PROJECT TITLE: THE FLORIDA STUDY OF PROFESSIONALS FOR SAFE FAMILIES (FSPSF) PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dina J. Wilke, PhD, MSW KEY PROJECT STAFF: Melissa Radey, PhD, MSSW, MA (co-PI) Lisa Magruder (Post-Doctoral Fellow) Erin King (PhD Research Assistant) Carmella Miller (PhD Research Assistant) Sarah Rakes (PhD Research Assistant) Cassandra Olsen (PhD Research Assistant) Lauren H. K. Stanley (PhD Research Assistant) REPORT DATE: 7/15/19 For contract period ending 6/30/19 1. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Recruitment and retention for child welfare professionals are widespread issues for the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and the Community-Based Care organizations (CBCs). High staff turnover puts vulnerable children at greater risk for recurrence of maltreatment, impedes timely intervention referrals and, ultimately, delays permanency. Annual attrition estimates across the state range between 25%-60%. The Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families (FSPSF) is in year 3 of a proposed 5year longitudinal study of newly hired employees into child protective investigator (CPI) and case manager (CM) positions. Our intent is to learn about individual, organizational, and community influences on child welfare employee retention, and ultimately, child and family outcomes. This statewide study is examining worker personal characteristics (e.g., educational background, family history, self-esteem, etc.) worker beliefs and behaviors (e.g., stress and burnout, work/family balance, social support and coping, etc.), organizational characteristics (e.g., physical environment, supervisory and management practices, vacancy rate, etc.), and work characteristics such as caseload size and severity, prevalence of child deaths, and exposure to threats and violence. We are also examining community context (e.g., unemployment, poverty rates, etc.)
recognizing that the local community may impact worker retention and child and family outcomes. The FSPSF utilizes three broad strategies to answer several different research questions. First, respondents are surveyed every 6-7 months with a core instrument. Second, in addition to the core instrument, in-depth modules will be rotated during the data collection period. Each module will be completed three times during the 5-year study. Modules will include: 1) Mental Health; 2) Work/Personal Life Balance; 3) Supervision and Organizational Functioning. The intent of this strategy is to gain a deeper understanding of key areas of worker personal or organizational characteristics that may impact job satisfaction and retention. Finally, qualitative interviews will be used to further augment information gathered on the in-depth modules, or to explore special topics as they arise. FSPSF project staff have recruited all Child Protective Investigators (CPIs) and Case Managers (CMs) who were in pre-service training between Sept. 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016. We are following this sample of new hires for five years, even if they leave their child welfare positions during the study timeframe. This strategy is critical to understanding employment outcomes for those who leave their initial CPI/CM positions. Participants were recruited during their pre-service training, a mandatory training for all new hires not currently holding Florida certification in the job for which they have been hired. Overall, 100% of administrative units across the state of Florida have agreed to be part of the study. This includes 17 Community-Based Care organizations, 6 regions for the Department of Children and Families, and 6 Sheriff Offices. 2. CSFR OUTCOMES: Although all of the CSFR outcomes are indirectly related to the health and productivity of the workforce, which this study seeks to assess, none of the CSFR outcomes are expected to be directly impacted through this study. 3. MEASUREABLE OBJECTIVES AND PROGRESS TO DATE:
PROGRESS REPORT 4: Objective 2.3 and Objective 2.4: Template developed for Wave 5 agency reports and Agency reports delivered. • •
Wave 5 agency reports were completed and distributed. The full report is appended. The final response rate for Wave 5 is 82.7%.
•
•
Overall, by Wave 5 (about 2 years) the proportion of workers employed in the same agency/same role as baseline is 27.2%. This includes 5.0% who are employed in the same agency but in a different role, and 67.8% who left their employing agency. Role differences are noted below: o Case managers ▪ Same agency/same role: 22.8% ▪ Same agency/different role: 6.5% ▪ Agency departure: 70.7% o PIs employed by DCF ▪ Same agency/same role: 30.0% ▪ Same agency/different role: 3.2% ▪ Agency departure: 66.8% o PIs employed by a county Sheriff’s Office ▪ Same agency/same role: 45.8% ▪ Same agency/different role: 1.9% ▪ Agency departure: 52.3% There appear to be notable differences in agency departure based on role, particularly for PIs working in a county sheriff’s office; differences which would benefit from further examination.
