverty knowledge in the literature, the present study focuses on three main objectives. First, understanding how social workers who provide services to people living in poverty perceive, define, and construct poverty knowledge. Second, identifying sources of poverty knowledge. Third, identifying barriers and opportunities for the development of poverty knowledge. By understanding these issues in greater depth, we may more clearly specify the knowledge that social workers need in order to cope more effectively with service users living in poverty. It will also allow for an examination of the training and curricular programs for social workers in their academic studies and in-service training.

Study design

The study was performed in accordance with the constructivist paradigm, an essentially inductive theory that defines every reality as the corollary of social structuring—context-dependent, interpretable, and composed of several “realities” that the research participants and the researcher invest with shared meaning (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 1998). The interviews were designed to examine perceptions, behaviors, and participants understanding of the studied phenomena. The study examined three main questions: How do the participants understand what “poverty knowledge” is? What are its sources? What obstacles and opportunities exist for the development of this knowledge?

Sample and sampling

The study is based on purposive sampling, in which those interviewed were chosen in accordance with predetermined characteristics and criteria. The goal of this sampling strategy is to represent a broad range of groups and subgroups that are identified with the phenomenon being researched (Patton, 2002). The inclusion criterion for the sample consists of social workers who work in a public welfare service in the north of Israel. Based on the data obtained from the supervisory authority of the Israeli Labor and Social Affairs Ministry, seven social services departments were selected for the study. The sample comprised 40 social workers who have completed at least a bachelor's degree (BA) in social work and were licensed to engage in the field and held various positions in public social services. Their years of work in the field ranged from 2 to 22 years (M = 6). They included 37 women and three men, nine social workers from the Arab sector, and 31 from the Jewish sector. Twenty-five participants (all female) worked with families, three worked as department or division managers, eight were community workers, and four were staff leaders.

Data collection

The individual interviews were conducted during November 2017 and June 2019. Participation was voluntary and pended signing an informed consent form. All identifying details were removed in the presentation of the findings below.

Data were gathered via in-depth semistructured interviews (Creswell, 1998). Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 min approximately. The final version of the interview guide dealt with social workers’ perceptions of poverty knowledge. The interviews were held at social-service departments in the Northern District, which is one of the largest districts in Israel, with over 1 million inhabitants. This district has been found to be the second poorest district in the country (National Insurance Institute of Israel, 2019). All interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Data analysis

Transcriptions of the interviews were analyzed according to the thematic approach (Shkedi, 2005). This process included several stages: In the first stage, all interviews were read from beginning to end and open coding was performed for the units that emerged from each interview. Second, concepts and categories extracted from each interview were examined, while consolidating several categories into a theme. This was followed by axial coding, to compare and connect the categories to identify themes across interviews. The analysis continued until no new themes emerged (Green & Thorogood, 2018).

Wisdom of practice

Many participants singled out “wisdom of practice” as an important source of poverty knowledge. They defined this knowledge as something acquired in natural ways, and as action-oriented knowledge meant to help service users improve their current situation.

Poverty knowledge, Helene emphasized, depends on connecting with service users who live in poverty; it is influenced by experience and by families’ specific needs. It takes shape and emerges from the unique context of the encounter between social workers and those living in poverty. Another participant made a statement:

In terms of knowledge about poverty, meaning, we don't have any magical solutions here. I think we learn it together or, more precisely, together with the people who turn to us. A new case comes in almost every day and you have to learn it all over again. You base it on experience and by learning through doing. (Ada, Community Worker)

Ada's remarks again indicate that poverty knowledge accumulates over time based on trial and error. As knowledge created by practice, it is learned together with service users through the ongoing experience of responding to users’ specific needs.

