FRONTLINE CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ DESCRIPTIONS OF CLIENTPERPETRATED VIOLENCE DECEMBER 2019
CONTACT US
BACKGROUND
Questions or comments regarding findings can be directed to the FSPSF Principal Investigator, Dr. Dina Wilke, at dwilke@fsu.edu or (850) 644-9597.
Client-perpetrated violence (CPV) against child welfare workers is prevalent, problematic, and often leads to psychological distress, physical injury, and compromised service delivery.1,2 Child welfare workers face eight of ten identified risk factors for workplace violence including home visits, hostile clients, work in high crime areas, independent work, and transporting clients. Victimization negatively impacts both physical and psychological health of workers.3,4 Despite documented risks and consequences, little research explores CPV among child welfare workers. Through qualitative interviews with participants in the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families (FSPSF) throughout the state, we considered three research questions: (a) how do child welfare workers think about CPV? (b) what characterizes CPV? and (c) what is the immediate aftermath for both workers and clients?
METHODOLOGY The FSPSF is a prospective longitudinal study of newly hired dependency case managers and child protective investigators from across Florida. Approximately 84% of eligible new hires between August 2015 and December 2016 agreed to participate (N = 1,500). For the present study, workers who remained employed in child welfare at wave 5 (approximately 2½ years post-baseline; n = 630) were divided into two groups: those who had not reported physical violence perpetrated by a client and those who had. We invited 50 workers from each group to participate in interviews; 34 interviews were analyzed, including 18 individuals who had experienced physical violence and 16 who had not. We implemented thematic analysis, a recursive, detailed approach appropriate for identifying and analyzing patterns in qualitative data.5
FINDINGS OVERVIEW Almost all workers encountered some form of CPV in their first two and a half years on the job. When asked about non-physical violence, workers described clients shouting, cursing, and making non-specific threats as “routine.” Physical violence was less common than non-physical violence, and included behaviors such as clients shoving workers or using objects to throw at or hit workers. Injuries were rarely reported. Child removal, or threat of removal, often instigated both physical and non-physical violence. Workers reported legitimate verbal threats to their lives and intense discriminatory slurs based on race, sex, and sexual orientation. Therefore, experiences of non-physical violence could be as alarming as the physical ones.
Jayaratne, S., Croxton, T. A., & Mattison, D. (2004). A national survey of violence in the practice of social work. Families in Society, 85, 445-453. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.1833 Respass, G., & Payne, B. K. (2008). Social service workers and workplace violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 16, 131-143. Flannery, R. B. (1999). Violence in the workplace, 1970-1995: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 57-68. 4 Robson, A., Cossar, J., & Quayle, E. (2014). Critical commentary: The impact of work-related violence towards social workers in children and family services. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 924-936. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu015 5 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 1 2 3
WORKERS’ THOUGHTS ABOUT CPV While yelling, cursing, or making non-specific threats were routine occurrences for almost everyone, workers were evenly divided on whether these verbal incidents constituted CPV. Tolerant workers considered family context and perpetrator intent and did not label unintentional actions as violent because they were “incidental and accidental.” Tolerant workers believed that their respectful and collaborative approach in working with families protected them from escalating violence. Alternatively, watchful workers classified verbal incidents as violence and mentioned their fear of “minor” actions such as a raised voice. Watchful workers emphasized that seemingly minor actions can quickly escalate to dangerous situations and viewed minor incidents as blatant forms of disrespect of the worker and the role of the child welfare system.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CPV INCIDENTS Participants indicated that violence generally occurred in the process of child removal or when removal was imminent. Similarly, incidents perpetrated by children or adolescents typically occurred in the midst of placement disruption. Workers were empathetic and understanding of families’ situations, regardless of whether they felt CPV was incidental or disrespectful. Many workers described violence as circumstantial rather than vengeful. Notably, several workers described incidents in which clients were violent when others were present, supporting workers’ perspective of the spontaneous nature of violent incidents at highly emotional junctures (e.g., removal), when clients may ignore or not realize potential consequences of their actions.
IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH Agencies typically did not address violent incidents with workers, although in several instances, workers did not report their experiences. However, when workers did report violence, agencies often did not respond to the concerns, such as supervisors making jokes about it or telling workers to “suck it up.” Cases were rarely transferred to other staff, but when done, were typically due to a decision above the supervisor or outside the agency (e.g., a restraining order). Without case transfers, workers faced clients who had been violent towards them. Several workers felt their agencies let them down in these circumstances. The lack of agency response is consistent with a mentality that CPV was part of the job, casting those who did not or could not handle it as too fragile for the profession.
IMPLICATIONS Understanding workers’ experiences of CPV including its context and aftermath can inform agency practice and policy in the following ways:
Agency culture: Child welfare agency personnel could benefit from changing an acceptance mentality to a culture of “expected, not accepted.” Supervisors and administrators can respond to workers’ reports of CPV with empathy and support, emphasizing risk reduction and self-care. Documenting and debriefing violent incidents can provide workers, supervisors, and administrators with information on how to handle cases and minimize the risk of future violence.
Manualized protocol: To assist in changing the culture, agencies can create protocols surrounding CPV including clear definitions and procedures to increase worker safety. For example, frontline workers and supervisors should know what to do in various situations, such as when workers are fearful prior to a visit, or specific de-escalation strategies for when they receive a threat or when a client appears potentially violent. In addition, a manualized protocol should outline agency procedures following a violent episode to support workers and prevent future incidents.
Skill-based training: Skill-based training for workers at all levels can help workers interpret protocols and prepare for potentially violent interactions with clients. In this study, workers were well-aware of risk factors for CPV, including perpetrator and situational characteristics. However, they handled violence differently. Trainings can equip workers with effective strategies for handling potentially violent incidents, and reinforce procedures in the aftermath of violence, including documentation. Funding Provided By: