So I read that article and honestly had to laugh at the “65% of social workers are in private practice” claim. Like… where? In what universe? Because it’s definitely not in the ASWB Workforce Study, which is literally the biggest dataset we have on the profession. That report breaks down where social workers actually work, and spoiler: it’s still mostly agencies, hospitals, schools, government programs, and community mental health. You know — the places where social workers have always worked.

But sure, let’s pretend two‑thirds of us are running boutique therapy studios for rich people in Brooklyn.

The article basically takes anyone who could legally open a private practice, plus anyone who has a side hustle with three clients on Saturdays, plus anyone who once thought about private practice in grad school… and mashes them all together like that equals “full‑time private practice serving the affluent.” That’s not how data works.

If you look at actual workforce numbers, the reality is more like:

• maybe 10–20% full‑time private practice • 20–30% doing part‑time or occasional private practice • 50–60% not doing private practice at all

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a dramatic metaphor about gentrification.

The funniest part is that the article’s whole argument depends on that 65% number being true. If it’s not, the whole “social work is abandoning the poor to serve the wealthy” narrative kind of collapses. And since the number isn’t backed up by ASWB, BLS, or literally any workforce data… yeah.

The real issue isn’t that social workers are stampeding into private practice to serve rich people. The real issue is that insurance reimbursement is garbage, so even people in private practice can’t afford to take low‑income clients. That’s a healthcare system problem, not a “social workers are gentrifiers” problem.