Temporary Agency Workers in the Personal Social Services—Doing Core Tasks in the Periphery

Abstract

Despite concerns about negative consequences for clients and permanent staff, temporary agency workers (TAWs) are frequently employed to manage staff shortages in personal social services (PSS) in Sweden and elsewhere. Drawing on qualitative interviews with thirty-four TAWs, managers and permanent social workers, this article aims to enhance our understanding of how TAWs are utilised in the PSS and the impact this has on (i) the preconditions for TAWs and (ii) the work environment for permanent employees. The findings suggest that TAWs are mainly contracted for core tasks, and often for heavy-duty work. In order to meet demands for expedient case administration, the supportive aspects of social work are sometimes deprioritised. Permanent staff report that positive effects of the use of TAWs include relief of workload and an influx of new knowledge, whereas negative effects include stagnated work development, deteriorating group dynamics and additional work. Moreover, it is shown that TAWs often reside in the periphery of the organisation and that they typically are contracted on an ad-hoc basis and during times of crisis. It is suggested that the organisational conditions that TAWs are contracted to help remedy paradoxically are unlikely to create the best preconditions for a successful use.

Introduction

In the Swedish personal social services (PSS), which typically includes the branches of local authorities responsible for child welfare, adult substance abuse treatment and social assistance, permanent employment is the norm. This has been attributed to the relationship-based nature of social work and the importance of organisational and group-specific knowledge in these organisations (Kirkpatrick et al., 2019). Nevertheless, similar to many other types of organisations in the Western world, the use of temporary agency workers (TAWs) has become increasingly common in the PSS, in Sweden as well as elsewhere (Jones, 2019; Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021; Kirkpatrick et al., 2019).

TAW is a type of nonstandard work arrangement where workers are recruited and employed by a staffing agency but rented out to a client organisation (Kalleberg, 2000). In the UK, studies have shown that about 15 per cent of social workers in local authorities are employed through for-profit staffing agencies (Jones, 2019). In Sweden, more than three-quarters of municipalities have experience of using TAWs in their PSS (Shanks and Mejdell Bjerland, 2023). The reasons for the increased use of TAWs have been described as problems with vacancies and understaffing. Whilst the use of TAWs is widespread, it has not gone unquestioned. It has been depicted as legally questionable, costly and unsustainable, and it has been suggested that the use of TAWs has unwanted consequences for clients as well as permanent workers (Carey, 2011; Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021; Bergman et al., 2023). It has also been indicated that TAWs themselves risk being viewed as peripheral and may have less access to supervision and in-house training (Carey, 2011; Cornes et al., 2013; Hyde, 2020).

At least in Sweden, there are no signs that the use of TAWs in the PSS is going to cease. Rather, it has been described as more or less necessary to maintain services—for better or for worse. Yet, research on the use of TAWs in these organisations is scarce, and existing studies have mainly focused on reasons behind the use of TAWs, the reasons for social workers to opt for TAW positions, and the potential consequences of the use of TAWs. This leaves a gap in our understanding of how and for what tasks TAWs are used. Hence, this article aims to further our knowledge about how TAWs are utilised in the PSS and the impact this has on (i) the preconditions for TAWs and (ii) the work environment for permanent employees. Additionally, the article will explore TAWs’ and permanent staff’s perspectives on factors that may improve the use of TAWs. Hopefully, the knowledge generated can contribute to a discussion about how some of the unwanted consequences of the use of TAWs can be mitigated.

Previous research about TAWs in the social services

As noted above, the literature regarding the use of TAWs in social services is scarce. Nevertheless, there have been a number of important studies performed in the UK, the majority of which were published around a decade ago (see, e.g. Kirkpatrick and Hoque, 2006; Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008; De Ruyter et al., 2008; Cornes et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick et al., 2019). There are also a few newer contributions from Sweden (Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021; Arnesson et al., 2022; Bergman et al., 2023; Shanks and Mejdell Bjerland, 2023; Shanks, 2023) and the USA (Hyde, 2020). From these studies, we have learned that the use of TAWs in social services has become relatively common, both in Sweden and elsewhere (Jones, 2019; Hyde, 2020; Shanks and Mejdell Bjerland, 2023). TAWs are often hired to facilitate maintenance of service during periods of vacant positions, high workloads and requirement difficulties (Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008; Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021). When contracted, TAWs appear to perform the same tasks as other employees, at least at first glance. This means that they are engaged in the core of social services, for example, performing child investigations and risk assessments (Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008; Kirkpatrick et al., 2019; Bergman et al., 2023). We have limited knowledge about the general length of the TAW’s contracts, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the contracts are short, generally around a few months in each client organisation.