Objective 3.2: Wave 6 data cleaned, merged across variables, and scales constructed. •
Wave 6 data have been cleaned as described.
Objective 5.1: Research Briefs distributed quarterly to stakeholders •
A research brief on training experiences of workers has been distributed. A copy of the brief is appended to this report.
Objectives 5.2 and 5.3: Minimum of 6 manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journal and a minimum of 6 abstracts submitted to peer-reviewed conferences. •
A full bibliography of dissemination activities is appended to this report.
May 2019
Turnover and Employment Experiences of Newly Hired Child Welfare Workers by Job Category for Employees in Training 9/15 – 12/16 The following table reflects findings from all participants who responded to our fifth survey, approximately two years after pre-service training. Those in the same agency/same role category have not changed jobs since our baseline survey. Those in the same agency/different role category have changed positions within the same agency. Depending on the scope and services provided by an agency, these participants may no longer be in a child welfare position. For example, someone who began the study as a CPI for DCF could now be an Adult Protective Investigator for DCF. For those who left their agency, we provided the total percentage of workers who left in the first 18 months, as well as a breakdown of who left between 18 and 24 months on the job (i.e., between waves 4 and 5). All Workers (N=1241)
All DCMs (n=727)
All DCF CPIs (n=407)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=107)
Employment Changes
Turnover Same agency/Same role 27.2% 22.8% 30.0% 45.8% Same agency/Different role 5.0% 6.5% 3.2% 1.9% Since W4 2.8% 3.6% 2.0% 0.9% Before W4 2.2% 2.9% 1.2% 1.0% Left agency 67.8% 70.7% 66.8% 52.3% Since W4 9.1% 9.9% 7.6% 9.3% Before W4 58.7% 60.8% 59.2% 43.0% Reasons for Departure* (n=114) (n=72) (n=31) (n=11) Job responsibilities 24.3% 20.9% 31.0% 27.3% Supervision 3.8% 3.0% 3.6% 9.1% Agency environment 29.0% 28.4% 31.0% 27.3% Family circumstances 12.1% 10.4% 17.2% 9.0% Other career opportunities 21.5% 22.4% 17.2% 27.3% Involuntary departure 9.3% 14.9% 0.0% 0.0% *Responses represent those who provided a response and either a) left their agency between wave 4 and 5; b) remained at their agency, but left their child welfare role between wave 4 and 5; or c) left prior to wave 4, but are reporting their reason for leaving for the first time. Note: There is one participant for whom we do not have a role. This individual was included in “all workers,” but not in any role category.
May 2019 The following tables reflect responses from participants who remain in the same agency and same role as baseline. When appropriate, mean values are provided with standard deviations in parentheses. Time at Work All Child Welfare Workers (N=337) Hours Worked Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Extra Days Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
All DCMs (n=166)
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49)
47.5 (12.3) 45.2 (14.3) 44.6 (15.2) 43.1 (14.6)
45.3 (10.7) 44.6 (12.4) 44.0 (14.3) 41.8 (14.1)
49.2 (13.7) 45.5 (16.4) 44.5 (18.1) 44.9 (14.9)
50.8 (12.9) 46.0 (15.3) 47.1 (9.9) 43.2 (15.3)
9.4 (9.0) 8.5 (8.3) 8.3 (8.3) 7.8 (8.0)
8.8 (8.7) 7.3 (7.4) 8.3 (8.4) 7.0 (8.0)
9.8 (9.4) 10.1 (8.8) 8.1 (8.1) 9.0 (8.1)
10.3 (8.7) 9.0 (9.3) 8.3 (8.4) 7.9 (7.5)
Work-Life Balance
Work could interfere with a romantic relationship/ marriage (Yes) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Work could interfere with having/raising children (Yes) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
All Child Welfare Workers (N=337)
All DCMs (n=166)
60.5% 66.5% 62.9% 68.0%
59.2% 59.0% 60.8% 64.3%
60.4% 78.4% 65.1% 75.9%
65.2% 61.7% 64.4% 60.9%
71.0% 73.7% 75.3% 68.5%
68.8% 68.6% 72.8% 68.0%
73.0% 81.0% 78.7% 72.2%
73.9% 72.3% 75.6% 60.9%
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49)
May 2019 Physical and Mental Health Nearly half of participants reported being in very good/excellent health at wave 2, though this number declined for all roles through wave 4, with some roles experiencing greater drops than others. At wave 5, DCMs and SO CPIs reported very good/excellent physical health, though DCF CPIs continued to see a slight decline.
