How Public Perceptions of the Job Influence Stipend Students' Readiness for a Career in Child Welfare

Background and Purpose:  Child welfare (CW) work is often negatively portrayed by the media as ineffectual and bureaucratic, leading to negative stereotypes and misconceptions about the nature of the work and the CW workforce.  Research shows that CW workers who report negative public perceptions of their job are more likely to consider leaving. The current study examined whether BSW and MSW child welfare stipend students’ reports of public perceptions of child welfare predicted their readiness for CW work at graduation.

Method:  The 14-item Perceptions of Child Welfare Scale (PCWS; Auerbach et al., 2014) was administered to social work stipend students from 44 schools across the country at graduation (n=354) and again one year post-graduation (n=172). Students and graduates also estimated how long they expected to work in CW, and students completed the 5-item Readiness for CW Work scale (α = .86), while graduates completed a 6-item Intent to Stay scale (α = .85). The hypothesized 3-factor structure of the PCWS was tested through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to determine whether PCWS performed similarly with this group of students as in the Auerbach study, which used data from child welfare workers from private agencies in a northeastern city.  Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine whether perceptions of CW predicted student readiness for a career in child welfare and years of anticipated commitment to the field.

Results:  Fit indices (chi-square, RMSEA, CFI, and TLI) from CFAs conducted separately on students and graduates indicated adequate overall fit for a model with three latent variables: stigma, value, and respect. However, the factor loadings were not as strong in this sample, ranging from .22 to .85 for students and .16 to .94 for graduates. The 14-item scale demonstrated adequate reliability (α = .71), and the construct was stable over time, with no significant difference between perceptions reported as a student and again one year after graduation. Regression analyses on the student sample revealed that even when controlling for students’ program satisfaction and child welfare competency, PCWS was a significant predictor of Readiness for work, F(2, 271) = 38.83; p< .001,  model R²= .39. The PCWS also predicted number of years that graduating stipend students expected to stay in CW beyond their repayment period F(1, 274) = 7.48; p< .01, R²= .03. Among graduates, PCWS predicted intent to stay in their current job F(1, 125) = 8.92; p< .01, R²= .07 but did not predict number of years expected to stay in CW.

Conclusions and Implications:  Tuition stipends are an effective means of recruiting BSW and MSW social work students to the field of child welfare.  However, students’ negative perceptions of how child welfare work is viewed by the general public can undermine readiness to commit to a long-term career in the field.  Schools of social work and CW agencies can partner to educate community members and raise awareness about the complexity of child abuse and neglect and the important role of public child welfare agencies and social work practice in supporting children and families.