EXAMINING CHILD WELFARE WORKERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE PROFESSIONAL IMPACTS OF EARLY COVID-19 SHUTDOWNS JANUARY 2021
CONTACT US
Questions or comments regarding findings can be directed to the FSPSF Principal Investigator, Dr. Dina Wilke, at dwilke@fsu.edu
RESEARCH TEAM
Lisa Langenderfer-Magruder, Ph.D., MSW Dina Wilke, Ph.D., MSW Melissa Radey, Ph.D., MSSW Anna Yelick, Ph.D., MSW Bushra Rashid, MSW
METHODS
BACKGROUND Frontline child welfare workers engage with clients facing heightened vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, financial stress, and social isolation increase partner violence and child abuse,1 relapse for those recovering from substance use disorders,2 and exacerbation of existing mental health symptoms and the onset of traumatic stress.3 Further, restrictions on face-to-face contact may reduce a workers’ ability to comprehensively assess child safety.4 Under typical circumstances, frontline workers face a host of challenges in carrying out their job responsibilities such as high caseloads and burnout.5,6 Under current circumstances, they navigate new challenges such as social distancing protocols, and protecting their own health and that of their families and clients. The current research brief used responses to short-answer questions to examine how initial COVID-19 shutdowns impacted worker responsibilities.
The Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families is an on-going longitudinal study of the frontline child welfare workforce in Florida. Between April and June 2020, participants were surveyed and asked to: 1) indicate if COVID-19 impacted their physical, mental/emotional, and financial well-being; 2) describe each selected impact with a short response; and 3) describe how COVID-19 impacted performance of their job responsibilities. Short response items were analyzed for common themes, and how workers experienced agency responses to early COVID-19 shutdowns is the focus of this brief.
FINDINGS
There were 328 child welfare workers who responded to the survey. Of these, 66.2% (n = 217) reported at least one personal impact from COVID-19. This included 17.1% (n = 37) reporting a physical impact, 31.3% (n = 68) describing a financial impact, and 80.2% (n = 174) identifying some type of an emotional impact due to the pandemic. For many workers, agency functioning changed completely. Several participants noted vast and rapid changes to policies and protocols (e.g., “There are a lot of rules and they keep changing…”) and adjustments to roles and responsibilities, such as a return to field work or new pandemic-related paperwork. Many reported agency-initiated safety precautions to reduce the risk of COVID-19 exposure or transmission. This included required personal protective equipment (PPE), social distancing, and restricting or eliminating in-person or in-office work. However, by far, the most frequent precaution taken was a shift to remote work, which created new challenges for both workers and clients.
CHALLENGES TO WORK While a few workers indicated no major consequences associated with remote work, most participants described both personal and professional challenges. Workers expressed that the adjustment to remote work was difficult, particularly because it blurred the boundaries of home and work, which created stress. Others shared that their remote … I have family that are unemployed due to the virus that work environment was too distracting, particularly when distract me from my duties. My elderly grandmother is there were others in the home. For example, a remote 92 and does not understand when I am home, I am still worker shared the quote to the left: working.
1 Abramson, A. (2020, April 8). How COVID-19 may increase domestic violence and child abuse. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/covid-19/domestic-violence-child-abuse 2 Valkow, N.D. (2020). Collision of the COVID-19 and addiction epidemics. Annals of Internal Medicine. doi: 10.7326/M20-1212 3 Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000592 4 Milner, J. (2020, April 17). Child welfare leaders as level 1 emergency responders. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved from the National Child Welfare Workforce Institute https://ncwwi.org/files/--Documents/Childrens_Bureau_Letter_on_Child_Welfare_Leaders_as_Level_1_Emergency_Responders.pdf 5 Yamatani, H., Engel, R., & Spjeldnes, S. (2009) Child welfare worker caseload: What’s just right? Social Work, 54(4), 361-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/54.4.361 6 O’Connor, K., Muller Neff, D. M., & Pitman, S. (2018). Burnout in mental health professionals: A systematicreview and meta-analysis of prevalence and determinants. European Psychiatry, 53, 74-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2018.06.003
Stress related to the switch to at-home work was particularly noted by parents, who have been performing their jobs while simultaneously providing childcare and, for some, performing homeschooling duties. The full-time work and parenting dynamic was described as “emotionally draining,” with one participant saying they felt “overwhelmed” by the “pressure to be great in all aspects.” Beyond the distractions of home, workers also reported technical difficulties associated with remote work, primarily a lack of resources. Workers shared that their lack of access to things like scanners, printers, and fax machines caused frustration and delays. However, some participants shared that their communities were banding together to sort through these issues:
Everything needs to be done online. There was a learning curve and changes needed to be made on how we communicate and pass documents to each other, but everyone involved - regardless of the agency - worked together to make it work.
Some workers continued working outside the home, at least in some circumstances (e.g., “Twice out the week I work from home in attempt to minimize the amount of people that comes into the office”). Others indicated they were required to engage in field work for some cases particularly among those working with “high risk” children and families. Workers who continued to interact with clients in person shared several strategies for protecting their clients and themselves, such as using PPE, maintaining appropriate distance, and The fear of infecting [my child] or potentially my family conducting meetings outside. However, several of these emotionally drained me. I haven’t been able to sleep and frontline workers expressed fear of contracting COVID-19 I’m anxious all the time. or bringing it home to a loved one. One worker described this fear: Despite general COVID-19-related concern from frontline workers, few expressed dissatisfaction with their agency’s response. Those who did shared concerns of micromanagement (e.g., “Additional reports are being requested to prove that I’m actually working during this time”) and experiencing too high of work expectations (e.g., “No flexibility in case load compliance”). The most prevalent complaint was regarding agencies’ lack of attention to risk for frontline workers. Specifically, several workers shared there was a lack of adequate PPE (“cheap protective gear,” “There is only one N95 mask for the entire service center”).
CHALLENGES TO CLIENT ENGAGEMENT Workers perceived that COVID-19 accommodations impacted client engagement and the effectiveness of services. Children were seen as especially hard to engage remotely. For example, one worker said that “it is harder to get small children to interact via cell phone or video chat.” Several participants brought up home visits with one worker sharing they are “stressed about working from home and not being able to see kids and workers face-to-face to ensure their safety.” Concern for child safety was paramount for many professionals who said that there are “fewer eyes” on vulnerable children.
We are required to conduct virtual home visits every 14 days, although face-to-face visits are preferred. If the caregiver is allowing face-to-face visits, we are required to maintain 6 feet distance, wear protective materials, and visit outside the home.
For workers still meeting clients in-person, descriptions of safety-related barriers were prevalent. Some workers described agency safety precautions, such as mandatory PPE and social distancing, but thought this interfered with interpersonal dynamics. Workers shared that it is “difficult to engage clients/victims while telling them to stand 6 [feet] back.” For workers completing home visits, outdoor visits were an added precaution, as seen in the quote to the left:
SUMMARY Overall, workers tended to be understanding of the difficulties agencies faced when COVID-19 shutdowns required quick decisions that relied on continuously changing guidance and public policy mandates. However, they also reported multiple, intersecting impacts that created stress and worry that ranged from their own and their families’ health to concerns for children and families. Parents of young children were particularly stressed and pressured having work, homeschooling, and other parenting responsibilities occurring simultaneously. Employee Assistance Programs become more important in times of acute and chronic stress such as the initial and on-going COVID-19 crisis. Taking time to examine “lessons learned” from the workforce’s perspective—both personal and professional impacts—will help strengthen organizational responses for future disasters. FUNDING PROVIDED BY: