The quality of work life of child protective investigators: A comparison of two work environments

Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474 – 489 www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

The quality of work life of child protective investigators: A comparison of two work environments Burton J. Cohen ⁎, Susan C. Kinnevy, Melissa E. Dichter School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States Received 12 August 2006; received in revised form 12 September 2006; accepted 19 September 2006 Available online 1 December 2006

Abstract While the job of the child protective investigator has been described as complex, stressful, and extremely difficult, previous studies have only considered the job in the context of a public child welfare agency. This study compares the quality of work life of child protective investigators in two very different organizational settings: a public child welfare agency and a law enforcement agency. Legislation passed in Florida in 1998, transferred responsibility for investigations from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to the Sheriff's Offices (SO) in four counties. As part of a larger evaluation effort, a survey was conducted of investigators in the four experimental counties and in four comparison counties where DCF was still conducting investigations. The survey asked respondent to rate their quality of work life in five domains and also asked their perceptions of their role and their work environment. The findings indicate that while both groups had similar demographic characteristics and perceptions of their role, the investigators who worked for the SO experienced a higher quality of work life than those who worked for DCF. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Child protective investigator; Public child welfare agency; Law enforcement agency; Quality of work life

1. Introduction For more than twenty-five years, the role of the child welfare investigator has been recognized as being extremely difficult and complex (Daley, 1979; Esposito & Fine, 1985; Richards, 1992). Child protective investigators (CPIs) often must operate with excessive workloads, inadequate training and resources, poor supervision, and a lack of organizational support. These conditions have been responsible for high rates of burnout, job stress, and staff turnover. The American ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 610 331 9077; fax: +1 610 544 6238. E-mail address: [email protected] (B.J. Cohen). 0190-7409/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.09.004

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

475

Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has reported that the average annual turnover rates for child protective investigators and other direct service caseworkers are 20% in public agencies and as high as 40% in private agencies (APHSA, 2001). The high turnover situation results in agencies often employing inexperienced workers, creates a greater need for ongoing basic training, and forces families to deal with multiple case workers while trying to navigate a complex system (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). While some studies have looked at the problem of retention of human services workers and its relation to job satisfaction (Vinokur-Kaplan, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1994), little attention has been paid to the broader issue of the quality of work life (QWL) in human services and child welfare organizations (Cohen, 1992; Gowdy, 1988). The QWL movement, which emerged in the 1970's and 1980's has been concerned with creating work organizations that “more effectively deliver services and products valued by society, while simultaneously being rewarding, stimulating places for employees to work” (Camman, 1984). Pioneering efforts to improve QWL in industrial settings identified six intrinsic requirements for satisfying work regardless of the level of employment (Emery, 1964): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

For the content of the job to provide variety and challenge. To be able to learn on the job and go on learning. For an area of decision making that the workers can call their own. For a certain degree of social support and recognition from colleagues in the workplace. To be able to see a task from start to finish and how one's job contributes to a larger and meaningful whole. 6. Believing that one's job will continue to allow for personal growth and some sort of desirable future. These requirements would appear to be as applicable to the job of the child protective investigator as they are to workers in business and industry. One of the challenges facing public child welfare agencies today is how to measure the quality of work life and how to design strategies and interventions that will improve QWL for child protective investigators as well as other child welfare staff. A few studies have looked at the relationship between job satisfaction, work environment, and staff retention in public child welfare agencies. Cohen (1992) studied the quality of working life in the Philadelphia Department of Human Services. A written survey was completed by 388 child welfare staff, or 62% of the eligible population. The survey explored four major areas: the job itself, work relationships, organizational structure, and organizational effectiveness. Only 18% of the respondents rated the overall quality of working life as excellent or good, while 82% rated it as either fair or poor. While most staff were satisfied with specific characteristics of their jobs (e.g. meaningfulness, challenge, variety, autonomy), they were dissatisfied with many aspects of the work environment, including the high workload, inability to influence how the work was performed, poor communications among work units, and little knowledge of the actual results of their work activities. Barton, Foleron, and Busch (2003), reporting on child protective service workers in Indiana, relate job satisfaction to caseload size, working conditions, supervision, organizational supports, and role identity issues. They reported that caseload sizes in Indiana appeared to be in line with established Child Welfare League of America standards (CWLA, 2000), although the data revealed that caseload size had increased from 19 in 1996 to 25 in 1998 before dropping to 16 in 2000. The Indiana study, which was based on a survey of 963 Department of Families and

