Client violence in social work is a workplace problem in Sweden and internationally. Frontline workers in public agencies have the discretion to decide how they deal with clients to cope with challenges like violence and threats. The coping methods may favour some clients while disadvantaging others. Ultimately, the coping practices may become de facto policy, which may not match official organisational policy. This article explores coping methods statutory social workers use to manage violence and threats in their day-to-day dyadic interactions with clients. The article is based on qualitative interviews with social workers (n = 19) who, according to their perception, were victims of client violence. Theory on street-level bureaucracy and frontline workers’ discretion is used. Based on thematic analysis, the results show that social workers draw from four groups of coping methods depending on their moral and normative dispositions. These include (1) the forced helper, (2) the compassionate helper, (3) the distanced helper, and (4) the authoritarian helper. Social workers oscillate between different dispositions depending on situational needs, striving to find the appropriate balance between helping and controlling clients. Studying social workers’ day-to-day dyadic interactions with clients highlights how coping methods could shape social work policy and practice.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.