In studies focusing on the consequences of the use of TAWs, it has, on the positive side, been shown that in some circumstances the usage may be economically beneficial for organisations as it has the potential to limit the costs of recruitment and training (Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008; Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021). For permanent staff, the use of TAWs may decrease workloads and boost morale during times of understaffing (Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008). Regarding TAWs themselves, we know that in Sweden they enjoy better wages than social workers with standard employment and appear to voluntarily opt for this employment form. However, the use of TAWs has also been depicted to have negative consequences. It may be costly, at least if used for long periods (Järkestig Berggren et al., 2021). Some studies indicate that it may lead to an unequal distribution of tasks, where permanent staff have to take on the most demanding tasks. However, the opposite may also be true—TAWs may take on these tasks out of fear of being laid off if they do not (Cornes et al., 2013). During their work in client organisations, TAWs risk being viewed as peripheral and may have less access to supervision or in-house training (Carey, 2011; Cornes et al., 2013; Hyde, 2020).

As for the consequences of the use of TAWs for professional work, concerns have been raised regarding the lack of continuity (Carey, 2011). There have also been indications of difficulties for TAWs to consult colleagues when faced with ethical challenges (Hyde, 2020). A recent Swedish study (Bergman et al., 2023) noted differences between child protection investigations that were performed by TAWs and those performed by permanent staff; investigations performed by TAWs had a smaller volume of text, were less likely to result in interventions and less often included meetings with the child.

This article will build upon the findings from previous studies, with the intention of developing the knowledge further. Whilst previous studies indicate that there may be differences between the output of the work of TAWs and permanent employees (e.g. shorter investigations and fewer interventions), this article will provide a thorough exploration of the input in terms of work distribution, etc. Furthermore, compared to previous research, it will look closer into the perceived effects of the use of TAWs on the work environment, as well as the stakeholders’ ideas for a (more) favourable use of TAWs.

TAWs in professional bureaucracies

An organisation’s use of TAWs can vary, from bringing specialised expertise to simply increasing numerical flexibility (Bryant and McKeown, 2016). In literature focusing on the most optimal way to use TAWs, references to the core–periphery model (Atkinson, 1984) are often made. This model builds on the notion that all organisations have a core activity. For PSS, this would be to assess and support people in need. For the best usage of workers, it is suggested that organisations distinguish between core and periphery staff. The first category is optimally made up of workers whose skills are essential to the organisation and hard to replace. The latter category should optimally perform tasks that are less organisation-specific, that is, non-core tasks. Strategically, organisations should establish long-term employment relations with core workers and externalise non-core tasks—that is, give them to temporary workers who can be hired or laid off depending on demand, providing the organisation with numerical flexibility (Atkinson, 1984; Kalleberg, 2001; Nesheim et al., 2007).

A lot of current research and newer ideas build on the core–periphery model, and the concepts are relevant in the analysis of the work that TAWs do in the PSS. Nevertheless, some underlying assumptions of the model have been questioned. It has been suggested that organisations are not always able to be strategic and rational in the way they contract workers. Instead, it has been shown that ad-hoc contracting is common (Svalund et al., 2018; Shanks, 2023). Another aspect of the model that has been discussed is the idea of a clear division of core and periphery (Kalleberg, 2001). In research focusing on TAWs, it is indicated that it is common for permanent employees and TAWs to work alongside each other and do similar work (Nesheim et al., 2007; Bidwell, 2009). As we shall see in the remainder of this article, this appears to be the case also in social work.

The PSS are often described as professional bureaucracies (Lawler, 2015), meaning that they are dependent on professional staff whose skills are essential to the organisation for the execution of core activities. These circumstances may have implications for the use of TAWs, at least if they are used for these core activities. In a professional bureaucracy, professionals work independently and with significant discretion, albeit within the bureaucratic boundaries provided by the local authority’s structure. The possibility of direct control is limited, and so is the possibility of standardising work tasks. Therefore, the coordination of work is based on the standardisation of the skills of the workforce, accomplished primarily by formal education (Mintzberg, 1993). However, it is likely that such standardisation of knowledge is further developed by teamwork, supervision and on-site training. Given this, the possibilities to control TAWs are limited, and like with other staff, the organisation is dependent on their professional expertise. Although TAWs generally have the same professional background as permanent staff, they are unfamiliar with the local bureaucratic setting, and their integration into teamwork, supervision and on-site training is largely unknown.

