Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSW California State University Fullerton CCASSC Meeting July 9 th, 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSW California State University Fullerton CCASSC Meeting July 9 th, 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSW California State University Fullerton CCASSC Meeting July 9 th, 2010

2 2 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton  The Problem  Turnover ▪ Rates: PCWS Workforce, National: 15-22% (APHSA, 2005) PCWS Workforce, California: 1.) Average 9.8% (Clark & Fulcher, 2005) 2.) Range 9-23% (NCCD, 2006) ▪ Highly problematic for PCWS Agencies ▪ Cost, $10,000 annually per vacated position-(1995 dollars) (Graef & Hill, 2000) ▪ Estimates of total cost from an 18-state study $53.84 million (APHSA, 2005) ▪ Training issues ▪ Overall morale ▪ Harmful to SWs & CMs who leave due to the working conditions ▪ Increases workload & stress for SWs & CMs who remain ▪ Most important, very unhealthy for children & families served in PCWS agencies! ▪ Number-Ten

3  Child Welfare: Vol. 88, Issue 5, Special Issue: Strengthening the Child Welfare Workforce: Promoting Recruitment and Retention  Joan Levy Zlotnik, Virginia C. Strand, and Gary R. Anderson (Eds.) 3David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

4  The Influence of Supervisor Support, Peer Support, and Organizational Culture Among Early Career Social Workers in Child Welfare Services  David Chenot, Amy D. Benton, and Hansung Kim  Previous studies have demonstrated that those who are in the first years of Child Welfare Services (CWS) employment are at particularly high risk for turnover. This study explored how the effects of support and organizational culture on retention (as the antidote for turnover) vary across different stages of CWS careers.  A sample of 767 workers was divided into subgroups based on their years in CWS. A series of multilevel models were used to examine the differences between the groups. Findings include the crucial role supervisor support plays in retaining workers not only in their agencies, but in the field of CWS. In addition, passive defensive organizational culture has a negative effect on early career workers, but not on mid or late career workers.  This suggests that a unique sensitivity to passive defensive organizational cultures exists early in CWS workers’ careers that appears to dissipate over time. Implications for organizational practices are discussed. 4David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

5  Supervisor Support  Supervisor support has been a significant predictor of retention or turnover in several studies on the Public Child Welfare Services workforce: ▪ APHSA (2005); Dickinson & Perry (2002); Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, & Withers (2008); Landsman (2001); Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001); Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin (2005); Smith (2005)  Supervisor support has also emerged as an important factor in qualitative studies on PCWS retention: ▪ Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, (2007); Reagh, (1994); Rycraft, (1994) 5David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

6  Peer support  Mixed results in studies on the PCWS workforce: ▪ Significant impact on retention/turnover: Dickinson & Perry (2002); Ellett & Millar, (2004); Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin (2005) ▪ Impact on intent to leave but not on actual turnover: Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001) ▪ No significant impact: Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, & Withers, (2008); Landsman (2001); Weaver, Chang, Clark, & Rhee (2007)  An important factor in qualitative studies: ▪ Reagh (1994); Wagner, Spence, & Burnstein (2001); Wagner, van Reyk, & Spence (2001) 6David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

7  Organizational Culture  Few studies on PCWS organizations  C0nstructive cultures have a positive impact on job satisfaction & retention in PCWS agencies ▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James (2002); Glisson et al., (2008)  Passive defensive cultures, not so much! ▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James, (2002) 7David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

8  Variables in the Study  Individual level Variables ▪ Supervisor Support ▪ Peer Support  Organizational Level Construct ▪ Organizational Culture  Control Variables ▪ Title/Position in the Agency ▪ Social Work Education 8David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

9  Definitions  Kadushin & Harkness (2002) ▪ Three functions of supervision: administration, education, and support ▪ Supervisor support in this study includes aspects of – ▪ Education  Transfer the values of the profession to line workers, increase theoretical knowledge, improve practice skills, enhance problem-solving & self awareness. ▪ Support  Maintain motivation, morale & commitment, mitigate job stress & the effects of role ambiguity – particularly in order to prevent burnout. Professional development and career planning appear to be involved as well. 9David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

