Organizational Dynamics and Retention in Public Child Welfare Services

Organizational Dynamics and Retention in Public Child Welfare Services

David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSWCalifornia State University Fullerton

CCASSC MeetingJuly 9th, 2010

2David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

Organizational Culture & Retention The Problem

Turnover▪ Rates: PCWS Workforce, National: 15-22% (APHSA, 2005)

PCWS Workforce, California: 1.) Average 9.8% (Clark & Fulcher, 2005)

2.) Range 9-23% (NCCD, 2006)▪ Highly problematic for PCWS Agencies

▪ Cost, $10,000 annually per vacated position-(1995 dollars) (Graef & Hill, 2000)

▪ Estimates of total cost from an 18-state study $53.84 million (APHSA, 2005)

▪ Training issues▪ Overall morale

▪ Harmful to SWs & CMs who leave due to the working conditions▪ Increases workload & stress for SWs & CMs who remain

▪ Most important, very unhealthy for children & families served in PCWS agencies!▪ Number-Ten

David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton 3

Recruitment & Retention

Child Welfare: Vol. 88, Issue 5, 2009 - Special Issue: Strengthening the Child Welfare Workforce: Promoting Recruitment and Retention

Joan Levy Zlotnik, Virginia C. Strand, and Gary R. Anderson (Eds.)

4

Retention The Influence of Supervisor Support, Peer Support, and Organizational Culture

AmongEarly Career Social Workers in Child Welfare Services

David Chenot, Amy D. Benton, and Hansung Kim

Previous studies have demonstrated that those who are in the first years of Child Welfare Services (CWS) employment are at particularly high risk for turnover. This study explored how the effects of support and organizational culture on retention (as the antidote for turnover) vary across different stages of CWS careers.

A sample of 767 workers was divided into subgroups based on their years in CWS. A series of multilevel models were used to examine the differences between the groups. Findings include the crucial role supervisor support plays in retaining workers not only in their agencies, but in the field of CWS. In addition, passive defensive organizational culture has a negative effect on early career workers, but not on mid or late career workers.

This suggests that a unique sensitivity to passive defensive organizational cultures exists early inCWS workers’ careers that appears to dissipate over time. Implications for organizational practices are discussed.

David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton


Supervisor Support

Supervisor Support Supervisor support has been a significant

predictor of retention or turnover in several studies on the Public Child Welfare Services workforce:

▪ APHSA (2005); Dickinson & Perry (2002); Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, & Withers (2008); Landsman (2001); Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001); Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin (2005); Smith (2005)

Supervisor support has also emerged as an important factor in qualitative studies on PCWS retention:

▪ Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, (2007); Reagh, (1994); Rycraft, (1994)


Peer Support Peer support

Mixed results in studies on the PCWS workforce:▪ Significant impact on retention/turnover: Dickinson &

Perry (2002); Ellett & Millar, (2004); Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin (2005)

▪ Impact on intent to leave but not on actual turnover: Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001)

▪ No significant impact: Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, & Withers, (2008); Landsman (2001); Weaver, Chang, Clark, & Rhee (2007)

An important factor in qualitative studies:▪ Reagh (1994); Wagner, Spence, & Burnstein (2001); Wagner, van

Reyk, & Spence (2001)


Organizational Culture

Organizational Culture Few studies on PCWS organizations C0nstructive cultures have a positive

impact on job satisfaction & retention in PCWS agencies▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James (2002);

Glisson et al., (2008) Passive defensive cultures, not so much!

▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James, (2002)


Supervisor/Peer Support & Organizational Culture Variables in the Study

Individual level Variables▪ Supervisor Support▪ Peer Support

Organizational Level Construct▪ Organizational Culture

Control Variables▪ Title/Position in the Agency▪ Social Work Education


Supervisor Support Definitions

Kadushin & Harkness (2002)▪ Three functions of supervision: administration, education,

and support▪ Supervisor support in this study includes aspects of –

▪ Education Transfer the values of the profession to line workers,

increase theoretical knowledge, improve practice skills, enhance problem-solving & self awareness.

▪ Support Maintain motivation, morale & commitment, mitigate

job stress & the effects of role ambiguity – particularly in order to prevent burnout. Professional development and career planning appear to be involved as well.


Supervisor & Peer Support Definitions

▪ Supervisor Support▪ The extent to which the employee believes their

immediate supervisor provides instrumental (knowledge/skill) and affective (emotional) support.

Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems, provides good advice, very knowledgeable about child welfare.

▪ Peer Support▪ The degree of perceived assistance and

understanding received from coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup

Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems, “helpful to me in getting my job done.”