476

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

Children workers and supervisors (response rate: 58%), reported satisfaction with work environment, supervision, and organizational supports to be mid-range on an indexed 1 to 5 scale. Role conflict, role clarity and case size overload also registered at mid-range on the same scale. At the time of the report, Indiana CPS workers experienced a turnover rate of 21%. Rycraft (1994) conducted a study to explore the factors that influenced child welfare workers' decision to continue employment in public child welfare agencies. She interviewed twenty-three workers from six agencies in a state-supervised, county administered child welfare system, and identified four factors that appeared to influence employee retention: mission, goodness of fit, supervision, and investment. Her finding suggests that agencies can have a positive influence on retention by (1) recognizing and appreciating workers' dedication to the agency's mission, (2) effectively deploying staff by taking into consideration their skills and interest, (3) providing quality supervision with ongoing training for supervisors, and (4) establishing a positive and professional work environment. This paper discusses a study of the quality of work life of CPIs in selected counties in Florida. It was conducted as a part of a larger evaluation of a reform initiative that began in 1998 involving the transfer of responsibility for child maltreatment investigations to law enforcement agencies. Unlike the previous studies, the Florida study is unique in that it compares two seemingly different work organizations and cultures: the traditional public child welfare agency environment and the new, experimental law enforcement agency environment. 2. The Florida experiment Over the last fifteen years, increasing demands on public child welfare agencies, concerns about the safety of children, and confusion between the investigative and service delivery functions of the child welfare system precipitated a debate among policy makers and researchers regarding the desirability of continuing to combine investigations and services within the same organizational structure (Lindsey, 1994; Pelton, 1991). At issue are such things as the conflicting roles that child welfare workers must play (investigator vs. helper), the lack of skill in collecting and preserving evidence on the part of many child welfare workers, a growing recognition of the criminal nature of child abuse, and the desire to more effectively link child abuse investigations with the adjudicatory process in some cases. Responding to these concerns, Florida became the first state in the country to pass legislation that separated the investigation and the service delivery functions. Amid long time criticism of the state operated child welfare agency, the initial legislation allowed for the transfer of responsibility for child protective investigations to county law enforcement agencies. The impetus for this shift in responsibility was the concern of members of the Florida Legislature about the safety of children who were the victims of abuse or neglect, and desires to more closely link the findings of abuse with the prosecution of the perpetrators. Legislation passed in 1998 required the transfer of responsibility for investigations from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to the Sheriff's Office (SO) in Manatee, Pinellas and Pasco counties; the Broward County Sheriff's Office subsequently also volunteered to be part of the experiment. Although public child welfare agencies have always shared responsibility for investigations with law enforcement in cases of severe maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), and at times CPS and law enforcement personnel have even been co-located, the Florida experiment represented the first time that sole responsibility for the investigations has been transferred to a law enforcement agency. The Manatee County Sheriff's Office was the first to accept high-risk reports of child maltreatment, beginning in July 1997, and all reports in January 1998. Manatee County also

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

477

established the protocol for response from the Sheriff's Offices. Broward County began to accept some cases in July 1999 and was fully operational by January 2000. Pinellas County accepted all cases in November 1999 and Pasco County in April 2000. Each of the Sheriff's Offices was reorganized to accommodate civilian child protective investigators in a new Child Protective Investigations Unit. While the head of each unit and some of the supervisors were sworn police officers, the Child Protective Investigators were all civilians. Some of the CPI's transferred from Florida's Department of Children and Families (DCF), where they had previously had similar jobs; others were newly recruited. When a report came in, these investigators were teamed with law enforcement officers, either Sheriff's Office detectives who had jurisdiction in unincorporated areas of the county, or local police officers who had jurisdiction in incorporated cities. The teams investigated each report referred from the centralized child abuse hotline, which continued to be operated by DCF. Also, the CPI's in each setting were subject to the same set of state policies and regulations as CPIs who worked for DCF. The University of Pennsylvania's Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy received a grant to evaluate the Florida experiment. In addition to looking at questions of child safety, impacts on out-of-home placements, and whether there were more prosecutions of perpetrators, a part of the research focused on the CPI's role and how that might be affected by shifting the position to a law enforcement agency. One of the early questions raised was who would apply for CPI positions in a Sheriff's Office. Would they have similar backgrounds and training as the DCF investigators or would they be very different? Another question was how the culture of a law enforcement agency would impact on the CPI role. Would the CPI's feel like an accepted part of the Sheriff's Office and would they see themselves as law enforcement officers rather than “investigators” or “helpers”? Finally, how would working in a Sheriff's Office affect their overall quality of work life. Is there a difference between working for DCF child protective services and working for the SO Child Protective Investigative Unit with regard to perceptions of the job, work environment, organizational support, community relations, and job satisfaction? 3. Methods 3.1. Research design In order to answer the questions and explore the differences in the quality of work life, a written survey was developed and distributed to child protective investigators in the four experimental counties, as well as to the CPIs in four designated comparison counties in Florida where DCF was still conducting investigations. The comparison counties (Hillsborough, Lee, Sarasota, and Palm Beach) were chosen on the basis of demographic and caseload similarities, as well as geographic proximity. The survey was conducted in December 2001. The survey instrument that was developed for this study contained scaled items covering the CPIs' perceptions of five work-related domains: 1) the job itself; 2) the work environment; 3) organizational supports; 4) community relationships; and 5) job performance and satisfaction. Open-ended questions asked for the respondents' self-descriptions of their role as a CPI and their work environment. 3.2. Sample recruitment and response rates Surveys were mailed to all CPIs in the four Sheriff's Office (SO) counties (Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, and Broward; N = 228) and the four Department of Children and Families counties

