recent social work research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts
• PMC10673617

Just Research: Advancing Antiracist and Antioppressive Social Work Research

Bernadine y. waller.

Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute

Arati Maleku

The Ohio State University

Camille R. Quinn

University of Michigan

Anamika Barman-Adhikari

University of Denver

Linda S. Sprague Martinez

Boston University

Dorian Traube

University of Southern California

Jennifer L. Bellamy

Author Notes

Arati Maleku , PhD, is an associate professor at the College of Social Work, The Ohio State University.

Camille R. Quinn , PhD, AM, LCSW, LISW-S, is an associate professor at the Center for Equitable Family and Community Well-Being, School of Social Work, University of Michigan.

Anamika Barman-Adhikari , PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.

Linda S. Sprague Martinez , PhD, is an associate professor at the Boston University School of Social Work.

Dorian Traube , PhD, is an associate professor at the Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California.

Jennifer L. Bellamy , PhD, is a professor and the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work.

The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) created its Research Capacity and Development Committee in 2017 to build research capacity across the careers of social work scholars. The committee has initiated multiple conferences and webinar sessions that have increasingly focused on antiracist and antioppressive (ARAO) research, including “Mentorship for Antiracist and Inclusive Research” and “Strategies for Supporting Antiracist Pedagogy & Scholarship: Reimagining Institutional Systems & Structures.” This commentary integrates themes from these sessions and other discussions among committee members about strategies to advance ARAO research. Although SSWR board members reviewed and approved this submission, it is not an official statement of SSWR or its board of directors.

A renewed call to confront structural and systemic racism and oppression globally, and more specifically in the United States, has emerged to confront a confluence of state-sanctioned violence against Black lives; systemic racism against Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC); abuses based upon sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression; oppression of people with disabilities; religious discrimination; xenophobia and anti-immigrant fervor; attacks upon reproductive rights; and racial erasure and pandemic othering against Asian Pacific Islander and Desi American communities. Fear of white replacement—based on the “great replacement” conspiracy argument that white people are being replaced at ethnic and cultural levels via mass migration ( Davey & Ebner, 2019 ; Obaidi et al., 2021 )—and polarizing politics fuel vitriol, hatred, and an overall devaluation of human life, with BIPOC and minoritized communities experiencing the brunt of the effects.

Although antiracist and antioppressive (ARAO) social work scholarship has been part of the call to confront racism and oppression and dismantle white supremacy, little progress has been achieved, in part because the social work profession lacks a comprehensive framework for ARAO research. Scholars with minoritized identities have long confronted racist and oppressive scholarship practices and have continually amplified the deep, embodied knowledge and experiences of minoritized populations. The weight of this work, however, should not rest solely upon them ( McCoy, 2021 ). We must collectively ensure that all scholars adopt ARAO research practices. We call upon the profession to move beyond performative acknowledgments and intentionally center ARAO research. Just as social work pedagogy has failed to comprehensively incorporate critical theories and frameworks ( Yearwood et al., 2021 ), ARAO research approaches are implemented in fragments. To center ARAO research, we must first acknowledge the role of social work in upholding white supremacy ( National Association of Social Workers, 2021 ), failing to address oppression ( Corley & Young, 2018 ; McMahon & Allen-Meares, 1992 ), and inflicting tremendous harm on BIPOC communities ( Jacobs et al., 2021 ). This includes “white-washing” social work’s history, from the research and saviorism practiced by white women ( Wright et al., 2021 ) to the enforcement of the social control that sustains racial capitalism ( Jacobs et al., 2021 ). Building upon the work of the Society for Social Work and Research’s Research Capacity and Development Committee (RCDC), we hope this commentary will direct social workers toward pragmatic steps to develop a comprehensive framework and strategies for ARAO research.

Research Capacity and Development Committee

The RCDC was created in 2017 to build research capacity across the careers of social work scholars. In its efforts to do so, the RCDC has initiated multiple conference and webinar sessions that have increasingly focused on ARAO research. For example, the webinar “Mentorship for Antiracist and Inclusive Research” discussed ways to support antiracist and inclusive mentoring and equip doctoral students to conduct ARAO research. Another webinar, “Strategies for Supporting Antiracist Pedagogy & Scholarship: Reimagining Institutional Systems & Structures,” examined systemic and institutional barriers to conducting ARAO research and discussed ways to support and incentivize ARAO practices, such as reimagining promotion and tenure criteria and productivity metrics. The RCDC is now conducting a study to garner a comprehensive understanding of ARAO research in social work.

The Need for Antiracist and Antioppressive Social Work Research

ARAO research includes critically examining and resisting policies that oppress and minoritize the populations social work purports to assist, as well as building new systems and structures that value and uplift marginalized voices. ARAO research facilitates knowledge democracy and recognizes that all knowledge is socially constructed and that individual perceptions of reality are manifold ( Potts & Brown, 2005 ). This is an ongoing practice of identifying and resisting policies that serve ways of knowing and being that are fundamentally racist and oppressive. A deeper self-interrogation reveals a veneer of change rather than a radical transformation toward ARAO research. Arguments to uphold traditional research often rebuff such introspection by arguing that the status quo is necessary to preserve objectivity and rigor.

Toward a Vision of Antiracist and Antioppressive Social Work Research

Social work can address racism and oppression directly through its scholarly practice, with the potential to advance an equitable society and become a model for rigorously applied ARAO research in interdisciplinary spaces. Although ARAO research has burgeoned, it is unclear how this methodology is different from other research methods ( Dei, 2005 ), undercutting the potential of ARAO approaches to dismantle racism and oppression ( Doucet, 2021 ). ARAO research critiques traditionally white-centered, Western approaches to research, from conceptualization to dissemination. The production of knowledge is inextricably linked to power and success in academia. Prestigious program grants are predominately awarded to white principal investigators ( Onyejiaka, 2021 ). Scholars hold the power to assign meaning and value to participants’ lived experiences and present those experiences as knowledge, often through a deficit lens. This approach of social-scientific data interpretation showing the inferiority of and problematizing of populations is described as an epistemologically violent action ( Teo, 2010 ). Thus, all stages of research—including training, idea generation, epistemologies, theories, methods, funding, publishing, promotion, library cataloging, and more—must be critiqued using an ARAO lens ( University of Minnesota, 2021 ). Ingrained practices and systems point to the need for clear guidance on ARAO research and a complementary vision for structural change.

Antiracist and Antioppressive Research Challenges and Opportunities

RCDC discussions reflect the challenges of centering ARAO research, including competing views about ways of knowing and what constitutes methodological rigor; data collection and aggregation practices that hide nuances across minoritized groups; limited time and resources, and productivity pressure that dissuade relationship building, deep critical reflection, and community engagement; and gaps in training and mentorship resources. For example, collaboration with the populations being studied is essential to ARAO research. In fact, community-engaged scholarship has long been at the heart of social work research, and scholars have rightly called for community-engaged research to be considered the signature methodology of social work ( Delavega et al., 2017 ). Unfortunately, the time-intensive process of community-engaged work is rarely facilitated by existing structures, such as tenure and promotion standards and institutional review board processes ( Hammatt et al., 2011 ; Solomon et al., 2016 ).

The need to explicate how and what we know, what knowledge matters, what metrics are appropriate, and the terms and conditions of knowledge ownership is essential to ARAO research ( Rogers, 2012 ; Strier, 2007 ). Although the communities we engage in research should be the coarchitects of the complete knowledge production process, the process often depends on scholars’ capacity to commit to and implement these approaches. Additionally, ways of knowing that are primarily based on engaged scholarship using multiple methodologies—such as qualitative and mixed methods—and the contributions of those who are not formally trained as researchers are often considered “nonscientific” ( Almeida et al., 2019 ; Curry et al., 2009 ). The preference for first- or sole-author publications, for establishing leadership in a field of study, and for receiving national or international recognition runs counter to deep, authentic community engagement. Another essential element is to value and uplift all minoritized groups. However, social work researchers focusing on unique areas and highly diverse populations often encounter challenges due to the limitations of available large-scale national data and issues of mistrust related to research in general. For example, highly diverse groups such as Asian Pacific Islanders and Desi Americans are often aggregated, making subpopulations invisible. Although the concept of rigor and the emphasis on large, representative samples favor larger, more easily engaged populations, research grounded in community perspectives that aims to identify unique experiences can meaningfully contribute to knowledge, even with small samples ( Maleku et al., 2022 ). ARAO research requires that social work scholars are accountable for the input and critique of a diverse set of actors—including those in the academy and in the community—and directs us to reconsider the concept of research rigor that benefits our target populations. Unfortunately, the literature on implementing capacity-building frameworks for ARAO is scant. Thus, we have identified key steps that should be taken to advance ARAO research in social work.

Steps Toward Advancing Antiracist and Antioppressive Research

Dismantle white supremacy in social work.

The first step toward defining ARAO research is to describe the activities that have sustained white supremacy in social work research, both as a profession and as individual scholars. Among the social sciences, social work is uniquely positioned to foster and expand community-engaged research. Still, there remains a great deal of work to be done in our own profession to weed out performative practices that reify racism. We must document how histories and structures of cumulative disadvantage and privilege seep into the social–psychological landscapes of populations and examine social problems and research dialectically in relation to complex dynamics across time, space, and groups ( Fine, 2014 ), including our own role in the histories and processes. This work includes the further development and incorporation of critical theories that center race and other marginalized identities.