(Landsman, 2000, 2001)


Organizational Culture

Definitions Organizational Culture

▪ A “deep” construct in organizational theory.▪ Culture is composed of the assumptions, beliefs,

values and behavioral norms shared in organizations.▪ The shared nature of these elements is very important

to culture as a concept. ▪ Shared behavioral expectations are the most

“visible” indicators of organizational culture▪ At least two types of cultures:

▪ Constructive▪ Passive Defensive


Organizational Culture Definitions

Organizational Culture▪ Constructive

▪ The fulfillment of higher order satisfaction needs; i.e., self actualization, achievement, the motivation to excel, and a humanistic orientation marked by supportive behaviors and positive interpersonal interactions Proficiency = Responsiveness to clients and Competence in fulfilling

responsibilities.▪ Passive defensive

▪ Related to lower order security and protection needs; i.e., the approval of others (esp. authorities), conformity with conventional operations (rule-following), high levels of dependency, evasion of responsibility, blame and accountability Resistance = Apathy-social workers & case managers show little interest in

change. Suppression- change efforts, including new ways of providing services, are suppressed by workers.

Intent to Stay Projected Retention – Two Outcome Variables

▪ In this study the focus was on retention as a desirable outcome & the opposite of turnover▪ Intent to stay as proxy for retention

•1) Retention=in Public Child Welfare Services Agencies• Intent to stay in the agency

•2) Retention=in the Field of Child Welfare Services• Intent to stay in the field

• CWS encompasses more than PCWS. Those who leave PCWS agencies often go to other types of organizations in the Field of CWS.



Sample: PCWS Agencies by County

The Study & Sample

Study Design Cross-sectional survey research design Sampling

▪ Convenience sample Data gathered in eleven Central California

PCWS Agencies▪ Number of individuals: n=767▪ Number of groups: n=34 ▪ Number of agencies: n=11 ▪ Response rate: 69%


Sample Sample by Title in Agency


76.70%

16.60%

1.20%

2%

3.10%

0.50%

Social WorkersSupervisorsAAsNursesHSAsOther

Retention by Title

Comparison: Retention in the Agency by Title

Projected retention ▪ Current employing PCWS Agency

▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency


Retention by Agency Title

SUPERVISORS SWs & CMs OTHERS

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7RETENTION: AGENCY


Retention by Title

Comparison: Retention in the Field of CWS by Title

Projected retention ▪ Field of Child Welfare Services

▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency


Retention by Agency Title

SUPERVISORS SWs & CMs OTHERS3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8RETENTION: CWS-FIELD


Retention by Education

Comparison: Retention in the Agency & the Field by Education

Projected retention ▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency & Field

of Child Welfare Services▪ By highest educational level (degree) attained


Retention by SW Education


1

2

2.9

2.95

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.35

3.4

Social Work Education: BSWs & MSWs vs. All Others

Others BSWs / MSWs

Agency Field-CWS

Inte

nt to

Sta

y

Retention by Time in Agency Comparison: Retention in the Agency

Projected retention ▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency

▪ By years in the agency



Retention-Agency

<1 Year 2-3 Years 4-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-19 Years >20 Years2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Years in the Agency & Retention-Agency

Inte

nt t

o St

ay-A

genc

y

Sample : Years in the Field-CWS


Characteristics Total Early Career(1 Day – 3 Years)

Mid Career(4 Years - 10 Years)

Late Career (> 11 Years)

n ( %) n ( %) n ( %) n ( %)

Samplea 767 (100) 261 (34.0) 323 (42.2) 181 (22.6)

Agency Title SWs/CMs Supervisors Other titles

587 (76.6)128 (16.7) 52 (7.0)

229 (87.8) 7 (2.7) 25 (9.5)

246 (76.2) 57 (17.6) 21 (6.2)

111 (61.9) 64 (35.4) 6 (3.4)

Education High school Community college Bachelor’s degrees Master’s degrees Ph.D

19 (2.5) 61 (8.0)372 (48.7)308 (40.3) 4 (0.5)

9 (3.4) 30 (11.5) 135 (51.7) 87 (33.3) 0 (0.0)

7 (2.2) 20 (6.2)161 (49.8)132 (40.9) 3 (0.9)

3 (1.7) 11 (6.2) 75 (42.1) 88 (49.4) 1 (0.6)

Social Work Education BSW MSW No social work education

79 (10.4)202 (26.7)476 (62.9)

23 (8.8) 69 (26.5)168 (64.6)

39 (12.1) 80 (24.9)202 (62.9)

17 (9.7) 53 (30.3)105 (60.0)

Multilevel Analysis

HLM analyses: Three models▪ Unconditional model

▪ Variance across groups on outcome variables▪ Conditional model-Predictors at level-1 only

▪ Individual level effects of predictors on outcome variables

▪ Cross-level interactions: Predictors at level 1 & level 2 ▪ Cross-level effects of both the level 1 & level 2

predictors. Tests effects of the level 2 predictors on the intercepts and on the slopes


Results-Early Career Retention-Agency

Significant variance across groups (not shown)


Retention in the Agency Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Fixed EffectsCoef. SE T-ratio Coef. SE T-ratio Coef. SE T-ratio

Intercept3.19 0.08 39.11** 3.19 0.08 39.13** 3.20 0.07 42.84**

Peer Support0.22 0.10 2.22* 0.21 0.10 2.22*

Supervisor Support 0.36 0.08 4.23** 0.36 0.08 4.32**

SWs/CMs0.12 0.14 0.87 0.13 0.14 0.90

MSW-0.56 0.11 -4.93** -0.55 0.11 -5.00**

BSW-0.21 0.10 -2.06* -0.21 0.11 -1.96†

COC 0.00 0.07 0.06

PDOC -0.20 0.07 -2.77*

Note. †p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01

Results-Early Career

Retention Agency Supervisor support & peer support

predicted retention in the agency but supervisor support was strongest▪ Both MSW & BSW negatively predicted

remaining in the agency but MSW was the strongest predictor in the model

Passive defensive organizational culture had a negative effect on the level of retention in the agency across groups




Retention in the Agency

-1.64 -0.76 0.11 0.98 1.852.83

3.00

3.18

3.36

3.53

Passive Defensive Organizational Culture

Ret

entio

n - A

genc

y

Results-Early Career Retention-Field-CWS

No significant variance across groups (not shown)


Retention in the Field Model 1

Model 2 Model 3

Fixed EffectsCoef. SE T-ratio Coef. SE T-ratio Coef. SE T-ratio

Intercept3.29 0.06 52.53** 3.29 0.06 52.86** 3.29 0.06 54.28**

Peer Support 0.09 0.10 0.92 0.09 0.10 0.95

Supervisor Support 0.35 0.06 5.51** 0.34 0.06 5.48**

Social Worker/CM -0.09 0.12 -0.72 -0.09 0.12 -0.76

MSW-0.33 0.09 -3.45** -0.33 0.10 -3.47**

BSW-0.38 0.20 -1.91† -0.38 0.20 -1.91†

COC -0.07 0.05 -1.24

PDC -0.10 0.06 -1.75†

Note. †p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01


Retention Field-CWS Supervisor support predicted retention in

the field but peer support did not▪ Having earned an MSW negatively predicted

remaining in the field but having a BSW did not

Neither type of organizational culture had a significant effect on the level of retention in the field across groups



Results Mid Career

Mid Career

Supervisor support significantly predicted retention in the agency & the field

Peer support did not either Passive defensive organizational culture

did not predict retention


Results Late Career

Late career

Supervisor support significantly predicted retention in the agency but not in the field

Peer support did not predict either Passive defensive organizational culture

did not predict retention

Summary of Findings Results

Supervisor support predicted retention in PCWS agencies at every career level but was strongest in early and mid career

Peer support predicted retention in PCWS agencies only among those early in their careers

Supervisor support was a significant predictor of retention in the Field-CWS and in early and mid career only.

Peer support did not predict retention in the field in any career group

Retention in the agency was negatively affected by passive defensive organizational cultures. This influence emerged only among those early in their careers


Implications The Role of Supervisor Support in Retention

and Professional Development The influence of PCWS agency supervisors is strong

enough to affect longevity and possibly career decisions in PCWS agencies. That influence extends to Child Welfare Services as a field of practice among those early in their careers.▪ Supervisors appear to play a pivotal role in the

professional development of PCWS social workers. In early career, peers impact PCWS social workers

but the influence of supervisors is stronger and more pervasive.


Implications

Supervisor Support PCWS supervisors have a great deal of

influence over the working lives of social workers▪ This appears to be particularly true for new social

workers but lasts throughout their careers. ▪ There appears to be an acculturation or socialization

process for new social workers in PCWS agencies and CWS as a field of practice. PCWS supervisors and peers are the prime movers in that process.

▪ Supervisors in particular help new PCWS social workers learn both about their agencies and the Field of CWS.