478

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

(Hillsborough, Lee, Sarasota and Palm Beach; N = 263). The response rate differed considerably between the CPIs working for the Sheriff's Offices (average 84%) and those working for DCF (average 46%). The final analytic sample consisted of 191 respondents from the Sheriff's Offices and 121 from the DCF offices. 3.3. Demographics of the sample The demographic profiles of CPIs in the DCF and the SO counties were generally similar. In both DCF and SO counties overall, the proportion of female CPIs was greater than that of male CPIs. Among SO counties, however, the proportion of females was greater (72%) than that of DCF counties (59%). Lee County was an exception with more male (61%) than female respondents. The majority (over 60%) of CPIs in both SO and DCF counties were Caucasian. Sheriff's Office counties had a somewhat higher proportion of African American CPIs (31% compared with 23%). The breakdown by CPI ethnicity was similar between the experimental and comparison counties with 12% Hispanic in SO counties and 15% Hispanic in DCF counties. Sarasota had the largest proportion (33%) of CPIs reporting Hispanic identity. Sarasota also stood out among other counties as having older CPIs with 70% aged 36 years and older. Manatee County had the youngest CPI workforce with 86% aged 35 years and younger. Overall, SO CPIs were somewhat younger than DCF CPIs with 60% aged 35 or younger compared with 46% of DCF CPIs aged 35 or younger. This was not unexpected since the Sheriff's Offices were recruiting many new employees and DCF had many continuing employees. CPI education levels were also similar between DCF and SO counties. Nearly all CPIs had at least a college degree. Few CPIs overall held a Masters of Social Work (MSW) degree, although there was a slightly higher percentage in the SO counties (4%) than the DCF counties (1%). In five of the counties, no respondents held MSW degrees. Manatee and Hillsborough counties reported a lower proportion of masters degrees overall. Respondents were also asked how long they had been working as a CPI. In both experimental and comparison counties, the most common response was one to three years (57% for SO, 40% for DCF). Overall, DCF counties appeared to be experiencing higher turnover with 15% of CPIs having less than six months of experience. Nearly one quarter of SO CPIs had previously worked as a CPI for DCF. 3.4. Caseload size Actual caseload sizes were not available as these data were not uniformly tracked by either DCF or SO counties. It was possible to approximate the average number of new cases assigned per month for the fiscal year during which the CPI survey was conducted1. The average number of new cases assigned per month for the SO counties was larger overall (9.6) than the average number assigned for the DCF counties (7.7). Broward County had the largest number of new cases assigned per month (10.3) and Sarasota had the smallest (6.5). All four SO counties had a larger number of new cases assigned per month than the DCF counties.

1 Average number of new cases assigned per month was calculated by deriving the average number of reports per month from the total number of reports for FY 2000–2001 as reported in the DCF Annual Statistical Report, and then dividing the average number of reports per month by the number of CPIs in each county.