The analytical concepts described above will aid the analysis of the use of TAWs in the PSS. For example, the core/periphery idea will be used to analyse the type of work assigned to TAWs. The notion of the PSS as a professional bureaucracy will be helpful in exploring how the nature of social work (as dependent on the skills of the professionals, etc.) may affect the usage of TAWs.

Methods

The way Sweden traditionally has organised social work has been understood as linked to overarching social policies consistent with a social democratic welfare model. In such a model, the public sector plays a central role as a producer of welfare and organiser of social work (Meeuwisse and Swärd, 2007). In Sweden, the responsibility for organising social work lies at the municipal level, and the social services in the 290 municipalities have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that citizens receive the help and support they need. It is also within these municipalities that the majority (80 per cent) of educated social workers (generally holding a bachelor’s degree in social work) work. Although the municipalities have considerable leeway to organise the social services according to local needs, they often have departments dealing with (i) PSS, (ii) elderly care and (iii) care for disabled persons. The branches of social work that are in focus in this article, namely child welfare, adult substance abuse treatment and social assistance, are typically organised as separate units under the department of PSS.

This article is based on data from thirty-three interviews with thirty-four (one of the interviews had two participents) (i) permanently employed managers and social workers from the PSS and (ii) TAWs and managers at staffing agencies (Table 1). Permanently employed social workers and lower levels of managers were employed in child welfare units, social assistance units or were generalists. Managers at higher levels were responsible for all three above-mentioned branches of social work. The two managers at staffing agencies were responsible for recruiting and matching TAWs with client organisations. TAWs had permanent or temporary employment at staffing agencies or were self-employed and worked as subcontractors to staffing agencies. They were mainly contracted by child welfare units, but some had experiences also in social assistance and substance abuse units. Since TAWs are considerably more common in child welfare, the selection appears reasonable.

Based on findings from a previous study that mapped the use of TAWs in Swedish social services during 2017–2018 (Shanks and Mejdell Bjerland, 2023), the municipalities from which the permanently employed were recruited were selected in a way that allowed maximum variation in terms of the use of TAWs, such as high use, intermediate use and low use (cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). The number of TAWs in the respective municipalities/units varied over time and from only one or two to eighteen in a team of fifty social workers. Due to difficulties in finding enough interviewees from some municipalities, especially those with an intermediate use of TAWs, additional municipalities from the same category had to be selected. In addition to the variation in terms of TAWs, the municipalities also show different characteristics in terms of size and location. The procedure of choosing different types of interviewees and municipalities intended to allow analysis of potentially varying attitudes to the use of TAWS.

TAWs were more difficult to recruit than permanent employees. Through email and phone calls to staffing agencies, I managed to book two interviews with managers at staffing agencies. Unfortunately, they were not able to put me in contact with any of their TAWs. Through permanently employed social workers, I got in touch with another two TAWs. After failing to recruit through other channels (staffing agencies and municipalities), I advertised in a social worker group on Facebook and managed to book another nine interviews.

The semi-structured interviews were conducted using a videoconferencing programme, lasted around one hour, and were held by me. The use of qualitative interviews was deemed appropriate in this study, as the intention was to gain rich descriptions regarding how and for what tasks TAWs are used and how this use was perceived by the stakeholders (see e.g. Edwards and Holland, 2013). When constructing the interview guide, I was informed by previous literature regarding agency/social/workers and my analytic interest was guided by this literature. Nevertheless, the questions in the interview guide that concerned aspects such as the distribution of tasks to the TAWs, the work that they did, how the use of TAWs was perceived to affect the permanent staff’s work environment, were broad and open, for example, ‘How does the workplace decide what type of tasks/you/the TAW/should do?’, ‘Can you describe an assignment that has been/successful/unsuccessful/?’. Through the interviews, lengthy and rich descriptions were obtained, highlighting similarities as well as differences in the interviewee’s experiences. The interview guide was adjusted depending on the position/employment type of the interviewee. The study strictly followed ethical guidelines and national laws (SFS, 2003). Informed consent was obtained, and the participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time during the research process. They were assured of their anonymity and informed that the findings would be presented in a way that would make it impossible to identify any individual. Formal ethical approval from the Swedish Ethical Review Agency is not needed for research that does not include sensitive personal data and was therefore not sought for this project.