Understand Researcher Positionality

We must be curious, compassionate, and courageous enough to recognize, call out, and address racist and oppressive acts in real time. It is essential that all social work researchers understand their positionality. Understanding how researcher positionality informs what questions are asked, how research is designed, who is included in the research team, and how research is conducted is fundamental to ARAO research. Social work scholars can model these practices for their research teams and incorporate them into doctoral training by using insight-oriented exercises to clarify the primary motivation for their work. This critical self-reflection is key to co-constructing and co-conducting research that is driven by the needs and vision of the community and researchers’ methodological expertise.

Promote Antiracist and Antioppressive Research Methods

Social work scholars must also develop and codify research approaches that promote ARAO research methods, such as community-engaged and community-driven research that honors community strengths and capacity. This requires the alignment of training, hiring, recognition, human subjects research oversight, and promotion practices that value this work. The advancement of ARAO research culture in social work requires investments at the individual and structural levels. It will require institutions, including social work leadership organizations, to invest in training, funding, and capacity-building initiatives that advance these practices.

Substantial work remains to center ARAO research in social work. To do so will require social work researchers to collectively and humbly engage in this effort. It is high time that social work—including scholars, professional organizations, publishers, and the broader community of partners who use social work evidence to inform policy and action—engages in radical leadership to promote and advance ARAO research practice in pursuit of the profession’s social justice mission.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the board of directors of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR), members of SSWR’s Research Capacity and Development Committee (RCDC) antiracist and antioppressive research subcommittee, and all members of the RCDC committee for the feedback and support provided throughout the process of writing this commentary.

Contributor Information

Bernadine Y. Waller, Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute.

Arati Maleku, The Ohio State University.

Camille R. Quinn, University of Michigan.

Anamika Barman-Adhikari, University of Denver.

Linda S. Sprague Martinez, Boston University.

Dorian Traube, University of Southern California.

Jennifer L. Bellamy, University of Denver.

• Almeida RV, Werkmeister Rozas LM, Cross-Deny B, Kyeunghae Lee K, & Yamada AM (2019). Coloniality and intersectionality in social work education and practice . Journal of Progressive Human Services , 30 ( 2 ), 148–164. 10.1080/10428232.2019.1574195 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corley NA, & Young SM (2018). Is social work still racist? A content analysis of recent literature . Social Work , 63 ( 4 ), 317–326. 10.1093/sw/swy042 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curry LA, Nembhard IM & Bradley EH (2009). Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research . Circulation , 119 ( 10 ), 1442–1452. 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.742775 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey J, & Ebner J (2019). ‘The Great Replacement’: The violent consequences of main-streamed extremism . Institute for Strategic Dialogue , 7 , 1–36. https://www.isdglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/The-Great-Replacement-The-Violent-Consequences-of-Mainstreamed-Extremism-by-ISD.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Dei GJS (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies—An introduction . Counterpoints , 252 , 1–27. https://jstor.org/stable/42978742 [ Google Scholar ]
• Delavega E, Lennon-Dearing R, Neely-Barnes S, Soifer S, & Crawford C (2017). Research note—Engaged scholarship: A signature research methodology for social work . Journal of Social Work Education , 53 ( 3 ), 568–576. 10.1080/10437797.2016.1269703 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Doucet F (2021). Identifying and testing strategies to improve the use of antiracist research evidence through critical race lenses . William T. Grant Foundation. https://wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2021/01/Doucet_Digest_Issue-6.pdf [ Google Scholar ]
• Fine M (2014). Circuits of dispossession and privilege. In Teo T (Ed.) Encyclopedia of critical psychology . Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammatt ZH, Nishitani J, Heslin KC, Perry MT, Szetela C, Jones L, Williams P, Antoine-LaVigne D, Forge NG, & Norris KC (2011). Partnering to harmonize IRBs for community-engaged research to reduce health disparities . Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved , 22 ( Suppl. 4 ), 8–15. 10.1353/hpu.2011.0157 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobs LA, Kim ME, Whitfield DL, Gartner RE, Panichelli M, Kattari SK, Downey MM, McQueen SS, & Mountz SE (2021). Defund the police: Moving towards an anti-carceral social work . Journal of Progressive Human Services , 32 ( 1 ), 37–62. 10.1080/10428232.2020.1852865 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maleku A, Soukenik E, Haran H, Kirsch J, & Pyakurel S (2022). Conceptualizing mental health through Bhutanese refugee lens: Findings from a mixed methods study . Community Mental Health Journal , 58 ( 2 ), 376–393. 10.1007/s10597-021-00835-4 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCoy H (2021). What do you call a Black woman with a PhD? A n*****: How race trumps education no matter what . Race and Justice , 11 ( 3 ), 318–327. 10.1177/2153368720988892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McMahon A, & Allen-Meares P (1992). Is social work racist? A content analysis of recent literature . Social Work , 37 ( 6 ), 533–539. 10.1093/sw/37.6.533 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Read the code of ethics . Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
• Obaidi M, Kunst J, Ozer S, & Kimel SY (2021). The “great replacement” conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of whites can evoke violent extremism and Islamophobia . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 25 ( 7 ), 1675–1695. 10.1177/13684302211028293 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Onyejiaka T (2021, July 20). Support community-based research: The importance of centering the dignity and wellbeing of marginalized groups in research initiatives . Anti-Racism Daily . https://the-ard.com/2021/07/20/support-community-based-research-anti-racism-daily/ [ Google Scholar ]
• Potts K, & Brown L (2005). Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In Brown L & Strega S (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 255–286). Canadian Scholars’ Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers J (2012). Anti-oppressive social work research: Reflections on power in the creation of knowledge . Social Work Education , 31 ( 7 ), 866–879. 10.1080/02615479.2011.602965 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomon S, DeBruin D, Eder M, Heitman E, Kaberry JM, McCormick JB, Opp J, Sharp R, Strelnick AH, Winkler SJ, Yarborough M, & Anderson EE (2016). Community-engaged research ethics review: Exploring flexibility in federal regulations . IRB , 38 ( 3 ), 11–19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997782/pdf/nihms810138.pdf [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strier R (2007). Anti-oppressive research in social work: A preliminary definition . British Journal of Social Work , 37 ( 5 ), 857–871. 10.1093/bjsw/bcl062 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teo T (2010). What is epistemological violence in the empirical social sciences? Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 4 ( 5 ), 295–303. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00265.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• University of Minnesota. (2021). Conducting research through an anti-racism lens . Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://libguides.umn.edu/antiracismlens
• Wright KC, Carr KA, & Akin BA (2021). The whitewashing of social work history: How dismantling racism in social work education begins with an equitable history of the profession . Advances in Social Work , 21 ( 2/3 ), 274–297. 10.18060/23946 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yearwood CC, Barbera RA, Fisher AK, & Hosteller C (2021). Dismantling white supremacy in social work education: We build the road by walking . Advances in Social Work , 21 ( 2/3 ), i–vii. 10.18060/25652 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Related Pages

Recent news and updates.

• 8/21/2024: Call for Proposals for Innovation Incubator at SSWR 2025 Now Open! Deadline: October 1, 2024
• March is Social Work Month: Empowering Social Workers
• 1/5/2024: SSWR Strategic Plan 2024-2028: Learn about our new strategic plan set to inform how we address complex issues.
• 10/17/2023: Social Work Leadership Roundtable Joint Statement on Peace for Israel and Palestine.
• Videos: Conference Invited Sessions & Brief & Brilliant Talks
• Videos: RCDC Training Webinar Series
• Video: Guidelines for Forming a SSWR SIG
• Anti-Harassment and Code of Ethics (Updated 12/15/2020)
• Summary of Actions Taken: policy statements, sponsorship, sign-on letters
• Follow SSWR: Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | YouTube

SSWR Strategic Plan 2024-2028: Learn about our new strategic plan set to inform how we address complex issues.

Building Capacity to Advancing Social Work Science that Informs Solutions to Complex Societal Challenges [ View ]

RCDC Training Webinar Series

Jsswr journal.

The Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research is a peer-reviewed publication dedicated to presenting innovative, rigorous original research on social problems, intervention programs, and policies. [ view more ]

Our website is being updated this week; thank you for your patience.

Current Research Projects

These are the University of Washington School of Social Work’s current research projects, where the future of social work is being shaped today. This dynamic collection highlights the exciting work underway across our school, from pioneering studies on HIV/AIDS research to cutting-edge insights on young adult mental health. Dive into our ongoing research to discover how we are working to drive progress, inform practice, and impact policy in real-time.

Let’s Talk Tech: Engaging people living with dementia in planning for technology use in their care

Principal Investigator: Clara Berridge

Date: 2019-2023

International Youth Development Study (IYDS)

Lgbtq disparities in washington state: health, economic and social inequities across communities, methods for the analysis of longitudinal dyadic data with an application to intergenerational exchanges of family support, indigenous hiv/aids research training ‘ 2.