Poverty knowledge originating in the organization

Alongside knowledge from practice, some participants singled out the organization as an important source of knowledge. They referred to special training activities on the topic, generally at department meetings and in personal supervision. According to several participants, department meetings that address personal and ethical aspects of their work with poverty are more meaningful than theoretical trainings on the topic. One participant described a special training activity on poverty that she attended:

There was a lecturer who came here and did six meetings for the entire department on the topic of poverty. She explained poverty and how it's perceived … and she began to work with us on clarifying our attitudes toward poverty. That way you actually understand how your positions intersect with the person who comes to you … for example, what a person goes through physically when they experience poverty. … It was something I hadn't known; it was very meaningful. (Hagit, Family Social Worker)

Knowledge acquired from service users

In contrast with most participants that rated practice and organizational knowledge as the main sources of poverty knowledge, just few participants referred to service users as a source of knowledge. When participants related to knowledge that originates with the service users, they usually credited service users with having “street smartness,” that is, practical knowledge, the kind of information that helps to move things along with bureaucratic offices.

These two quotations show how social workers resort to service users as sources of practical knowledge with which they can respond to other users more effectively. It is noteworthy in this context that the participants offered few examples of learning from service users in order to understand the experience of living in poverty.

Academic knowledge

The participants also mentioned poverty knowledge acquired in their academic studies. They perceive this source, like knowledge originating with service users, as marginal relative to the other sources. They described it as rudimentary, introductory-style knowledge, for understanding the personal and social phenomenology of the poverty problem. They consider it less relevant than other sources because it is not “practical” for their day-to-day work with service users.

A few participants even stated that their academic studies taught them nothing specifically about addressing the poverty problem.

One social worker describes:

In the School of Social Work, I learned everything about empathizing with poverty but nothing about claiming one's rights. I was not taught to understand what poverty is, what National Insurance and legal aid are, how to help people. I was taught what it is to be empathetic. (Nina, Family Social Worker).

This attitude toward poverty knowledge in academia raises questions about the contribution of academic programs to developing such knowledge among social workers.

Peer learning

Formal or informal peer learning was found to be meaningful in the development of poverty knowledge. Many participants pointed to the importance of educational encounters, “hallway chats,” and informal consultations with peers in attaining and developing this kind of knowledge. One participant, a frontline social worker, noted:

If I have to consult about things that are more legal in nature, I go to Miri, who's worked here for many years. She is a walking encyclopedia … She knows everything. It's great. We learn a great deal from one another. (Roni, Family Social Worker)

Another frontline social worker explained the utility of peer learning in developing poverty knowledge:

Here at the welfare [bureau], a [social] worker can't [cope] with the service users’ problems alone; it's a profession and a job where there is always more to develop and to know. It's brainstorming, creativity, sharing … It broadens your horizons when you talk and suggest solutions; it brings up facets that you hadn't thought about. (Smadar, Team Leader).

These and other quotations demonstrate that sharing among peers is useful for being exposed to new poverty knowledge, acquiring practical poverty knowledge, and testing the organization's existing poverty knowledge.

Practical experience—interpersonal encounters

Many participants gave examples of “face-to-face encounters” with the distress of service users living in poverty. These examples were usually presented along with a description of long-term acquaintance with a specific service user. The participants’ comments indicate that these experiences make it possible to examine their outlooks on these matters and the stigmas attached to them.

A team leader described a department meeting that took place in the context of staff training about poverty, which involved both staff and service users. She stressed the unique learning process that unfolded there:

I can tell you that getting together in meetings with people who live in poverty has been very powerful for me. In these forums you hear about their lives in the most authentic way; you also hear about what happens to them when they meet with a social worker … There is something very meaningful about this discourse because it holds a mirror up to us all. It's a very, very meaningful lesson about poverty. (Shira, Family Social Worker)

Shira was describing a structured encounter, a forum that her department hosted jointly with service users who live in poverty. Her remarks demonstrate the existence of two parallel processes in reference to the phenomenon of poverty: a personal, reflective learning process and a conceptual one. These quotations join those of additional participants who described the deep process that they underwent when they get to know service users; it transformed their way of looking at service users and at the poverty problem.

Outsourced workshops and training activities

The participants also perceived workshops or encounters involving players outside the organization as conducive to the development of poverty knowledge. Social workers at welfare departments regularly interact and partner with community organizations that offer supplemental responses to service users who live in poverty (National Insurance, NGOs, schools, healthcare providers, etc.). Many participants believe that these formal or informal connections lead to learning processes, exchanging knowledge, and even to developing new knowledge about possible ways to address service users’ needs.

