A Quantitative Study of How Interprofessional Collaboration Relates to Child Welfare Caseworker Job Satisfaction

Background and purpose: Reduced job satisfaction among child welfare caseworkers has been linked to poor work performance and intent to leave the agency (Lizano & Mor Barak, 2015). Given these adverse consequences, child welfare supervisors and administrators seek strategies to improve caseworker job satisfaction. Caseworkers have reported greater job satisfaction when they receive more support from people within their agency—namely supervisors (Barth et al., 2008) and coworkers (Sedivy et al., 2020). However, caseworkers frequently collaborate with professionals outside their agency, including service providers and court professionals. Although interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has been linked to job satisfaction in healthcare settings (Korner et al., 2015) and schools (Agresta, 2006), it has not been explored in child welfare. To address this gap, this study examined the following research question: Is caseworker collaboration with service providers or court professionals associated with caseworker job satisfaction?

Methods: A secondary data analysis was conducted using data collected for a workforce improvement project implemented in all child welfare agencies in two Midwestern states and one urban county in a Western state. Agency staff completed a survey that measured aspects of organizational functioning and professional well-being. For this study, the sample was limited to caseworkers (n = 1,401) who reported that they interact at least monthly with service providers (e.g., mental health therapists, substance abuse counselors, family preservation workers, etc.) or court professionals (e.g., guardians ad litem, CASAs, attorneys, etc.).

Linear regression models tested if caseworker collaboration with either type of professional was related to their job satisfaction. Collaboration with service providers and court professionals was examined separately because some respondents interacted with only one type of professional. Job satisfaction was measured with a 7-item, 5-point agreement scale (α = .80; Spector, 1985). IPC was measured with a 7-item, 5-point agreement scale developed for this study. The scale captured what prior studies have identified as key components of IPC, including communication, respect, shared goals, understanding of roles, and conflict resolution. Respondents completed the scale for service providers and court professionals separately. An exploratory factor analysis indicated the scale had one factor as intended (loadings: .706 to .930) and good reliability (α = .92). Covariates included gender, race/ethnicity, education, tenure, caseload, job function, supervision (8 item scale; α = .96; Butler Institute, 2014), and coworker support (5 item scale; α = .91; Sedivy et al., 2020).

Results: Caseworker collaboration with service providers was significantly and positively associated with caseworker job satisfaction (b = .14, p < .001), as was caseworker collaboration with court professionals (b = .09, p < .001).

Conclusions and implications: Caseworkers reported greater job satisfaction when they collaborated better with service providers and court professionals. This finding suggests that supervisors and administrators can increase caseworker job satisfaction by improving IPC between caseworkers and other professionals. Prior research has identified several strategies which may be used to enhance IPC, including cross-training, colocation, MOUs, requirements for IPC, and performance measures tied to IPC.