Content uploaded by Anita P. Barbee
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita P. Barbee on Jan 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Recruiting and Retaining Child
Welfare Workers: Is Preparing
Social Work Students Enough
for Sustained Commitment
to the Field?
Anita P. Barbee, Becky Antle, Dana J. Sullivan,
Ruth Huebner, Steve Fox, and Jon Christopher Hall
Graduates of specialized BSW child welfare education
programs are more likely to be retained after two years of
service in the agency, but many leave at the four year mark.
Two studies explored possible reasons for departure at this
time. The first study found that graduates of specialized child
welfare programs were significantly more likely to engage in
best practices in nine areas than workers from other fields.
Thus, frustration with practice skill was ruled out as a cause.
The second qualitative study found that poor supervision,
lack of coworker support, and organizational stress among
other variables prompted these high-functioning workers to
leave the agency. Suggestions for innovative interventions to
enhance retention at this critical juncture are included.
Anita P. Barbee MSSW, PhD is Professor and Distinguished University Scholar, Kent
School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. Becky Antle
MSSW, PhD is Assistant Professor and University Scholar, Kent School of Social Work,
University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. Dana J. Sullivan MSW, PhD is Assistant
Professor, Western Kentucky University, Department of Social Work, Bowling Green,
Kentucky. Ruth Huebner PhD is Child Welfare Researcher, Cabinet for Health and Fam-
ily Services, Frankfort, Kentucky. Steve Fox MSW is Director of Learning Development,
University Training Consortium, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky.
Jon Christopher Hall MSSW, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work,
University of North Carolina, Wilmington, North Carolina.
0009–4021/2009/050969-86 CWLA 69
Address reprint requests to Anita Barbee, Kent School of Social Work, University of
Louisville, 202 Oppenheimer Hall, Louisville, KY 40292.
The problem of recruiting and retaining a high-quality work-
force in child welfare seems to be a growing and intractable
issue. However, many solutions to the problem have been
attempted over the years with varying levels of success. One of
those attempts has been to prepare social work students for a ca-
reer in child welfare practice. The reasoning behind this interven-
tion is that the child welfare job is one of the core social work
functions in society, and a background in social work will give fu-
ture child welfare workers the values, knowledge, and skills to do
an incredibly difficult job. Some research has given some support
to this notion, but others have found that social work graduates
are not better than those from other disciplines in executing the
child welfare job. Thus, adding coursework in child welfare into
the educational mix has been seen as a potential enhancement to
the education of social workers preparing to enter the field of child
welfare. In fact, the federal government has allocated IV-E funds to
hundreds of accredited social work programs across the nation to
provide stipends to students studying child welfare policy and
practice. Small-scale program evaluations have been conducted on
these programs and noted positive results.
One such program, the public child welfare certification pro-
gram (PCWCP), was developed in the Commonwealth of Ken-
tucky as a collaborative effort between faculty and administrators
of 11 universities in collaboration with one another and with the
administrators and trainers from the Cabinet for Health and Fam-
ily Services, Department of Community-Based Services, Protection
and Permanency Division. This original team co-developed the
structure of the program, learning objectives for the two courses,
syllabi for the two courses, the field placement in the public child
welfare agency, and textbooks and content of the courses in 1996 (for
more information about the PCWCP program’s development and
70 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
Barbee et al. 71
progress through the years, see Barbee, Sullivan, Antle, Moran, Hall,
& Fox, in press). This program differed from other bachelors in so-
cial work (BSW) child welfare programs that educated students in
the confines of their own colleges and universities.
The research evaluating the effectiveness of the PCWCP across
all participating universities for a 10-year period, from the first
graduating class in 1998 to 2007, examined graduate and supervi-
sor perspectives on satisfaction with the program, preparation for
work in the child welfare agency, commitment to the agency, and
retention across the nine years since the beginning of the program.
Results indicated that workers and supervisors reported a high
level of preparedness, as well as high levels of commitment to and
retention with the agency. For example, the retention rate after the
two-year commitment period has been completed is 86%, which
is much higher than the retention rate for those who enter the
workforce through normal channels. After nine years, 61% of those
PCWCP graduates are still employed in public child welfare, al-
though many have moved on to supervisory, clinical, and upper-
management positions. However, the greatest drop in retention
was found to be at the four-year mark post-graduation, when ap-
proximately 20% of workers leave the agency (Barbee et al., in
press). This result raised a major question regarding why workers
leave at this critical juncture in their career.
