Nancy McDaniel, MPAButler Institute for Families, University of DenverNancy.McDaniel@du.edu

Presented at the 2010 Florida Coalition for Children Annual Conference

Connecting the Dots:

Workforce Selection & Child Welfare Outcomes

It’s not a straight line . . .

But a Long and Winding Road...

Workforce Selection

Child Welfare Outcomes

2

Retention

Turnover

Supervision

Task Assistance

Social & Emotional Support

Interpersonal Interaction

Personal Factors• Commitment to Child

Welfare/Agency• Self-Efficacy• Low-level of emotional

exhaustion• Job Satisfaction

Organizational

Factors• Supervisory &

co-worker support• Salary & benefits Burnout

Title IV-E Educatio

n Child Welfare

Outcomes

Recruitment-Selection

• Competency Based• Realistic Job Preview (RJP)

3

Overview of Presentation:

Workforce and Child Welfare Outcomes

Multiple studies reflect the complexity:

Workforce Factors linked to Child Welfare Outcomes

AND Workforce Factors linked to Retention

and Turnover of Child Welfare Staff4

Workforce Factors: Impact of Turnover on Child Welfare

Outcomes

Delay in timeliness of investigations

Frequency of worker visits with children, hampering attainment of safety and permanency goals

GAO, 2003

Large caseloads and worker turnover linked to:

5

Workforce Factors: Impact of Turnover on Child Welfare

Outcomes

High functioning agencies had lowest turnover (9%), best paid staff, best compliance with practice standards, and lowest rates of re-abuse

Lowest functioning agencies had highest turnover rates (23%), lowest staff pay, highest average rates of re-abuse

NCCD, 2006

Turnover and other workforce factors linked to re-abuse

6

Workforce Factors: Impact of Turnover on Child Welfare

Outcomes

Children with:– 1 worker achieved permanency in 74.5%

cases– 2 workers, permanency in 17.5% cases– 3 workers permanency in 5.2% cases

A picture speaks a thousand words…

Flower, McDonald, Sumski, 2005

Increase in number of worker changes negatively correlated with permanency.

7

Series1

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

7 Workers - 0.1% 6 Workers - 0.1% 5 Workers - 0.3% 4 Workers - 2.2%

3 Workers - 5.2% 2 Workers - 17.5% 1 Worker - 74.5%

Children Entering and Exiting Care to Permanency: January 1, 2003 through September 2004 (N=679)

Flower, McDonald & Sumski, 2005

Impact of Education on Staff Competency and Child Welfare

Outcomes

California

Kentucky

Texas

9

Impact of Education - Title IV-E and Staff Competency:

California

Methodology Annual Online for MSW students at graduation, 6 months,

and 1.5 yr post graduation. Comparison of IV-E and non-IV-E participants in training

academy

Competency Findings Statistically significant knowledge gains on pre-post tests

for both Title IV-E and non IV-E participants IV-E participants scored higher at pre and post-test than

non-IV-E

California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC), 2010 10

Impact of Education - Public Child Welfare Certification Program (PCWCP) and Child Welfare Outcomes: Kentucky

Safety PCWCP group more likely to:

– Continue a case & substantiate abuse– Un-substantiate low-risk cases, substantiate moderate-risk cases, and

continue care for high-risk casesPermanency PCWCP group is:

– More likely to place children with relatives or adoptive homes– Less likely to place in residential settings or emergency shelter

placements– More likely to have established permanency goal– For children in care for 13+ months, more likely to have adoption goal

vs. return homeWell-being Children with non-PCWCP case manager are older, with longer stays in care

and more moves in careBarbee, Antle, Sullivan, Huebner, Fox, Hall, 2009

11

Impact of Education - Title IV-E Child Protection Workers and Child Welfare

Outcomes: Texas

MethodologyPart A: State Case Outcomes – Examine existing administrative data to

determine how case outcomes are affected by Title IV-E training Recurrence of child maltreatment Foster care re-entries Stability of Foster care placement Length of time to achieve reunification Length of time to achieve adoption

Data: 1.8 million unduplicated interventions. Part B: CPS Worker Survey – Investigate characteristics of individual CPS

workers Included all state CPS workers 4078 current employees identified; 2,303 matched, 1,043 usable Compared Title IV-E with Non-Title IV-E Employee

