Improving Workplace Experiences of Public Child Welfare Workers: The Benefits of Resources Within and Outside Child Welfare Agencies

Background/ Purpose: Extant literature provides compelling evidence that employee burnout, characterized by physical and emotional exhaustion, is related to their performance and intent to stay (Mor Barak, Levin, Nissly, & Lane, 2006; Taris, 2006). Given the nature of their work and high demands they face, child welfare (CW) workers are highly susceptible to burnout. Consequently, identifying strategies to reduce burnout is a priority for CW organizations and researchers.

Using the Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), we explored the moderating effects of internal (within the agency) and external (outside the agency) resources on the relationship between work demands and burnout. This study contributes to the literature in the exploration of internal and external resources that may protect CW caseworkers from burnout and offers generalizability of findings given that the sample contains respondents from three states. 

Methods: Study participants include frontline staff in public CW agencies located across three states (N=1,917). The outcomes of interest were client-related burnout (i.e., burnout attributed to working with clients) and work-related burnout (i.e., burnout attributed to the work environment) (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory; Kirstensen, Borritz, Villadsen, & Christensen, 2005). Job stress and time pressure served as indicators of job demands in the model. Internal resources included supervisor support and peer support; external resources included quality of relationships with service providers, accessibility of treatment services for clients, and accessibility of client support services (e.g., housing, food, clothing, etc.). Interaction terms were created to determine whether resources moderated the relationship between job demands and burnout. Analyses were conducted using hierarchical linear regression models, controlling for demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, tenure, and job function).

Results: The overall models were significant. Job stress and time pressure were associated with higher levels of client-related burnout (b=5.57, p<0.001 and b=2.85, p<0.001, respectively) and work-related burnout (b=7.41, p<0.001 and b=6.88, p<0.001, respectively). Supervisor support was the only resource (internal or external) that had a significant relationship with both types of burnout (b=-2.33, p<0.001 for client-related and b=-3.05, p<0.001 for work-related burnout). The external resources—positive relationships with service providers and accessibility of client support services—were significantly associated with work-related burnout (b=-1.22, p=0.035 and b=-2.04, p=0.003, respectively). Interestingly, while the accessibility of treatment services was not significantly associated with either source of burnout, it moderated the link between job stress and burnout (b=-2.11, p=0.026 for client-related and b=-1.80, p=0.045 for work-related burnout). Specifically, the strength of the relationship between job stress and client- and work-related burnout diminshed when treatment services were more accessible.

Conclusions/ Implications: The results of this study indicate supervisor support, caseworker relationships with service providers, and accessibility of treatment services and client support services may protect caseworkers from burnout. These findings can inform the development of interventions intending to reduce burnout for CW caseworkers, potentially supporting worker well-being and reducing turnover