In that evaluation study, other variables were measured that
identified reasons why the retention rate drops to about 61% at
the four-year mark. These data revealed that supervisor support,
coworker support, and personal and professional stress were me-
diators of commitment to the agency (Barbee et al., in press). Thus,
the job and the way in which work is managed have an impact on
job commitment, which in turn affects retention. But, these data
exclude the possibility that PCWCP graduates are not any better in
their practices and may leave due to frustration with their own
practice ability. This paper summarizes two additional studies that
attempted to shed more light on the impact of the PCWCP pro-
gram on daily practice and on the reasons why, despite being more
72 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
competent to engage in best practices, an additional 20% of the
PCWPC graduates leave four years after the program.
The purpose of the first study was to answer two questions:
(1) Are there differences in the child welfare outcomes of safety,
permanency, and well-being between social workers graduating
from the PCWCP credential? (2) Is there evidence that the PCWCP
graduates working for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services
utilize best practices in child welfare practice more often than non-
PCWCP graduates?
Study 1: Method
Participants
The training resource information system (TRIS) supplied a list of
PCWCP and non-PCWCP graduates hired in a four-month period.
The workers information system (TWIST), children in out-of-home
care (OOHC) report was utilized to establish matched groups for
comparisons. A group of PCWCP graduates was matched with non-
PCWCP graduates based on time of hire and geographic placement.
A total of 24 matched sets (PCWCP and non-PCWCP) were
identified with hire dates between the previous one-year period.
PCWCP graduates were matched with non-PCWCP graduates as
follows: (1) 5 on same county, 8 on same region, and 11 on similar
(i.e., rural/urban, size, geography, etc.) county; and (2) 10 on same
month of hire, 10 plus-or-minus one month of hire, and 4 plus-or-
minus two months of hire. When matching on the same month of
hire was not possible, non-PCWCP workers with a longer time on
the job (one to two months) were matched with PCWCP gradu-
ates to give the advantage to the non-PCWCP group. No other
demographic variables pertaining to the workers, such as age or
other degrees obtained (i.e., masters of social work) was available
in this data set.
Case managers in the final matched set database represented
15 service regions in 28 counties. They had between 2 and 15
months experience since being hired.
Barbee et al. 73
Data Set Generation
Five data sets were created for the study, and full descriptions can
be obtained from the forth author. Each data set was used to exam-
ine specific outcomes and to describe the casework of the workers
in the study. When the data sets were completed, the names of all
cases, supervisors, and workers were eliminated from the set.
Safety Data Set
The completed referrals report was used to examine safety out-
comes. Only child protective services cases were included. This
data set contains: (1) ratings on the continuous quality assessment
(CQA, a risk assessment tool); (2) the track of the case, such as fam-
ilies in need of services assessment (FINSA), investigation of a
case, or closed case; (3) the findings (substantiated, unsubstanti-
ated, resource linkage, law enforcement, and closed); and (4) dispo-
sition (closed, continued, and resource linkages). The CQA ratings
should be consistent with the track, findings, and disposition of
the case if the safety of the child is considered. The final data set in-
cluded 211 cases: 122 PCWCP cases and 89 non-PCWCP cases.
Permanency Data Set
The children in OOHC report was used to examine the perma-
nency goals and out-of-home placements for children. Duplicate
child names were eliminated, keeping the most current case list-
ing. The final data set included 399 unduplicated cases of children
in care; 206 PCWCP cases and 193 non-PCWCP cases.
Well-Being Data Set
Data from the child census form collected during the Kentucky
foster care census phase I, which included all Department of Com-
munity-Based Services (DCBS) homes, were used. The census data
was merged back in to the original census list generated from the
children in OOHC report. This data set contained 98 children in
OOHC that were included in the census: 58 with PCWCP and
40 with non-PCWCP case managers.
