The Impact of Precarity: The “Gigafication” of the Human Service Professional Workforce

Background: Over the last four decades, neoliberal logics -- specifically privatization, austerity measures, and managerialism, have negatively impacted the U.S. human service sector (Toft et al., 2023; Zelnick & Abramovitz, 2020). Current evidence suggests that human service agencies continue to operate under adverse political and financial conditions, trying to “do more with less,” to the potential detriment of both practitioners and clients (author, 2023, 2024). The human services have become delegitimated and destabilized.

The study presented here analyzes precarity in human service agencies. Precarity, or extreme instability, is a well-documented byproduct of neoliberalism. Most research focuses on participants in the “gig” economy (e.g., Uber drivers), noting that these workers have tenuous ties to the labor force, significant economic challenges, and serious stress-related health problems (Bhattacharya & Ray, 2021; Kalleberg, 2018). Less often the focus are highly skilled or educated workers, yet research concerning adjunct faculty and fee for service counselors indicate similar concerns (Beaton, 2019; Childress, 2019; author, 2020, 2021). This study contributes to the literature on the precarity of professional labor.

Methods: Data are from interviews with 20 permanent direct service workers, 20 contingency direct service workers, and 20 full-time administrators in nonprofit health/mental health agencies in one region of the U.S. All are professionally trained with graduate degrees (mostly MSWs). The largest group of interviewees were white females in their early 40s; though white, non-MSW, males were disproportionately represented in the administrator category. Semi-structured interviews covered work experiences and expectations, challenges and successes, situations of service users, working conditions, career development, and future plans. Interviews were recorded and transcribed; data were thematically coded and analyzed (Saldaña, 2016).

Findings: Inductive analysis generated five types of precarity: economic, temporal, production, place-based, and identity. Direct service, especially contingent, staff, reported financial instability, unpredictable work schedules, and role confusion. Compounding this, they noted the volatility of clients in increasingly dire and complex financial situations. Interviewees described fissured worksites with little supervision or collaboration, thus making the work to address client issues much more difficult and further heightening precarity. There was confusion among direct service staff regarding their professional purpose. Administrators, especially those with MBAs, leaned into the agency as “a business.” Further, they asserted that everyone dealt with challenging working conditions but should just “forge ahead” and do their jobs. Intentionally or not, administrators supported neoliberal logics. Overall, these precarious conditions resulted in disengagement, “burnout”, and exit behavior across all staff groups.

Conclusion: Precarity in the human services undermines practice largely because it sabotages the essential building and maintenance of relationships. Widespread instability in purpose, role, and context disrupts the formation of relationships with clients and colleagues necessary for competent practice. Precarity’s impact is exacerbated by the heightened challenges presented by service users seeking assistance and support. The current political and economic climate likely will continue to erode the human services, further transforming the professional workforce into “gig” labor and rendering the sector as unsustainable. Discussion will develop these themes and suggest strategies to mitigate precarity in the human services.