10  Definitions ▪ Supervisor Support ▪ The extent to which the employee believes their immediate supervisor provides instrumental (knowledge/skill) and affective (emotional) support.  Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems, provides good advice, very knowledgeable about child welfare. ▪ Peer Support ▪ The degree of perceived assistance and understanding received from coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup  Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems, “helpful to me in getting my job done.” (Landsman, 2000, 2001) 10David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

11  Definitions  Organizational Culture ▪ A “deep” construct in organizational theory. ▪ Culture is composed of the assumptions, beliefs, values and behavioral norms shared in organizations. ▪ The shared nature of these elements is very important to culture as a concept. ▪ Shared behavioral expectations are the most “visible” indicators of organizational culture ▪ At least two types of cultures: ▪ Constructive ▪ Passive Defensive 11David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

12  Definitions  Organizational Culture ▪ Constructive ▪ The fulfillment of higher order satisfaction needs; i.e., self actualization, achievement, the motivation to excel, and a humanistic orientation marked by supportive behaviors and positive interpersonal interactions  Proficiency = Responsiveness to clients and Competence in fulfilling responsibilities. ▪ Passive defensive ▪ Related to lower order security and protection needs; i.e., the approval of others (esp. authorities), conformity with conventional operations (rule-following), high levels of dependency, evasion of responsibility, blame and accountability  Resistance = Apathy-social workers & case managers show little interest in change. Suppression- change efforts, including new ways of providing services, are suppressed by workers. 12David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

13  Projected Retention – Two Outcome Variables ▪ In this study the focus was on retention as a desirable outcome & the opposite of turnover ▪ Intent to stay as proxy for retention 1) Retention=in Public Child Welfare Services Agencies Intent to stay in the agency 2) Retention=in the Field of Child Welfare Services Intent to stay in the field CWS encompasses more than PCWS. Those who leave PCWS agencies often go to other types of organizations in the Field of CWS. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton13

14 14David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

15  Study Design  Cross-sectional survey research design  Sampling ▪ Convenience sample  Data gathered in eleven Central California PCWS Agencies ▪ Number of individuals: n=767 ▪ Number of groups: n=34 ▪ Number of agencies: n=11 ▪ Response rate: 69% David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton15

16  Sample by Title in Agency David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton16

17  Comparison: Retention in the Agency by Title  Projected retention ▪ Current employing PCWS Agency ▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton17

18 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton 18

19  Comparison: Retention in the Field of CWS by Title  Projected retention ▪ Field of Child Welfare Services ▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton19

20 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton20

21  Comparison: Retention in the Agency & the Field by Education  Projected retention ▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency & Field of Child Welfare Services ▪ By highest educational level (degree) attained David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton21

22 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton22

23  Comparison: Retention in the Agency  Projected retention ▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency ▪ By years in the agency David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton23

24 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton24

25 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton25 CharacteristicsTotalEarly Career (1 Day – 3 Years) Mid Career (4 Years - 10 Years) Late Career (> 11 Years) n ( %) Sample a 767 (100)261 (34.0)323 (42.2)181 (22.6) Agency Title SWs/CMs Supervisors Other titles 587 (76.6) 128 (16.7) 52 (7.0) 229 (87.8) 7 (2.7) 25 (9.5) 246 (76.2) 57 (17.6) 21 (6.2) 111 (61.9) 64 (35.4) 6 (3.4) Education High school Community college Bachelor’s degrees Master’s degrees Ph.D 19 (2.5) 61 (8.0) 372 (48.7) 308 (40.3) 4 (0.5) 9 (3.4) 30 (11.5) 135 (51.7) 87 (33.3) 0 (0.0) 7 (2.2) 20 (6.2) 161 (49.8) 132 (40.9) 3 (0.9) 3 (1.7) 11 (6.2) 75 (42.1) 88 (49.4) 1 (0.6) Social Work Education BSW MSW No social work education 79 (10.4) 202 (26.7) 476 (62.9) 23 (8.8) 69 (26.5) 168 (64.6) 39 (12.1) 80 (24.9) 202 (62.9) 17 (9.7) 53 (30.3) 105 (60.0)

