Why Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers Are Leaving: A Qualitative Study

Background and Purpose: While highly skilled and committed child welfare caseworkers are essential to provide the safety of children and the well-being of families (Clark & Zlotnik, 2011), a high caseworker turnover rate in child welfare agencies remains a real problem that affects clients, communities and the agency budgets (Casey Family Program, 2017). Turnover effects, including direct and indirect costs, approximately $ 57,000 for every caseworker leaving the workforce. Further, turnover results in a caseworker shortage, which increases caseloads, decreases job satisfaction for those remaining at the agency and reduces service delivery for children and families (National Workforce Institute, 2017). Organizations and policymakers have put a vested interest in retaining caseworkers, including moderately increased salary, compensations and benefits, yet retaining employees have not been successfully resolved. The current study was conducted to provide practical implications to retain caseworkers by better understanding individual caseworkers’ shared concern and struggle at their agencies. This study uses qualitative data to examine caseworkers’ reasons for leaving and staying and our recommendations for improving working environments at child welfare agencies.

Methods: Public and private child welfare agencies in a mid-Atlantic state (Pennsylvania = 1038) were recruited for this study, pre- and post-COVID. Within this sample, 584 responded to the open-ended question: “Briefly explain your thoughts about each choice of reasons for leaving,” and 520 responded: “Explain reasons for staying.” Once data is identified, coding begins with the model of open, axial, and selective categories taken from grounded theory methods (LaRossa, 2005).

Results: As for reasons for leaving, about 80% of responses were related to workloads and caseloads (n = 413), and within these responses, 111 mentioned paperwork and computer work due to the 2014 changes with the Child Welfare Information System (CWIS). Followed by overwhelming workloads, insufficient salary, and benefits which were common reasons for leaving (58%). Related to the court staff and caseworkers’ relationships, twenty-four caseworkers raised concerns about judges’ decisions (e.g., unfavorable to the families and children), and feeling disrespected by the court staff and judges, including sexual harassment (n = 1). Responses for staying were about positive relationships with their colleagues and supervisors (48%). Specifically, two people mentioned that they were supported in making their own decisions, and seven of them stated supervisors were willing to listen to their concerns and complaints. Twenty-four caseworkers indicated flexibility in scheduling and using paid time off (4.6%). Another common reasons to stay were caseworkers' dedication to the work, satisfaction with what they do and agreement with the agencies’ mission (19.03%).

Conclusion: While caseworkers’ reasons for leaving were dominantly related to overwhelming workloads without sufficient salary and compensation, they were more likely to stay if they had positive relationships with their supervisors and colleagues, including court personnel. Being listened to and valued by their colleagues and supervisors was one of the key elements for caseworkers to stay at their agencies and the professional freedom to make their own decisions and have some input in policy development.