74 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
Case Work Quality
The referral status report documents the number of referrals for
maltreatment. Case managers have up to 45 calendar days (30 work-
ing days) to complete a referral. This report includes all referrals
and for those over the 45-day limit, it includes the number of days
the referral is “past due.” This data set contained 540 unduplicated
cases in the referral stage during the period: 233 PCWCP cases and
307 non-PCWCP cases.
Results
Case Work Descriptions
Each of the data sets yielded descriptive data on the casework of
the two groups. Results from the referral status report produced a
significant chi square,
2
(2, 540) ⫽12.67, p⫽.002. PCWCP gradu-
ates were significantly more likely than others to accept a case as
an investigation (76% vs. 61%, respectively) and less likely to ac-
cept it as a FINSA (24% vs. 38%, respectively).
Safety Outcomes
There were no differences in average cumulative risk scores be-
tween status groups. While the CQA totals range from 0 to 28,
PCWCP workers scored risk with a mean score of 8.06 and non-
PCWCP workers scored risk with a mean score of 6.63. The PCWCP
(35%) versus non-PCWCP workers (49%) accepted cases rated as
low risk for a FINSA.
Overall the PCWCP group was more likely than others to
continue a case (28% vs. 18%), less likely to find that services
are not needed (17% vs. 26%), and more likely to substantiate
abuse (33% vs. 18%),
2
(6, 211) ⫽18.29, p ⫽.006. These findings
were compared across status groups by risk levels. Risk levels
were defined as low, moderate, and high risk based on the total
CQA score. Of the workers, 100% in both groups accepted high-
risk cases (22 total cases) as investigations and substantiated
Barbee et al. 75
those investigations. The differences between the groups are dis-
played in Table 1.
When risk in a case is scored as 0, the cabinet views such a rat-
ing as problematic because it is suspected that risk is being rated
too low in these cases. Of the 122 cases, 9 (7%) were rated by
PCWCP graduates as 0; while 17 of 89 cases (19%) were rated as 0
by non-PCWCP graduates. Ensuring the safety of vulnerable chil-
dren is a complex intervention that is not readily reflected in only
one statistic. The pattern seen in this data is that the PCWCP grad-
uates tended to intervene more aggressively in cases. They inves-
tigated more cases, substantiated more cases, and provided
services more often. They tended to rate the CQA more sensitively
(fewer zeros and a tendency to have higher average ratings). The
PCWCP group also tended to use practices more consistent with
the rating of risk in the cases. They unsubstantiated more low-risk
cases, substantiated more moderate-risk cases, and continued care
for more high-risk cases.
Permanency Goals and Placements
There were no significant differences between status groups on the
average age of children in care. In PCWCP worker cases, the aver-
age age of the child was 8.93 years and in non-PCWCP worker
cases, the average age of the child was 9.55 years. The average
number of placements was the same between PCWCP workers
(mean ⫽2.65) and non-PCWCP workers (mean ⫽2.33). While the
TABLE 1
Determinations at Different Levels of Risk by PCWCP vs. Non-PCWCP Workers
STATUS LOW RISK—LOW RISK—MODERATE RISK—HIGH RISK—
SERVICES NOT UNSUBSTANTIATED SUBSTANTIATED CONTINUE CASE
NEEDED
PCWCP 26.4% 58.3% 64.7% 69.2%
Non-PCWCP 43.1% 45.1% 57.1% 30.8%
76 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
difference in costs of PCWCP workers and non-PCWCP workers
was not significantly different (mean ⫽$28 vs. $42, respectively),
because of the variability of the data, there was a trend in that
PCWCP cases cost less than non-PCWCP cases.
The status groups were significantly different in type of place-
ment,
2
(8, 384) ⫽25.10, p⫽.000. The PCWCP group was three
times more likely than others to place children with relatives (16%
vs. 5%) and less likely to place children in residential settings (28%
vs. 33%). Furthermore, PCWCP workers were almost twice as likely
to place children in adoptive homes (3% vs. 1.6%) and much less
likely to place children in emergency shelter placements (1% vs.
2%). Of the PCWCP cases, 13% did not have a permanency goal
established; 18.6% of the non-PCWCP group did not have a per-
manency goal established.
After 12 months in care, the child’s permanency goal should be
changed from return to parent to adoption or another permanency
goal, because it is unlikely that return to parent is still reasonable.
Data for children in care for 13 or more months were selected for
this analysis. There was a statistically significant difference in the
goals set by the PCWCP group versus others with far more adop-
tion goals (58% vs. 25%) and far fewer return to parent goals (15%
vs. 40%),
2
(5, 186) ⫽24.38, p ⫽.000. A more detailed analysis was
performed by breaking out the months in care by six-month inter-
vals and comparing that to the permanency goal. The pattern con-
tinued to be significantly different. The PCWCP group had only
one child in the return to parent goal group after 30 months in care
while the non-PCWCP had nine children in the return to parent
group after 30 months in care. Of children in the PCWCP group,
30% had goals of adoption while only 15.5% had a similar goal in
the non-PCWCP group.
Well-Being Measured in the Foster Care Census
There were no differences in the cases seen by PCWCP versus non-
PCWCP workers on the basis of child gender, type of care, or the
presence of any identified or diagnosed need (medical, physical,
Barbee et al. 77
educational, emotional, or developmental). If the child was in
school, there were no differences in the number of children with in-
dividualized education programs between the two types of work-
ers. There were also no differences in the frequency of physical or
dental examinations between the two groups of workers.
There were, however, significant differences (p ⫽⬍.05) be-
tween the status (PCWCP vs. non-PCWCP workers) on the follow-
ing variables as shown in Table 2.
Children in this cohort who had non-PCWCP case managers
tended to be significantly older, with a longer stay in care overall
and in the current foster home and with more moves in care. There
were significant differences in the satisfaction with visits made to
these foster children with more satisfaction with visits by PCWCP
case managers (M⫽2.90 vs. 2.46 on a 4-point scale), F(1, 200) ⫽
6.71, p⬍.01.
Although not statistically significant, PCWCP graduates on av-
erage visited the child in the home in the past 1.3 months com-
pared to the past 1.6 months of the non-PCWCP group. There was
a difference in the pattern of visits over time. Only children who
were in care for six or more months were included in this analysis.
The differences were statistically significant,
2
(5, 75) ⫽14.45, p ⫽
.013, showing more regular visitation by PCWCP graduates. The
results are displayed in Table 3.
TABLE 2
Length of Care and Number of Placements of Children Working with PCWCP vs.
Non-PCWCP Workers
MEASURE PCWCP GROUP NON-PCWCP GROUP
Average age 6.76 9.48
Average months in care 20.67 47.00
Length of time in this home (months) 17.29 38.67
Number of prior placements 1.55 3.40
78 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
Because of the differences in the age and length of placement
for children in this cohort, a correlation matrix was generated to de-
termine the relationship of time and placement variables with vis-
its to the child variables. There were no significant relationships
found between visits and time variables, suggesting that the time
in care, child’s age, or number of placements made little difference
in satisfaction with visits or regularity of visits to children. Thus,
the differences seen here are more likely attributable to the PCWCP
status grouping, rather than to the child’s characteristics. There was
a very strong inverse relationship (r⫽⫺.57) between frequency of
visits and satisfaction with visits in that the longer the time be-
tween visits, the less satisfaction there was with those visits.
Casework Quality
There were no differences based on status (PCWCP vs. non-
PCWCP) on the number of referrals that were not “past due” (50%
and 49% respectively). There was a significant difference between
the numbers of days a case was “past due” between status groups.
On average, the PCWCP cases that were past due were 92.4 days
past due and the non-PCWCP group past due cases were 109.1
days past due, F(1, 272) ⫽4.34, p ⫽.038.
Because many of these case managers were new to the agency,
it was reasoned that they might have been assigned existing refer-
rals that were long past due. (There was outlying data in both
groups up to 499 days past due.) To examine this, cases that were
TABLE 3
Child Visitation Frequency of PCWCP and Non-PCWCP Workers
STATUS LESS THAN EVERY EVERY EVERY EVERY
EVERY TWO THREE FOUR SIX
MONTH MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS
PCWCP 30 (78.9%) 8 (21.1%)
Non-PCWCP 28 (75.5%) 1 (2.7%) 4 (10.8%) 2 (5.4%) 2 (5.4%)
Barbee et al. 79
past due between 45 and 90 days were selected to represent the
cases likely to be primarily managed by these case managers;
the results were compared by status. The differences in the num-
ber of days of past dues were statistically significant for status.