Leung, 2010

12

Impact of Education - Title IV-E Child Protection Workers and Child Welfare

Outcomes: Texas

Findings of 3 CFSR Measures Not Statistically Significant…

Recurrence of child maltreatment– Not statistically significant but direction in favor of Title IV-E

 Foster care re-entries– Not statistically significant but direction in favor of non-Title IV-

E

Stability of Foster care placement– Not statistically significant but direction in favor of non-Title IV-E

Leung, 2010 13

Impact of Education - Title IV-E Child Protection Workers and Child Welfare

Outcomes: Texas

Findings of 2 CFSR Measures Significant in favor of IV-E CPS workers:

Less time to achieve reunification Title IV-E workers had fewer children who were not reunified within 12

months (31.8% compared to 38.2%) Title IV-E workers had more family reunifications within 12 months (68.2%

compared to 61.8%).

Length of time to achieve adoption Title IV-E workers (70.6%) had more finalized adoptions within 24 months

than Non-Title IV-E (46.9%). About 53.1% of the children from Non-Title IV-E workers were without

finalized adoptions within 24 months as opposed to only 29.4% for Title IV-E.

Leung, 201014

Workforce Factors Linked to Retention and Turnover of Child

Welfare Staff

Education and Title IV-E programs

Recruitment and Selection

Personal and Organizational Factors

Supervision

15

Impact of Education: Title IV-E

and Staff Retention

California

Pennsylvania

16

Impact of Education - Title IV-E, Workforce Factors and Staff

Retention: California

Methodology Online survey completed annually by MSW graduates at

graduation, 6 months, and 1.5 yr post graduation. Comparison of IV-E and non-IV-E participants in training

academy classes

Retention Findings Having access to training more than twice a year is

associated with longer retention Getting agency support for licensure is associated with

longer retention

California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC), 2010

17

Impact of Education - Title IV-E, Organizational Climate and Staff

Retention: PennsylvaniaMethodology Trend study of MSW graduates and agency climate at 3 yrs post

graduation Organizational Climate Survey (Glisson and Hemmelgarn,1998)

Findings 80% remained in public CW agency and 20% had left public CW

agency Factors Explaining Retention

– Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, cooperation Factors explaining Departure

– Emotional exhaustion, Job dissatisfaction, personal accomplishment

Factors explaining Job Satisfaction– Using skills/abilities, exercising independent judgment and being

recognized Promotion not as important as using skills

Cahalane, 201018

Impact of Education - Public Child Welfare Certification Program (PCWCP)

and Staff Retention: Kentucky

Methodology Telephone interviews with 15 PCWCP graduates who left

the child welfare agency after two-year period was completed.

Findings about Reasons for Leaving Inadequate supervision Unsupportive coworkers Stressful work environment (bureaucracy, inadequate

resources, and insufficient time to fulfill policy requirements for assigned caseloads)

Barbee, Antle, Sullivan, Huebner, Fox, Hall, 2009

19

Impact of Recruitment and Selection: Job Analysis and Competency-based

Approach

Focus on Competencies needed for the task

Job analyses leading to: Structured interviews and Work Sample

Tests Consistent, well trained selection teams Strong selection processes

Dickinson and McCarthy, 200920

Impact of Recruitment and Selection: Realistic Job

PreviewsWhat are realistic job previews? Introduction to the job prior to employment Balanced view of the job and organization, both

positive and negative Presentation of client and worker perspectives Method for encouraging self-selection and to

meet expectations Can be be videos, internship, dramatization,

information, job shadowing, job sample test

21

Realistic Job Previews and Staff Retention

Methodology Reviewed development of child welfare RJPS, summarized

content of 10 RJPs and reported outcome data from one state.

Findings of 2 studies in 1 State At one year, 12% of staff who had watched RJP had left

versus 21.7% who had not. At one year, 6.2% of workers who had viewed RJP had left

job versus 21.6% who had not (3x higher) Costs Range from 18K – 27K for production (plus some in-

kind)

Faller, Masternak, Grinnell-Davis, Grabarek, Sieffert, Bernotavicz, 2009 22

Examples of Realistic Job Previews

Maine http://www.cwti.org/RR/JobPreview.htm North Carolina http://ssw.unc.edu/jif/rr/rjp.htm Colorado

http://www.cdhs.state.co.us/childwelfare/

23

Workforce Factors: Linked to Staff Retention and

Turnover

Personal Characteristics

Organizational Characteristics

24

Impact of Personal and Organizational Characteristics on

Staff RetentionLiterature review of studies examining retention or turnover

– 154 documents, 9 studies published between 1984 and 2005.

