WHAT IS TURNOVER? MARCH 2022
CONTACT US
Questions or comments regarding findings can be directed to the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families Principal Investigator, Dr. Dina Wilke, at dwilke@fsu.edu.
BACKGROUND The effectiveness of public child welfare services has long been impacted by instability in its workforce. Turnover among child welfare workers is a significant national struggle that has profound consequences for vulnerable children and families. Although some level of turnover is unavoidable and even healthy , reducing preventable turnover among frontline professionals is one of the most critical issues in the field today. However, although the concept of turnover seems self-evident, the impact of staff departure likely depends on the stakeholder. Florida’s child welfare system is a public-private partnership, and many provider organizations deliver law enforcement or social services in addition to child welfare programs. This allows frontline workers to change jobs but remain in their agency or leave agencies but stay in the field of child welfare. This research brief will examine the job mobility of workers hired into child protective investigator or dependency case manager positions using three different ways to examine turnover.
METHOD The Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families is a prospective longitudinal study of a cohort of frontline staff hired into the Florida child welfare workforce. The FSPSF is a state-wide study of newly hired workers who began employment between September 2015 and December 2016. A total of 1,500 trainees provided baseline data, representing 84 percent of all new hires across Florida during that time. An electronic survey was sent to participants at 6-month intervals. During each survey, participants were asked if they remained employed in the same role and same agency they identified in the previous survey. Those who said “no” to either item were asked a series of follow up questions on their new employment (if any). This enabled us to determine at each wave of data collection if a worker remained: 1) in their original child welfare position; 2) in their original child welfare agency; and 3) in the field of child welfare. The results presented below represent departure over the course of the 3.5 years of data collection.
RESULTS
ORIGINAL CHILD WELFARE POSITION One way to think about turnover is to focus on the unit level. Previous research has identified that frequent changes in caseworkers delays permanency decisions and impacts other child and family outcomes.1 Beyond its impact on clients, departure of frontline staff also affects the remaining workers who must assume additional caseload responsibilities. Staff departure is a key reason why caseloads of those who remain often significantly exceed recommended guidelines, which is a driver for departure.2,3 Results examining departures from baseline positions indicate that the first 18-months of employment represent the most challenging period. Nearly 20 percent of workers departed their position within the first six months following baseline, which includes 2-3 months of pre-service training. The highest period of departure from a baseline position was between 6-12 months when nearly 24 percent of workers left their position, and 60 percent had left by the 18-month point. Overall, almost 91.5 percent of all workers hired left their positions by the end of 3.5 years.
ORIGINAL HIRING AGENCY A second way to think about turnover is from the agency perspective. The National Child Welfare Workforce Institute estimates that the financial costs to agencies of child welfare worker turnover are significant. In 2017, they estimated it cost $54,000 per employee to recruit, on-board, and train new workers.4 However, since most organizations providing child welfare services in Florida also provide other social or law enforcement services, it is possible for workers to move to other positions within their agency. Moreover, opportunities for promotion and career development are often reasons why workers remain in their organizations.5 While these types of changes don’t mitigate the impact of departure at the caseload level, they do allow organizations to retain skilled workers trained in local policies and procedures.
The patterns for departure from baseline agency are similar to baseline position departure as most workers who left their positions also left their agencies. Eighteen percent of workers left in the first six months, and the highest period of agency departure was between 6-12 months (22%). Further, about 56 percent of workers left their original hiring agency by the 18-month point. Overall, about 83 percent of workers left their agency by the end of the study.
FIELD OF CHILD WELFARE A third way to think about turnover is to consider departure from the field of child welfare. The state of Florida has invested in a common curriculum to train all child welfare professionals and identified competencies that when met, result in workers acquiring a professional certification. These credentials allow workers to move throughout the child welfare system for new positions and allows agencies to hire skilled workers without significant training costs. In this case, one agency’s loss is another agency’s gain, but the larger child welfare system retains experienced staff and the workforce has opportunities for career development. The results examining departure from the field of child welfare suggest that while the general patterns remain the same, it was not uncommon for workers to leave positions or agencies but move to other child welfare roles and continue providing services to children and families. For example, by 18-months post baseline, 60 percent of workers left their original positions, but only 39 percent left the child welfare field. By the end of the study, 65.5 percent of workers departed child welfare compared to 91.5 percent who left their baseline position and 83 percent who left their baseline agency. This suggests that of those who left their baseline positions, nearly 40 percent remained in child welfare.
DISCUSSION Figure 1 displays findings from various ways to consider worker turnover. Overall, no matter how we examined employee departure there were significant human resource losses. However, considering whether departing workers leave their unit, the agency, or the field may point to different goals and retention strategies over time. Agency leaders would benefit from being cognizant of different types of turnover. For example, agencies may not want to simply prioritize unit turnover if it means that qualified workers are prevented from moving into other child welfare services or promoted into leadership positions. In fact, workers may progress naturally in the organization to enhance their professional development. Agency leaders could consider an optimal tenure for frontline staff and develop career pathways as a strategy to encourage retention. Time is another consideration when determining retention strategies. The striking number of workers who left within the first six months may indicate a need to focus on recruitment, training, or on-boarding activities to increase retention among early-career workers. Similarly, nearly 25
percent of workers left their position and/or agency between 6-12 months post baseline. Different retention strategies may be called for that address well-being and support as workers develop strategies for successful engagement with difficult cases. A great deal is known about the consequences of turnover, including the significant costs to children and families and remaining staff when workers leave frontline work. However, some turnover is inevitable and even beneficial as workers deserve the opportunity to advance their careers. Supporting children, families, and workers during times of employee transition is an essential task of agencies regardless of the reasons for departure. Figure 1: Staff Turnover by Time Period
REFERENCES 1
2 3
4 5
DePanfilis, D., & Zlotnik, J. L. (2008). Retention of front- line staff in child welfare: A systematic review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 995-1008. Yamatani, H., Rafael E., & Solveig S. (2009) Child welfare worker caseload: What’s just right? Social Work. 54, 361-368. Kaye, S., Shaw, T. V., DePanfilis, D., & Rice, K. (2010). Estimating staffing needs for in-home child welfare services with a weighted caseload formula. Child Welfare, 91, 61–76. National Child Welfare Workforce Institute. (2017). Why the workforce matters. Retrieved from https://ncwwi.org/files/Why_the_Workforce_Matters.pdf Cahalane, H., & Sites, E. W. (2008). The climate of child welfare employee retention. Child Welfare, 87, 91–114