The PCWCP group averaged 60.85 days past due compared to the
66.29 days of the non-PCWCP group, F(1, 161) ⫽8.23, p ⫽.005.
All the results showing significant differences between the
PCWCP and non-PCWCP groups are summarized in Table 4.
Discussion
It was found that PCWCP graduates were significantly more likely
to (1) accept a case as an investigation rather than as a FINSA; (2) in-
tervene in a more proactive way in cases; (3) use practices consis-
tent with the rating of risk in the cases (they unsubstantiated more
low-risk cases, substantiated more moderate-risk cases, and con-
tinued more high-risk cases); (4) assigned more children with a
permanency goal of adoption and fewer children with a goal of re-
turn to parent after 12 months in care; (5) placed significantly more
children with relatives, fewer in residential settings, more in adop-
tive homes, and fewer in emergency shelter placements; (6) visited
the children in OOHC more regularly; (7) were rated by foster par-
ents as providing more satisfactory visits to the children in OOHC;
(8) completed past due referrals in a significantly shorter period;
and (9) established a permanency goal more often than the non-
PCWCP group.
The results give further confirmation that PCWCP graduates
not only feel more confident and prepared to do the child welfare
job, but they actually do a better job than those without the PCWCP
program. Thus, preparation may be a motivator to stay with the
agency initially and is a strong testament to the importance of pro-
grams like PCWCP. This is one of the first studies to show the im-
pact of specialized training in public child welfare in a BSW or
MSW program on casework practices.
Nevertheless, this initial preparation does not bolster them to
remain with the agency after the job is mastered. What then does
80 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
TABLE 4
Significant Differences Between PCWCP and Non-PCWCP Workers in Practice
and Outcomes
PCWCP NON-PCWCP
Workers to accept a case as an Investigation (vs. FINSA) 76% 61%
Average risk score 8.06 6.63
Workers to rate a case as having zero risk 7% 19%
Workers who accepted cases rated as low risk 35% 49%
Workers who found that services were not needed when the 26% 43%
risk was rated as low
Workers who substantiated maltreatment when the risk was 65% 57%
rated as moderate
Workers who substantiated maltreatment when the risk was 69% 31%
rated as high
Workers who placed children with relatives (kinship care) 16% 5%
Workers who placed children in residential settings 28% 33%
Workers who placed children in adoptive homes 3% 1.6%
Workers who placed children in emergency shelters 1% 2%
Workers who had a permanency goal established 87% 81%
Workers who had a goal of adoption for cases where 58% 25%
children had been in OOHC for 13 months or more
Workers who had a goal of return to parent for cases 15% 40%
where children had been in OOHC for 13 months or more
Children who had a goal of return to parent after 30 months in OOHC 19
Children who had a goal of adoption after 30 months in OOHC 30% 16%
Average age of children in foster care, in years 6.76 9.48
Average months in care 20.67 47.00
Number of months in this home 17 39
Number of prior placements 1.55 3.40
Satisfaction with worker visitation 2.9/5.0 2.46/5.0
Children visited one time or more a month 79% 76%
Children visited every two months 21% 3%
Children visited every three months 0 11%
Children visited every four months 0 5.4%
Children visited every six months 0 5.4%
Average number of days cases were past due accounting 61 66
for outliers (those 45 to 90 days past due)
Barbee et al. 81
keep child welfare workers with the agency for the long term, or
what causes them to leave four years into their jobs in the public
child welfare agency?
Study 2: Method
The second study was designed to answer these key remaining
questions. A qualitative study was conducted using telephone in-
terviews with 15 PCWCP graduates who left the child welfare
agency well after the two-year period was completed. The purpose
of this interview was to explore reasons why workers left the
agency and factors that would have been helpful to retain them in
their positions in the agency.
Design
This study utilized a phenomenological qualitative approach with
in-depth interviews designed to understand the subjective experi-
ences of specially trained child welfare workers who left the agency
(Creswell, 2007). This phenomenological approach was appropri-
ate given the research question and need to garner a deeper under-
standing of the unique experiences of this specific group.