Implications

Supervisor Support▪ How can supervisors support their workers ?

They must feel supported by the agency administration▪ When supervisors were analyzed alone their ratings

of “supervisor support” (administrators) were significant for both retention in the agency (.35, p<.01) and retention in the Field-CWS (.31, p<.01).

Administrators must attend to the needs of supervisors and support their supervisors if a stable, committed workforce is a goal for the agency.


Implications The Influence of the Organizational Context

Passive defensive organizational culture▪ Those early in careers that were in groups that rated

their agencies’ cultures as passive defensive in nature were less likely to project that they would remain in their agencies. ▪ However, this was only the case among those early in their

careers.▪ There may be an unhealthy acculturation process that

takes place during PCWS careers. ▪ Workers appear to become desensitized to the passive

defensive nature of their agency cultures when they progress into mid and late career. (i.e., avoidance of responsibility, accountability, and blame; apathy & resistance to change).



Implications

The Cultures of our Agencies May be Driving Out New Social Workers When social workers elect to stay, what

do the passive defensive aspects of the cultures do to them?

Do they encourage competent practice? Changes should focus on promoting

creativity, autonomous decision making, participatory decision making, etc.

40

CalSWEC/Title IV-E

Second study Masters of Social Work only 202 participants with MSW degrees

▪ With Title IV-E funding during their master’s education: n=155.

▪ Without Title IV-E funding during their master’s education: n=47.



Research Question

1. Will PCWS social workers with Title IV-E training (while in MSW Programs) be more likely to remain in PCWS organizations and in the Field of CWS than those without Title IV-E training (while they were in MSW Programs)?


Study Variables Independent variables

Years in the agency/field

Racial/ethnic background

Job position (supervisors, social workers)

Service orientation Supervisor support Peer support

Outcome variables Intent to stay=PCWS

Agency

Organizational climate▪ Engaging organizational

climate▪ Stressful organizational

climate Job satisfaction Organizational

commitment Commitment to the Field of

CWS Title IV-E

Intent to stay=Field of CWS


Definitions Service orientation

Belief that social work practice in CWS is valuable to society. Supervisor Support

Belief that the immediate supervisor provides instrumental (knowledge/skill) and affective (emotional) support.

Peer Support Perceived assistance and understanding received from

coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup. Organizational Climate

Employees’ perceptions of the effects their work environments have on them:

▪ a sense of well-being or lack of well-being within the agency, etc.▪ the impact employees have on the services they provide.

▪ Two types:▪ Engaging: composed of personal accomplishment and ‘personalization.’▪ Stressful: composed of emotional exhaustion, role conflict and role overload.


Definitions▪ Job Satisfaction

▪ Cognitive appraisal of work experiences and affective states connected to those appraisals.

▪ Commitment to the Organization▪ Identification and involvement with the organization.

▪ Commitment to the Field of Child Welfare Services▪ Identification and involvement with the field of CWS.

▪ Retention▪ Intent to stay has been the strongest predictor of

retention in many cross-sectional studies historically ▪ Intent to stay was the proxy for retention in this study

Intent to stay in the PCWS agency Intent to stay in the field of CWS

45

Intent to Stay in the Agency by Years in the Field

Less than 4 4-10 years more than 10 years

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

2.7 2.9 33

3.63.3

Title IV-ENo Title IV-E


46

Intent to Stay in the Field by Years in the Field

Less than 4 4-10 years more than 10 years

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

3 3.13.4

2.9

3.8 3.6

Title IV-ENo Title IV-E



Hierarchical Regression: Standardized coefficients Intent to stay in the agency Intent to stay in the field

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3Predictors Years in the field 0.03 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.10 Years in the agency 0.19 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.05 Asian 0.06 0.01 -0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 Black -0.19 -0.15 -0.16 -0.16 -0.14 -0.14 Hispanic -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.07 -0.06 -0.06 White -0.13 -0.06 -0.09 0.03 0.05 0.04 Supervisor position 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.04 -0.00 0.14 Service orientation 0.14 -0.08 -0.07 0.15* -0.06 -0.05 Supervisor support 0.26* 0.06 0.08 0.15* 0.02 0.03 Peer support 0.02 0.03 0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.00 Engagement org. climate 0.04 0.00 -0.00 0.10 -0.03 -0.03 Stressful org. climate -0.31* -0.10 -0.10 -0.25* -0.10 -0.10 Organizational commitment 0.42* 0.41* 0.05 0.04 Commitment to the field 0.06 0.07 0.56* 0.56* Job satisfaction 0.24* 0.23* 0.17* 0.16* Title IV-E during MSW -0.13* -0.09Model Summary R2 change 0.30 0.20 0.01 0.24 0.29 0.01 F change 6.66* 24.47* 5.07* 4.98* 38.67* 2.41

Note. * p < 0.05


Results Dissimilarity concerning tenure on the job or in

the field between Title IV-E and Non Title IV-E participants made no difference in the regression analysis.

