Children's services practice notes : for North Carolina's child welfare workers |
Previous | 58 of 65 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Volume 4, Number 3 Children’s Services Practice Notes is a news-letter for North Carolina’s child welfare work-ers produced four times a year by the North Carolina Division of Social Services and the N.C. Family and Children’s Resource Program, part of the Jordan Institute for Families and the School of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In summarizing recent research, we try to give you new ideas for refining your practice. How-ever, this publication is not intended to replace regular supervision and peer consultation— only to enhance them. Let us hear from you! If you would like to comment about something that appears in this or any other issue of Children’s Services Practice Notes, please do so! Address your comments to: John McMahon Jordan Institute for Families UNC–CH School of Social Work Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550 State Courier Number: 17-61-04 E-mail: johnmcmahon@mindspring.com Newsletter Staff Joanne Caye, MSW, Advisor Lane Cooke, MSW, Advisor John McMahon, MA, Editor Selena Berrier, Writer Daniel Brezenoff, Writer Michelle Wetherby, Writer SOCIAL WORKER RETENTION Few would dispute that turnover is a problem in child welfare. But beyond that, what do we really know? How high are turnover rates? Why do workers leave? What effect does this turnover have on outcomes for families and chil-dren? And, more to the point, what can be done about it? NATIONAL TURNOVER RATES High child welfare worker turnover rates affect states all over the nation. According to one report by the Gen-eral Accounting Office, “next to fund-ing, states report that staffing is the most serious issue facing their child welfare systems. In response to an APWA survey, 90 percent of states re-ported difficulty recruiting and retain-ing caseworkers” (GAO, 1995). For example, in the early 1990s Prince William County, Virginia reported a 60 percent turnover rate among child TURNOVER IN CHILD WELFARE Turnover hurts families and children. By leaving their jobs, social workers can compound feelings of insignifi-cance and rejection in kids already hurting from abuse and neglect. When foster and adoptive parents quit, the effects on foster children— most of whom have already lost one family—can be devastating. Turnover hurts agencies, too. It low-ers morale, reduces efficiency, and eats up time and money as agencies seek, hire, and train new employees. And cont. page 2 welfare staff. In 1997 Broward County, Florida, reported an 85 percent turnover rate. In 1996 the turn-over among Massa-chusetts Department of Social Services workers was 300 em-ployees per year, with Taunton County reporting 100 percent turnover. This phenomenon also occurs in child welfare administration. Testifying before Congress in 1993, David Liederman, director of the Child Wel-fare League of America, stated, “There is a lack of stable leadership in child welfare. In the last two years there has been a fifty-percent turnover among State directors of child welfare pro-grams. That is outrageous” (Thoma, 1998). turnover prevents us from meeting our goal of one case worker or case work team for each child and family. In this edition Practice Notes ex-plores what researchers, practitio-ners, and administrators have to say about turnover in child welfare, and we present some ideas for fixing this system-wide problem. Unless we con-front this issue head on, we will be unable to ensure that every foster child has a safe, loving, permanent family within one year. Staff turnover hurts kids. How can we reduce it? 2 SOCIAL WORKER RETENTION from page 1 TURNOVER IN NC There is no statewide data on child wel-fare staff turnover in North Carolina. However, for the past nine years, Ted Bowen, former director of the Eastern Regional Office of the N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Resources, main-tained data on DSS staff turnover rates for 30 counties in the eastern part of the state. This region extends north to Virginia, south to South Carolina, and west to the Wilson area. According to these records, rates of turnover for all DSS staff ranged from 24.8 to 34.2 percent, with an average of around 29 percent. Many of these counties struggle to recruit qualified employees, who can be difficult to find and attract to the ru-ral settings typical of this area. In February 1999 representatives of North Carolina’s 27 Families for Kids and IV-E Waiver counties met to discuss child welfare staff turnover. Although some participants offered statistics ranging from 30 to 110 percent rates of turn-over for foster care placement workers, these figures were not official. During their February discussion counties also brought up the point that turnover rates seem to be higher in some positions than others. For ex-ample, one county estimated the turn-over rate at 10 percent in placement staff but at 95 percent in CPS staff. Others agreed that they had difficulty keeping employees in one area, but there didn’t seem to be any pattern— that is, in one county the higher turn-over rate may have been in placement, but in the next county CPS was the problem area. EFFECTS ON CHILDREN When agencies lack adequate staff, caseloads and stress levels increase for those workers who stay behind. Miscommunication and mistakes can occur when a child’s case is “handed off” to a new person. Many child wel-fare professionals believe that all of these conditions delay permanence for children (Thoma, 1998), and lower the quality of services they receive while they are in foster care (Well, 1994). At least one study contradicts this belief. In this study R. M. George used data from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services to track rates of reunification for 851 children in foster care. Surprisingly, George found that more staff turnover in a particular child’s case resulted in swifter reunification for that child. In his discussion of his findings, George gives this explanation: “Although this may seem counterintuitive, action on a particular case may only occur at some procedural or bureaucratic mile-stone. Thus, the more caseworkers a child has, the more possibilities exist for review and consideration of reuni-fication” (George, 1993). WHY WORKERS LEAVE It is not hard to understand why work-ers leave child welfare. In their 1996 study, researchers Drake and Yamada found that inadequate pay, tough work-ing conditions, lack of recognition for a job well-done, chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and overwork all negatively affect worker retention. During the Feb-ruary 1999 discussion participants named most of these factors, adding to them the pressures of high caseloads, paperwork, and liability concerns. In North Carolina, competition from other county departments of social ser-vices contributes to turnover. Because funding for child welfare positions is county-based, workers