After conducting the interviews, the recordings were transcribed verbatim. A thematic content analysis was performed, as this type of analysis is appropriate for examining the perspectives of individuals and shedding light on potential similarities and differences between their experiences (Nowell et al., 2017). As a first step, the interview transcripts were coded and broadly categorised in line with the focus areas of this article—for example, preconditions of TAWs and the effects of the use of TAWs on work environment. Second, sub-themes (such as work distribution, relief/knowledge distribution/burden, etc.) were identified. Concepts from organisational research (the core–periphery model, ideas about the professional bureaucracy, see above) were used as ‘sensitising concepts’, meaning that they guided the attention in the analysis and were used as frames for theoretical understanding (Bowen, 2006). Throughout the article, the results are related to previous literature. In addition, I have tried to provide substantial information regarding the research setting as well as rich data so that readers can decide to what extent the findings are transferable to their settings (Nowell et al., 2017).

Results

Preconditions for TAWs

TAWs are generally contracted in the PSS to perform core work (cf. Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008; Bergman et al., 2023), including conducting child protection investigations and assessing clients’ eligibility for cash benefits or substance abuse treatments. However, the interviews in this article reveal differences in the type of core work that is performed by TAWs and permanent staff. These differences can be observed both in terms of the types of casework that they are assigned and what parts of the core work that their respective type of employment allows.

Practices of work distribution; TAWs as workhorses, bufferers or stand-ins

The differences in the types of casework assigned to TAWs and permanent staff can be described as different practices—not always deliberate or explicit—of the client organisation. One common description among the interviewees (managers, social workers and TAWs) is that TAWs are used to handle backlogs; they are assigned cases that have remained unallocated for a long time due to staff shortages or high workloads. Hence, when permanent staff are unable to manage the caseload, TAWs are contracted. Several statements in the interviews indicate that situations of crisis have led to an unplanned contracting of TAWs, as described by this manager: ‘When we ask for help, we have not really planned for it, it is more on an ad-hoc basis. We have 100 cases that need to be dealt with and they need to get started quickly’ (IP7).

At the time of contracting, these municipalities are, as described by a TAW, ‘behind [with work] and then you have to deal with the piles’ (IP28). In some cases, the PSS has been unable to meet the statutory time limit for investigations, leaving TAWs with little time to deal with the cases assigned to them. What seems to be needed in these cases is a ‘workhorse’—someone who can get the job done quickly and efficiently.

Apart from being used as workhorses, several interviewees from all categories describe TAWs as ‘bufferers’, meaning that they are expected to relieve and protect the permanent staff from strain and harm. In some cases, TAWs are expected to take on clients that are perceived as aggressive or violent. According to an interviewed social worker, this practice is based on the idea that ‘the TAWs come from far away’ (IP12). Other interviewees describe that TAWs are given the more complex and heavy cases because:

IP4: They get a much higher wage than we do, and they come in and make a few guest appearances/…/It is not at all explicit, but it is probably just that the managers try to spare us employees.

In this quote from a social worker, it is suggested that TAWs are given the most complex cases not because they are more knowledgeable, but because they are hired temporarily and have better pay. However, there are also some interviewees, albeit relatively few, who describe that the decisions to give TAWs the most complicated cases are made on the grounds that TAWs are more experienced and therefore believed to be more capable of handling difficult work. Unlike the other reasons for giving the allegedly most complicated cases to TAWs, this practice intends to allocate cases to the personnel who are believed to be most suitable to help the client.

Whereas the aforementioned practices rest on the idea that TAWs can/should handle a workload that could be described as heavier (tighter deadline or more complex) than that of the permanent staff, some interviewees also describe strategies that take into account the temporary nature of the TAWs’ assignment, or just see the TAWs as ‘stand-ins’. Such practices were the least represented in the interviews. In the first case, TAWs are allocated clients who are assumed only to need support from the PSS during a short period of time. In these situations, the client’s need for continuity is considered when distributing work to TAWs. Lastly, TAWs may also cover for someone who is on sick leave. In these cases, the casework that TAWs are given does not differ from that of the other staff. Here, it is just a question of taking over someone else's work for a certain period of time.