26  HLM analyses: Three models ▪ Unconditional model ▪ Variance across groups on outcome variables ▪ Conditional model-Predictors at level-1 only ▪ Individual level effects of predictors on outcome variables ▪ Cross-level interactions: Predictors at level 1 & level 2 ▪ Cross-level effects of both the level 1 & level 2 predictors. Tests effects of the level 2 predictors on the intercepts and on the slopes David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton26

27  Retention-Agency  Significant variance across groups (not shown) David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton27 Retention in the Agency Model 1 Model 2Model 3 Fixed Effects Coef.SET-ratioCoef.SET-ratioCoef.SET-ratio Intercept ** ** ** Peer Support * * Supervisor Support ** ** SWs/CMs MSW ** ** BSW * † COC PDOC * Note. † p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01

28  Retention Agency  Supervisor support & peer support predicted retention in the agency but supervisor support was strongest ▪ Both MSW & BSW negatively predicted remaining in the agency but MSW was the strongest predictor in the model  Passive defensive organizational culture had a negative effect on the level of retention in the agency across groups David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton28

29 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton29 Retention in the Agency

30  Retention-Field-CWS  No significant variance across groups (not shown) David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton30 Retention in the Field Model 1 Model 2Model 3 Fixed Effects Coef.SET-ratioCoef.SET-ratioCoef.SET-ratio Intercept ** ** ** Peer Support Supervisor Support ** ** Social Worker/CM MSW ** ** BSW † † COC PDC † Note. † p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01

31  Retention Field-CWS  Supervisor support predicted retention in the field but peer support did not ▪ Having earned an MSW negatively predicted remaining in the field but having a BSW did not  Neither type of organizational culture had a significant effect on the level of retention in the field across groups David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton31

32  Mid Career  Supervisor support significantly predicted retention in the agency & the field  Peer support did not either  Passive defensive organizational culture did not predict retention David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton32

33  Late career  Supervisor support significantly predicted retention in the agency but not in the field  Peer support did not predict either  Passive defensive organizational culture did not predict retention David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton33

34  Results  Supervisor support predicted retention in PCWS agencies at every career level but was strongest in early and mid career  Peer support predicted retention in PCWS agencies only among those early in their careers  Supervisor support was a significant predictor of retention in the Field-CWS and in early and mid career only.  Peer support did not predict retention in the field in any career group  Retention in the agency was negatively affected by passive defensive organizational cultures. This influence emerged only among those early in their careers David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton34

35  The Role of Supervisor Support in Retention and Professional Development  The influence of PCWS agency supervisors is strong enough to affect longevity and possibly career decisions in PCWS agencies. That influence extends to Child Welfare Services as a field of practice among those early in their careers. ▪ Supervisors appear to play a pivotal role in the professional development of PCWS social workers.  In early career, peers impact PCWS social workers but the influence of supervisors is stronger and more pervasive. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton35

36  Supervisor Support  PCWS supervisors have a great deal of influence over the working lives of social workers ▪ This appears to be particularly true for new social workers but lasts throughout their careers. ▪ There appears to be an acculturation or socialization process for new social workers in PCWS agencies and CWS as a field of practice. PCWS supervisors and peers are the prime movers in that process. ▪ Supervisors in particular help new PCWS social workers learn both about their agencies and the Field of CWS. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton36

37  Supervisor Support ▪ How can supervisors support their workers ? They must feel supported by the agency administration ▪ When supervisors were analyzed alone their ratings of “supervisor support” (administrators) were significant for both retention in the agency (.35, p<.01) and retention in the Field- CWS (.31, p<.01).  Administrators must attend to the needs of supervisors and support their supervisors if a stable, committed workforce is a goal for the agency. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton37