sometimes leave one agency to take an equivalent job in another county—for better pay and, sometimes, better working conditions. THOSE WHO STAY What do we know about the child wel-fare workers who hang in there? Rel-evant education seems to be a pre-dictive factor (Dickinson & Perry, 1998). In Texas, a study found that in the past five years, 67 percent of CPS staff with degrees in social work were still working for Protective Services. There was an 87 percent retention rate among those who, in addition to hav-ing a BSW, also had a placement or internship in the social service agency prior to working there. Workers with Source: Ted Bowen, former Director, Eastern Region, NC Dept. of Health and Human Resources. human service-related degrees such DSS Staff Turnover in Eastern NC 0 10 20 30 40 89/90 91/92 93/94 95/96 96/97 97/98 94/95 92/93 90/91 33.27 30.76 25.51 29.9 27.7 24.8 26.8 27.8 34.2 Range= 24.8 to 34.2 Average=28.97 3 IDEAS FOR RETAINING CHILD WELFARE WORKERS IN NC What do directors, administrators, supervisors, and line social workers from North Carolina’s county departments of social services think about child welfare staff turnover? In February 1999 representatives of North Carolina’s 27 Families for Kids and IV-E Waiver counties met to talk about this issue and come up with solutions. Here are some of their ideas: • Address liability concerns. Determine if social workers can be provided professional liability insurance through the county’s legal services to allay fears about liability. • Improve compensation. Better pay needs to be paired with adequate staffing and reasonable workloads. Regardless of what someone is being paid, there’s only so much she can do. Improved compensation could lure new employees and reward experienced people who stay. • Change the caseload standard for foster care. In general, North Carolina’s caseload standards are very similar to those recommended by the Child Welfare League of America—but not in the case of foster care. CWLA recommends 12 families; North Carolina’s standard is 20. • Improve the reputation of child welfare. Often the community negatively perceives DSS, which impedes recruitment and indirectly makes working conditions more difficult. Consider a publicity campaign. • Improve the climate in the agency. Although everyone contributes to the mood, the director plays the largest role. Consider formally celebrating workers’ successes, offering bonuses, ensuring the administration facilitates the workers’ jobs, empowering workers and giving them ownership (e.g., via suggestion boxes). • Ease new employees into their jobs. It is daunting to return from training and receive a full caseload. There was some discussion of giving new employees reduced caseloads initially, but it was also pointed out that the reduced caseload would leave slack to be picked up by other, older staff who might lose morale. • Build the pre-service training into the MSW degree. Students would get credit for the training while they are in school, and they’d be ready to take on a caseload the day they’re hired. Building the training into the MSW may also reduce the number of people who take a job only to quit, saying they really didn’t know what the job would be like. • Implement a dual track or multiple-response system. The cooperation with law enforcement could help ease stress and reduce the workload. • Offer flexible hours. A flexible work week will enable workers to see their own families and to meet the needs of their clients. • Lobby the legislature. Convince the legislature to contribute more funds for child welfare services so the improvements mentioned above (such as better compensation) can be implemented. • Evaluate exit interviews. Reformat the exit interview so that the agency learns as much as possible about why people leave. What you learn may influence future plans for retaining staff. • Reduce inter-county competition. All counties need to make improvements to reduce competition for employees among counties. • Reduce the time it takes to fill vacancies. To do this, agencies could establish a number of temporary-to-permanent positions to cover when permanent employees are on sick leave or vacation and to fill vacancies as they open up. Those employees would also get the pre-service training when they begin their temporary employment. Once they are hired as full-time employees, they are ready to take on a full caseload. Another idea was to keep a posting for an open position up at all times, whether there is actually a vacancy at that moment. as psychology or education had a retention rate of 46 percent, while those with a background outside of these areas showed a retention rate of only 37 percent (Texas CPS Training Institute, 1997). Other studies have found that those who stay in public welfare have worked longer in adoptions and permanency planning than those who have left or plan to leave (Dickinson & Perry, 1998). Those who stay in public wel-fare also tend to report that they have received higher levels of job-related support from coworkers. SUPERVISION IS CRITICAL Supervision may be the most important factor of all. Research shows that those who remain in child wel-fare are more likely to report that their supervisor is willing to listen to work-related problems and to help them get their jobs done, than are those who leave or are planning to leave. These individuals rate their su-pervisors as more competent, willing to show appre-ciation, approachable, and concerned for their well-being than the supervisors of those who leave. The importance of good supervision was confirmed by the N.C. Division of Social Services’ Joan McAllister, who said, “in going to different agencies around North Carolina, I have come to believe that competent, sup-portive supervision is the single most important factor in an agency’s or unit’s ability to retain workers. If you find an agency with a stable work force, you will usually find excellent supervisors."” RETAINING SOCIAL WORKERS Agencies can do several things to decrease turnover. If possible, hire individuals with a human services educa-tion. It is also critical to provide your workers with high-quality, supportive supervision and opportunities for skill development. For more ideas, see box at right. References Bowen, T. (1999). [Turnover rates for 30 counties in eastern North Carolina in the 1990s]. Unpub- lished raw data. Dickinson, N. & Perry, R. (1998, December). Why do MSWs stay in public child welfare? Presen- ted at the 11th National Conference of the National Staff Development and Training Associa- tion, New Orleans, LA. Drake, B. & Yadama, G. (1996). A structural equation model of burnout and job exit among child protective services workers. Social Work Research, 20(3), 179 187. General Accounting Office. (1995). Child welfare: Complex needs strain capacity to provide ser- vices, Letter Report, Reference: GAO/HEHS-95-208 (Sept. 26). George, R. M. (1993). Effect of public child welfare worker characteristics and turnover on dis- charge from foster care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children (tel: 312/753-5900). Reagh, R. (1994). Public child welfare professionals: Those who stay. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 21(3), 69 78. Rhodes, J. (1999). Personal communication. Thoma, R. (1998). A critical look at the child welfare system: Caseworker turnover. Lifting the Veil: Examining the Child Welfare, Foster Care and Juvenile Justice Systems [Online] <http:/ /www.geocities.com/Heartland/5401/index.htm> [1999, June 1]. Texas CPS Training Institute. (1997). Social workers have more staying power at CPS . . . at least in Region 1. Child Protection Connection, 3(1), 2. 4 RETENTION AND RECRUITMENT OF FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE FAMILIES Turnover among foster parents poses a serious threat to our child welfare sys-tem. As the people we ask to look after kids in need, they play a critical role in our efforts to protect and nurture chil-dren. In North Carolina foster parents are an essential part of two of the five goals for children’s services: one stable foster care placement for every child and a permanent home for every child within one year. Without a pool of dedicated, qualified, loving foster parents, we will never reach these goals. Yet many of our foster parents are choosing not to foster any more. Na-tionally, between 1983 and 1992, the number of children in foster care in-creased about 74 percent, while the number of available foster care place-ments decreased by 11 percent (OIG, 1994). WHY THEY STOP FOSTERING Ask any adoption and foster care worker to explain the difficulty of recruiting and retaining foster and adoptive parents and they will probably give some of these reasons: • more children with complex problems entering the system • more households have two working parents • parents need more support, training, and respite care • financial reimbursement to parents is low relative to the cost of living • the “system” gets lots of negative publicity and parents do not want to get involved (Chamberlain & Moreland, 1992). Ask foster parents themselves, and you’ll get a similar—but slightly differ-ent— answer. For example, when the Federal Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF) surveyed cur-rent and former foster parents, most of those who left the system said they did so either because of various agency policies and practices or problems with the behavior of foster children (J. Bell Assoc. & Westat, 1994). Foster parents also tend to drop out when they fail to get the support and positive recognition they deserve for caring for their foster children (GAO, 1989). The extent to which foster parents are treated as respected, valuable mem-bers of the team helping the child also affects their willingness to continue their work. To quote one foster parent, “The relationship between myself as a foster parent and my social worker (licensing worker) and my foster child’s social worker can be the determining factor in whether or not I choose to be a foster parent on an ongoing basis” (Hoffman, 1998). One study of the impact of money and support services on foster parent retention bears out what foster parents are telling us. In Oregon, the State Children’s Services Division conducted a study of 72 fos-ter families in order to determine the ef-fects of enhanced support and train-ing of foster par-ents on retention and outcomes for children. They di-vided the participat-ing families into three groups: Group 1 received enhanced support and training plus an increased payment of $70/month; Group 2 received the $70 but did not receive the increase in services; and Group 3 received no ex-tra support. The results were not surprising. Of participating families, 9.6 percent of Group 1, 14.3 percent of Group 2, and 25.9 percent of Group 3 discontinued care. Compared to the state average of 40 percent discontinuation of care, the results reflect the positive effect of additional support (training, money, and other services) on foster parent reten-tion. ACTION STEPS Once parents have been recruited, the issue becomes retention. How do we keep families in the system when pro-viding quality care is so challenging? Here are several steps you can take in your agency: 1. Clarify foster/adoptive parents’ role and recognize their importance to the child, agency, and community. Par-ents need to understand how they fit into a complex system that includes their own family, your agency, and the larger community. FOSTER PARENT ASSOCIATIONS CAN BE A VALUABLE RESOURCE As they try to improve their recruitment and retention of foster parents, more and more of North Carolina’s counties are strengthening and partnering with their local foster parent associations. Why? Because foster parent associations offer emotional support for foster parents facing challenges with their children, provide a forum for additional foster parent training, and promote working, collaborative partnerships among DSS, foster parents, and birth families. When foster parents feel supported, they are better able to meet the needs of their foster children and more likely to continue fostering. In addition, many counties are collaborating with their local foster parent associations to recruit and train new foster parents. There is no better advertisement for foster parenting than well-trained, supported, and committed foster parents! Source: NC Div. of Social Services North Carolina Families for Kids Handbook, 1998. Nationally, between 1983 and 1992, the number of children in foster care increased about 74 percent, while the number of available foster care place- ments decreased by 11 percent. 5 2. Ensure all foster/adoptive parents complete a competency-based preservice training, including a “development plan” that addresses strengths and needs. You can assist parents with the “development plan” by facilitating a strengths-based as-sessment. 3. Match the needs of a child in care with the skills and qualifications of the fos-ter/ adoptive parents. A thorough assess-ment of the strengths and needs of the child and family is critical if we are to make a successful, lasting match. 4. Create a mentoring program for new parents by asking participating parents to make themselves available to new ones. 5. Through collaboration, include fos-ter/ adoptive parents in agency decisions, including policy development. If parents are involved in the decision-making pro-cess, they will feel more connected to the program and more invested in its success. 6. Reimburse foster parents for the full cost of fostering. You may control the fi-nances in your organization, but you can advocate for an increase in funding with your supervisor and state legislators. 7. Provide liability insurance to foster parents. Again, advocating for parents’ needs is the best way to increase ser-vices to them. 8. Give foster/adoptive parents ongo-ing supervision, monitoring, and consul-tation. Make sure all foster/adoptive par-ents are aware of community health and mental health services. 