Date: 2016-2021

Indigenous HIV/AIDS Research Training Program (IHART)

Date: 2009-2020

Using SMART Design to Identify an Effective and Cost-Beneficial Approach to Preventing Opioid Use Disorder in Justice-Involved Youth

The young adult study, national training and development initiative for foster and adoptive parents, ssdp-tip – cannabis legalization: youth substance use, conduct problems, and hiv risk behavior.

• Back Issues
• Letters Policy

Volume 57 | ISSUE 2: September 6, 2024

New book looks at adoption memoirs from many angles; discussion planned.

Marianne Novy, professor emerita of English and Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies, will discuss her new book “Adoption Memoirs: Inside Stories” at an event on Sept. 13.

She will give a talk about the new book from Temple University Press at 3 p.m. Sept. 13 in 501 Cathedral of Learning and take questions from Christina Newhill, Pitt professor of social work.

Novy, who was adopted as an infant in 1945, has long been involved in adoption issues and research. In 2021, she and others at Pitt organized the Pitt Adoption Community for Education affinity group, which focuses on the study and discussion of adoption and the issues that surround it.

In 1999, she co-founded the  Alliance for the Study of Adoption and Culture  — the only organization studying adoption that includes the humanities. She also has written one book on the topic, “Reading Adoption: Family and Difference in Fiction and Drama” (University of Michigan Press, 2007) and edited another, “Imagining Adoption: Essays on Literature and Culture ”  (University of Michigan Press, 2004).

She also started a mini-elective in the School of Medicine to talk to medical caregivers about adoption and how it affects families and can have implications for health.

In her new book, Novy looks at memoirs of adoptees who wanted to learn their ancestry and appreciated adoptive parents who helped, but two of the memoirs also show that open adoption is not simple, and many other memoirs continue past reunion.

Best HBCUs for Master’s in Social Work Degree Programs 2025

Written by Alex Kale

Updated: September 3, 2024

Find your online program in minutes!

Most schools have rolling admissions and financial help so you can start your degree in a few weeks!

When considering a master’s in social work (MSW) degree, HBCUs are exceptional choices for Black students. These institutions promote diversity and cultural inclusivity and play a crucial role in increasing the number of Black professionals in the social work field. HBCU MSW programs are designed to prepare students for different social work careers, including clinical practice, healthcare, and school social work, among others. With a focus on empowering communities, these programs provide graduates with the skills needed to make a meaningful impact.

In this article, we’ll explore why HBCU MSW programs are particularly beneficial for Black students, what you can expect during your studies, the core courses you’ll take, career opportunities after graduation, and tips for choosing the right program for your goals.

Why Attend an HBCU Master’s in Social Work Program?

With a focus on elevating the educational experience of Black students, these students may prefer to attend an HBCU for their MSW due to the long-term benefits these institutions offer. HBCU graduates report a significantly better college experience than those from non-HBCUs, being more than twice as likely to recall professors who made learning exciting, cared about them as individuals, and mentors who encouraged them to pursue their goals.

This supportive environment leads to greater engagement in their future careers and overall well-being. By fostering a sense of belonging and empowerment, HBCUs equip Black students with the confidence to thrive, professionally and personally.

Top HBCU Master’s in Social Work Programs

intelligent score 98.90

#1 Best Colleges

School Information

Los Angeles, CA

Graduation Rate: 93%

Admission Rate: 13%

Urbanicity: City

School Size: Large

Delivery Format On-Campus

Required Credits to Graduate 128

Estimated Cost per Credit $2,244

accreditation Western Association of Schools and Colleges

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 213-821-0770

intelligent score 97.87

#2 Best Colleges

Graduation Rate: 85%

Admission Rate: 59%

Required Credits to Graduate 120

Estimated Cost per Credit Member: $342 Non-Member: $684

accreditation Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 801-422-2997

intelligent score 96.04

#3 Best Colleges

Graduation Rate: 82%

Admission Rate: 29%

Estimated Cost per Credit In-State: $467 Out-of-State: $1,739

accreditation Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 512-471-5775

intelligent score 95.93

#4 Best Colleges

Graduation Rate: 86%

Admission Rate: 40%

Estimated Cost per Credit $485

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 706-542-8776

intelligent score 94.10

#6 Best Colleges

Graduation Rate: 66%

Admission Rate: 54%

Urbanicity: Town

School Size: Medium

Estimated Cost per Credit $843

accreditation Higher Learning Commission

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 501-279-4445

intelligent score 93.32

#7 Best Colleges

Washington, DC

Graduation Rate: 79%

Admission Rate: 64%

Estimated Cost per Credit $1,930

accreditation Middle States Commission on Higher Education

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 202-885-1000

intelligent score 92.09

#8 Best Colleges

Syracuse, NY

Required Credits to Graduate 122

Estimated Cost per Credit $1,841

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 315-443-3611

intelligent score 91.38

#9 Best Colleges

Graduation Rate: 80%

Admission Rate: 53%

Urbanicity: Suburban

Estimated Cost per Credit $1,766

more program information Email: [email protected] Phone: 214-768-2058

Discover More Options

How we rank schools.

This list features some of the best HBCU master’s in social work programs at top colleges nationwide. Each school featured is a nonprofit, accredited institution — either public or private — with a high standard of academic quality for postsecondary education.

We evaluated each school’s program on admission, retention, and graduation rates as well as tuition costs, faculty, reputation, and student resources. Then, we calculated the Intelligent Score on a scale of 0 to 100. Read more about our ranking methodology .

Next, we compared this comprehensive list of HBCU master’s in social work programs to a list of aggregated college rankings from reputable publications like U.S. News & World Report, among others, to simplify a student’s college search. We pored through these rankings so students don’t have to.

What to Expect from an HBCU Master’s in Social Work Program

These degree programs offer students a comprehensive educational experience in a culturally inclusive environment. HBCUs are committed to elevating Black professionals, aiming to increase the representation of Black graduates in social work, where their perspectives and experiences are invaluable. As a student, you’ll gain essential knowledge in social justice, community engagement, and clinical practice, all through the lens of empowering marginalized communities.

These curricula often require a thesis, which allows students to explore a social work issue deeply, develop research skills, and contribute original knowledge to the field. This requirement is particularly beneficial as it prepares students for advanced roles in policy-making, administration, and clinical settings.

Potential courses you’ll take in an HBCU master’s in social work program

• Human Behavior and the Social Environment: This foundational course explores the relationship between individuals and their social environments, focusing on psychological, social, and cultural factors.
• Social Work Practice with Individuals and Families: Another typical core requirement, this class builds skills in evidence-based interventions and techniques for working with individuals and families in different settings.
• Social Welfare Policy and Services: This course examines the history, development, and impact of social welfare policies, emphasizing policy analysis and advocacy.
• Research Methods in Social Work: In this upper-level class, students are introduced to qualitative and quantitative research methods, preparing them to conduct independent research and contribute to the field.

What Can I Do with a Master’s in Social Work Degree?

You’ll have a broad range of career opportunities after graduating with your MSW, including clinical, school, and healthcare social work occupations. Additionally, some graduates pursue roles in social services management, overseeing programs that address homelessness, child welfare, and substance abuse.

With a median salary of $58,380 , these careers pay higher wages than the national median for all occupations. They are expected to add 67,300 jobs yearly over the next decade.

Career outlook

• Median annual salary: $55,960
• Projected employment growth (through 2032): 7%
• New jobs projected: 54,700
• Median annual salary: $62,940
• Median annual salary: $53,940
• Project employment growth (through 2032): 7%

How to Choose the HBCU Master’s in Social Work Program That’s Right For You

Consider your needs and goals.

There are many things to consider when choosing an MSW degree program, but start by focusing on a few key factors, such as:

• What aspects of social work am I most enthusiastic about?
• Do I need a part-time or full-time program?
• Would an asynchronous or synchronous format best fit my schedule?

For example, those interested in therapy will be well-suited for clinical work, while students wanting to work in medical settings may opt for healthcare social work. Similarly, individuals passionate about influencing social change may prefer to specialize in policy advocacy.

Of course, you’ll also want to focus on your logistical needs, such as part- or full-time learning and asynchronous or synchronous formats. Many students with more time for their studies prefer full-time, synchronous programs for their immersive learning experience, while part-time, asynchronous programs may be better for those balancing their education with other responsibilities — like a full-time job or raising a family.

Research schools and programs

Now that you’ve clarified your needs and goals, it’s time to research potential MSW programs. Consider using the following questions to guide your search:

• Is the program accredited by the Council on Social Work Education (CWSE) ?
• What are the eligibility and admission requirements?
• Does the curriculum align with my intended specialization?
• Are there faculty members whose research or practice areas excite me?
• What field placement opportunities are available?

This information can be found on program websites, by contacting an admissions counselor, or by attending a virtual open house.

Determine how you’ll pay for your master’s in social work degree program

For many students, financing their degree with minimal debt is a top priority. If you’re in a similar position, start by filing the FAFSA to determine your eligibility for federal financial aid, including grants and work-study. Next, seek out scholarships and grants for social work students, which don’t need to be repaid. For those seeking part-time work, consider applying for assistantships that offer tuition remission or stipends. If you’re employed, ask if your employer provides tuition reimbursement, which can significantly reduce costs.

