Workplace Practices that Support Worker Retention in Child Welfare Systems

Social Work Education Consortiumin Partnership with

New York State Office of Children and Family Services

PresentersMary McCarthy, Ph.D., LMSW

Western New York Citizen Review PanelBuffalo, NY

September 30, 2005

Project StaffKatharine Briar-Lawson, Ph.D. & Mary McCarthy, Ph.D. co-PI

Hal Lawson, Ph.D. Project DirectorResearch Team:

Nancy Claiborne, Ph.D. University at AlbanyBrenda McGowan, Ph.D. Columbia UniversityCharles Auerbach, Ph.D. Yeshiva University

Design Team Facilitators:Jim Caringi, MSW

Nancy Dorn, LMSWRosemary Sherman, LMSW

Maureen Sinclair, LMSW Jessica Strolin, MSW

New York’s Turnover Problem

New York is State Supervised, County AdministeredTremendous variability from county to countyHighly urban counties, isolated rural countiesUntil 2000, no systematic collection of turnover data

•57 Counties + New York City

•State Supervised

•County Administered

New York State

You are Here

HamiltonHamiltonCountyCounty

1,0591,059ChildrenChildrenunder 18under 18

NYCNYC

1,940,2691,940,269ChildrenChildrenunder 18under 18

New York’s Turnover Problem Cont’d

High turnover anecdotally perceived as a universal problemState studies showed turnover to be cyclical, localized and perhaps structural in nature

Counties with High5 Year Average Caseworker Turnover

(11)

Counties with HighCaseworker Turnover in all 5 Years

(3)

Counties with HighCaseworker Turnover in 3 of 5 Years

(10)

Counties with HighCaseworker Turnover in 2 of 5 Years

(23)

Counties with at Least 1 YearHigh Caseworker Turnover

(37)

Counties Who Never Had High Caseworker Turnover in the Last 5 Years

(21)

Counties with HighCaseworker Turnover in 4 of 5 Years

(4)

New York State Mapof Counties

New York’s Turnover Problem Cont’d

University studies investigated the “why’s”behind turnover.

Led to Federal Grant application to test models of intervention.

4 Upstate New York Counties, NYC Borough Site, and One Tribal Site Participate.

Background for Survey

In 2001 NYS needed the answers to four questions:

1. Why do caseworkers stay in child welfare positions?

2. Why do caseworkers leave child welfare positions?3. What changes would encourage caseworkers to

stay?4. What are the differences between counties with

consistently low turnover and those with consistently high turnover rates?

Methodology

In 2002, We surveyed a High turnover cohort(HTC) - counties that had turnover rates of more than 25% (N= 294) In 2003, we completed a qualitative study with 101 workers from the high turnover countiesIn 2004, we surveyed a low turnover cohort (LTC) - counties with turnover rates of less than 18% (N=374)

Summary of Survey

The survey includes 123 items in four sections:Organizational factors (6) were derived from 64 items on organizational climate and culture.Supervisory factors (2) were derived from 24 items.Individual work questions (unit, caseload size).Demographics.

VariablesThe dependent variable was intention to leave current job. It was measured by asking “Have you considered looking for another job in the past year?”

The independent variables include salary, caseload size, organizational, individual and supervisory factors.

Description of factors• Organizational factors

• Work-life fit• Clarity of practice• Job supports• Technology/training• Efficacy• Salary and benefits

• Supervisory factors• Supervisor competence• Supervisor support

Why caseworkers want to stay in child welfare positions?Job securityCoworkers (job supports)Pay and benefitsClarity of practiceFlexibility in their jobs (work-life fit)Feeling effective in their jobs (efficacy)Supervisor support and competencyLack of other options available in locality**

Why do caseworkers want to leave child welfare positions?

BurnoutProblems and concerns with administrative policiesPay is too low

What changes might encourage caseworkers to stay?

Reduce caseload sizeIncrease payCreate changes in administrative policies and procedures (i.e. more flexibility)Increase amount of respect from others inside and outside of agency

Factors associated with county Factors associated with county typetype

Satisfaction with the following factors was found to be Satisfaction with the following factors was found to be significantly higher for the LTC than the HTC: significantly higher for the LTC than the HTC: Clarity and Coherence of Practice (p<.001)Clarity and Coherence of Practice (p<.001)LifeLife--Work Fit (p<.05)Work Fit (p<.05)Efficacy and Job Satisfaction (p<.001)Efficacy and Job Satisfaction (p<.001)Job Supports (p<.001)Job Supports (p<.001)Paperwork, computer work (p<.05)Paperwork, computer work (p<.05)Salary and Benefits (p<.001)Salary and Benefits (p<.001)

Factors not associated with county Factors not associated with county typetype

Perceptions of Supportive Supervision*Perceptions of Supportive Supervision*Perceptions of Competent Supervision*Perceptions of Competent Supervision*Technology and trainingTechnology and training

*Although there was no difference in the two cohorts on supervisor factors, supportive and competent supervision in both groups was negatively associated with intention to leave across both cohorts.

Common Themes Across TeamsSafetyJob descriptionsRespectVicarious trauma/secondary traumatic stressLife-work fitCommunicationLegal issues

8 Practices to implement in order to increase retention in child welfare

1. Allow a flexible work schedule that helps to balance work-life fit

2. Provide livable wages and pay scale increases

3. Encourage direct service with the clients4. Maintain industry caseload standards of 15

families or 25 children

Practices that increaseretention

5. Provide clear and effective measures of success

6. Promote a “can-do” attitude among coworkers

7. Encourage supervisors to help workers with paperwork and other tasks when necessary

8. Create communication channels between all levels of agency (i.e. DESIGN TEAM)