9. Provide foster parents with respite care and child day care services. Making sure that parents have built in “relief” will help them cope with the stress of foster parenting and increase retention rates. 10. Provide foster/adoptive parents with recognition for their accomplish-ments. Honor the parents in some way, such as through a newsletter or during a group activity. 11. Give foster/adoptive parents ac-cess to their own files. 12. Conduct exit meetings to learn why foster/adoptive parents quit. If you know specifically why parents are leaving you can make improvements for the future (Pasztor & Wynne, 1995). NEW STATEWIDE RECRUITMENT PARTNERSHIP In addition to the steps mentioned above, consider consulting the N.C. Division of Social Services, which has established new partnership with the General Baptist State Convention and UNC-G and N.C. A & T University to facilitate the process of recruiting and licensing foster and adoptive parents. Under the new partnership, 4,000 Baptist pastors will recruit parents in their congregations to adopt children from foster care, and the universitites will help prospective parents through the sometimes difficult adoption process. Over the course of the next year the Division will hold meetings to plan recruit-ment efforts in the state’s 10, 10-county areas, making full use of the resources these new partners have to offer. For more information, contact Amelia Lance or Gwen Horton at 919/733-3801. References Chamberlain, P., & Moreland, S. (1992). Enhanced services and stipends for foster parents: Effects on retention rates and outcomes for children. Child Welfare, Sep/Oct92, Vol. 71, 387 401. General Accounting Office. (1989). Foster parents: Recruiting and preservice training practices need evaluation. Technical Report (to order call 202/ 512-6000). Hoffman, P. (1998). What I would like social work- ers to know: Expectations and desires of a fos- ter parent. Fostering Perspectives, 2(2), 14. James Bell Associates, Inc. & Westat, Inc. (1994). National survey of current and former foster par- ents. Technical Report for DHHS/ACYF. Prepared under contract number 105-89-1602. Office of the Inspector General (DHHS). (1994). Re- spite care services for foster parents. Technical Report. Pasztor, E. & Wynne, S. (1995). Foster parent re- tention and recruitment. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. ASSESSING YOUR AGENCY’S NEEDS Because children in different counties have different needs, your agency might want to consider conducting an assessment designed to focus your foster parent recruitment efforts in the most needed areas. The Child Welfare League of America recommends the following variables be included in an assessment: • the number of children who are projected to need family foster care • the child’s age; gender; membership in a sibling group; culture and ethnicity; and special developmental, behavioral, or medical needs • the number of children in the above categories who are placed with foster families that have the strengths, skills, and supports to meet their needs, as well as the number of children who are not and will probably need another foster family • the number and needs of children in the above categories who are projected to transition from family foster care • the number and characteristics of children placed in other or more restrictive settings because appropriate foster families are not available • the number of foster families who are projected to leave the program Once you determine your needs, involve the local community “in developing and implementing a comprehensive, culturally responsive, community-based, strategic recruitment plan” (Pasztor & Wynne). The plan should include public awareness and education, positive themes and messages, specific strategies (such as notices in congregational and community newsletters, display ads in the phone book, and collaboration with your foster parent association), and targeted campaigns, depending on the needs of your agency’s kids. The final step is to develop a positive and well-organized system for responding to calls and contacts from people interested in becoming foster parents. Source: Pasztor & Wynne, 1995. The NC Department of Human Resources does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability in employment or the provision of services. 3,000 copies printed at a cost of $1,624 or $0.54 per copy. 6 REVIEW OF RECENT FEDERAL LAWS AND HOW THEY AFFECT THE WAY WE RECRUIT FOSTER AND ADOPTIVE PARENTS Federal child welfare laws have changed significantly in the past decade. In this article we will explore the reasons for these laws and their impact on child welfare practice, paying particular attention to how they affect recruitment and reten-tion of foster and adoptive parents. Two of the most important pieces of recent legislation are the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 and the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994. Both of these laws, and several others we will discuss, alter the practices that had been mandated by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) of 1980, practices that have become second nature to child welfare workers. In fact, many of the concepts that guide our practice, such as making “rea-sonable efforts” to reunite foster kids with their biological families and taking race and ethnicity into consideration when facilitating adoption, are derived from the 1980 law (Gelles; D’Agostino). Old habits die hard, and some agen-cies in North Carolina and across the nation have yet to come into compli-ance with the new legislation. But in order to maintain funding, meet ethical and legal requirements, and, most im-portantly, successfully address the needs of children, child welfare agen-cies must quickly learn and enact the new policies. REASONS FOR NEW LAWS Historically, children have languished in foster care for years before being either adopted or placed back with their biological families (Gelles; Spake). In 1980, Congress passed AACWA, which demanded that states re-ceiving federal funds make “reasonable efforts” to reunify kids with their birth parents (Gelles). But what is reasonable to one social worker, foster parent, or judge is not necessarily reasonable to another. For more than 15 years, AACWA tied up the adoption pro-cess in endless red tape. Of the 500,000 children in fos-ter care in a given year, only 27,000 were adopted (D’Agostino). Terminating a birth parent’s rights was ex-tremely difficult, even in cases where the parent had seri-ously harmed the child in question or even killed that child’s siblings. Under AACWA, the safety and emotional stability of children was no more important to the courts than the due process rights of parents (D’Agostino; Gelles). As cases of deaths by abuse and the number of children waiting for adoption grew, child welfare advocates convinced President Clinton to take action. In 1997 he asked Congress to pass legislation that would double the number of public adoptions by 2002 and grant foster children “what should be their fundamental right—a chance at a decent, safe home” (Clinton). The result was a series of laws designed to achieve this goal. Amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act made convictions for homicide, manslaugh-ter, or seriously injuring a child grounds for the termination of parental rights. ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMILIES ACT OF 1997 Since ASFA, child welfare agencies can override the “reason-able efforts” requirement with concerns about children’s safety, which must be the “paramount concern.” This is a real vic-tory for child welfare advocates, because it represents the recognition that kids are not the property of their parents, but individuals with rights and needs independent of any bio-logical ties (Gelles; D’Agostino; Spake). Before 1997, terminating parental rights required that states show with “clear and convincing evidence” that par-ents had “substantially and consistently” failed to maintain contact with their child (Gelles). This process was extremely burdensome and often left kids in dangerous or unstable situ-ations (D’Agostino; Spake). Now, states must initiate a peti-tion to terminate parental rights when: • a child has been in foster care for 15 of the previous 22 months • a court deems the child an abandoned infant • the parent attempts to murder one of his or her children • the parent commits voluntary manslaughter of a child • the parent commits felonious assault resulting in serious injury to a child (CQWR; Gelles; D’Agostino). Terminating parental rights does not require that one of these conditions is met, but if one is, the state must petition to terminate parental rights. ASFA has begun to make the adoption process faster and more focused on the safety of children. On the other hand, some child welfare advocates have criticized the law, saying the timetables are too short and inflexible, and that they pre-vent agencies from helping biological parents improve their parenting skills (Spake). The balance between parental rights, preserving families, and the welfare, safety, and stability of the child may not yet have been found. But the government is listening more to practitioners, which is good news. ASFA also provides financial incentives for an efficient adoption system. Before ASFA, more than 80 percent of fed-eral money went to the child welfare bureaucracy, with under a fifth of federal money actually finding its way to caretaker families. Now, if a state finds adoptive homes for more fos-ter children than it did the preceding year, Washington awards the state $4,000 for each of these “additional” children ($6,000 for children with special needs). The new legislation In response to federal law and state goals, more agencies are seeking foster families who would be willing adopt their foster child. 7 therefore speeds up the adoption process in several ways. There have always been timetables for how long children can stay in foster care, but now those guidelines are more responsive to the needs of the kids (CQWR; Gelles). MEPA AND ITS 1996 AMENDMENT The 1994 Multiethnic Placement Act was also designed to speed up adoptions and to respond to critics of race-based adop-tion, which has long been a contentious is-sue. MEPA barred the practice of “categori-cally deny[ing] to any person the opportu-nity to become an adoptive or foster par-ent solely on the basis of race” but allowed “cultural, ethnic, or racial” considerations to be “one of the factors used to determine the best interests of the child.” This flexible position was changed by the “Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption” provision of the 1996 Small Business Job Protection Act. Current law prohibits the denial or delay of adoption or foster placement based on race. This means, for example, that white parents interested in adopting black children have as much a legal right to do so as black parents (Spake). This presents a difficult dilemma for child welfare work-ers. Many people believe that black children will lose their cultural identity if placed with white families (Spake). In a na-tion already struggling to honor its citizens of color, this con-cerns and disturbs many Americans. However, for children who may be difficult to place, the amendment to MEPA re-moves one barrier to adoption. There is simply no consen-sus on this controversial issue. We can all expect laws re-garding foster care and adoption, especially with respect to race and parental rights, to change times during our careers. It does seem that the safety of the child will, however, remain the most important consideration (Mason). Since we who work in child protection agencies have long considered this our priority, convincing lawmakers to model legislation in this way is a major accomplishment. It is also a step towards better retaining the services of foster families who may have otherwise grown dissatisfied and frustrated with the adop-tion process (Spake). Another boon to foster and adoptive family retention is the Safe Adoptions and Family Environments (SAFE) act, which is still being considered by Congress. SAFE would allow many adoptive families to receive financial assistance even if the adopted child did not qualify for federal aid as an individual. SAFE would also allow Social Security Income to follow adopted children to new families if their caretakers died or the adoption was dissolved for any reason (NACAC). Other legislation currently before Congress would require states to review the status of foster children every six months, rather than once a year as current law demands (NACAC). Practice Notes will keep its readers up to date on legislative developments in this area. Clinton, W. J. (1997). Remarks on the signing of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Docu- ments, 33:47. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. (1997). Foster care adoption bill signed into law, 55(46), 2917. D Agostino, J. (1997). Congress removes perverse incentives against adoption. Human Events, 53:46. Gelles, R. (1998). The Adoption and safe Families Act of 1997 rightly places child safety first. Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 14: 4. Mason, J. (1996). Reporting child abuse and ne- glect in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: In- stitute of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. North American Council on Adoptable Children. (1998). Federal adoption initiatives move forward. In Foster Parent Community [Online]. <http://www.fosterparents.com/ index85nacac.html> Spake, A. (1998). Adoption gridlock. U.S. News & World Report, 124:24. IMPLICATIONS FOR RECRUITING PARENTS • Understand the law as it relates to race and recruitment of foster and adoptive parents. Based on the amendment to MEPA, no county or state agency may routinely use race, color, or national origin as the basis of placement decision. However, the law does not prohibit targeted recruitment of foster or adoptive parents from specific racial or ethnic groups. But “targeted recruitment cannot be the only vehicle used by a State to identify families for children in care, or any subset of children in care, e.g., older or minority children.” • Consider recruiting more parents willing to foster/adopt. In response to the time frames talked about in ASFA and North Carolina’s own goal of finding a permanent home for every child within one year, more agencies are finding it beneficial to seek families who are willing to consider adopting their foster child. • Be careful how you use culture in assessing foster and adoptive parents. Agencies should not use routine cultural assessments or generalizations about a parent’s cultural group in a manner that would circumvent the prohibition against the routine consideration of race, color, or national origin. Consideration of a family’s preferences and competence with regard to culture and race is only permissible within the context of individualized placement decisions. • Offer cultural competency training and support for parents. Parents who foster or adopt children of an ethnicity different from their own may benefit from training that shows them how to help their children stay in touch with their ethnic and cultural heritage. • Make it clear to birth parents or other family members that you cannot honor a request to place a child with foster or adoptive parents of a particular race or ethnicity. This is true regardless of whether the child was voluntarily or involuntarily placed with DSS. • Ensure that home-finding agencies your agency contracts with understand that they may not dissuade or otherwise counsel a potential foster or adoptive parent to withdraw an application or not pursue foster parenting or adoption, even if he or she has unsatisfactory cultural competency skills. Source: Answers to GAO QUESTIONS Regarding the Multiethnic Placement Act <http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/policy/im9803a.html> WANT TO KNOW MORE? Register to attend “Measure Twice, Cut Once: Using MEPA/IEP to Develop Foster Family Recruitment and Retention Strategies.” Offered by the N.C. Division of Social Services, Children’s Services Section, this three-day training session teaches you how to plan and implement an effective, inclusive, and non-discriminatory foster parent recruitment effort in your county. For more information consult your fall 1999 staff development training calendar. Children’s Services Practice Notes Family & Children’s Resource Program Jordan Institute for Families UNC–School of Social Work Campus Box 3550 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550 State Courier # 17-61-04 IN THIS ISSUE: TURNOVER IN CHILD WELFARE A PROFILE OF CHILD WELFARE SOCIAL WORKERS WHO STAY In 1993 researcher R. Reagh conducted a small study of child wel-fare workers who had been in the field for at least five years. Although the sample consisted of only 18 respondents, this study is interesting because it identifies a number of characteristics shared by those who stayed with their agency after the “honeymoon.” Those who stayed, Reagh found, like to feel needed, to make a difference, and to be quiet contributors. They also shared similar credentials—each had either earned a BSW or related degree or were license-eligible in Ohio. And all but one of the respondents had per-sonal reasons for being in a helping profession: they had experienced victimization, the death of someone close to them, illness, or disabil-ity and felt these factors led them to the field. They felt that as child welfare workers they could make things better for children and fami-lies who, like themselves, had difficult experiences. The social workers in Reagh’s study found meaning in their work, despite their chaotic environment. They felt supported by their col-leagues and supervisors and attempted to do their jobs as creatively as the system allowed. Although all of the participants reported feel-ings of burnout at some time in the past, they felt the maturing they had done personally and professionally made coping easier. Reagh, R. (1994). Public child welfare professionals: Those who stay. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 21(3), 69 78. BOOST YOUR JOB SATISFACTION 1. Take time regularly to renew your commitment to your work. 2. Learn as much as possible from interactions with children and your colleagues. 3. Talk to supervisors or experienced workers who seem to be enjoying what they are doing. Watch and learn from them. 4. Pay attention to your physical health, stay in shape, and eat and sleep well. 5. Be prepared. Take a little extra time to plan. 6. Take time to play. 7. Challenge yourself. Learn a new skill, pursue new ideas, and be creative. 8. Go after what you want. Think it through, develop a constructive proposal, and try it. 9. Focus on and savor the good moments with the kids, and laugh with your colleagues. 10. Join a professional association and meet others who have made child and youth care their mission. Source: Krueger, M. (1996). Job satisfaction for child and youth care workers, (Third ed). Washington D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press.
Object Description
Description
Title | Children's services practice notes : for North Carolina's child welfare workers |
Other Title | Practice notes |
Date | 1999 |
Description | Vol. 4, no. 3 (1999) |
Digital Characteristics-A | 293 KB; 8 p. |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Full Text |
Volume 4, Number 3
Children’s Services Practice Notes is a news-letter
for North Carolina’s child welfare work-ers
produced four times a year by the North
Carolina Division of Social Services and the
N.C. Family and Children’s Resource Program,
part of the Jordan Institute for Families and
the School of Social Work at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In summarizing recent research, we try to give
you new ideas for refining your practice. How-ever,
this publication is not intended to replace
regular supervision and peer consultation—
only to enhance them.
Let us hear from you!
If you would like to comment about something
that appears in this or any other issue of
Children’s Services Practice Notes, please do
so! Address your comments to:
John McMahon
Jordan Institute for Families
UNC–CH School of Social Work
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550
State Courier Number: 17-61-04
E-mail: johnmcmahon@mindspring.com
Newsletter Staff
Joanne Caye, MSW, Advisor
Lane Cooke, MSW, Advisor
John McMahon, MA, Editor
Selena Berrier, Writer
Daniel Brezenoff, Writer
Michelle Wetherby, Writer
SOCIAL WORKER RETENTION
Few would dispute that turnover is a
problem in child welfare. But beyond
that, what do we really know? How high
are turnover rates? Why do workers
leave? What effect does this turnover
have on outcomes for families and chil-dren?
And, more to the point, what can
be done about it?
NATIONAL TURNOVER RATES
High child welfare worker turnover
rates affect states all over the nation.