If loans are necessary, prioritize federal loans, which often offer lower interest rates and more flexible repayment options than private loans.

HBCU Master’s in Social Work Programs Frequently Asked Questions

How do i apply to an hbcu master's in social work program.

While some application requirements may vary, many programs share similar criteria, including:

• Bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution
• Official transcripts from all previously attended institutions
• Letters of recommendation
• Personal statement or essay
• Resume or CV
• GRE scores , if required

It’s crucial to speak with an admissions counselor before applying. They can provide guidance on specific requirements, deadlines, and tops to strengthen your application.

How much does a master's in social work degree cost?

These degrees cost an average of $20,513 per year in tuition. However, tuition is just one portion of the overall expense. You’ll also want to budget for additional costs like textbooks, technology fees, health insurance, commuting, and living expenses. Field placements may also incur additional travel expenses. Considering all these factors is essential to get a complete financial picture and plan accordingly.

How long does it take to complete a master's in social work degree program?

An MSW typically takes two years to complete for full-time students, while part-time students may take three to four years. If you’re planning to study asynchronously, it’s important to remember that the added flexibility of learning at your own pace can extend the completion time.

Be sure to double-check each program’s credit requirements, as these can vary and directly impact the time it takes to earn your degree. Understanding these timelines helps you plan your academic journey more accurately, balancing your personal and professional commitments with your educational goals.

Compare School Options

Bhaskaran Publishes Research on Laryngeal Dystonia

Written by Staff

September 3, 2024

Divya Bhaskaran , Assistant Professor in the Exercise Science program of the Biology Department, published a research paper in the Frontiers in Neurology Journal. The article, entitled "Effects of an 11-week vibro-tactile stimulation treatment on voice symptoms in laryngeal dystonia," is a longitudinal clinical trial conducted during Dr Bhaskaran's post-doctoral work at the University of Minnesota. 

1536 Hewitt Ave

Saint Paul, MN 55104

General Information

Undergraduate Admission

Public Safety Office

Graduate Admission

ITS Central Service Desk

© 2024 Hamline University

In association with Mitchell | Hamline School of Law ®. Mitchell Hamline School of Law ® has more graduate enrollment options than any other law school in the nation.

• On-Campus Transfer
• Online Degree Completion
• International
• Admitted Students
• How to Apply
• Grants & Scholarships
• First-Year and Transfer Aid
• Online Degree Completion Aid
• Graduate Aid
• International Aid
• Military & Veteran Aid
• Undergraduate Tuition
• Online Degree Completion Tuition
• Graduate Tuition
• Housing & Food Costs
• Net Price Calculator
• Payment Info
• Undergraduate
• Continuing Education
• Program Finder
• Faculty by Program
• College of Liberal Arts
• School of Business
• School of Education & Leadership
• Mitchell Hamline School of Law
• Academic Bulletin
• Academic Calendars
• Bush Library
• Registration & Records
• Study Away & Study Abroad
• Housing & Dining
• Counseling & Health
• Service, Spiritual Life, & Recreation
• Activities & Organizations
• Diversity Resources
• Arts at Hamline
• Meet Our Students
• The Neighborhood
• The Hamline Academic Experience
• Student Research Opportunities
• Paid Internships
• Career Development Center
• Alumni Success Stories
• Center for Academic Success & Achievement
• Writing Center
• Why Hamline?
• Mission & History
• Fast Facts and Rankings
• University Leadership
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
• Alumni and Donors
• Request Info

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, why the ref matters, the process of assessment, social work and social policy: uoa20 results, the research landscape, research impact, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Nicky Stanley, Elaine Sharland, Luke Geoghegan, Ravinder Barn, Alisoun Milne, Judith Phillips, Kirby Swales, Social Work Research in the UK: A View through the Lens of REF2021, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 53, Issue 8, December 2023, Pages 3546–3565, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad116

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The Research Assessment Exercise was introduced in 1986 to measure research quality and to determine the allocation of higher education funding. The renamed Research Excellence Framework (REF) has become an important barometer of research capacity and calibre across academic disciplines in UK universities. Based on the expert insights of REF sub-panel members for Unit of Assessment 20 (UOA20), Social Work and Social Policy, this article contributes to understanding of the current state of UK social work research. It documents the process of research quality assessment and reports on the current social work research landscape, including impact. Given its growing vigour, increased engagement with theory and conceptual frameworks, policy and practice and its methodological diversity, it is evident that social work research has achieved considerable consolidation and growth in its activity and knowledge base. Whilst Russell Group and older universities cluster at the top of the REF rankings, this cannot be taken for granted as some newer institutions performed well in REF2021. The article argues that the discipline’s embeddedness in interdisciplinary research, its quest for social justice and its applied nature align well with the REF framework where interdisciplinarity, equality, diversity and inclusion and impact constitute core principles.

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) has significant implications for the quality and vitality of UK research, for academic disciplines, universities, university departments, future research funding and academic careers. The REF usually takes place every six years; the previous exercise was completed in 2014, but REF2021 did not report until June 2022 following delays caused by the pandemic. The assessment process is delivered through panels and sub-panels which take responsibility for Units of Assessment (UOAs). UOA20 covered Social Work and Social Policy and included some, but not all, research in Criminology. Units submitting to the REF were assessed on quality of research outputs, impact (research-generated effects, or benefits beyond academia, demonstrated by case studies) and environment (demonstrated by environment statements and additional data).

Universities and their staff commit significant energy and resources to the REF process and, with the shift to assessing impact introduced for REF2014, social work organisations and policy makers also contribute by providing information and supporting statements to evidence impact. It is therefore essential that all opportunities for learning offered by the REF exercise are captured.

This article has been produced by both academic and impact assessors who served on Sub-panel 20 for REF2021, with the aim of disseminating and reflecting on the picture of social work research and impact provided by REF assessment. We acknowledge that UOA20 does not capture all social work research produced in the UK: numerous research outputs are not submitted for REF assessment and some universities take the strategic decision to return their social work research to another UOA such as Allied Health Professions (UOA3) or Sociology (UOA21). Members of Sub-panel 20 encountered challenges in distinguishing social work from social policy and criminology research: much of the work assessed was interdisciplinary and, for many outputs, disciplinary boundaries appeared porous. Nevertheless, opportunities for painting a picture of social work research across the UK are rare and this account benefits from the fact that some social work assessors contributed to the work of the sub-panel in both 2014 and 2021, enabling us to comment on change and growth.

Research England, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) which provides government funding for research, managed the REF process and acted on behalf of the Scottish Funding Council, the Higher Education Council for Wales and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. Formal REF outputs include reports to universities and their departments, ratings tables which are broken down by UOA and by institution, and panel reports which include overviews of the work of individual sub-panels [see REF2021 (2022b) for Sub-panel 20’s overview report]. The REF has strong governance processes so, whilst other organisations may use REF data to produce their own material (e.g. university marketing campaigns or university ‘league tables’ published in the national press) these are not endorsed by the REF. This article represents the views of social work assessors who served on Sub-panel 20; our comments should not be attributed to UKRI or the chairs of Sub-panel 20 or Main Panel C. We offer ‘high-level’ conclusions about the assessment process and the broad profile of social work research and impact that the REF provides. We do not comment on specific outputs, researchers or institutions.

We begin by considering the implications of the REF for universities, their staff and for society more broadly. We then move to explaining the REF process, in particular the workings of Sub-panel 20. We provide accounts of social work research and impact as viewed through the lens of the REF before reaching some conclusions. Discussion of research environment, the third element of REF assessment, is woven through. Each academic assessor on Sub-panel 20 reviewed only the outputs allocated to themself; none saw the full array. Whilst we have been able to draw on Sub-panel 20’s published overview report (REF2021, 2022), REF rules required us to destroy all notes and records. Instead, we have engaged in iterative consultation with all seven social work academic assessors on Sub-panel 20, eliciting their responses to a questionnaire and their comments on successive drafts of this article. This dialogical process has enabled us to paint a rich picture of social work research submitted to Sub-panel 20. Since REF impact case studies, and impact scores for each UOA submission, are in the public domain ( REF2021, 2022a ), we have been able to return directly to these to inform this account.

The REF is a long-established feature of university life in the UK. Whilst Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand and Italy have adopted similar systems for appraising university research, the model is not found in all jurisdictions. Notwithstanding its critics, the REF is widely regarded as a barometer of the health and quality of UK research and a great deal of work goes into preparing submissions. Universities use REF results to market teaching programmes, impress funders, boost staff morale and attract new staff and students. University websites are replete with REF-related quotes on impact, research quality and international and national league tables. The REF results impact on the reputations and status of universities, departments and individual academics.

REF results are used to determine the distribution of the UK Research Councils’ block grants known as quality-related (QR) funds (Research Excellence Grant in Scotland), which provide funding for university research over several years. Once announced, grants can inform universities’ strategic planning, as this funding stream is known and sustained, unlike much other research funding which is allocated through competitive bidding processes. In July 2022, following publication of the REF results, Research England announced that QR funding (in England) would rise from £1.789 billion in 2021–2022 to £1.974 billion in 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, an increase of 10.4 per cent ( University Business, 2022 ). The distribution formula remains unchanged; those who have done proportionally better in REF have received a greater proportion of funding. Where growth has increased, for example in North-East England, universities have benefited ( Coe and Kernohan, 2022 ).