Very Good/Excellent Physical Health 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All Workers
DCMs W2
DCF CPIs W3
W4
SO CPIs
W5
Very Good/Excellent Mental Health 80 60 40 20 0 All Workers
DCMs W2
DCF CPIs W3
W4
SO CPIs
W5
All Child Welfare Workers (N=337) Perceived Stress (range=0-16) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Burnout (range=0-76) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
Similarly, the percentage of workers who report being in very good/excellent mental health has declining at each wave across roles, though appears to level off at wave five, as do perceived stress and burnout.
All DCMs (n=166)
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49)
5.4 (3.2) 5.8 (3.3) 5.9 (3.2) 6.1 (3.2)
5.7 (3.0) 6.0 (3.5) 6.3 (3.4) 6.2 (3.2)
5.2 (3.4) 5.8 (3.2) 5.8 (3.1) 6.2 (3.4)
4.5 (3.2) 5.4 (3.2) 4.9 (2.8) 5.4 (2.9)
39.6 (14.9) 44.1 (15.2) 44.3 (13.6) 44.6 (15.4)
41.1 (15.9) 44.5 (15.0) 45.5 (13.8) 45.0 (15.1)
38.8 (14.3) 44.3 (15.3) 43.4 (13.3) 44.7 (15.7)
36.3 (11.8) 42.5 (15.6) 42.6 (13.5) 42.8 (15.7)
May 2019
Stigma: Attitudes Toward Clients
Stigma: Attitude toward Clients (range=0-40) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
All Child Welfare Workers (N=337)
All DCMs (n=166)
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49)
17.0 (7.3) 18.4 (7.5) 18.9 (7.9) 19.4 (8.2)
17.0 (7.2) 18.5 (7.2) 19.0 (8.1) 19.5 (8.3)
15.9 (7.2) 16.9 (7.1) 17.2 (7.4) 18.3 (7.8)
19.4 (7.2) 21.6 (8.1) 22.5 (7.1) 21.8 (8.2)
All Child Welfare Workers (N=337)
All DCMs (n=166)
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49)
16.3 (4.5) 15.5 (5.0) 14.3 (4.2) 15.5 (4.6)
15.5 (4.8) 15.2 (5.0) 13.8 (4.3) 14.7 (4.9)
16.7 (4.3) 15.3 (5.3) 14.9 (3.8) 15.7 (4.3)
18.2 (3.2) 16.8 (4.1) 14.3 (4.8) 17.5 (3.8)
11.9 (4.3) 11.5 (4.3) 9.5 (3.8) 10.3 (4.3)
11.1 (4.1) 10.9 (4.5) 8.7 (3.6) 9.9 (4.5)
11.7 (4.4) 11.4 (4.1) 9.9 (3.9) 10.3 (3.8)
15.1 (3.3) 14.0 (3.5) 10.9 (3.6) 11.9 (4.6)
6.9 (4.6) 6.5 (4.6) 7.6 (4.4) 5.4 (4.3)
6.1 (4.2) 6.1 (4.5) 7.1 (4.4) 4.6 (4.0)
6.7 (4.3) 5.6 (4.0) 7.2 (4.0) 5.2 (4.0)
10.1 (5.1) 10.1 (5.0) 10.2 (4.3) 8.7 (4.4)
Job Satisfaction
Job Satisfaction (range=0-20) Supervision Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Communication Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5 Pay Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
May 2019 Job Commitment
All Child Welfare Workers (N=337) Intent to Leave (Yes) Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5
39.3% 65.7% 67.9% 71.9%
Intent to Leave (% Yes) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All Workers
DCMs W2
W3
DCF CPIs W4
W5
SO CPIs
All DCMs (n=166)
43.9% 68.4% 68.9% 76.4%
All DCF CPIs (n=122)
40.9% 69.0% 72.5% 69.8%
All Sheriff CPIs (n=49) 19.6% 48.9% 53.3% 61.7%
At wave 5, only about one-third of workers remained at their baseline agency in some capacity, with approximately one-fourth remaining in their original role. Even among the participants who have remained in their baseline role at wave 5, the majority express an intent to leave. Though the increases in the number of employees who intend to leave have slowed over time, it remains very high among those workers who are still at the agency two-years after pre-service training.
