Nancy McDaniel, MPA Butler Institute for Families, University of Denver Presented at the 2010 Florida Coalition for Children Annual Conference Connecting the Dots: Workforce Selection & Child Welfare Outcomes

Its 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 Education 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 Staff 4

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

) 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),

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 cases Permanency 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 home Well-being Children with non-PCWCP case manager are older, with longer stays in care and more moves in care Barbee, Antle, Sullivan, Huebner, Fox, Hall,

Impact of Education - Title IV-E Child Protection Workers and Child Welfare Outcomes: Texas Methodology Part 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 worke rs 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,

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,

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,

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),

Impact of Education - Title IV-E, Organizational Climate and Staff Retention: Pennsylvania Methodology 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,

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,

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,

Impact of Recruitment and Selection: Realistic Job Previews What 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,

Examples of Realistic Job Previews Maine North Carolina Colorado 23

Workforce Factors: Linked to Staff Retention and Turnover Personal Characteristics Organizational Characteristics 24

Impact of Personal and Organizational Characteristics on Staff Retention Literature review of studies examining retention or turnover –154 documents, 9 studies published between 1984 and 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,

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, Retention Dimension 2: Social and Emotional Support Leads to: improved Well-being, Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction Dimension 3: Interpersonal Interactions – workers 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, 2009 Synthesis prepared by Munson,

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, 2009 Synthesis prepared by Munson,

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,

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,

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 nations 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 Partners University at Albany Mary McCarthy & Katharine Briar-Lawson Co-Principal Investigators University of Maryland Nancy Dickinson Project Director University of Iowa Miriam Landsman University of Denver Cathryn Potter University of Southern Maine Freda Bernotavicz Michigan State University Gary Anderson University of Michigan Kathleen Faller Fordham University Virginia Strand National Indian Child Welfare Association Terry Cross Melissa Clyde Portland State University Katharine Cahn Childrens Bureau/ACF/DHHS Randi Walters Federal Project Officer 35

Contact us: Questions? A Service of the Childrens Bureau, a Member of the T/TA Network 36