On a general level, there appear to be no types of casework that are off-limits for TAWs. However, the ways in which TAWs are used in the organisations (often for heavy-duty work) and the temporary nature of their assignments appear to prevent them from engaging in the more relational and supportive side of social work. A statement from a strategic manager makes this clear as s/he explains that: ‘For us, when we bring in TAWs, it is rarely social workers we speak about, but someone who can chew investigations’ (IP6). The non-social worker part of the statement is meant in the sense that s/he expects the TAWs to perform the more administrative part of an investigation, but not the more relational or supportive social work. This brings us back to what was indicated above—there are some parts of the core work that TAWs may not be engaged in to the same extent as permanent staff.

Finally, although it seems that TAWs are heavily involved in (some of) the core tasks of the PSS, they do not appear to participate much in other activities that are typically part of organisational life, such as developmental work, workplace meetings and social events. Perhaps most surprisingly, interviewees describe that TAWs are generally excluded from meetings where casework is discussed. Some TAWs describe this exclusion from meetings and social activities as something negative, but this sentiment is far from common. Instead, many TAWs are satisfied with not having to participate in these activities and instead being able to fully concentrate on their casework. For some, this is one of the reasons for taking on a position as a TAW.

Effects on the work environment for permanent staff

Turning the focus to the effects on the work environment for permanent staff, it can be concluded that in previous studies, it has been suggested that the use of TAWs may help to improve morale during times of understaffing (Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008). However, it has also been suggested that permanent employees may end up with the most demanding tasks (Cornes et al., 2013). Below, findings from previous literature are developed through results from this study.

Relief, distribution of knowledge and/or disturbance?

The positive aspects of using TAWs, highlighted in the interviews, are primarily related to their ability to relieve the burden on permanent staff. This is also implied in the quotes above where it is described how TAWs are used for heavy-duty work and to buffer permanent staff. Judging from statements from permanent staff, this way of using TAWs can have the desired effect. Additionally, hiring TAWs can be a way for managers to show permanent staff that they care, as described by this social worker: ‘they could console the social workers with: a TAW will come in and relieve you all because I can see that you are feeling bad now’ (IP5). This effect of the use of TAWs is echoed in some managers’ statements, where the use of TAWs is discussed as a way of avoiding pushing permanent staff too hard.

The use of TAWs is also described as a way to free up time for permanent staff to take part in activities that are considered to enhance well-being at work, which would otherwise be difficult to accomplish in times of high workloads:

IP1: Because if we had not had TAWs, the others would have had to cancel meetings and collaborations, the ‘lubricants’ of the work, in favour of only working with the acute child welfare.

Some interviewees noted that TAWs, in certain cases, can contribute with valuable knowledge and experience. Given the current situation where many employees in child welfare departments are newly educated, this can be a welcome contribution (Tham and Kåreholt, 2023).

Concurrently, the use of TAWs is also described as having negative consequences for group dynamics and development work. Several statements convey that extensive use of TAWs makes it difficult to engage in development work as TAWs do not take part in such work. Additionally, an extensive use of TAWs may cause instability and negative effects on collegial support and learning as TAWs are temporary and tend to keep to themselves. As one manager put it: ‘They only manage the administration [of cases], they are not involved in any processes to improve the work’ (IP13). Furthermore, there are statements that imply that the use of TAWs gives rise to frustration among permanent staff due to a sense of injustice; TAWs are described as having better pay and more freedom at work. Additionally, in the same vein, some statements reveal that permanent staff question the strategy of hiring TAWs: ‘Why is it that you spend thousands and millions on TAWs but avoid recruiting more staff?’ (IP4).

In several interviews, it is made clear that positive experiences of the use of TAWs are dependent on what is described as competent and experienced TAWs. If the TAW does not possess these qualities, the use of TAWs is perceived to increase the workload instead of decreasing it. Several interviewees recall situations when TAWs have not lived up to their expectations, resulting in: ‘more harm than good because then we are left with a pile of dirt that has to be cleaned up’ (IP1). In their recollection of negative experiences, shortcomings of individual TAWs are described as leading to more work for permanent staff who may be left with insufficient documentation, cases of malpractice, etc.

Prerequisites for a favourable use of TAWs—organisational and individual aspects

Given the relatively mixed perceptions of the usage of TAWs on the work environment and the seemingly difficult circumstances that TAWs face when contracted in the PSS, a crucial question arises: what factors are identified as important for a favourable experience? In the following, TAWs’ as well as permanent employees’ perceptions regarding these issues are examined.