May 2019 Research Notes: 1. Information in this report was gathered during the first through fourth waves of data collection. Study participants completed a baseline survey during pre-service training and at 6- (wave 2), 12- (wave 3), and 18- (wave 4), and 24-months (wave 5) on the job. 2. When average values are reported, the standard deviation is also presented in parentheses. Standard deviation reflects how widely dispersed answers are, such that larger standard deviations describe greater variation in responses. About 68% of responses are within +/- one standard deviation around the mean. For example, approximately 68% of all child welfare workers reported working between 29.4 and 59.4 hours at wave 4 (average number or hours 44.4, standard deviation=15.0). If you are interested in a brief primer on data collection and analysis, please check the Florida Institute for Child Welfare website for a technical report by Dr. Philip Osteen (Data and Statistics 101). 3. Items that comprise the scale scores are provided below.
May 2019 Perceived Stress In the past 30 days, how frequently did you feel... 1. that you were unable to control the important things in your life? 2. confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? 3. that things were going your way? 4. difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them? Burnout 1. How often do you feel tired? 2. Do you feel worn out at the end of the working day? 3. Do you find it hard to work with clients? 4. How often are you physically exhausted? 5. Are you exhausted in the morning at the thought of another day at work? 6. Does it drain your energy to work with clients? 7. How often are you emotionally exhausted? 8. Do you feel that every working hour is tiring for you? 9. Do you find it frustrating to work with clients? 10. How often do you think: "I can't take it anymore"? 11. Do you have enough energy for family and friends during leisure time? 12. Do you feel that you give more than you get back when you work with clients? 13. How often do you feel worn out? 14. Is your work emotionally exhausting? 15. Are you tired of working with clients? 16. How often do you feel weak and susceptible to illness? 17. Does your work frustrate you? 18. Do you sometimes wonder how long you will be able to continue work with clients? 19. Do you feel burnt out because of your work? Stigma: Attitudes toward Clients 1. Although I try not to, sometimes I believe the parents I work with are not capable of change. 2. Sometimes I feel like the parents I work with lie to get what they want. 3. I believe there are some parents who should never get their child(ren) back, even if they meet all of the state requirements. 4. Although I try not to, sometimes I don’t believe my clients will ever be good parents. 5. There are times when I feel like some of the parents I work with don’t really deserve the help that I give them. 6. All parents are capable of change, even when they’ve committed serious offenses toward their child(ren). 7. Although I try not to, sometimes I find myself holding a grudge against the parents I work with. 8. Sometimes when I first meet a parent, I feel like I know exactly how the case will go based on similar parents I have worked with.
May 2019
Job Satisfaction: Supervisor 1. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 2. My supervisor is unfair to me. 3. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 4. I like my supervisor. Job Satisfaction: Communication 1. Communications seem good within this organization. 2. The goals of this organization are not clear to me. 3. I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 4. Work assignments are not fully explained. Job Satisfaction: Pay 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. Raises are too few and far between. 3. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 4. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.
BEGINNING THE “NEVER-ENDING” LEARNING PROCESS: TRAINING EXPERIENCES OF NEWLY HIRED CHILD WELFARE WORKERS JUNE 2019
CONTACT US Questions or comments regarding findings can be directed to the FSPSF Principal Investigator, Dr. Dina Wilke, at dwilke@fsu.edu or (850) 644-9597.