Participants
A total of 15 PCWCP graduates participated who had fulfilled
their two-year commitment to the agency and who had worked for
one month to two years beyond this commitment agreed to partic-
ipate in the study, out of 20 graduates who met this criteria and
who were contacted to participate. These graduates represented all
geographic regions of the state.
Interview Procedures
Interviews ranging from 20 minutes to one hour were conducted
by a research faculty person over the telephone, and detailed notes
were taken during the session. An unstructured interview guide
focused on four key areas of inquiry for the interviews: (1) reasons
for leaving the child welfare agency; (2) attempts to better their
82 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
situation at the child welfare agency before leaving; (3) current em-
ployment; and (4) recommendations to improve the PCWCP initia-
tive. The interviewer began with a general question related to the
first of the four topics and continued to probe with each partici-
pant on the first topic until saturation was reached, indicating he
had gathered all possible information. He then repeated this ap-
proach for the following three topics of interest.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Following collection of the interview data, common themes were
identified through the qualitative analysis process described by
Tesch (1992). This process began with line-by-line coding, fol-
lowed by identification of common themes, exploration of rela-
tionships between themes, and selection of illustrative quotes and
divergent cases.
Results
Reasons for Leaving
The analysis of responses to reasons for leaving the child welfare
agency indicated that there were five key themes:
(1) finding a more lucrative position
(2) lack of supervision; e.g., “The supervision was poor”
(3) lack of support from coworkers; e.g., “My coworkers were
unsupportive.”
(4) expectation from their supervisors that they were sup-
posed to operate at a different level than others because of
the PCWCP program; e.g., “It was like I was supposed to
know everything already, and if I didn’t then I was a prob-
lem”; “I was trained to work with clients, but had very lit-
tle time with them given all the paperwork and waiting for
court cases” and
(5) stress due to the work environment itself and not fitting
in; e.g., “The source of stress for me did not come from my
Barbee et al. 83
clients, but from my supervisor and coworkers”; “The bu-
reaucracy in the agency was crushing”; “I had too many
cases. I couldn‘t do a good job.”
Attempts to Better Their Situation
When asked what they did to try to better their situation at the
child welfare agency before leaving, participants responded with
three primary themes: (1) tried to transfer to another service re-
gion; (2) sought counseling; and (3) nothing, due to feelings of iso-
lation. For theme 1, trying to transfer to another service region, the
respondents indicated that they were prohibited from doing so by
requirements of the program to stay in their service region for six
months. Those who indicated feelings of isolation stated that their
problems with supervisors and coworkers left them with no op-
tions to change the situation. Illustrative quotes included the fol-
lowing: “Trying to work with the supervisor got me way behind.…
I got nowhere but behind on all my paperwork,” and “I had a
nervous breakdown. The job ruined my life.”
Current Employment
When asked where they were currently employed, 10 of the 15 re-
spondents reported having jobs providing social services of some
kind. These included positions within the Department of Juvenile
Justice, a retirement home, and welfare services. The remaining
five stated they were in an alternative employment situation, in-
cluding as a stay-at-home mother, as a teacher, in the private sec-
tor, and unemployment.
Recommendations for Improvement of PCWCP
All respondents gave recommendations for improvement of the
PCWCP program, including educating supervisors about PCWCP
and enhancing oversight of the student practicum. Illustrative
statements included the following: “They need to do a better job of
explaining to supervisors and staff what PCWCP is,” and “The
practicum site needs to be hands-on.”
84 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
The results show that while the PCWCP graduates were highly
satisfied with PCWCP and were proud of the work they accom-
plished, the organizational barriers of inadequate supervision, un-
supportive coworkers, and a stressful work environment related to
the job itself (including problems with the bureaucracy, inadequate
resources, and insufficient time to fulfill the policy requirements
for the caseloads assigned to them), led them to leave the agency.
Implications
These results show a value in preparing students during their BSW
programs to learn about public child welfare policy and practice.
These students are retained at higher rates than others, are more
confident in executing the job, and actually do a better job. However,
education is not enough. Once the graduates are in the field, the or-
ganization needs to make efforts to ensure a positive work environ-
ment to retain them beyond the required two years, especially after
four years when many are likely to have received an MSW and have
more career options, confirmed in another study on retention of the
child welfare workforce in Kentucky (Yankeelov, Barbee, Sullivan, &
Antle, 2009). Thus, to solidify the retention of these well-educated
and valuable employees, other interventions are needed.
