**3. Results**

As noted in the method chapter, the majority of the participants, 95% were women, the mean age was 44.7 years. Most participants were married or cohabiting (76.5%), most were living in their own home (89%), and the average number of children living in the household was 2.6.

The participants had worked as social workers from few months for up to 50 years. On the average their work experience was 13 years. The majority of the participants, 76% worked in the capital city area. A small number of participants worked in the Nordic part of the country (7%), in the south part of the country (6%), and in the area near the international airport (Suðurnes) (5%). Even fewer worked in other parts of the country, 3% in the western part, 1% in the Westfjords, 0.7% in the Eastern part of the country, and 0.3% in the Eastfjords. Eight participants noted "other" as work area. Most social workers, 69% were working in a 100% position. However, 14% were working 49–99% and 14% were working from 101 to 130%. Few were not working at the time they participated in this study. The average salaries that most social workers were receiving for a 100% position was 701–800 thousands Icelandic krona or between 5.016 and 5.724 euro, 26% of social workers were receiving those salaries

before taxes. Interestingly, six social workers (2%) were receiving under 500.000 ISK or under 3.577 euro for 100% position, and 8.3% were receiving more than 1.000.000 ISK or over 7.155 euors. There was not a significant difference between salaries among social workers in the capital city area on the one hand and in other parts of the country on the other hand (t = 0.690, df = 245, p = 0.5) when a middle point was used to mark each category.

The social workers worked in various settings. However, not surprisingly, over half of them, 60% were working in the social services, and most of the social workers that were working in social services were working in the area of child protection as can be seen in **Table 2**. Most of the social workers worked as a social worker/case worker/program manager (66%). Few worked in counseling/therapy (14%) or as directors (12%). Very few were teaching and/or doing research 1%. More men worked as directors (27%) than women (12%). However, the difference was not significant, Chi-square = 2.351 (df = 1, p = 0.142).

The participants were asked on what theory or ideology they based their work. They could mark as many as they liked. Most social workers were using empowerment in their work with their clients, 79%, followed by the solution focused perspective (66%). The theories that several social workers were using were narrative therapy (27%), the life cycle perspective (27%), cognitive behavioral perspective (28%), behaviorism (26%), and humanism (25%). Other theories that the social workers were using in their work with their clients can be seen in **Table 3**. The participants were able to select "other" and mention theories. Examples of other theories mentioned by participants were attachment (2%), harm reduction (1%), and independent life empowerment perspective with people with disabilities (1%). Other theories/ ideology/models were mentioned by one or two participants under "other."

The participants were asked about the main reasons for interventions with their clients. Most of the social workers, 70% mentioned "various kinds of social problems," followed by psychiatric problems (65%) and alcohol or drug abuse problem (53%). A considerable number of social workers mentioned financial problems (44%), child abuse, neglect or risk behavior of children (42%), physical health problems (40%), and specific problems related to children, such as ADHD, autism spectrum, or behavior problems (40%). Fewer mentioned disability (27%) and older adults (15%). Seventeen percent marked "other" and 5% marked "does not apply." There were few reasons mentioned by four or five participants each under "other." Those were trauma, lack of housing, parental- and family problems, communication problems, and abuse. Other reasons were mentioned by one or two participants and included cultural difference and problems regarding custody or visitations with parents following a divorce or separation. The participants were asked about how they perceived the availability of interventions for their clients. The largest part of the social workers or third of them thought that the relevant interventions existed, but that they could be better, they were difficult to receive or that their clients had to wait for too long for those interventions (33%). A similar proportion thought that the relevant intervention did exist, but that it was difficult to receive or that there was too long wait for the clients (20%) on the one hand, and on the other hand, 18% thought that relevant interventions were lacking for their clients. In addition, 15% though that relevant interventions did exist, but they could be improved (**Table 4**).

As can be seen in **Figure 1**, most of the social workers were rather satisfied with the management at their workplace or a total of 45%. Only 15% were very dissatisfied with the management.

**Work settings N Ratio** Social services • child protection 64 23.1% Social services • financial aid 15 5.4% Social services • rented social housing 2 0.7% Social services • disability serv. 13 4.7% Social services • social counseling 37 13.4% Social services • other 33 11.9% **Total social services 164 59.2%** Healthcare services • physical illnesses 10 3.6% Healthcare services • psychiatric problems/drug abuse 18 6.5% **Total healthcare services 28 10.1%** Older adults services, not social services 3 1.1% Disability services not social services 5 1.8% Services for children not social services or private practice 6 2.2% School social work 8 2.9% The third sector – NGOs 11 4% Other institutions 19 6.9% Private practice 8 2.9% Other 23 8.3% Missing information 2 0.7% Total 277 100%