BACKGROUND Pre-service training is an essential component of retaining child welfare workers and promoting child outcomes.1,2 Training that does not align with the day-to-day experiences of child welfare workers contributes to feelings of incompetence and influences workers’ decisions to remain in the field.3,4 This study uses data from interviews with newly-hired child welfare workers in Florida to consider workers’ pre-service training experiences and their perspectives on what facilitated successful preparation for their work responsibilities.
METHODOLOGY Case managers (CMs) and child protective investigators (CPIs) were randomly selected from the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families (FSPSF) and invited to participate in interviews regarding their transition from training to independent caseload. The FSPSF team conducted 38 interviews with participants from across the state who were: 1) CMs or CPIs; 2) had recently completed pre-service training; and 3) maintained independent caseloads. Workers were asked to describe their training and transition experiences and their level of general preparedness for independent casework. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were analyzed for general themes.
FINDINGS Workers expressed a variety of reactions to their training with almost one-third describing it in universally positive terms (n = 11, 29%), one-third describing it in universally negative terms (n = 13, 34%), and the largest number identifying both negative and positive components (n = 14, 39%). CPIs were more likely to rate their experiences as uniformly positive than CMs (43% versus 12%) largely because CMs expressed that the training content was too focused on CPI tasks. From their experiences, workers identified five attributes of pre-service training that were meaningful to their transition to independent work: 1) structured, non-redundant content relevant to their positions, 2) interactive content delivery, 3) practice with job responsibilities, 4) practice with system protocols, and 5) recognition of a never-ending learning process. The sections below describe each theme and suggest ways to promote meaningful pre-service training experiences.
STRUCTURED RELEVANT TRAINING CONTENT Workers identified that training content was central to their success, and they desired structured, new, non-redundant, and relevant information. Workers were evenly split on whether they felt the training provided relevant content. A structured schedule of training helped workers see the “big picture” and connect training content, exam material, and field responsibilities. Some workers with child-welfare education backgrounds or prior professional experience felt the content was a “refresher” and desired additional field experiences to expand their current knowledge. Workers commonly expressed that training content focused on “theoretical” foundations at the expense of procedural knowledge or focused too heavily on job tasks that did not align with their positions.
INTERACTIVE CONTENT DELIVERY Almost universally, workers wanted an engaging training atmosphere that gave them a “feel” for the job rather than the overuse of presentation slides and trainer “scripts.” Approximately one-half of workers described interactive training experiences with fewer workers describing primarily lecture-based experiences. Workers who reported lecture-based experiences requested more interactive training segments to “break up the monotony” and were disappointed when they did not have the opportunity to apply material in “what-to-do situations.”
PRACTICE WITH JOB RESPONSIBILITIES Workers wanted to practice job responsibilities while in training and desired classroom practice opportunities with case scenarios that exposed them to “the full, the realness, the rawness” of child welfare work. Workers also wanted more field experience. Successful field experiences typically contained three characteristics: finding a certified worker to shadow, completing job tasks in the field (as opposed to clients not being available), and discussing the completed job tasks with the certified worker. Multiple workers mentioned the need for them to be “aggressive” or “hustle” to find a worker willing to let them shadow.
PRACTICE WITH SYSTEM PROTOCOLS Workers desired and appreciated training practice with case documentation, specifically with the necessary computer software systems. Most workers who discussed system protocols identified practice with protocols as a central missing training component. Workers recognized that proper case documentation was a required element of the “nitty gritty” of child welfare work. They desired guidance with navigating the computer software documentation system and what makes a “good note versus just satisfactory.”
NEVER-ENDING LEARNING PROCESS Regardless of the quality of their training experiences, workers generally recognized they could never be fully prepared for child welfare work when they transitioned to independent caseloads. Several workers identified the unpredictability of their work and diverse needs of their caseloads as a primary reason for the need for continuous learning in their jobs. Workers mentioned the importance of their supervisors, mentors, and co-workers as supports for continuous learning. Lack of support for workers made the transition from classroom to casework difficult. These workers felt vulnerable and reported only receiving instructions after making mistakes. Those without support often felt “alone” and discouraged.