Similarly, many participants described how important it is to arrange formal meetings with community organizations, through department meetings or continuing education training programs in order to broaden their procedural knowledge. These occasions, they say, help promote the sharing of practical information and allow them to meet key people, who were able to help them later on in responding to service users’ needs.

An organizational atmosphere of perpetual emergency

Some participants cite their organizational atmosphere as a serious impediment to the development of poverty knowledge. The organizational environment of the social services, they said, is extremely busy, concerned mainly with putting out fires. Routine work is intensive and fraught with multiple tasks, emergencies, and unforeseen events. According to the participants’ testimony, workers rush from one task to another and cannot pause to engage in reflection or a learning process. One participant, a frontline social worker, explained that much knowledge “gets lost” in her organization:

Knowledge in our department passes between us a bit, we talk things over in the hallways. It's not written down; it isn't documented. Emergencies are our routine. We as an organization don't gather the knowledge that accumulates here. Definitely not where poverty is concerned … And it's not … it's just not … it's knowledge that gets lost. Lots of people here have retired. Twenty-five or thirty years of experience or more … everything they had just went away when they did. (Roni, Family Social Worker)

Consequently, most participants give performance higher priority than preserving knowledge, even seeing the latter as “a waste of time.”

This perception arose among participants in senior department positions. They emphasize that despite the importance of developing and retaining knowledge, in practice it is often difficult to supervise or regulate the documentation and development of knowledge in a systematic way.

Inaccessible or nonrelevant information on governmental websites

Several participants discussed the accessibility of governmental websites to provide poverty knowledge. The Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, and Social Services in Israel has established “Online Knowledge Communities.” This project was established in order to improve and extend organizational learning processes. Another goal of this initiative was to enable online space for professional discussions and to make professional knowledge more accessible (Lev-On & Adler, 2013). However, the interviews indicate that while most social workers are aware of these sites, they either refrain from using them or find them irrelevant for the development of poverty knowledge. One participant, a frontline social worker, expressed her stance on knowledge communities in general terms:

I know there are online sites such as the knowledge communities on the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services websites … with topics … poverty, entitlements. It's important, but few people here go into it … I tried and I couldn't access it and it was cumbersome. (Noa, Family Social Worker)

Another obstacle mentioned is a mismatch between the knowledge available in the information databases and the participants’ needs. This hurdle stands out in particular in view of the social workers’ need for practical knowledge and information in treating service users who live in poverty.

In sum, the findings demonstrate how challenging and controversial the concept of poverty knowledge is. Our participants perceived it in different ways, some as a product and others as a process. They trace it to four main sources: “wisdom of practice,” the organization, service users, and academia. Finally, we described opportunities and obstacles to the development of poverty knowledge, which underscore the importance of organizational environment to the present issue.

Limitation of the study

This qualitative study has the main limitation. It was based on a purposive sample of forty social workers, all from the public services. We would suggest in future studies to include social workers from nongovernmental agencies and examine possible differences in their perception of poverty knowledge.

Implications and conclusions

This study demonstrates the need for on-going critical dialogue on the various meanings of knowledge in general and poverty knowledge in particular for social workers. The development of poverty knowledge would require a shift in the organizational climate of social services, from a reactive model to one that prioritizes learning and reflection and fosters awareness of the social and political contexts of this kind of knowledge. Social workers’ training should be deepened, and broader attention should be given to reflective and critical thinking about the care of people living in poverty. It is also worth emphasizing the need to actively learn from service users, not only from a practical standpoint but a theoretical one as well. We recommend establishing a role for a “knowledge-development expert” in the field of poverty in every social-service department. The goal of such a position would be to develop a systematic organizational methodology for learning from service users and to integrate them into knowledge-development processes at the departmental level.

In addition, the findings underscore the need to rethink the nature of academia's treatment of this topic. Namely, organizational and learning processes on the topic of poverty should be developed and broadened to include conceptual learning, peer learning, and learning from service users. Finally, the study highlights the importance of assuring better access to poverty-focused digital knowledge communities. This would promote the creation of an institutional data pool populated with concrete “procedural” information on services, entitlements, and more.