38  The Influence of the Organizational Context  Passive defensive organizational culture ▪ Those early in careers that were in groups that rated their agencies’ cultures as passive defensive in nature were less likely to project that they would remain in their agencies. ▪ However, this was only the case among those early in their careers. ▪ There may be an unhealthy acculturation process that takes place during PCWS careers. ▪ Workers appear to become desensitized to the passive defensive nature of their agency cultures when they progress into mid and late career. (i.e., avoidance of responsibility, accountability, and blame; apathy & resistance to change). David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton38

39  The Cultures of our Agencies May be Driving Out New Social Workers  When social workers elect to stay, what do the passive defensive aspects of the cultures do to them?  Do they encourage competent practice?  Changes should focus on promoting creativity, autonomous decision making, participatory decision making, etc. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton39

40  Second study  Masters of Social Work only  202 participants with MSW degrees ▪ With Title IV-E funding during their master’s education: n=155. ▪ Without Title IV-E funding during their master’s education: n=47. David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton40

41 1. Will PCWS social workers with Title IV-E training (while in MSW Programs) be more likely to remain in PCWS organizations and in the Field of CWS than those without Title IV-E training (while they were in MSW Programs)? 41David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

42  Independent variables  Years in the agency/field  Racial/ethnic background  Job position (supervisors, social workers)  Service orientation  Supervisor support  Peer support  Outcome variables  Intent to stay=PCWS Agency  Organizational climate ▪ Engaging organizational climate ▪ Stressful organizational climate  Job satisfaction  Organizational commitment  Commitment to the Field of CWS  Title IV-E  Intent to stay=Field of CWS 42David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

43  Service orientation  Belief that social work practice in CWS is valuable to society.  Supervisor Support  Belief that the immediate supervisor provides instrumental (knowledge/skill) and affective (emotional) support.  Peer Support  Perceived assistance and understanding received from coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup.  Organizational Climate  Employees’ perceptions of the effects their work environments have on them: ▪ a sense of well-being or lack of well-being within the agency, etc. ▪ the impact employees have on the services they provide. ▪ Two types: ▪ Engaging: composed of personal accomplishment and ‘personalization.’ ▪ Stressful: composed of emotional exhaustion, role conflict and role overload. 43David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

44 ▪ Job Satisfaction ▪ Cognitive appraisal of work experiences and affective states connected to those appraisals. ▪ Commitment to the Organization ▪ Identification and involvement with the organization. ▪ Commitment to the Field of Child Welfare Services ▪ Identification and involvement with the field of CWS. ▪ Retention ▪ Intent to stay has been the strongest predictor of retention in many cross-sectional studies historically ▪ Intent to stay was the proxy for retention in this study  Intent to stay in the PCWS agency  Intent to stay in the field of CWS 44David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

45 45 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

46 46 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

47 47 Hierarchical Regression: Standardized coefficients Intent to stay in the agencyIntent to stay in the field Step 1Step 2Step 3Step 1Step 2Step 3 Predictors Years in the field Years in the agency Asian Black Hispanic White Supervisor position Service orientation * Supervisor support 0.26* * Peer support Engagement org. climate Stressful org. climate -0.31* *-0.10 Organizational commitment 0.42* 0.41* Commitment to the field * Job satisfaction 0.24* 0.23* 0.17* 0.16* Title IV-E during MSW-0.13* Model Summary R 2 change F change 6.66*24.47* 5.07* 4.98*38.67*2.41 Note. * p < 0.05 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

48  Dissimilarity concerning tenure on the job or in the field between Title IV-E and Non Title IV-E participants made no difference in the regression analysis.  Similarly, ethnic differences in the sample did not play a significant role in the regression analysis.  Unexpected findings: Title IV-E participants were less likely to remain in their agencies than their counterparts.  Unexpected findings: Title IV-E was not associated with participants’ intention to stay in the field (no positive impact by Title IV-E). 48David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