RECOMMENDATIONS Findings yielded five main implications to enhance pre-service training content and delivery.
1 2
3
4
Workers want structured classroom and field training tailored to their position (i.e., CPI, CM), focused on real-world job tasks and case documentation, and with less emphasis on theoretical foundations of child welfare. Evaluating the curriculum and training structure to ensure that adequate attention is given to each role’s future job tasks is needed. This is particularly true when CMs and CPIs are being training together.
Workers valued trainers who 1) incorporated a variety of learning modalities; 2) limited lecture-based, scripted delivery of content; and 3) facilitated interactive, discussion-driven training sessions. Anonymous evaluative feedback from workers focusing on these areas could improve future trainings.
Workers want a step-by-step manual and checklist for accomplishing key job responsibilities to guide them during the transition to independent casework. To promote consistency, administrators could collaborate with supervisors and frontline workers to develop a manual and checklist. These resources may help workers see the “big picture” in their work, a description that several workers missed in their trainings.
Variability in workers’ academic or practice backgrounds is inevitable. Alternatives such as exemption tests could offer an opportunity for workers with more incoming knowledge to test out of training components, perhaps in exchange for more procedural practice experiences or shadow time in their agencies.
Workers identified the need for classroom training to extend into their agencies; the never-ending learning process means that expecting newly-hired workers to work independently is unrealistic. Proactive agency policies that allow experienced workers to mentor as part of their job responsibilities, in exchange for reduced caseloads or other benefits, could be an important investment in increasing worker wellbeing and retention.
Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., & van Zyl, M. A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare training evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1063-1080. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.002 Mandell, D., Stalker, C., de Zeeuw Wright, M., Frensch, K., & Harvey, C. (2013). Sinking, swimming and sailing: Experiences of job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion in child welfare employees. Child & Family Social Work, 18, 383-393. doi: 10.1111/j.13652206.2012.00857 Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75, 625-661. doi: 10.1086/323166 Ellett, A. J., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003). A study of personal and organizational factors contributing to employee retention and turnover in child welfare in Georgia: Final project report. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Funding Provided By:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Wilke, D. J., King, E. A., & Randolph, K. (Under review). Assessing the impact of clientperpetrated violence on intentions to leave child welfare. Submitted to Australian Social Work. Radey, M., & Schelbe, L. (in press). Gender differences in workplace support in a femaledominated profession. Journal of Social Work Research. Radey, M., & Stanley, L. (in press). Beginning the "never-ending" learning process: Training experiences of newly-hired child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review. Kennedy, S. C., Spinelli, C., & Wilke, D. J. (2019). Development and validation of the child welfare provider stigma inventory. Journal of Social Work. Published online 3/29/19. DOI: 10.1177/1468017319837518 Langenderfer-Magruder, L., & Wilke, D. J. (2019). The use of text messages to increase completion of web-based surveys. Journal of Technology in Human Services. Published online 3/15/19. DOI: 10.1080/15228835.2019.1583154 Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Olson, C., Wilke, D. J., & Alven, L. (2019). RISE up: Facilitating frontline responder collaboration on co-occurring child welfare and intimate partner violence cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Published online 3/2/19. DOI: 10.1177/0886260519832921 Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Alven, L., Wilke, D. J., & Spinelli, C. (2019). “Getting everyone on the same page”: Child welfare workers’ collaboration challenges on cases involving intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 34, 21-31. DOI: 10.1007/s10896018-0002-4 Radey, M., Schelbe, L., & King, E. A. (2019). Field training experiences of child welfare workers: Implications for supervision and field education. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 134145. Wilke, D. J., Rakes, S., & Randolph, K. A. (2019). Predictors of early departure among recently hired child welfare workers. Social Work. Published online 6/18/19. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swz020 Radey, M., Schelbe, L., & Spinelli, C. L. (2018). Learning, negotiating, and surviving in child welfare: Social capitalization among recently-hired workers. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12, 79-98. Radey, M., & Stanley, L. (2018). "Hands On" versus "Empty": Supervision Experiences of Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Children & Youth Services Review, 91, 128-136. Radey, M. & Wilke, D. J. (2018). Client-perpetrated violence among frontline child welfare workers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Published online 11/18/18. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518812792 Radey, M., & Schelbe, L. (2017). From Classroom to Caseload: Transition Experiences of Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Child Welfare, 95, 71-89.