Reasons People Stay: Personal Characteristics

– Workers’ commitment to child welfare– Self-efficacy– Low-levels of emotional exhaustion

Organizational Factors– Supervisory and co-worker support– Salary and benefits

DePanfilis, Zlotnik, 200825

Supervision and Staff Retention

Dimension 1: Task Assistance – supervisor provides tangible, work-related advice and instruction

to workers Leads to: Empowerment, Organizational citizenship, Behavior,

Job Satisfaction, RetentionDimension 2: Social and Emotional Support

Leads to: improved Well-being, Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction

Dimension 3: Interpersonal Interactions – worker’s perception of the quality of the supervisory relationship

Leads to: Sense of competence and personal accomplishment, Organizational Citizenship, Behavior, Job Satisfaction

Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun, and Xie, 2009Synthesis prepared by Munson, 2010

26

Impact of Supervision on Staff Retention

Overall Findings Dimension 1: Task Assistance, had greatest

impact on positive worker outcomes.

Dimensions 2 & 3: Social and Emotional Support and Interpersonal interaction were associated with: – Reduced worker anxiety, stress, depression,

somatic complaints, burnout, intention to leave, and turnover

Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun, and Xie, 2009Synthesis prepared by Munson, 2010 27

Other Findings

Staff who take jobs because they are committed to the mission of the agency were more satisfied and less inclined to leave

Workers were more likely to think about leaving if they thought the organization did not provide what they expected.

Chernesky and Israel (2009) Workers with greater match between job expectations and

skills are less likely to leave Practice-focused and supportive supervision associated with

higher retention Higher risk of turnover in first 2 years and then levels off.

Dickinson and Painter (2009)

28

Other Findings

Should I stay or should I go?Most decisions are made in the first 3 years. MSW less likely to remain in child welfare (usually

leave early in career) Peer support, supervisor support and having an

MSW all predict agency retention Negative agency climate impacts agency

retention (more likely to leave) Supervisor support predicts retention in the child

welfare field

Chenot , Benton, Kim, 2009

29

Public and Private Agencies in Child Welfare

Are there differences?Findings from one mid-western state: Factors preventing turnover: commitment to agency, to child

welfare, good supervision, and job satisfaction.

Reasons for taking the job were important– Private agency workers more likely to take job because only

job available (correlated with level of commitment to job and child welfare).

– Public agency workers more likely to take job because of pay, benefits, job security, opportunities and variety.

– Higher proportion of private agency endorsed “a good first job to take.”

More than 80% of both public and private agency workers selected as a reason to work in child welfare “to help children and families”.

Faller, Grabarek, Ortega, 2010 30

About NCWWI: Vision

skilled at delivering effective and promising practices that improve outcomes for children, youth and families;

strengthened by professional education; sustained through leadership development; and supported by organizational practices that mirror

systems of care principles.

A committed, competent and high performing child welfare workforce that is:

31

NCWWI Purpose

To build the capacity of the nation’s child welfare workforce and improve outcomes for children, youth and families through activities that support the development of child welfare leaders.

32

NCWWI Goals

Identify and deliver child welfare leadership training for middle managers and supervisors.

Facilitate BSW and MSW traineeships. Engage national peer networks. Support strategic dissemination of

effective and promising workforce practices.

Advance knowledge through collaboration and evaluation.

33

NCWWI Program Components

Executive Steering Committee National Advisory Committee Knowledge Assessment and Management

(KAM) Leadership Academies

– Middle Managers (LAMM)– Supervisors (LAS)

Peer Networks BSW and MSW Traineeships Dissemination Evaluation

34

NCWWI Project PartnersUniversity at AlbanyMary McCarthy & Katharine Briar-

LawsonCo-Principal Investigators

University of MarylandNancy DickinsonProject Director

University of Iowa Miriam Landsman

University of DenverCathryn Potter

University of Southern MaineFreda Bernotavicz

Michigan State UniversityGary Anderson

University of MichiganKathleen Faller

Fordham UniversityVirginia Strand

National Indian Child Welfare Association Terry Cross Melissa Clyde

Portland State UniversityKatharine Cahn

Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS Randi Walters Federal Project Officer

35

Contact us: www.ncwwi.org Nancy.McDaniel@du.edu

Questions?

A Service of the Children’s Bureau, a Member of the T/TA Network 36