49  Organizational commitment and job satisfaction are the most consistent predictors of retention in PCWS Agencies (Landsman, 2001, etc.).  Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as engaging were not significant predictors in these models.  Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as stressful had negative direct effects on job satisfaction and/or commitment.  Supervisor support had positive effects on retention in agencies and the field.  Service orientation had a positive effect on retention in the Field of CWS.  Further exploration requires analyses to better understand the paths of the effects and potential indirect effects indicated in these models. 49David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

50  Exploratory analysis  Research question: What factors lead to lower retention in PCWS agencies among those with Title IV-E training than Non-Title IV-E MSWs (in this sample)? ▪ Sample = Title IV-E participants only (n=155) ▪ Outcome variables: retention in the agency only ▪ Model includes many of the same predictors used in previous models  Path analysis with SEM  Results  50David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

51 51 David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

52  Title IV-E participants only:  Supervisor support had positive indirect effects on retention in PCWS agencies through job satisfaction and commitment.  Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as stressful had negative indirect effects on retention in PCWS agencies through job satisfaction and commitment.  Service orientation had a strong positive indirect effect on retention in PCWS agencies, through job satisfaction. 52David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

53  Implications  Unexpected findings: we expected quite the opposite in this comparison of MSWs with & without Title IV-E training concerning retention in PCWS Agencies. ▪ Are those who received specialized Title IV-E education in their MSW Programs more susceptible to these stressful climates than MSWs who did not participate in Title IV-E Programs (in this sample)? ▪ Perhaps they become disillusioned more easily since their goal during graduate school was to make a difference in the lives of children and families in the child welfare system. Upon graduation they encounter a stressful system that makes it difficult to realize their dream. This would be consistent with a high sense of service orientation. 53David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

54  Implications  Title IV-E specific MSW education, supervisor support and service orientation ▪ Supervisor support has been a very important factor for retention/turnover in many studies (Chenot, Benton, & Kim, 2009; Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun, & Xie, 2009) ▪ It could be that service orientation is enhanced through Title IV-E education ▪ However, service orientation appears to be counteracted or overwhelmed by stressful climates 54David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

55  Implications  Title IV-E specific MSW education and organizational climate. ▪ No matter how specialized the Title IV-E education is that MSWs receive during their graduate programs; once they experience the stressful climates in PCWS agencies for a few years, it appears to have a deleterious effect on retention. ▪ Stressful climates combined with certain types of organizational cultures appear to form a toxic combination for public child welfare social workers (Chenot, Benton, Kim, 2009). ▪ Social workers appear to become acculturated to the nature of the cultures they practice within and many have lowered job satisfaction and decreased commitment to their organizations due to the prevailing stressful climates in their organizations. 55David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

56  Implications ▪ Why do those who received specialized Title IV-E education in their MSW Programs appear to be more susceptible to these stressful climates than MSWs who did not participate in Title IV-E Programs (in this sample)? ▪ One possibility: ▪ Realistic job preview. Perhaps the job preview Title IV-E students engage in is too realistic (ie., PCWS field placements during MSW education). There is some evidence, in other fields, that job previews which include too many negative experiences are counterproductive (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 1997; Wanous, 1992). 56David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

57  Implications  Another possibility: ▪ Expectations: perhaps our expectations of the Title IV-E program are too lofty. ▪ Retention expectations of those with Title IV-E training in their MSW Programs may need to be tempered.  Expectations: Perhaps retention needs to be reconceptualized  Is staying two years “good enough” for the PCWS workforce in an environment with multiple opportunities for MSWs external to PCWS? (Clark)  It will not build a stable workforce but provides educated MSW- level social workers temporarily. ▪ For Title IV-E students who graduate and go on to work in PCWS; what is a “good enough” retention rate? 57David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

58  Thank you  David Chenot Ph.D, MDiv., LCSW ▪ David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton58


Download ppt "David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSW California State University Fullerton CCASSC Meeting July 9 th, 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google