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

479

Table 1 Turnover rates for CPIs by county

Sheriff's Offices Broward Manatee Pinellas DCF Hillsborough Lee Palm Beach

2000 turnover

2001 turnover

35.1% 25.3% 63.6% 37.4% 28.9% 25.7% 27.3% 34.1%

23.8% 16.0% 31.1% 32.6% 35.1% 37.1% 34.0% 33.5%

Change 2000 to 2001 − 11.3% −9.3% −32.5% −4.8% +6.2% +11.4% +6.7% −0.6%

3.5. Turnover rates The turnover rate was defined as the number of CPIs who left their positions during a given year divided by the average number of CPI positions throughout the year. Turnover rates for both experimental and comparison counties2 in 2000 and 2001 in nearly all cases were higher than the average national rates determined by APHSA (20% in public child welfare agencies). The one exception was Broward County in 2001 which had a turnover rate of 16.0% (see Table 1). In 2001, the year of the survey, the SO counties had an overall turnover rate of 23.8% compared with 35.1% for the DCF counties. For the SO counties, this represented an overall decrease of 11.3% from the previous year. Manatee County, which had an unusually high turnover rate in 20003, had the largest decrease, while the other two counties showed smaller decreases. One possible explanation for the higher turnover rates for the SO counties in 2000 may have been start-up conditions and misperceptions about the CPI role. In comparison, the overall turnover rate for the DCF counties increased by 6.2%, with Palm Beach County showing a very slight decrease. 4. Quantitative findings: perceptions of the job and the organization 4.1. The job of a CPI The first set of statements was related to the content of the job itself (See Table 2). Nearly all respondents agreed that that they “have a clear idea of [their] responsibilities as a Child Protective Investigator” (SO 96%, DCF 98%). The overwhelming majority of both SO and DCF CPIs indicated that their job provides the opportunity “to make some decisions about the best way to do [the] job” and “to use a variety of [their] skills and abilities.” The greatest difference was in the area of perceived work demands where more SO CPIs than DCF CPIs felt that their work demands were reasonable. This was despite the fact that the SO CPIs had a higher number of new cases assigned per month. Overall, the SO CPIs' perceptions of their jobs were somewhat more favorable than those of their counterparts at DCF agencies.

2

Turnover rates were unavailable for Pasco and Sarasota Counties. Manatee County has many few CPI positions compared with Broward and Pinellas. Therefore, its significantly higher turnover rate in 2000 had a smaller impact on the overall turnover rate for the SO counties. 3

480

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

Table 2 Perceptions of the job of a CPI % agree or strongly agree

I have a clear idea of my responsibilities as a Child Protective Investigator The amount of work I'm expected to do is fair and reasonable I am given the opportunity to make some decisions about the best way to do my job My job allows me to use a variety of my skills and abilities Average agreement

Sheriff's Office

DCF

96% 53% 92% 97% 85%

98% 35% 87% 94% 79%

4.2. Work environment The second set of statements pertained to the CPIs' perceptions of their work environment.(see Table 3). Respondents in the Sheriff's Office counties were more likely than those in DCF to say that they felt they were part of a team, that they had an opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their work, and that there was good communication across work units. They were also more likely to believe that people in their organization are held accountable for their actions, and much more likely to believe that there is a close relationship between doing a good job and getting rewarded. As can be seen in Table 4, the responses to these items varied significantly depending on the length of employment as a CPI. For all of the statements regarding work environment, the responses of CPI's with less than six months of experience are roughly comparable. However, as the length of employment increases, the responses of CPIs who work for DCF become much less favorable, while the responses of those who work for the Sheriff's Offices remain roughly the same. This pattern is particularly strong for the items concerning “the relationship between doing a good job and getting rewarded” and “good communication across units in [the] organization.” 4.3. Organizational supports As Table 5 indicates, SO CPIs were also more likely than DCF CPIs to believe that organizational supports are in place to facilitate their work. Nearly all respondents agreed that their supervisor supports their efforts and that they get regular feedback on their job performance. A larger proportion of SO CPIs (92% versus 78%) agreed that they were provided with the resources and equipment necessary to do their job, and the results were the same with regard to access to the information and data needed. For example, SO CPIs were provided with cars and Table 3 Perceptions of the work environment % agree or strongly agree Sheriff's Office DCF I feel like I am a part of a team in this organization In this organization, people are held accountable for their actions There are opportunities in this organization to participate in decisions that affect our work There is a close relationship in this organization between doing a good job and getting rewarded There is good communication across units in my organization Average agreement

84% 90% 69% 62% 68% 75%

76% 76% 48% 21% 44% 53%

Length of employment

Less than 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years More than 10 years

Percentage of CPIs that agree or strongly agree with statement by organization type and length of employment I feel like I am a part of a team in this organization

In this organization, people are held accountable for their actions

There are opportunities in this organization to participate in decisions that affect our work

There is a close relationship in this organization between doing a good job and getting rewarded

There is good communication across units in my organization

SO

DCF

SO

DCF

SO

DCF

SO

DCF

SO

DCF

93% 86% 78% 100% 92% 100%

95% 83% 74% 64% 69% 33%

100% 97% 86% 85% 100% 91%

100% 77% 71% 43% 62% 86%

86% 73% 61% 69% 100% 82%

75% 48% 46% 21% 36% 29%

79% 63% 54% 85% 75% 73%

60% 26% 19% 7% 0% 0%

86% 73% 57% 85% 92% 80%

68% 29% 47% 36% 23% 0%

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

Table 4 Perceptions of the work environment by length of employment

481

482

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

Table 5 Perceptions of organizational supports % agree or strongly agree

My supervisor supports my efforts to do quality work My supervisor regularly evaluates my work and tells me how well I'm doing I am provided with the resources and equipment needed to do my job well CPI's receive the orientation training they need to do their best This organization shows interest in the continuing education and development of its staff I have easy access to the information and data that I need to do my job This organization shows concern for the health and safety of its staff Average rate of agreement