Schelbe, L., Radey, M., & Panish, L. (2017). Satisfactions and Stressors Experienced by Recentlyhired Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 78, 56-63. Wilke, D. J., Radey, M., King, E. A., Spinelli, C., Rakes, S., & Nolan, C. R. (2017). A multi-level conceptual model to examine child welfare worker turnover and retention decisions. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 12, 204-231. DOI: 10.1080/15548732.2017.1373722 Wilke, D. J., Radey, M., & Langenderfer-Magruder, L. (2017). Recruitment and retention of child welfare workers in longitudinal research: Successful strategies from the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families. Children & Youth Services Review, 78, 122-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.013
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS Submitted Burns, D., & Wilke, D. J. (Submitted). Judging the Judged: Exploring Child Welfare Workers’ Stigmatizing Attitudes Toward Clients. Paper presentation submitted to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Langenderfer-Magruder, L. Wilke, D. J., & Lutz, S. (Submitted). Preparation-Related Predictors of Early Turnover among Newly Hired Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation submitted to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Olson, C., & Wilke, D. J. (Submitted). Identifying Predictors of Suicide Ideation among Human Service Workers: An Exploratory Analysis. Paper presentation submitted to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Rakes, S., King, E. A., & Wilke, D. J. (Submitted). Assessing Suicidal Ideation among Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation submitted to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Wilke, D. J., Randolph, K., & Zhang, Y. (Submitted). Use of Survival Analysis to Assess Employment Duration among Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation submitted to the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington, DC. Forthcoming Langenderfer-Magruder, L. & Wilke, D. J. (Accepted). Supporting the Physical and Mental health of Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Denver, CO, October, 2019. Randolph, K. & Wilke, D. J. (Accepted). The Use of Information and Communication Technology among Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Denver, CO, October, 2019.
Stanley, L., & Radey, M. (Accepted). Learning the “Nitty-Gritty”? Training Experiences of NewlyHired Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Annual Program meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Denver, CO, October, 2019. Wilke, D.J., Randolph, K., & Zhang, Y. (Accepted). Assessing Moderators of 6-Month Departure from Child Welfare Work Using Survival Analysis. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Denver, CO, October, 2019. Randolph, L. & Wilke, D. J. (Accepted). The Professional Use of Information and Communication Technology among Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the International Society for Child Indicators, Tartu, Estonia, August, 2019. 2019 King, E. A., & Wilke, D. J. Child Welfare Workers’ Experiences of Client-Perpetrated Violence, Psychological Distress, and their Commitment to the Field of Child Welfare. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Wilke, D. J., & Tutwiler, M. Screening for Human Trafficking in Child Welfare: Lessons Learned from Florida Screeners. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Wilke, D. J., & Olson, C. Child Welfare Workers’ Self-Reported Preparedness to Address Intimate Partner Violence Cases. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. Miller, C. S., Langenderfer-Magruder, L., King, E., & Wilke, D. J. Changing Challenges: Addressing Newly-Hired Workers’ Perceptions of Difficult Cases over Time. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. Radey, M., & Wilke, D. J. Frontline Child Protection and Client-Perpetrated Violence: Who is Vulnerable? Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. Wilke, D. J., Randolph, K. A., & Olson, C. Wounded Healers? Exploring the Physical and Emotional Health of Early-Career Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, January, 2019. 2018 King, E. A., & Wilke, D. J. Child Welfare Workers’ Exposure to Client Perpetrated Violence: Implications for Inter-Professional Training. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018. Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Olson, C., & Wilke, D. J. Exploring Facilitators of Interprofessional Collaboration on Intimate Partner Violence Cases. Paper presentation at the Annual
Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018. Miller, C. S., Langenderfer-Magruder, L., & Wilke, D. J. Newly Hired Child Welfare Workers’ Perception of Exceptionally Challenging Cases. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018. Radey, M., & Wilke, D. J. Client-Perpetrated Violence Among Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018. Rakes, S., & Radey, M. Employment Outcomes of Older Workers in the Child Welfare Workforce. Paper Presentation at Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018. Stanley, L., & Radey, M. "Hands On" versus "Empty": Supervision Experiences of Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Paper Presentation at Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL, November, 2018 Wilke, D. J., Randolph, K., & King, E. A. Violent Families, Violent Work? Examining Newly-Hired Child Welfare Workers’ Experiences with Client-Perpetrated Violence. Paper presentation at the International Conference on Working with Involuntary Clients, Prato, Italy, May, 2018. Magruder, L. L., & Wilke, D. J. “Finding Common Ground”: Child Welfare and Human Service Workers’ Collaboration Challenges on Cases Involving Intimate Partner Violence. Poster presentation at the International Conference on Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Gender Bias, Chicago, IL, April 2018. Nolan, C., Radey, M., & Wilke, D. The Effects of Childhood Maltreatment History, Individual Characteristics, and Workplace Factors on Psychological Distress and Sleep Disturbance Among Florida's Newly-Hired Child Welfare Workers. Presentation at Society for Social Work Research Annual Conference, Society for Social Work Research, Washington DC, January, 2018. Kennedy, S. C., Spinelli, C., & Wilke, D. J. Development and Validation of the Child Welfare Provider Stigma Inventory. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington DC, January, 2018. King, E. A., Radey, M., & Wilke, D. J. Exploring the Relationship of Client-Perpetrated Violence and Intent to Leave Among Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington DC, January, 2018. Nolan, C. R., & Wilke, D. J. Assessing the Impact of Childhood Maltreatment History and Potential Risk and Protective Factors on Psychological Distress Among Newly-Hired Frontline Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington DC, January, 2018.
Radey, M., Schelbe, L., & Wilke, D. J. Workplace Support among Recently-Hired Frontline Child Welfare Workers: Who Has It and Why? Paper presentation at presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington DC, January, 2018. Radey, M., & Stanley, L. Encouraging or Challenging: The Dichotomy of Frontline Child Welfare Workers' Supervision Experiences. Paper presentation at Society for Social Work Research Annual Conference, Society for Social Work Research, San Francisco, CA, January, 2018. Wilke, D. J., & Randolph, K. Comparing Predictors of 6- and 12-Month Job Exit among Recently Hired Child Welfare Workers. Poster presentation at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, Washington DC, January, 2018. 2017 King, E., & Radey, M. Recently-Hired Child Welfare Worker Perceptions of Pre-Service Training. Paper presentation at Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, TX, October, 2017. Radey, M., Schelbe, L., & Wilke, D. J. Workplace Support among Recently-Hired Child Welfare Workers: Who Has It and Why? Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, TX, October, 2017. Radey, M., & Wilke, D. J. Workplace Support among Recently-Hired Child Welfare Workers: Who has it and why? Paper presentation at Council on Social Work Education Annual Program Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, Texas, October, 2017. Wilke, D. J., & Randolph, K. A. Comparing Child Welfare Employment Experiences between Early-Leavers and Those Who Remain. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, TX, October, 2017A. Wilke, D. J., & Randolph, K. A. Predictors of Early Departure among Recently Hired Child Welfare Workers. Paper presentation at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, TX, October, 2017B. 2016 Radey, M., Miller, C., Osteen, P., Wilke, D., & Schelbe, L. "Thrown Right in Right Away": Voices of Recently-hired Child Protection Investigators and Case Managers. Poster presentation at National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children's Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, DC, August, 2016. Wilke, D., Radey, M., Osteen, P., Nolan, C., King, E., & Miller, C. An Overview of New Hires into the Child Welfare Workforce: Results from the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families. Poster presentation at National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children's Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Washington, DC., August, 2016.