Children's services practice notes : for North Carolina's child welfare workers

              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.