Sheriff's Office

DCF

97% 92% 92% 76% 85% 93% 88% 89%

94% 86% 78% 58% 49% 76% 44% 69%

laptop computers, while the DCF CPIs were not. They also had direct access to information concerning the criminal background of alleged perpetrators of child maltreatment. Sheriffs Office CPIs also felt more positively about both the orientation training and the continuing staff development that they receive. Finally, a large majority (88%) of the SO respondents believe that their organization shows concern for their health and safety, compared with only 44% of the DCF respondents. This may be partially explained by their belief that they have easier access to law enforcement officers when they need their support for protection. As was the case with work environment, CPIs from the Sheriff's Offices with more years of experience were as or more satisfied than more recently hired CPIs for all of the statements regarding organizational supports. For the DCF respondents, satisfaction decreased as the number of years of experience increased. This was especially true for the statements concerning training and staff development, and concern for the health and safety of staff. 4.4. Job performance and job satisfaction Sheriff's Office CPIs were also more likely than DCF CPIs to agree with positive statements regarding job performance and job satisfaction (Table 6). Respondents in SO counties were more likely than those in DCF counties to feel enthusiastic about their job and their organization. They also were more likely to believe that their organization has a high level of productivity and that their clients receive high quality services. A larger proportion, 64%, of respondents from the Sheriff's Offices believe that they have an opportunity for advancement compared with 44% in the DCF counties. Finally, 68% of the Sheriff's Office CPIs expected to be working for their

Table 6 Perceptions of job performance and job satisfaction % agree or strongly agree

I feel a real sense of enthusiasm about my job and this organization This organization maintains a consistently high level of work productivity I feel like I have an opportunity for advancement in this organization The clients of this organization receive good quality services I expect to be working for this organization five years from now Average rate of agreement

Sheriff's Office

DCF

84% 94% 64% 90% 68% 80%

67% 74% 44% 73% 54% 62%

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

483

Table 7 Perceptions of community relationships % agree or strongly agree

There is a good working relationship between my office and the States Attorney's Office There is a good working relationship between my organization and the private child welfare agencies in the community There is a good working relationship between my organization and those who manage ongoing services after an investigation is complete I receive the cooperation I need from local law enforcement agencies Family Court Judges show respect for the work of the CPI's in my office This organization has a favorable reputation in the community The families that we investigate respect the work that we do Average rate of agreement

Sheriff's Office

DCF

92% 85%

79% 77%

74%

74%

91% 86% 87% 71% 84%

87% 71% 20% 36% 63%

agency in five years compared with 54% in the in the DCF counties. These responses seem to be consistent with the higher turnover rates among the CPI's in the DCF counties. 4.5. Perceptions of community relationships The last set of statements pertains to how the CPIs and their organizations are perceived in the wider community (see Table 7). Respondents from both the Sheriff's Offices and DCF overwhelmingly agree that they receive good cooperation from local law enforcement agencies and from those agencies that manage ongoing services4 after a child maltreatment investigation is completed. A higher proportion of SO respondents believe that their organization has a good working relationship with private child welfare agencies in their community. Sheriff's Office respondents were also more likely to believe that they are respected by judges and receive good cooperation from the State Attorney's Office. The largest discrepancies were in how they are perceived by clients and by the general community. Only 20% of the DCF CPIs believe that their agency has a favorable reputation in their community compared with 87% in the Sheriff's Office. In addition, only 36% of the DCF CPIs believe that the families they investigate have respect for the work that they do, compared with 71% of the SO CPIs. Overall, the SO investigators believe they are viewed more positively than the DCF agencies in their respective communities. 5. Qualitative findings Two open-ended questions asked the CPIs to provide three words or phrases that they felt best described their CPI role and three words or phrases that they felt best described their CPI work environment. A total of 515 responses were collected for the question about role from SO CPIs and 334 from DCF CPIs. Responses about work environment totaled 522 for SO CPIs and 342 for DCF CPIs.

4

At the time of the survey, ongoing services in Hillsborough, Broward, Lee, and Palm Beach Counties were managed by DCF. In the other counties, private agencies managed ongoing services.

484

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

Fig. 1. Self-descriptions of work environment.