According to one report by the Gen-eral
Accounting Office, “next to fund-ing,
states report that staffing is the
most serious issue facing their child
welfare systems. In response to an
APWA survey, 90 percent of states re-ported
difficulty recruiting and retain-ing
caseworkers” (GAO, 1995).
For example, in the early 1990s
Prince William County, Virginia reported
a 60 percent turnover rate among child
TURNOVER IN CHILD WELFARE
Turnover hurts families and children.
By leaving their jobs, social workers
can compound feelings of insignifi-cance
and rejection in kids already
hurting from abuse and neglect.
When foster and adoptive parents
quit, the effects on foster children—
most of whom have already lost one
family—can be devastating.
Turnover hurts agencies, too. It low-ers
morale, reduces efficiency, and
eats up time and money as agencies
seek, hire, and train new employees. And
cont. page 2
welfare staff. In 1997
Broward County,
Florida, reported an
85 percent turnover
rate. In 1996 the turn-over
among Massa-chusetts
Department
of Social Services
workers was 300 em-ployees
per year, with Taunton County
reporting 100 percent turnover.
This phenomenon also occurs in
child welfare administration. Testifying
before Congress in 1993, David
Liederman, director of the Child Wel-fare
League of America, stated, “There
is a lack of stable leadership in child
welfare. In the last two years there has
been a fifty-percent turnover among
State directors of child welfare pro-grams.
That is outrageous” (Thoma,
1998).
turnover prevents us from meeting our
goal of one case worker or case work
team for each child and family.
In this edition Practice Notes ex-plores
what researchers, practitio-ners,
and administrators have to say
about turnover in child welfare, and
we present some ideas for fixing this
system-wide problem. Unless we con-front
this issue head on, we will be
unable to ensure that every foster child
has a safe, loving, permanent family
within one year.
Staff turnover hurts kids.
How can we reduce it?
2
SOCIAL WORKER RETENTION from page 1
TURNOVER IN NC
There is no statewide data on child wel-fare
staff turnover in North Carolina.
However, for the past nine years, Ted
Bowen, former director of the Eastern
Regional Office of the N.C. Dept. of
Health and Human Resources, main-tained
data on DSS staff turnover rates
for 30 counties in the eastern part of
the state. This region extends north to
Virginia, south to South Carolina, and
west to the Wilson area. According to
these records, rates of turnover for all
DSS staff ranged from 24.8 to 34.2
percent, with an average of around 29
percent. Many of these counties struggle
to recruit qualified employees, who can
be difficult to find and attract to the ru-ral
settings typical of this area.
In February 1999 representatives of
North Carolina’s 27 Families for Kids and
IV-E Waiver counties met to discuss child
welfare staff turnover. Although some
participants offered statistics ranging
from 30 to 110 percent rates of turn-over
for foster care placement workers,
these figures were not official.
During their February discussion
counties also brought up the point that
turnover rates seem to be higher in
some positions than others. For ex-ample,
one county estimated the turn-over
rate at 10 percent in placement
staff but at 95 percent in CPS staff.
Others agreed that they had difficulty
keeping employees in one area, but
there didn’t seem to be any pattern—
that is, in one county the higher turn-over
rate may have been in placement,
but in the next county CPS was the
problem area.
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN
When agencies lack adequate staff,
caseloads and stress levels increase
for those workers who stay behind.
Miscommunication and mistakes can
occur when a child’s case is “handed
off” to a new person. Many child wel-fare
professionals believe that all of
these conditions delay permanence for
children (Thoma, 1998), and lower the
quality of services they receive while they
are in foster care (Well, 1994).
At least one study contradicts this
belief. In this study R. M. George used
data from the Illinois Department of
Children and Family Services to track
rates of reunification for 851 children
in foster care. Surprisingly, George
found that more staff turnover in a
particular child’s case resulted in
swifter reunification for that child. In
his discussion of his findings, George
gives this explanation: “Although this
may seem counterintuitive, action on
a particular case may only occur at
some procedural or bureaucratic mile-stone.
Thus, the more caseworkers a
child has, the more possibilities exist
for review and consideration of reuni-fication”
(George, 1993).
WHY WORKERS LEAVE
It is not hard to understand why work-ers
leave child welfare. In their 1996
study, researchers Drake and Yamada
found that inadequate pay, tough work-ing
conditions, lack of recognition for a
job well-done, chronic stress, emotional
exhaustion, and overwork all negatively
affect worker retention. During the Feb-ruary
1999 discussion participants
named most of these factors, adding
to them the pressures of high caseloads,
paperwork, and liability concerns.
In North Carolina, competition from
other county departments of social ser-vices
contributes to turnover. Because
funding for child welfare positions is
county-based, workers sometimes leave
one agency to take an equivalent job in
another county—for better pay and,
sometimes, better working conditions.
THOSE WHO STAY
What do we know about the child wel-fare
workers who hang in there? Rel-evant
education seems to be a pre-dictive
factor (Dickinson & Perry, 1998).
In Texas, a study found that in the
past five years, 67 percent of CPS
staff with degrees in social work were
still working for Protective Services.
