A Longitudinal Study of Factors Influencing the Retention of Title IV-E Master's of Social Work Graduates in Public Child Welfare

Abstract

This article investigates factors predicting the retention of 201 Title IV-E MSW graduates at a large, urban public child welfare agency in California over 2 years of employment. Using a discriminant function analysis, factors taken at the end of the first and second year of employment were used to predict whether these graduates left prior to or at the end of their commitment or stayed past their commitment. The most consistent predictor of whether MSWs stayed past their stipend commitment was organizational commitment. Other significant predictors varied by year and included burnout, working conditions, supervisor support, job satisfaction, role conflict and autonomy. Qualitative findings about the reasons why these graduates decided to remain or leave the agency are also presented.Due to the overwhelming demand for qualified professional child welfare workers who have specialized skills and are committed to public child

Sinking, swimming and sailing: experiences of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in child welfare employees

“…Including personal characteristics in her examination of predictors of child welfare employee retention, Ellett (2009) reported that ‘human caring’ was the most heavily weighted variable differentiating workers who intended to leave child welfare from those who intended to stay. Similarly, a study of Master of Social Work graduates of the US Title IV‐E Programs (O'Donnell & Kirkner 2009) reported that the ‘most consistent pre‐employment predictor of [employee continuation beyond] their stipend commitment period was commitment to the agency and . .…”

Lessons Learned From the Title IV-E Roundtable and Implications for Future Practice, Policy, and Research on Partnerships With the Children's Bureau and State Agencies

“…While there is a wealth of literature about the general field of child welfare policy and practice (e.g., Downs et al, 2008;Mather, Lager, & Harris, 2006), training (e.g., Barbee et al, 2009;Rosenthal & Waters, 2006;Turcotte, Lamonde, & Beaudoin, 2009), worker characteristics (e.g., Barth et al, 2008), staff issues (e.g., Mathias & Benton, 2011;McGuire et al, 2011), turnover (Strolin, McCarthy, & Caringi, 2007), and retention issues (e.g., Cahalane & Sites, 2008;Collins-Camargo et al, 2009;Lee, Forster, & Rehner, 2011;O'Donnel & Kirkner, 2009), the literature is scant about why some Title IV-E partnerships work well and other Title IV-E partnerships seem to falter.…”

Title IV-E Student Perspectives Toward Transracial Adoption

“…Research evaluating Title IV-E programs typically are concerned with the programs' efficacy in training child welfare students (Gansle & Ellett, 2002), or the ability to retain workers (O'Donnell & Kirkner, 2009;Rosenthal & Waters, 2006;Dickinson & Perry, 2002;Jones, 2002). The purpose of this study was to compare Title IV-E students' perspectives regarding transracial adoption to non-Title IV-E student perspectives; and to investigate their need for knowledge regarding transracial adoption.…”