5.1. Self-descriptions of the role of the CPI Some responses to the first question related to the content of the role (e.g. “investigator”) and others to feelings about the role (e.g. “important”). All responses were coded into fourteen categories: seven related to the roles themselves (Assessor, Child Protector, Counselor, Educator, Helper, Investigator, and Liaison), four related to feelings about roles, and three related generically as “Other” (negative, positive, and neutral). The “Other” category captured responses that did not fall into the first two categories and/or those where it was unclear whether the description referred to a role or a feeling. The Other — Negative category included responses such as “confrontational,” “frustrating,” “liability,” “bad guy,” and “disposable.” The Other — Positive category included responses such as “caring,” “compassionate,” “confident,” and “rewarding.” Finally, the Other — Neutral category captured responses that were unclear as to whether they were positive or negative. Examples include “always interesting,” “broad,” and “reality check.” In terms of the content of the role, DCF CPIs were more likely to perceive themselves as a Child Protector, a Helper or an Assessor; SO CPIs were more likely to respond with Child Protector, Helper, or Investigator. It is perhaps consistent with expectations that those working in a law enforcement office would be more likely to see themselves as investigators. CPIs from both experimental and comparison counties, however, were more likely to see themselves as Child Protectors or Helpers than merely Investigators. CPIs from both experimental and comparison counties perceived their role as “busy” to the same degree; however, a greater percentage of SO CPI responses classified the role as “important”, “professional”, and “stressful.” Among the “Other” responses, those from SO CPIs were more positive and DCF CPIs more negative about their roles. Overall, Child Protector was the most common response for both SO and DCF CPIs. 5.2. Self-descriptions of the CPI work environment Responses to the question about the CPI work environment were coded into thirteen categories. These categories were then recoded as Negative, Neutral, or Positive responses5. As 5 Positive Categories included: friendly, professional, supportive, other positive; Negative Categories included: administrative barriers; chaotic, negative office climate, overwhelmed/overworked, negative physical space, stressful, other negative; Neutral Categories included: busy, challenging, demanding, fair, other neutral comments.

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

485

with the responses for description of the role, Neutral responses include those that do not fit into other categories or where the negative/positive evaluation is not clear. “Supportive” was the most common positive response for all CPIs, including 16% of the SO responses and 12% of the DCF responses. Within the negative group, the category with the most common response was “stressful,” including 11% of the responses for each group. Overall, as shown in Fig. 1, a larger percentage of SO CPIs' responses were positive with respect to their work environment (51%) than DCF CPIs' responses (36%). 5.3. How is working for the SO different from DCF? SO CPIs who had previously worked as a CPI for DCF (N = 43) were asked what was different about working for the Sheriff's Office as compared with working for DCF. Forty-two CPIs responded to this question. Responses were overwhelmingly positive with respect to working for the SO. The only responses that were not clearly favorable about the SO as compared with DCF related to the increase in paperwork for SO CPIs, a need for more CPIs and sufficient support from outside agencies, and the emphasis placed on law enforcement rather than social work functions. However, none of the respondents indicated a preference for DCF over the SO. Nearly all respondents commented that they had access to more and better resources and tools to complete their job at the Sheriff's Office. The next most common response was that in the SO, CPIs felt they received greater support from supervisors and more respect for their work — both internally (from the organization) and externally (from the community and/or families). SO CPIs who previously had worked as a CPI for DCF felt that the SO provided greater professionalism/ accountability and more structure/organization. They also found the work environment more pleasant with better teamwork and camaraderie among CPIs, better communication between staff and management, and a sense of pride and high morale. This sub-sample of former DCF workers now working for law enforcement may be biased by self-selection. These CPIs had chosen to keep their employment as a CPI through the transfer from DCF to SO. It is also possible that the DCF agencies in the experimental counties were more troubled or strained than those in the comparison counties prior to the transfer. The CPI units in Sheriff's Offices also had the advantage of starting new and thereby not being restricted by old practices and policies that could hinder positive change. However, the consistency of favorable responses supports the conclusion that former DCF employees were more satisfied as employees of the Sheriff's Offices than with DCF. 6. Discussion The results of the CPI survey in eight Florida counties can be used to address the research questions raised at the beginning of this paper with respect to how a shift in responsibility for child maltreatment investigations from a public child welfare agency to a law enforcement agency might affect the role and the quality of work life of the Child Protective Investigator. 6.1. Who becomes a CPI? The first question raised was whether the shift in responsibility would lead to a different population of CPIs who were more likely to view themselves as police officers and less sensitive to the social work aspects of the job. The survey showed that demographically the two groups of CPIs (those who worked for DCF and those who worked for a law enforcement agency) were very

