Meeting the Material Needs of Child Welfare Involved Families: The Perspective of Frontline Workers

Background and Purpose:

Most child welfare involved families are poor, a factor that contributes to their contact with the system and eventual permanency outcomes. The separation of income maintenance programs from child welfare services calls into question how these systems operate to meet the needs of vulnerable families. The purpose of the research reported here is to explore this central question from the perspective of frontline workers.

Methods:

Data were obtained from 12 focus groups, 6 with child welfare workers (CWW’s) and 6 with welfare workers (WW’s) serving the same communities in 6 locations across a state administered western state. Administrators from each of the 12 offices were asked to recruit 10 workers having a minimum of 6 months experience. 85 participants took part in the focus groups with an average of 105 months of employment. Education ranged from high school to a master’s degree with half reporting at least a BA. An interview guide included questions about how workers assessed families’ basic needs, how they met family needs and the nature of CWW and WW collaboration.

Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed and uploaded to Dedoose. An inductive thematic analysis was used within a realist paradigm. Initial codes were identified and a codebook developed. Through an iterative process, descriptive and thematic codes were compared and contrasted across transcripts and additional themes identified. The study received exempt IRB approval.

Findings:

Assessing family needs varied largely due to differences in the role of the two agencies. CWW’s typically had at least some contact with families at their home or residence, affording them an opportunity to observe and engage families around their needs. In addition to connecting clients to welfare programs, CWW’s relied heavily on relationships with community resources. The work of WW’s was more likely to be driven by eligibility criteria and Workfirst requirements, leaving them less room for discretion.

Two areas stood out as places where policy worked as intended: the concurrent TANF benefit policy and coordinated plans for TANF participants. The concurrent benefit allows caregivers to receive TANF even when their children are removed if reunification is expected within 9 months. Workers in both agencies were aware of the policy and helped clients access this benefit. Similarly, workers across agencies used common language to describe how child welfare requirements take precedence over Workfirst activities.

Other salient themes included confusion between the two agencies regarding responsibilities and resources, frustration with information systems and the lack of clear communication channels, and the role of child support, as well as numerous ideas about how to improve the systems.

Conclusion and Implications:

Findings provide important insights into how two critical family-serving public agencies work to address the material needs of child welfare involved families. Workers identified policies and systems that worked well and some that impeded their ability to assist families. They were also thoughtful and creative around potential solutions.