When TAWs are asked to describe assignments that they consider successful and the reasons behind this, they often highlight organisational aspects of the client organisation. Several TAWs emphasise that support from management is important, often in terms of being able to discuss cases, but also that it is important that management trust their competence. TAWs also highlight the significance of being included, not in the sense of being included in all meetings or all social events, but in the distribution of relevant information in the organisation. Furthermore, several TAWs emphasise the importance of a good match between the TAW and the assignment. For this to occur, the client organisation needs to communicate their expectations explicitly and these expectations have to be reasonable. One TAW summarises these factors in the following quote:

IP34: It can either be that I get very clear instructions and backgrounds on my cases and have a lot of follow-up./…/Then there is the dark side, where the customer says: solve it. When I say: okay, how do you want me to solve it, they say: that is why you are here. Of course, I can solve it, but when I do, they say: no, that is not what we wanted.

Some of the permanent staff also acknowledge organisational factors as important for a favourable experience of TAWs:

IP17: The most important thing is that your organisation has decided and knows what it needs the TAW for. You know what you want the TAW to contribute with, and you’ll follow-up so that you get what you wanted. This is essential for it to work. In this way, you are able to set up the right requirements and have realistic expectations./…/Of course, this is a problem if the organisation is unstable, then it is difficult to get it right.

As with the TAW quoted above, this manager also highlights the importance of clear and realistic expectations as well as continuous follow-up. In addition, several statements from permanent employees highlight the organisation’s shortcomings in regard to less favourable experiences of TAWs. In these cases, high caseloads, lack of introduction and exclusion are mentioned by the permanent employees, as exemplified in this quote from a social worker: ‘They have too many [cases] to do a good job/…/. I would not be able to cope with that amount either’ (IP12).

However, many permanent employees stress the importance of individual characteristics and competence of the TAWs. Here, perceived lack of competence is not described as unsuccessful matching, but as knowledge and skills that the TAWs fail to possess. Highlighting the competence of TAWs is, in fact, the most common answer among permanent staff to the question of what is most important for a favourable experience of TAWs.

IP6: Experience and competence and a way to handle situations with experience is what makes it work well. I suspect that your next question is what has not worked; and it is simply the opposite./…/They do not manage to live up to the level that we need.

It appears that TAWs and permanent employees agree on the importance of organisational conditions, such as support from managers, inclusion, realistic expectations, clear instructions/assignments and a reasonable workload, for a favourable experience of using TAWs. In addition, individual characteristics in terms of professional competence are highlighted as important, mainly by permanent staff. In the TAWs statements, personal competence is not discussed in this sense, but it can perhaps be glimpsed behind the emphasis on the need for a good match between the TAW and the assignment.

Discussion and implications—doing core tasks in the periphery

This article set out to analyse how TAWs are used in PSS and how it affects the preconditions for TAWs and the work environment for permanent employees. In summary, it can be stated that it is common for TAWs to be contracted ad-hoc and during times of crisis. Although TAWs are contracted to do core tasks, a closer look at the distribution of work reveals that there are often differences in the core tasks allocated to permanent staff and TAWs. When it comes to casework, TAWs are often expected to do heavy-duty work, dealing with backlogs and/or complex cases. Often, they are expected to cope with this by setting aside professional relations and supportive social work in favour of administrative speed. Tasks that are not core, but closely related, such as development work and taking part in meetings, are often viewed as outside the scope of TAWs contracts and in general, TAWs appear to work a lot on their own. Regarding the effects on the work environment for permanent staff, statements suggest that positive effects include relief of workload and, in some cases, gaining new knowledge and experience. Negative effects include stagnated work development and deteriorating group dynamics. The preconditions for positive effects are described as either related to individual aspects of TAWs by permanent employees or to organisational aspects of the client organisation by TAWs and permanent employees.

Looking at the results from an analytical perspective, it does not appear as if the PSS uses TAWs in accordance with the propositions from the core–periphery model (Atkinson, 1984). According to this model, core tasks are best given to permanent staff who possess organisational-specific knowledge, whilst more peripheral tasks are best given to external staff. As noted above, there are no indications in this study or elsewhere that TAWs are assigned peripheral tasks when contracted in the PSS. On the contrary, they primarily do core tasks (see also Hoque and Kirkpatrick, 2008). Furthermore, contrary to the suggestions in the model, the use of TAWs does not appear to be based on strategic considerations; it is rather a reactive solution to a crisis. None of these findings however are specific to social work. Rather, it appears as if these findings resonate well with findings from other sectors. For example, it appears as if TAWs are used for core tasks also in management and IT (Nesheim et al., 2007; Bidwell, 2009). Also, results from Svalund et al. (2018) show that TAWs may be used in a reactive fashion in manufacturing industries, warehouses, etc.