486

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

similar. Both groups were predominantly female, with the Sheriff's Offices having a larger proportion of females. With regard to race and ethnicity, the groups were also similar. Both groups were predominantly Caucasian. The Sheriff's Offices had a slightly higher proportion of African American CPIs, while DCF had a slightly higher proportion of Hispanic CPIs. With respect to education, nearly all of the CPIs in both groups had an undergraduate college degree. Very few had a Master of Social Work (MSW) degree, however a larger proportion SO CPIs (4%) had an MSW as compared with DCF CPIs (1%). As might be expected since the SO programs were primarily hiring new staff, the SO CPIs were somewhat younger and had less experience as a CPI. When asked to describe their roles, both groups saw themselves as “helpers” or “child protectors,” rather than as merely “investigators.” However, the SO CPIs were more likely to view themselves as “investigators,” which is consistent with the culture of a law enforcement agency. Altogether, it can be concluded that the two groups were largely similar, both in their demographic make-up and in their perception of their job. 6.2. Will a child protective investigations unit be accepted as part of a law enforcement agency? A second concern was how well a unit made up of civilian CPIs would fit within a law enforcement environment and whether the unit would be accepted and integrated into the larger organization. One concern was that within a Sheriff's Office, the Child Protection Investigations Unit might be isolated and looked down upon by the rest of the organization. The survey results reveal that the CPIs in the Sheriff's Office were more likely than those who worked for DCF to view themselves as part of a team in their organization, and were more likely to believe that there was good communication across units within their organization. Also, they were more likely to feel a sense of enthusiasm about their organization. Interviews with Sheriff's Office Deputies confirmed that while they may have been skeptical of the new units at first, over time they became much more accepting and supportive and viewed the CPIs as partners. 6.3. How does the quality of work life compare in the two environments? The results of the survey, when averaged across the five domains (Fig. 2), indicated that overall the Sheriff's Office CPIs experienced a higher quality of work life, and were more satisfied with their jobs and their work environment. As discussed previously, the qualitative responses confirmed this finding.

Fig. 2. Quantitative survey positive response averaged across domains.

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

487

Additional evidence is provided by the lower average turnover rate in the SO counties and the decrease in turnover in all three experimental counties in 2001 as compared with 2000. It is interesting to note that higher quality of work life and lower turnover rates occurred in the experimental counties despite the fact that CPIs in those counties generally received more new cases per month than CPIs in the comparison DCF counties. Although the study could not account for the many intangible variables that may have influenced the responses from the child protective investigators, the fact that the survey queried the respondents across several related domains using both quantitative and qualitative questions gives the findings solid credibility. Overall, the results of this survey indicate that the law enforcement environment has had a positive impact on CPIs' quality of work life and may have a positive impact on retention over time. 7. Implications and conclusion The question remains as to why the CPIs in the Sheriff's Offices experienced a higher quality of work life than their counterparts who performed the same job for a public child welfare agency.6 One possible explanation is the availability of greater resources and equipment. Of the 43 Sheriff's Office CPIs who had previously worked for DCF, most of them identified this factor as a major difference. The SO CPIs were assigned cars and laptop computers and some of them received higher salaries than their DCF counterparts. However, this is clearly not the only relevant factor, since the scores in all five survey domains were higher for the CPIs from the Sheriff's Offices. In fact, the difference between the SO and the DCF scores on the item related to resources and equipment was not nearly as great as it was for other items including staff development, concern for health and safety, participation in decisions, good communications, and opportunity for advancement. Also, in one of the comparison counties (Hillsborough) the responses to the item concerning the availability of resources were as high as in the SO counties, while the responses to most of the other items were still much lower in comparison. Another possible explanation is that staff morale may have been generally much lower among DCF CPIs because of constant criticism of the Department by the media and State Legislators, exhaustion from numerous attempts at reform and reorganization over the past years with little observable success, and a broader trend in Florida of stripping certain functions from the Department of Children and Families.7 The Sheriff's Offices, on the other hand, tended to see the experiment as an exciting challenge and an opportunity to demonstrate their capacity to address a serious community problem. The top managers in the Sheriffs Offices were therefore committed to making the experiments a success by doing whatever needed to be done. A third explanation is that there is something fundamentally different about the culture of a Sheriff's Office or a law enforcement agency (at least in Florida) as compared to a public child welfare agency that actually supports a higher quality of work life for front line staff. Interviews and focus groups with CPIs in both settings supported the survey findings that the work environment in the Sheriff's Offices was seen as more professional, more organized and accountable, that productivity was greater, and that there was a much closer relationship between doing a good job and getting rewarded. At the same time, SO CPIs felt like they were more a part 6 It should be noted that the more positive response from CPIs in the Sheriff’s Office was consistent across all four of the experimental counties as compared to the comparison counties. 7 At the same time as the investigation experiment, Florida was also in the midst of a larger initiative to privatize ongoing child welfare services through contracts with private providers. There were also experiments to remove legal service from DCF.