The implications of additional research funding are significant. Research councils and other funders can use REF outcomes as a benchmark of research quality. A key change since REF2014 is that UK access to European Union research funding is restricted following Brexit. Hence, QR funding’s contribution to the total research pot is now greater and may be relied on more heavily. Arguably, the REF process provides accountability for public investment, so that the benefits of university research can be demonstrated to funders and society as a whole. Along with other forms of audit, it creates a performance incentive for universities.

Within universities, REF results are used to inform institutional decisions on resource allocation. Departments that have improved their position in the league tables may expect to be rewarded, whilst departments whose ranking has fallen and who lack other sources of income (particularly teaching income) may be vulnerable to cuts. There are also implications for staff contracts. Following the Stern Review (2016) , in REF2021, all staff with ‘significant responsibility for research’ were entered for REF assessment, a rule change that resulted in 76,132 academics submitting at least one research output, compared with 52,000 in 2014.

Universities developed their own internal systems for assessing the quality of outputs well ahead of the REF submission deadline. In some institutions, staff with ‘significant responsibility’ for research but with outputs either scarce or judged internally to be of low quality may have been ‘invited to consider’ changing to ‘teaching only’ contracts in order to ensure a high-quality submission overall. The REF results do not specify the ratings allocated to individual researchers’ outputs, so offering protection for individual careers. For staff included in the REF, particularly those chosen to submit an impact case study, advantages may include opportunities for promotion or career advancement elsewhere.

The value of the REF is not uncontested. Some critics regard it as emblematic of an expanding audit culture ( Torrance, 2020 ) that ‘constructs an illusion of intellectual excellence and innovation whose true purpose is the neutralization of the university as a centre of independent knowledge creation and learning’ ( O’Regan and Gray, 2018 , p. 533). The University and Colleges Union ( UCU, 2022 ) considered the REF ‘a flawed, bureaucratic nightmare … a drain on the time and resources of university staff, and funding often entrenches structural inequalities’. Others are more qualified in their appraisals. Whilst also criticising the neoliberal underpinnings of the REF, MacDonald (2017) recognises that it can provide institutional space and incentive for impactful research for the public good. Manville et al. (2021) highlight the burden imposed by the REF, but report that over half the academics surveyed claimed it had not significantly influenced their own research. At the other end of the spectrum, Whitfield (2023) expresses confidence in the REF as a mechanism for ensuring accountability for government research funding which has strengthened the quality of UK research.

As suggested by the UCU, QR funding allocations may reinforce some existing inequalities between universities: wealthier institutions tend to perform well and so receive more QR funding. Russell Group (a self-selected group of twenty-four older and better-endowed universities) and older universities cluster at the top of the rankings. But this cannot be taken for granted and in social work and social policy, some newer institutions performed well in 2021.

For the world outside universities, the REF’s emphasis on impact and requirement to produce impact case studies has had the effect of strengthening communication and collaboration between university-based researchers and a wide range of partners from the practice and policy sectors. As an applied discipline, social work research has always maintained close links with research users, but the assessment of impact has sharpened researchers’ interest in how their research is disseminated, taken up and translated into social change. With research translation now a major preoccupation for academia, university research is increasingly likely to be engaging in ongoing dialogue with a variety of stakeholders and contributing to local, regional and national priorities.

UOA20 was one of twelve sub-panels that sat under REF2021’s Main Panel C which covered the social sciences. This structure allowed for planning, calibration and management of the task of assessing very large amounts of material to be carried out across disciplines, with the aim of achieving consistency and adherence to common practices and standards. Chairs were appointed to the REF panels and sub-panels following open advertisement and interviews and sub-panel members were nominated by learned bodies and other associations such as the Association of Professors of Social Work, Joint Social Work Education Council, the British Association of Social Work, the British Society of Gerontology and some of the major charities. Impact assessors and research users were similarly nominated and came from a range of practice, policy, research and knowledge transfer organisations. Sub-panel members were appointed in stages, allowing sub-panels to ensure they included a wide range of expertise and were sufficiently diverse and representative. The REF’s own analysis of appointments to all REF2021 sub-panels found significantly increased representativeness since 2014 ( REF2021/01, 2021 ). Sub-panel 20 included twenty-six academic assessors (eight of whom were predominantly social work academics), three research users, six impact assessors, one panel adviser and one panel secretary. Twenty-four sub-panel members (63 per cent) were women and fourteen (37 per cent) were men. Twenty-one per cent of the sub-panel were from Black and Minoritised ethnic communities. Institutions from each of the UK’s four nations were represented as were Russell Group and post-1992 universities (approximately seventy-eight institutions, mostly former polytechnics granted university status by the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act).

Sub-panel 20 met between November 2019 and March 2022. Restrictions imposed by the pandemic meant that most meetings were held online, but this did not seem to impede communication or decision-making. Planning and preparation started early and sub-panel members were able to contribute to developing guidance for submitting units—this was deliberately broad and inclusive reflecting the disciplines’ porous boundaries—planning workload management and working methods. All sub-panel members undertook unconscious bias training and participated in calibration exercises designed to ensure consistency in grading all components of submissions. In keeping with REF guidance ( REF2021a, 2019 ) regarding the reliability of citation data, especially in applied research fields, Sub-panel 20 made no use of bibliographic metrics to inform the assessment of outputs, relying solely on expert review. A grading process underpinned by assessor commentary was adopted with continuous monitoring of assessors’ rating patterns and particular attention given to borderline grades.

In total, seventy-six universities submitted research to sub-panel 20 – 15 more than in REF2014. Of these, 39.5 per cent were pre-1992 and 60.5 per cent were post-1992 universities. Fourteen institutions submitted to UOA20 for the first time, indicating expansion of research in these fields.

Likewise, the numbers of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff with significant responsibility for research who were returned to UOA20 increased by 61.8 per cent from REF2014. This growth is in part attributable to changes in REF procedures: REF2014 did not require all such staff to be submitted, whereas REF2021 did. However, it also indicates the vigour of the UOA20 disciplines. The sub-panel received a total of 5,158 outputs for review, an increase of 8 per cent from REF2014.

All outputs were reviewed by two assessors. One took responsibility for reviewing all outputs for an institution, so providing a full overview of that university’s unit of submission. The second was allocated on the basis of their expertise. A high number of interdisciplinary outputs was assessed and where expertise was felt to be lacking, in consultation with the sub-panel’s interdisciplinary adviser, outputs were cross-referred to appropriate sub-panels. Where gradings differed substantially, paired assessors discussed them and reached a joint decision. Very occasionally, a third assessor was brought in. The same approach was employed to assess impact case studies which were assessed jointly by an impact assessor and the academic assessor with responsibility for the submitting institution. Environment statements were assessed in larger groups of three including the allocated institutional assessor and two other panel members. The overall quality profile for each unit of submission to the REF2021 was calculated using a formula weighting of 60 per cent for outputs, 25 per cent for impact and 15 per cent for environment.

As noted above, it was not always easy to allocate outputs to one specific discipline. However, if the number of outputs allocated to a second assessor with social work expertise is used as a crude indicator of discipline, Sub-panel 20 assessed approximately 1,400 outputs for social work, 2,220 for social policy and 1,130 for criminology. Social work outputs therefore constituted approximately 30 per cent of the work assessed. In total, 225 impact case studies were assessed across all three disciplines, up from 190 in 2014. About one-third of these were predominantly social work, although this categorisation is very approximate since many were multidisciplinary.

Table 1 shows the final profiles for outputs, impact and environment across the whole UOA. As in REF2014, the UOA as a whole performed particularly well in respect of impact with over three-quarters of case studies rated 3* (internationally excellent) or 4* (world-leading). Similarly, three-quarters of the outputs assessed were rated 3* or 4*. Direct comparison between REF2021 and REF2014 results is difficult, due to changed rules regarding the ratio of outputs to returned FTE staff, and because REF2021 covered seven years (1 January 2014–31 December 2020) whilst REF2014 covered six years (January 2008–December 2013). Nonetheless, these results represent a slight improvement on those of REF2014. Of the 4,844 outputs submitted to the sub-panel, 577 (12 per cent) were attributed to early career researchers, signalling the continued growth and sustainability of the research community. Similarly, the environment statements submitted to Sub-panel 20 reported a 20.9 per cent increase in PhD completions over the REF period, as seen in Table 2 .

Quality profiles (FTE weighted) for UOA20, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 126).

UoA20 all doctoral awards by academic year, REF2021

Source : REF2021 (2022b , p. 136).

Other indicators of growth found across the sub-panel included an average increase in universities’ social work and social policy research funding of £4.2 million per annum across the REF period.

Following changes in the REF guidance, the environment statements reported on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues more fully than in REF2014. The stronger statements assessed provided detail on progress made since REF2014 regarding under-representation of staff with protected characteristics (i.e. age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation as defined by the 2010 Equality Act).

Significant progress towards, or the achievement of, key EDI benchmarks was found in some cases, although this tended to be better evidenced for gender than ethnicity or other protected characteristics. However, there were some examples of positive practice in relation to research students: for instance, one institution had targeted PhD studentships on Black, Asian and Minoritised students.

