Workplace Support Among Recently-Hired Frontline Child Welfare Workers: Who Has It and Why?

Background and Purpose: The annual turnover rate for frontline child welfare workers is extraordinarily high ranging from 30% to 50% with the highest turnover rate among recently-hired workers. Relationships and support are critical mechanisms to increase worker success and retention, and, ultimately, client wellbeing. Support may not be equally available among workers, however.  Following the concept of social inclusion, some studies suggest that demographic characteristics influence support levels such that majority groups have greater support perceptions while other studies find no relationship. This mixed-methods presentation (1) examines how individual characteristics relate to workplace support perceptions among recently-hired workers and (2) describes how these characteristics and support perceptions influence early job experiences.

Methods: We employed a mixed methods approach using The Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families (FSPSF) survey data of recently-hired child welfare workers (N = 1,501) and qualitative data from a subsample of these workers (n = 38).  The FSPSF is a longitudinal, cohort study of workers hired between September, 2015 and December, 2016.  Workers periodically complete online surveys to measure individual and organizational influences on employment outcomes and worker wellbeing. This study uses data when workers were on the job approximately six months. After six months on the job, a subsample also was randomly selected to participate in telephone interviews about the transition from training to independent caseloads. Using Kaplan’s support assessment, we employed linear regressions to examine how individual and work characteristics influenced how much workers could rely on (a) supervisors and (b) co-workers under various circumstances (e.g., get work done, listen to work-related problems). We employed thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to understand participants’ experiences with workplace support. 

Results: Quantitative descriptive findings showed workers ranged from 0 to 12 in support levels from both coworkers and supervisors. Although workers averaged “quite a bit” (m = 8.1) of support, 23% had less than “some” support from coworkers, supervisors, or both.  Linear regression findings revealed that being female and older related to lower support levels, particularly supervisory support. Race/ethnicity, family status, education level, and nativity were not significantly related to support levels.  Qualitative analysis found that due to excessive workloads, workers with more support often advocated for themselves to receive the support needed to meet job responsibilities.  Male workers and younger workers, for example, were more likely to discuss the need to interrupt their supervisors or colleagues than their female or older counterparts.

Conclusions and Implications: Although workers generally perceived a moderate amount of support, almost one fourth did not. In order to provide workers with needed assistance, supervisors and senior colleagues could benefit from training and reduced workloads to provide more support to recently-hired workers.  Workers could benefit from training on how to utilize and capitalize on support.  Findings that older and female workers perceived less support, particularly from supervisors, support the concept of social inclusion and suggest that workplace support is not equally available. We present policy and research implications to address support inequalities in efforts to increase worker retention and improve client outcomes.