488

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

of a team within their organization, that there were more opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their work, and that the organization would support them when necessary. Apparently the CPIs, even though they were civilians, benefited from a strong tradition in law enforcement agencies to support, protect and promote their professional staff. Sheriff's Offices in Florida are also more likely to view themselves as a part of and accountable to their communities because the Sheriff is a locally elected official and the Sheriff's Office is locally funded. The DCF offices on the other hand, were typically viewed as agents of state government that were less accountable to local interests. The results of this study do not lead to the conclusion that child maltreatment investigations in other jurisdictions should be turned over to law enforcement agencies. Ultimately, the decision as to who should be responsible for conducting child maltreatment investigations should hinge on more than the quality on work life of the Child Protective Investigators. The most important consideration should be whether one arrangement or another will produce better outcomes for the children who are maltreated and their families. While there has been some evidence that positive organizational climate can improve client outcomes (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998), research conducted by the Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy on the Florida experiment has found little difference between the experimental and the comparison counties with respect to various other outcomes including child safety, prosecution of the perpetrators of child maltreatment, entry into foster care, and entry into emergency placement. It is not clear yet whether more positive results will appear over time, or whether merely changing who is responsible for investigations is insufficient to affect program outcomes without simultaneously changing broader policies, practices or procedures. Nevertheless, the current study has several implications for researchers and practitioners who are interested in improving the child welfare system. First, the quality of work life in a child welfare agency can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively and is an important concept given the high level of stress that is associated with the work and the high turnover rates among child welfare workers. Efforts to improve the quality of work life of CPIs should be viewed as part of the agenda of improving and reforming child welfare. Second, the quality of work life of a child protective investigator is not just a function of the job itself. It can vary with the work environment and the organizational culture and norms of the setting. Some settings provide a better quality of work life than others. Finally, the quality of work life for CPIs can be improved in public child welfare agencies. While some experiments will likely continue to focus on alternative settings for conducting child maltreatment investigations (e.g. law enforcement agencies or nonprofit agencies that provide direct services), it is likely that the vast majority of child protective investigators will continue to be employed by public child welfare agencies. It is therefore important for these agencies to seriously consider strategies for enhancing the quality of work life of their staff. This study has indicated a number of specific ways in which the QWL for child protective investigators could be strengthened, including the design of a more professional and accountable work organization, more emphasis on education and staff development programs, more resources, more support throughout the organization for the CPIs' contribution, more participation in decisions affecting their job, and more attention to the health and safety of workers. References American Public Human Services Association. (2001). Crossroads: New directions in social policy. Washington, DC: American Public Human Services Association.

B.J. Cohen et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 474–489

489

Barton, W. H., Foleron, G., & Busch, M. (2003). Final report to the Indiana division of families and children: Customer satisfaction survey. Indiana University School of Social Work. Camman, C. (1984). Productivity of management through QWL programs. In C. Frombun (Ed.), Strategic human resource management. New York: Wiley. Child Welfare League of America. (2000). CWLAsStandards of excellence in child welfare practice. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Cohen, B. (1992). Quality of working life in a public child welfare agency. Journal of Health and Human Resource Administration, 15(2), 129−152. Daley, M. (1979). Preventing worker burnout in child welfare. Child Welfare, 7, 443−450. Emery, F. (1964). Report on the Hunsfoss project. London: Tavistock Document Series. Esposito, G., & Fine, M. (1985). The field of child welfare as a world of work. In J. Laird & A. Hartman (Eds.), A handbook of child welfare. New York: Free Press. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children's service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401−421. Gowdy, E. (1988). The application of quality of worklife research to human services management. In R. Patti, J. Poertner, & C. Rapp (Eds.), Managing for Service Effectiveness. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Lindsey, D. (1994). The welfare of children. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Pelton, L. (1991). Beyond permanency planning: Restructuring public child welfare agencies. Social Work, 36(4), 337−343. Richards, K. (1992). Tender mercies: Inside the world of a child abuse investigator. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Rycraft, J. (1994). The party isn't over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75−80. United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Child welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child welfare agencies recruit and retain staff. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). National study of child protective services systems and reform efforts. Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office. Vinokur-Kaplan, D., Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1994). Job satisfaction and retention of social workers in public agencies, non-profit agencies, and private practice: The impact of workplace conditions and motivation. Administration in Social Work, 18(3), 93−121.