Ideas for Improving Child Welfare Agencies
The five main reasons why they left the agency were low pay, poor
supervision, lack of coworker support, unrealistic expectations,
and organizational stress. While it is difficult to increase pay, the
other issues can be addressed in creative ways that have not been
emphasized in the child welfare literature.
Improving Supervision
Workers will leave the child welfare agency if the supervisor is not
supportive, helpful, competent, or understanding. Accordingly, for
a program such as PCWCP to have long lasting effects on retention,
it might be beneficial to follow the lead of other public agencies
(e.g., law enforcement) by instituting a more rigorous supervisor
Barbee et al. 85
selection, preparation, and management process. Police, for exam-
ple, require passing written exams, extensive interviews, and in-
basket tasks before a person can be promoted to any supervisory or
management position (Baker, 1995). This is followed by extensive
and ongoing training. Choosing people who are qualified to be in
management and training them is an important step in rectifying
poor supervisory practices in an agency and can also be a way to
create a positive team, reduce unrealistic expectations of supervi-
sors for worker performance, and buffer organizational stressors.
Work Expectations and Organizational Stressors
However, the structure of child welfare work may also be prob-
lematic. Currently, every state uses a bureaucratic model rather
than a professional model of practice in child welfare. In a bureau-
cratic model, worker behavior is regulated by strict policies and
close oversight by supervisors, leaving little room for autonomy. In
a professional model, a person receives education and training that
gives the professional special skills, ethical standards, and judg-
ment to execute those skills. While it may be appropriate to use a
bureaucratic model for a workforce that is underqualified, those
with professional training, such as those coming out of programs
like PCWCP, may become discouraged by the bureaucratic struc-
ture of the job and feel that their professional education and train-
ing is being underutilized in such a position.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that the frontline child
welfare job is actually several different jobs combined into one.
Half of the job is very clinical in nature, and the other half is very
administrative. The latter is often so time-consuming that little
time is actually spent with clients, leading to frustration, stress,
and burnout, especially for workers who are talented in working
directly with clients.
Perhaps agencies should consider testing the feasibility and
efficacy of restructuring of frontline practice. Allow social-work
educated workers with PCWCP-like training or two years of post-
education clinical supervision to focus on the clinical aspects of
86 CHILD WELFARE • VOL. 88, #5
cases (e.g., assessment and working closely with families and
courts). This person would partner with a person without a social
work background or any clinical experience who can focus on ad-
ministrative tasks such as setting up appointments with clients for
the clinician, helping clients to set up appointments with other
service providers, following up with service providers to check on
client progress, waiting in court to alert the clinician that their
cases are about to be called, completing much of the significant
casework on the computer, and keeping case files orderly.
This type of change would (1) give the supervisors very spe-
cific roles in preparing new specialists for autonomous practice,
(2) give those with specialized training in social work the tasks
they were trained to do, and (3) create several career ladders for
child welfare workers (Ellett, Ellett, & Rugutt, 2003).
References
Baker, S. A. (1995). Effect of law enforcement accreditation: Officer selection, promotion and educa-
tion. Washington, DC: Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
Barbee, A. P., Sullivan, D., Antle, B., Moran, E. B., Hall, C., & Fox, S. (in press). The public
child welfare certification program: Worker retention and impact on practice. Journal of
Social Work Education.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Ellett, A. J., Ellett, D. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003). A study of personal and organizational factors
contributing to employee retention and turnover in child welfare in Georgia: Executive
summary and final project report. Athens: University of Georgia School of Social Work.
Tesch, R. (1992). Procedures of computer-assisted qualitative analysis. In G. L. Huber
(Ed.), Qualitative analysis: Application of computers in social research (pp. 43–70). Munchen:
Oldenbourg.
Yankeelov, P. A., Barbee, A. P., Sullivan, D., & Antle, B. F. (2009). Individual and organiza-
tional factors in job retention in Kentucky’s child welfare agency. Children and Youth Serv-
ices Review, 31, 547–554.
Copyright of Child Welfare is the property of Child Welfare League of America and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