The final ranking table for UOA20 was not dissimilar to that for REF2014, with the top end dominated by the better-resourced Russell Group and older universities. However, it was notable that more post-1992 institutions featured in the top thirty universities for social work and social policy than in 2014, indicating the increasing strength of some of these departments. As a group, institutions submitting to UOA20 for the first time produced a generally lower profile than the overall sub-panel profile: success in the REF is, to some extent, shaped by experience in and the resource devoted to crafting the submission. However, these new submissions displayed some key strengths and demonstrated expansion of the disciplines.

Turning to UK social work outputs submitted to Sub-panel 20, the overarching impression is that social work has continued to grow in maturity, sophistication and confidence as a research discipline and interdisciplinary field. Increased breadth and diversity were demonstrated in the range of contemporary issues explored and approaches taken. Assessors saw examples of outstanding excellence amongst outputs based on applied and empirical, conceptual and literature-based research. Where substantive themes or methodologies were familiar from REF2014, these were often treated with greater refinement and criticality. There were also strong signs that substantial funder investment can bear fruit in research of world-leading quality. Whilst centres of excellence in particular sub-fields produced some outstanding outputs, excellent research and 4* outputs were identified in all submitting units, including those newly submitting to the REF.

Output quality assessment

The three criteria used for appraising the quality of outputs were ‘originality, significance and rigour’ (see Box 1 ).

The overall quality of each output was judged according to the following starred level ratings:

Four star: quality that is world leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Three star: quality that is internationally excellent in terms of originality, significance and rigour but which falls short of the highest standards of excellence.

Two star: quality that is recognised internationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

One star: quality that is recognised nationally in terms of originality, significance and rigour.

Unclassified: outputs that fall below the quality levels described above or do not meet the definition of research used for the REF.

Demonstrating research quality

Whilst claims to originality, significance and rigour were commonly flagged in outputs assessed, their validity needed to be demonstrated and not merely asserted. Originality was strongest where, for example, a new model was introduced for conceptualising or responding to a familiar social work issue or new questions explored in uncharted territory. It was less evident where a tried and tested approach was being replicated or there was significant overlap between outputs within the same submission. Significance could be both under-sold, commonly as an afterthought, or over-sold, say by drawing far-reaching implications from an exploratory study. Conversely, compelling significance could be demonstrated where clear contributions to knowledge, implications for law, policy, practice and/or research were well integrated. We discuss demonstration of rigour in more detail below. However, we saw instances where limited funding or tight deadlines appeared to have led to hurriedly written reports or lack of fit between funder agendas and real-world practicalities (such as challenges with implementing initiatives to be evaluated) compromised the suitability and effectiveness of the research approach taken.

Topics examined

As in REF2014, there was a preponderance of social work research on children and families, particularly child safeguarding, looked after children and young people and care leavers. In contrast, there was less attention to early help and support (services provided for children and families as soon as a problem appears). Some outputs highlighted the socio-economic, political and cultural determinants of challenges these children and families face, others focused on their individual and immediate characteristics and contexts. Many outputs discussed evaluation of new, sometimes innovative, practice or policy initiatives and their impacts; others explored pathways through and outcomes from services-as-usual. A prominent theme was child protection threshold decision-making, with relationship-based and trauma-informed practice, online harms and child trafficking more recently emerging themes.

Amongst outputs addressing social work and social care with adults and older people, established foci on ageing and dementia, mental health, disabilities, care and carers, and palliative or end-of-life care, were complemented by growth in attention to sexuality and LGBTQ+ groups, and gerotechnology. Other themes included isolation and loneliness, work and retirement and cultural and environmental gerontology.

Several research themes cross-cut service user groups. Prominent amongst them was interpersonal violence against children, women and older people. Cross-cutting themes were also commonly interdisciplinary and spoke to ‘big’ contemporary social work and policy challenges: inequalities, poverty and social exclusion, migration and digital transformation. For example, there was clear growth in outputs addressing social work with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants; with Black and Minoritised communities and on digital technologies—their opportunities and risks, impacts on practice and technological value as research tools. Intergenerational and spatial perspectives were also foregrounded.

As in REF2014, an array of outputs considered the social work profession: its governance and regulation; professional identity, ethics and values; organisational cultures; supervision and support; social workers’ well-being and professional education.

Use of theory and conceptual frameworks

There was wide variation in the extent to which outputs engaged with theory or concepts. A minority were written expressly to use a particular theoretical or conceptual lens to scrutinise social work issues. Elsewhere, variable recourse to theory could reflect significant differences in funding level and requirements. Outputs from government- or agency-commissioned research were more often targeted towards practice or policy application than theorisation. In contrast, larger-scale research council or charity funding could provide the platform for outputs whose sophisticated application of theory significantly enhanced their contributions to knowledge as well as practice and policy.

Relatively, few social work outputs introduced entirely original theories or concepts, but a considerable number drew on theory from diverse disciplines. Some familiar theories—such as attachment or ecological theories, the social model of disability or specific practice theories—were applied with increased criticality and nuance. Others were more newly applied to social work issues, including theories of social justice and rights applied to safeguarding; post-colonial theory and concepts of social exclusion, cultural competence or empowerment applied to work with minority communities and migrants; organisational learning and systems theories applied to innovation and development and psychosocial and communication theories applied to relationship-based practice.

Scale and ambition

Many social work outputs were based on small scale, local and qualitative research, as is typical within the discipline. These bear witness both to high levels of local stakeholder partnership that underpin their funding, focus and design, and to alignment with person-centred social work values and engagement with lived experience. However, their preponderance may also reflect low funding, traditional lack of UK social work research capacity or appetite for quantitative research, and paucity of robust, suitable large-scale datasets.

Nonetheless, there was encouraging evidence that the scope and scale of the UK social work research landscape is shifting. Some excellent collaborative international and comparative research addressed social work concerns globally (including in the Global South). There were also some outstanding outputs from large, well-funded, multi-method and/or longitudinal projects. Where there was substantial external funding from major national research funders, there was scope and scale for ground-breaking research and world-leading outputs. Such projects could also offer capacity development, with early career researchers on occasion leading authorship of excellent publications.

Methodologies and methods

We noted the increasing range, diversity and sophistication of methodologies and methods used. Empirical research outputs ranged from: small scale, qualitative studies to longitudinal analyses of large datasets and multi-method evaluations to in-depth ethnographies and cross-country comparisons to local action research projects. Naturally, methodological quality varied: some methods were applied inappropriately; others were poorly applied or were too thinly explained. Assessors saw plentiful use of tried and tested methods such as interviews and focus groups, with relatively fewer novel methods developed and well demonstrated. Despite this, the growth in qualitative and quantitative methodological range, competence and confidence was impressive.

First, it was clear that qualitative research strengths already demonstrated in REF2014 had developed further, including increased use of innovative and creative—such as visual, digital and arts-based—methods. There was also some excellent ethnographic research, at times making sophisticated use of multiple methods to explore lived experience and practice in diverse settings. UK social work research has long prioritised user voice and co-production—arguably as a path-leader in social and health sciences. Assessors observed participatory research continuing to flourish, through co-produced work with people with dementia, mental health needs and physical impairments, with LGBTQ+ and excluded communities and with vulnerable children and young people. The highest quality studies reflected critically upon the complexity of service users’ engagement with services and research, deploying methods to enable meaningful participation across all research stages.

Second, enhanced methodological range and sophistication were demonstrated in areas considered weaker in social work research submitted to REF2014. These included: sound use of economic analysis to evaluate cost-effectiveness/benefits of initiatives; rigorous randomised-controlled trials or quasi-experiments examining the effectiveness of interventions and digital technology used for large-scale surveys. The growth and improved rigour of quantitative and longitudinal research was especially striking, featuring amongst others robust multivariate analysis of large administrative or cohort/panel datasets that could afford, at scale, cross-sectional evidence of patterns of needs and services, or longitudinal evidence of outcomes over time. Large-scale and experimental quantitative methods could also be deployed to excellent effect within mixed-method designs. For example, mixed methods randomised-controlled trials could shed light on the contexts and mechanisms of change that contributed to outcomes; qualitative interviews with service users or providers could make sense of patterns of need, service use or outcomes identified through large data analysis.

What is impact?

Research impact has become an increasingly important element in REF assessment: its contribution to the overall rating of submissions increased from 20 per cent in REF2014 to 25 per cent in REF2021. Impact was reported mainly in the format of impact case studies which were expected to provide a clear, coherent narrative that included an account of which audiences, constituencies, groups, organisations, places, services or sectors had benefited, been influenced or been acted upon as a consequence of research.

REF2021 defined impact as an ‘effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia’ ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 68). So any positive impact beyond an institution’s own teaching and advancement of academic knowledge was within scope of this broad definition.

Impact was understood to include, but was not limited to, an effect on, change or benefit to:

the activity, attitude, awareness, behaviour, capacity, opportunity, performance, policy, practice, process or understanding;

of an audience, beneficiary, community, constituency, organisation or individuals;

in any geographic location whether locally, regionally, nationally or internationally ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 90).

The guidance also acknowledged additional impacts arising from research, such as holding public or private bodies to account, which may have resulted in a proposed change not taking place, or made a contribution to critical public debate.