Similarly, ethnic differences in the sample did not play a significant role in the regression analysis.

Unexpected findings: Title IV-E participants were less likely to remain in their agencies than their counterparts.

Unexpected findings: Title IV-E was not associated with participants’ intention to stay in the field (no positive impact by Title IV-E).


Results Organizational commitment and job satisfaction are the most

consistent predictors of retention in PCWS Agencies (Landsman, 2001, etc.).

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as engaging were not significant predictors in these models.

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as stressful had negative direct effects on job satisfaction and/or commitment.

Supervisor support had positive effects on retention in agencies and the field.

Service orientation had a positive effect on retention in the Field of CWS. Further exploration requires analyses to better understand

the paths of the effects and potential indirect effects indicated in these models.


Analysis Exploratory analysis Research question: What factors lead to lower

retention in PCWS agencies among those with Title IV-E training than Non-Title IV-E MSWs (in this sample)?

▪ Sample = Title IV-E participants only (n=155)▪ Outcome variables: retention in the agency only▪ Model includes many of the same predictors used in

previous models

Path analysis with SEM Resultsh

51

Results



Results Title IV-E participants only:

Supervisor support had positive indirect effects on retention in PCWS agencies through job satisfaction and commitment.

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as stressful had negative indirect effects on retention in PCWS agencies through job satisfaction and commitment.

Service orientation had a strong positive indirect effect on retention in PCWS agencies, through job satisfaction.


MSW/Title IV-E Retention Implications

Unexpected findings: we expected quite the opposite in this comparison of MSWs with & without Title IV-E training concerning retention in PCWS Agencies.

▪ Are those who received specialized Title IV-E education in their MSW Programs more susceptible to these stressful climates than MSWs who did not participate in Title IV-E Programs (in this sample)?

▪ Perhaps they become disillusioned more easily since their goal during graduate school was to make a difference in the lives of children and families in the child welfare system. Upon graduation they encounter a stressful system that makes it difficult to realize their dream. This would be consistent with a high sense of service orientation.



Title IV-E specific MSW education, supervisor support and service orientation▪ Supervisor support has been a very important

factor for retention/turnover in many studies (Chenot, Benton, & Kim, 2009; Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun, & Xie, 2009)

▪ It could be that service orientation is enhanced through Title IV-E education

▪ However, service orientation appears to be counteracted or overwhelmed by stressful climates



Title IV-E specific MSW education and organizational climate.▪ No matter how specialized the Title IV-E education is that

MSWs receive during their graduate programs; once they experience the stressful climates in PCWS agencies for a few years, it appears to have a deleterious effect on retention.

▪ Stressful climates combined with certain types of organizational cultures appear to form a toxic combination for public child welfare social workers (Chenot, Benton, Kim, 2009).▪ Social workers appear to become acculturated to the nature of the

cultures they practice within and many have lowered job satisfaction and decreased commitment to their organizations due to the prevailing stressful climates in their organizations.


MSW/Title IV-E Retention

Implications▪ Why do those who received specialized Title IV-E

education in their MSW Programs appear to be more susceptible to these stressful climates than MSWs who did not participate in Title IV-E Programs (in this sample)?

▪ One possibility:▪ Realistic job preview. Perhaps the job preview Title IV-E

students engage in is too realistic (ie., PCWS field placements during MSW education). There is some evidence, in other fields, that job previews which include too many negative experiences are counterproductive (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 1997; Wanous, 1992).



Another possibility:▪ Expectations: perhaps our expectations of the Title

IV-E program are too lofty.▪ Retention expectations of those with Title IV-E training in their

MSW Programs may need to be tempered. Expectations: Perhaps retention needs to be

reconceptualized Is staying two years “good enough” for the PCWS

workforce in an environment with multiple opportunities for MSWs external to PCWS? (Clark)

It will not build a stable workforce but provides educated MSW-level social workers temporarily.

▪ For Title IV-E students who graduate and go on to work in PCWS; what is a “good enough” retention rate?


Organizational Dynamics & Retention Thank you

David Chenot Ph.D, MDiv., LCSW▪ [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Organizational Dynamics and Retention in Public Child Welfare Services