Considering the situation in the PSS, with significant turnover and vacancies (Tham and Kåreholt, 2023), it is perhaps not surprising that TAWs are used reactively and for core tasks. However, these circumstances, which do not allow for much planning and under which TAWs are often given the most demanding tasks are unlikely to create the best preconditions for TAWs’ work. Rather, the very organisational circumstances that TAWs are contracted to help remedy (crisis, heavy workloads), may impede favourable usage. In times of crisis and stress in the client organisation, it seems difficult to facilitate the introduction, inclusion, managerial support, clear assignments and a reasonable workload for TAWs. Moreover, the demand to handle cases expediently poses a risk for sidestepping supportive social work in favour of swift throughput of cases. Apart from impairing the preconditions for TAWs, all of these circumstances may cause negative consequences for the clients.

Furthermore, the results indicate that although TAWs perform core tasks, they appear generally to be excluded from certain activities such as team meetings, etc. This, although viewed positively by several TAWs, may contribute to an existence in the periphery where TAWs are left outside for example, of discussions about how to handle cases, routines and development work. A peripheral existence may have several implications. First, in a professional bureaucracy, where the possibilities of direct control of workers and standardisation of work tasks are limited and the workers have a high degree of discretion, common activities like team meetings can be arenas for supervision and control. Unless TAWs are compensated with other possibilities of getting supervision and management, they are left very much to their own devices. The triangular working relations between TAWs, staffing agencies and the client organisation may cause uncertainty regarding the responsibility for management. However, there are no indications that TAWs are given professional support by the staffing agencies. Such support generally falls quite outside their competence and possibilities. Secondly, from the perspective of TAWs, there is a risk that they lose out on on-the-job training and support from colleagues and others, as noted in previous research (Cornes et al., 2013; Hyde, 2020).

The way TAWs are often used in the PSS, that is, contracted to do core tasks in the periphery during times of crisis, places high demands on their skills, and the risk of failure with such a setup appears high. It is easy to understand the temptation to use TAWs to buffer and protect permanent staff in the hope of preventing them from leaving. From the perspective of managers and permanent social workers, such practice may appear successful. However, the question is what this practice means for the clients. For example, if TAWs—who have temporary contracts and experience a demand for swift throughput of cases—are assigned the most complex cases, there is an obvious risk that the clients with the greatest needs are left without much support. If the TAWs are inexperienced and/or reside in the periphery, the risks are even greater. Moreover, even if TAWs are experienced and used to working independently, they lack organisational specific knowledge and a peripheral existence makes it harder for them to get access to such knowledge. From an organisational perspective, a peripheral existence of (experienced) TAWs hinders the distribution of knowledge in the organisation, which can be viewed as a wasted opportunity.

On a positive note, some of the less desirable consequences could potentially be mitigated with better inclusion of TAWs in the organisations and better planning in relation to the distribution of cases. Better inclusion would increase control of TAWs’ work, provide more insight into their cases (which would be beneficial for potentially continuing work with their clients), and better distribution of knowledge between TAWs and permanent staff. This, together with a better-planned distribution of cases, that considers both the temporary nature of the TAWs’ positions and their competence, would better benefit both organisations and clients.

Limitations and suggestions for further research

This qualitative study was conducted within the context of statutory social work in Sweden. Despite attempts to achieve a varied selection of participants, it is uncertain to what degree the results are valid in other contexts, both domestically and in other countries. Throughout the article, I have attempted to compare my findings with previous research from Sweden as well as from other countries. However, since research on this topic is scarce, more research on the use of TAWs in different social work settings is warranted. Furthermore, many questions regarding the use of TAWs in social services remain unanswered. Important aspects that deserve more attention include how the use of TAWs is perceived by clients, and the consequences that the usage has for different groups of service users.

Funding

This work was supported by the Swedish research council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forskningsrådet för hälsa, arbetsliv och välfärd, FORTE) under grant number 2018–01654.

Conflict of interest statement

The author reports no conflict of interest.

References