Assessors considered whether the claims made for impact were supported by evidence and indicators. They also examined the coherence and clarity of narratives describing the sequence of activities and events leading to underpinning research being acted upon. This ‘pathway to impact’ proved to be a key element in the assessment. REF documentation acknowledged ‘there are multiple and diverse pathways through which research achieves impact’; moreover, the relationship between research and impact can be ‘indirect or non-linear’ and can be ‘foreseen or unforeseen’. Impact may also be achieved by ‘individuals alone, through inter-institutional groups, to groups including both academic and non-academic participants’ ( REF2021, 2019b , p. 63).

The two key components of impact were articulated in REF guidance as

‘Reach’ is understood as the extent and/or diversity of the beneficiaries of the impact. Reach is defined and assessed in terms of the extent to which the potential constituencies, number or groups of beneficiaries have been reached ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). So, this is designed to distinguish between, for example, a study that had an impact on a small number of people in one geographical area, with another that could have affected policy impacting on a whole country. Having said that, it is not designed to be assessed in purely geographic terms, nor in terms of absolute numbers of beneficiaries.

‘Significance’ is understood as the degree to which the impact has enabled, enriched, influenced, informed or changed the performance, policies, practices, products, services, understanding, awareness or well-being of the beneficiaries ( REF2021, 2019a , p. 52). Therefore, this is designed to capture something about the scale and importance of the claimed impact.

Assessors produced an overall judgement about reach and significance of impacts, rather than assessing each criterion separately, and neither was privileged over the other.

Quality and range of impacts

Over three-quarters of the impact case studies considered as predominantly social work were judged to have achieved impact of outstanding or very considerable reach and significance. Many were interdisciplinary and high levels of impact were achieved at local, regional, national and international levels.

Amongst the wide variety of social work case studies, some were based on the work of one or two researchers whilst others were collaborative. Some were founded on one-off studies, others on a long-term commitment to one research area, such as adoption practice. They demonstrated a wide range of practice and policy outcomes, with impact reaching practitioners, policy makers, local authorities, membership organisations, voluntary sector groups, service users, excluded groups and communities.

The following comprise the main types of impact demonstrated:

Government policy including legislation, statutory guidance—such as changing formal legislation about rules on contact.

Regulation—such as the inclusion of new criteria into the inspection frameworks used by Ofsted.

Practices and the way in people approach their work—such as developing new ‘models’ of social work practice by delivering training programmes across a number of local authorities or professional groups.

Products, resources and technologies—such as new toolkits for social workers or managers of residential homes, and physical objects for interacting with children.

Increased understanding, including public or professional awareness—such as identifying positive benefits of aspects of the care system traditionally seen as problematic.

Increased well-being, engagement, safety or health of service users—such as helping people who have experienced abuse overcome feelings of stigma and disempowerment through a process of ethical engagement in the research and policy-making process.

Excellence was found across the different impact types and beneficiaries, including examples of challenging the status quo and influencing the terms of debate. However, some case studies seemed to confuse dissemination with impact by, for example, simply citing numbers of downloads or participants attending training sessions, rather than specifying what had actually changed. Impact could also be over-claimed, such as where contributions affected teaching within but not beyond the submitting institution, or changed practice appeared attributable to the roll-out of an intervention, rather than to the research evaluating it.

Impact was frequently assisted by researchers engaging with key stakeholders and planning for impact from the outset. Research council and universities’ own Impact Acceleration funding had supported ongoing relationships with key stakeholders in a number of cases, and including stakeholder representatives in research teams was also effective. Participation in formal governance processes, such as responses to consultations and attendance at select committees were important ways to influence policy makers, and using a range of digital technologies, including communication campaigns, could amplify impact wider. The strongest case studies were able to show how research findings had been taken on by users in ways that shifted practices and/or policy agendas beyond original expectations. However, sub-panel members also noted some challenges in providing evidence. The links between the research and the impact claimed were not always clear, nor the beneficiaries always easily identifiable.

Notwithstanding some shortcomings, there were notable improvements overall in the presentation of case studies, indicating that planning and support to achieve external impact is becoming more established. There had clearly been a continuing commitment of resources and investment to enable staff to develop and engage in impact activities, reflecting a growing maturity of impact strategies in institutions ( McKenna, 2021 ).

The enhanced contribution of impact to the assessment process in REF2021 played to social work’s strengths. As an applied discipline promoting social change and development ( International Federation of Social Workers, 2014 ), social work research is committed to achieving impact. Increasingly, universities are devoting energy and resources to building collaborations with research users and those who use services; these help to ensure research findings are used to refine policy, improve services, practices and their outcomes and widen public understanding. This approach needs to be adopted consistently across institutions: the relationships that support impact creation require nurturing over time.

There were indications that UK social work research is becoming less parochial and that increased success in capturing funding has produced some rigorous, large-scale studies that address complex, sometimes global, challenges. Social work research appears more confident in wielding a range of methodologies to good effect, whilst maintaining attention to inequalities and power disparities. Funders need to take on board the message that high-quality social work research is delivered when sufficient time and resources are invested.

As university research centres and institutes build their size and expertise, an inevitable tendency towards specialisation may increase the divide between research on children and on adults. However, some research fields, such as mental health, interpersonal violence, inequalities or poverty, may succeed in bridging this space. The REF’s emphasis on interdisciplinarity may also be valuable here.

In terms of social work’s interdisciplinary partnerships, new research partners in fields such as geography, art and design and informatics are being added to the list of traditional research partners. Social work has always been a porous discipline and this has enabled it to forge new partnerships and embrace new thinking and fields of study.

For those assessing social work research, its open boundaries pose challenges in defining and reporting on what is contained within its territory. For REF purposes, social work’s inclusion in a sub-panel shared with social policy and criminology seems appropriate and allowed for interdisciplinary assessment of outputs and impact that were themselves frequently interdisciplinary. However, for a complete picture of UK social work research to emerge from the REF, all social work units would need to submit to UOA20; we would encourage those who returned their research to other UOAs to consider doing so in the next REF.

All outputs and impact case studies submitted to REF2021 are now available on its website ( https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/outputs# and https://results2021.ref.ac.uk ). This offers the fullest record available at present of social work research in the UK. This material could usefully be categorised and reviewed in a more systematic manner than has been possible here to identify current themes, trends and gaps in social work research. Knowledge of which questions or issues are under-researched, for instance, would be helpful.

The REF process is founded on the principle of peer review and this method of assessment is familiar and acceptable to most academics. In REF2021, in line with the recommendations of the Stern Review (2016) , outputs were treated as the product of the submitting unit rather than of individual researchers. This is consistent with the collaborative and team-based approaches common in social work research, and contrasts with a focus on individual researchers that characterises other approaches to identifying excellence in social work research (see e.g. Hodge and Turner, 2023 ). Whilst the cost, burgeoning scale and influence of the REF may attract critics, its increased attention to impact has shifted university strategies in ways that have benefited social work research. Moreover, the REF’s focus on EDI issues has potential to effect change in higher education, and this drive aligns closely with social work research agendas and values.

During the global pandemic, there was considerable media coverage and public interest concerning the experience of marginalised groups, as well as other issues that have traditionally been the focus of social work research but have attracted limited attention from other constituencies. This shift in public discourse offers an opportunity for social work research to reach new and wider audiences and to accelerate the pace of social change. We have described impact as an attainable goal for social work research, whilst noting the importance of support and infrastructure to achieve it. This infrastructure does not need to be confined to universities driven by the competitive ethos of the REF and its rewards. There are strong arguments for establishing wider cross-cutting mechanisms that can bring together researchers, practitioners and policy makers regionally or nationally, to identify how available research can be harnessed to tackle urgent social problems and where new or more knowledge is required to inform the development of solutions. The picture of social work research and impact offered by the REF could provide the basis for the work of such forums.

Social work research in the UK is growing in strength and influence. It is beginning to attract substantial investment from new funders, notably some that previously have focused solely on health research. The REF provides valuable evidence that social work research can achieve the highest levels of excellence and real change when it is adequately resourced. Opening up sources of health funding to social work researchers has the potential to power large and impactful research studies; this may further diversify the nature of social work research itself. Social work research also has the capacity to offer ideas and methods that are attractive to researchers in other disciplines. REF2021 represents an important staging post in the cycle of social work research’s development. The resources and energy invested in the REF exercise should be utilised to explore future directions and themes for the discipline.

Box 1. Research quality criteria

1. Originality: … the extent to which the output makes an important and innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge in the field. Research outputs that demonstrate originality may do one or more of the following: produce and interpret new empirical finding or new material; engage with new and/or complex problems; develop innovative research methods, methodologies and analytical techniques; show imaginative and creative scope; provide new arguments and/or new forms of expression, formal innovations, interpretations and/or insights; collect and engage with novel types of data and/or advance theory or the analysis of doctrine, policy or practice, and new forms of expression.

2. Significance: … the extent to which the work has influenced, or has the capacity to influence, knowledge and scholarly thought, or the development and understanding of policy and/or practice.

3. Rigour: … the extent to which the work demonstrates intellectual coherence and integrity, and adopts robust and appropriate concepts, analyses, sources, theories and/or methodologies.