There was an 87 percent retention rate
among those who, in addition to hav-ing
a BSW, also had a placement or
internship in the social service agency
prior to working there. Workers with
Source: Ted Bowen, former Director, Eastern Region, NC Dept. of Health and Human Resources. human service-related degrees such
DSS Staff Turnover in Eastern NC
0 10 20 30 40
89/90
91/92
93/94
95/96
96/97
97/98
94/95
92/93
90/91
33.27
30.76
25.51
29.9
27.7
24.8
26.8
27.8
34.2
Range= 24.8 to 34.2
Average=28.97
3
IDEAS FOR RETAINING
CHILD WELFARE WORKERS IN NC
What do directors, administrators, supervisors, and line social workers
from North Carolina’s county departments of social services think about
child welfare staff turnover? In February 1999 representatives of North
Carolina’s 27 Families for Kids and IV-E Waiver counties met to talk about this
issue and come up with solutions. Here are some of their ideas:
• Address liability concerns. Determine if social workers can be provided
professional liability insurance through the county’s legal services to
allay fears about liability.
• Improve compensation. Better pay needs to be paired with adequate
staffing and reasonable workloads. Regardless of what someone is being
paid, there’s only so much she can do. Improved compensation could
lure new employees and reward experienced people who stay.
• Change the caseload standard for foster care. In general, North
Carolina’s caseload standards are very similar to those recommended
by the Child Welfare League of America—but not in the case of foster
care. CWLA recommends 12 families; North Carolina’s standard is 20.
• Improve the reputation of child welfare. Often the community negatively
perceives DSS, which impedes recruitment and indirectly makes working
conditions more difficult. Consider a publicity campaign.
• Improve the climate in the agency. Although everyone contributes to
the mood, the director plays the largest role. Consider formally
celebrating workers’ successes, offering bonuses, ensuring the
administration facilitates the workers’ jobs, empowering workers and
giving them ownership (e.g., via suggestion boxes).
• Ease new employees into their jobs. It is daunting to return from
training and receive a full caseload. There was some discussion of giving
new employees reduced caseloads initially, but it was also pointed out
that the reduced caseload would leave slack to be picked up by other,
older staff who might lose morale.
• Build the pre-service training into the MSW degree. Students would
get credit for the training while they are in school, and they’d be ready
to take on a caseload the day they’re hired. Building the training into the
MSW may also reduce the number of people who take a job only to quit,
saying they really didn’t know what the job would be like.
• Implement a dual track or multiple-response system. The cooperation
with law enforcement could help ease stress and reduce the workload.
• Offer flexible hours. A flexible work week will enable workers to see
their own families and to meet the needs of their clients.
• Lobby the legislature. Convince the legislature to contribute more funds
for child welfare services so the improvements mentioned above (such
as better compensation) can be implemented.
• Evaluate exit interviews. Reformat the exit interview so that the agency
learns as much as possible about why people leave. What you learn
may influence future plans for retaining staff.
• Reduce inter-county competition. All counties need to make
improvements to reduce competition for employees among counties.
• Reduce the time it takes to fill vacancies. To do this, agencies could
establish a number of temporary-to-permanent positions to cover when
permanent employees are on sick leave or vacation and to fill vacancies
as they open up. Those employees would also get the pre-service training
when they begin their temporary employment. Once they are hired as
full-time employees, they are ready to take on a full caseload. Another
idea was to keep a posting for an open position up at all times, whether
there is actually a vacancy at that moment.
as psychology or education had a retention rate of 46
percent, while those with a background outside of these
areas showed a retention rate of only 37 percent (Texas
CPS Training Institute, 1997).
Other studies have found that those who stay in public
welfare have worked longer in adoptions and permanency
planning than those who have left or plan to leave
(Dickinson & Perry, 1998). Those who stay in public wel-fare
also tend to report that they have received higher
levels of job-related support from coworkers.
SUPERVISION IS CRITICAL
Supervision may be the most important factor of all.
Research shows that those who remain in child wel-fare
are more likely to report that their supervisor is
willing to listen to work-related problems and to help
them get their jobs done, than are those who leave or
are planning to leave. These individuals rate their su-pervisors
as more competent, willing to show appre-ciation,
approachable, and concerned for their well-being
than the supervisors of those who leave.
The importance of good supervision was confirmed
by the N.C. Division of Social Services’ Joan McAllister,
who said, “in going to different agencies around North
Carolina, I have come to believe that competent, sup-portive
supervision is the single most important factor in
an agency’s or unit’s ability to retain workers. If you find
an agency with a stable work force, you will usually
find excellent supervisors."”
RETAINING SOCIAL WORKERS
Agencies can do several things to decrease turnover. If
possible, hire individuals with a human services educa-tion.
It is also critical to provide your workers with high-quality,
supportive supervision and opportunities for skill
development. For more ideas, see box at right.
References
Bowen, T. (1999). [Turnover rates for 30 counties in eastern North Carolina in the 1990s]. Unpub-
lished raw data.
Dickinson, N. & Perry, R. (1998, December). Why do MSWs stay in public child welfare? Presen-
ted at the 11th National Conference of the National Staff Development and Training Associa-
tion, New Orleans, LA.
Drake, B. & Yadama, G. (1996). A structural equation model of burnout and job exit among child
protective services workers. Social Work Research, 20(3), 179 187.
General Accounting Office. (1995). Child welfare: Complex needs strain capacity to provide ser-
vices, Letter Report, Reference: GAO/HEHS-95-208 (Sept. 26).
George, R. M. (1993). Effect of public child welfare worker characteristics and turnover on dis-
charge from foster care. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children (tel: 312/753-5900).
Reagh, R. (1994). Public child welfare professionals: Those who stay. Journal of Sociology and
Social Welfare, 21(3), 69 78.
Rhodes, J. (1999). Personal communication.
Thoma, R. (1998). A critical look at the child welfare system: Caseworker turnover. Lifting the
Veil: Examining the Child Welfare, Foster Care and Juvenile Justice Systems [Online] |
OCLC number | 40355598 |