Can Title IV-E Education Prepare Students for Working in Child Welfare?

Background and Purpose

High turnover in child welfare (CW) agencies has been a longstanding problem. Many states utilize the Title IV-E program to improve their CW worker tenure. Research that assists in identifying the best practices to retain these specially trained workers will maximize the investment. Through qualitative interviews with both Title IV-E graduates who remained in CW and those who did not, this study examines the experiences and perceptions of preparedness for working in CW agencies.  

Method

The study pulls a convenience sample (n= 465) from a larger sample of one state’s Title IV-E graduates between 1995 and 2008. Thirty minute phone interviews were conducted and transcribed by trained graduate student researchers. Transcripts were initially reviewed and coded thematically by the first author. Continuous readings and involvement of colleagues to assess and discuss evolving themes supported credibility and minimized bias. Finally, both authors conferred to interpret established themes for consistency. This analysis focuses on answers to questions regarding how the Title IV-E education prepared or did not prepare participants for CW work.

Results

Five relevant themes for both best prepared and not prepared responses emerged across both stayer and leaver transcripts:

• University specific
• Worker technical skills
• Worker psychological aspects
• Job/agency aspects
• Clients

Subthemes within each of the five parent themes were identified and assessed for frequency. There were many similarities between leaver and stayer responses regarding what they were best prepared for. For example, both groups reported being prepared for working with clients (worker technical skills) through the internship (university specific). However, a stark contrast is offered in two theme areas, with only stayers feeling prepared in psychological and client aspects.

Additionally, stayers and leavers had very similar responses to the question regarding what they were not prepared for. Both groups indicated that their education (university specific) focused too much on theory or research and not enough on practical skills for working in child welfare. Bureaucracy/organizational culture (job/agency aspects) was also a major subtheme across groups.  Ironically, for both stayers and leavers, court was the aspect both best prepared for by some and not prepared for by others.

Conclusion/Implications

This study highlights a continuing disconnect of social work from CW practices potentially caused by the previous de-professionalization of the CW workforce. While Title IV-E programs do not have control over job factors, education may be able to prepare participants for the extrinsic and intrinsic aspects of the job, thus improving retention. Schools of social work could design courses that increase students’ awareness of bureaucratic conditions in child welfare agencies, as well as provide tools for how to balance professional and organizational needs.

Additionally, agencies could consider reinforcing the education and improving the support and retention of Title IV-E graduates.  For example, supporting workers in managing the psychological impacts of the job is vital. The organizational culture of CW agencies was highlighted in its contrast to social work values and competencies. Therefore, agencies may also want to assess their organizational culture and climate for ways to improve worker experiences.