REF2021 (2019a , pp. 34–35).

The authors would like to acknowledge the work of all members of Sub-panel 20 which has informed this article. We are particularly grateful to colleagues including Nick Ellison (Chair of Sub-Panel 20), Victoria Boelman, Mweyna Chimba, Brid Featherstone, Dez Holmes, Geraldine Macdonald and Sue White whose assessments and reflections on social work research have contributed to this article.

Conflict of interest statement: The paper states clearly that all authors were members of REF sub-panel 20. This makes conflicts of interest explicit for the reader. If a separate conflict of interest statement is required, please use the following: All authors of this paper were members of Sub-Panel 20, Social Work and Social Policy, for REF2021.

Coe J. , Kernohan D. ( 2022 ) ‘Who’s getting more QR funding in England next year?,’ WONKHE, available online at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/whos-getting-more-qr-funding-in-england-next-year/ (accessed December 6, 2022).

Hodge D. R. , Turner P. R. ( 2023 ) ‘ Who are the top100 contributors to social work journal scholarship? A global study on career impact in the profession? ’, Research on Social Work Practice , 33 ( 3 ), pp. 338 – 49 . Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221136623 (accessed December 12, 2022).

Google Scholar

International Federation of Social Workers . ( 2014 ) ‘Global definition of social work’, available online at: https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/ (accessed December, 6 2022).

MacDonald R. ( 2017 ) ‘ Impact, research and slaying Zombies: the pressures and possibilities of the REF ’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , 37 ( 11–12 ), pp. 696 – 710 .

Manville C. , d’Angelo C. , Culora A. , Ryen E. , Cagla Stevenson G. , Weinstein N. , Wilsdon J. , Haddock G. , Guthrie S. ( 2021 ) Understanding Perceptions of the Research Excellence Framework among UK Researchers: The Real-Time REF Review , Santa Monica, CA , RAND Corporation . Available online at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html; https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1278-1.html (accessed February 22, 2023).

Google Preview

McKenna H. P. ( 2021 ) Research Impact [Google Scholar], Cham, Switzerland , Springer .

O’Regan J. P. , Gray J. ( 2018 ) ‘ The bureaucratic distortion of academic work: a transdisciplinary analysis of the UK Research Excellence Framework in the age of neoliberalism ’, Language and Intercultural Communication , 18 ( 5 ), pp. 533 – 48 .

REF2021 . ( 2019a ) Panel Criteria and Working Methods for Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021 . ( 2019b ) Guidance on Submissions , Bristol , Department for the Economy, HEFCW, UKRI, Scottish Funding Council .

REF2021/01 . ( 2021 ) ‘Analysis of full REF2021 panel membership’, available online at: ref2021_01_analysis-of-full-ref-2021-panel-membership.pdf (accessed September 11, 2022).

REF2021 . ( 2022a ) ‘REF2021 results and submissions’, available online at: https://results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact (accessed September 11, 2022)

REF2021 . ( 2022b ) ‘ Overview report by Main Panel C and Sub-panels 13 to 24 ’, available online at: mp-c-overview-report-final.pdf (ref.ac.uk) (accessed December 6, 2022).

The Stern Report . ( 2016 ) Building on Success and Learning from Experience, an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework , London , Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy . Available online at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf (accessed December 12, 2022).

Torrance H. ( 2020 ) ‘ The research excellence framework in the United Kingdom: processes, consequences, and incentives to engage ’, Qualitative Inquiry , 26 ( 7 ), pp. 771 – 9 .

Universities and Colleges Union (UCU ). ( 2022 ) ‘“Utterly hypocritical” for vice-chancellors to celebrate REF results whilst researchers leave the sector’, available online at: https://www.ucu.org.uk/article/12274/Utterly-hypocritical-for-vice-chancellors-to-celebrate-REF-results-whilst-researchers-leave-the-sector (accessed August 29, 2022).

University Business . ( 2022 ) Research England confirms 10% QR funding increase, University Business (accessed September 28, 2022).

Whitfield J. ( 2023 ) ‘A Bit of Everything’, in London Review of Books (45, 2, 19 January), available online at: John Whitfield · A Bit of Everything: REF-Worthy · LRB 19 January 2023 (accessed 22 February 2023).

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Kia ora - welcome to our new website. We've tried to ensure old links will redirect to the correct pages, but some links may no longer work. Find out more .

About us Mō mātou

About the Ministry of Health and the New Zealand health system. 

Quick links

• Consultations

New Zealand’s health system

• Government Policy Statement
• Health system roles and organisations
• Overview and statutory framework
• Vote Health

Organisation and leadership

• Chief clinical officers
• Executive Governance Team
• Ministry directorates
• Public Health Agency
• Statutory roles

Corporate publications

• Annual reports
• Briefings to incoming Ministers
• Health and Independence reports
• Mental health annual reports
• Strategic intentions
• Current vacancies
• Employee benefits
• Information for job applicants

Regulation & legislation Ngā here me ngā ture

Health providers and products we regulate, and laws we administer.

Legislation we administer

• Rest home audit reports

Assisted dying

Certification of health care services, drug checking, health practitioners competence assurance act, medicinal cannabis, medicines control, mental health and addiction, notifiable diseases, pharmacy licensing, psychoactive substances, smoked tobacco, vaping, herbal smoking and smokeless tobacco, strategies & initiatives he rautaki, he tūmahi hou.

How we’re working to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Health strategies

• New Zealand Health Strategy
• Health of Disabled People Strategy
• Pae Tū: Hauora Māori Strategy
• Rural Health Strategy
• Te Mana Ola: The Pacific Health Strategy
• Women’s Health Strategy

Programmes and initiatives

• Gambling harm
• Health workforce
• Mental health, addiction and suicide prevention
• Pacific health
• Smokefree 2025

Māori health Hauora Māori

Increasing access to health services, achieving equity and improving outcomes for Māori.

• Subscribe for Māori health updates

Ao Mai te Rā anti-racism initiative

Māori health models, te tiriti o waitangi framework, wai 2575 health services and outcomes inquiry, whakamaua: māori health action plan, statistics & research he tatauranga, he rangahau.

Data and insights from our health surveys, research and monitoring.

• New Zealand Health Survey
• Health targets

System monitoring

• Mental health and addiction targets
• Planning and performance data
• New Zealand Gambling Survey
• Past surveys

Statistics and data sets

• Māori health data and statistics
• Mental health data and statistics
• Obesity data and statistics
• Suicide data and statistics
• Tobacco data and statistics
• COVID-19 and immunisation research projects
• Gambling harm research and evaluation
• Our role in health research

Regulation and legislation Ngā here me ngā ture

Health providers and products the Ministry of Health regulates, and laws we administer.

•  Controlled drugs

In this section Kei tēnei wāhanga

Laws the Ministry of Health administers, and legislation that defines our statutory roles and obligations.

Information about abortion legislation and what the legislation means for health practitioners.

About assisted dying legislation in New Zealand, the Ministry of Health’s role regulating assisted dying services, and how to give feedback or make a complaint.

Burial and cremation

About the Ministry of Health's review of the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 and related legislation.

Certifying health care services ensures service providers, auditing agencies, and health districts provide safe and reasonable service levels.

About the Ministry of Health's statutory and regulatory role in relation to disability.

Information about drug checking services and service providers.

Environmental health officers

About the Environmental Health Officers Qualifications Regulations 1993, and being appointed as an Environmental Health Officer.

About the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 20023, professions regulated under it, restricted activities, quality assurance, and how to register a new profession.

High-power laser pointers

Information about controls managing the health and safety risks from high-power laser pointers.

Human Tissue Act

The Human Tissue Act regulates how human tissue is collected and used. This section provides guidance on the consent process, the Standard for non-therapeutic use, and use for research purposes.

Ionising radiation safety

The Ministry of Health administers the Radiation Safety Act 2016 and the Radiation Safety Regulations 2016. 

Industrial hemp

Information about regulations applying to the use of industrial hemp for industry and as a food.

Medical examination of children

Guidelines for the medical examination of children under section 125 of the Health Act 1956, and information for health care workers.

The Medicinal Cannabis Agency administers the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme and ensures medicinal cannabis products meet the minimum quality standard.

Medicines Act

The Medicines Act 1981 regulates medicines, related products and medical devices in New Zealand. The Act ensures that the medicines and products used in New Zealand are safe and effective.

Medicines Control (within Medsafe) oversees local medicine distribution, administration of pharmacy licensing and drug abuse containment activities.

About the Mental Health Act and other legislation relating to mental health and addictions.

A list of the diseases that are notifiable to the Medical Officer of Health.

Psychoactive substances are regulated in New Zealand by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.

Regulating medicines, medical devices and natural health products

Information about proposals in development for the modern, risk-proportionate regulation of medicines, medical devices, and natural health products.

About the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 and regulation of smoked tobacco products in New Zealand.

Sterilisation services

Information about current sterilisation legislation reporting requirements and support for sterilisation providers in New Zealand.

The Ministry of Health regulates vaping, herbal smoking and smokeless tobacco products, ensuring retailers, importers, manufacturers and distributors comply.

• email Email
• print Print
• chat Feedback

© Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora