ADMINISTRATORS

An Administrator, many years on

Earl Stuck reflects on some of the roads our profession has travelled since the Sixties

My career as a child care worker began in 1966. I was hired as a summer relief worker at a residential facility at 1 p.m. and began my first shift at 3 p.m. the same day. Fifty dollars per week plus room and board seemed like a good deal at the time. Although I had not realised that ‘room and board’ meant eating all of my meals on duty and being on call 24 hours a day, I do not think it would have mattered. I could hardly believe that such a job existed, where I could play basketball, build tree huts and make up jokes at which the children would actually laugh. I was told that the children were “disturbed”, which apparently meant they lost control and would need to be frequently restrained, yet they did not seem much different from many of the children with whom I had grown up.

Training
My pre-employment experience was limited to playing sports and still being pretty much a kid myself. On-the-job training was limited. I learned when the children were supposed to eat and go to bed, and to keep a close eye on their parents when they came to visit. My friends — and especially my girlfriend at the time — thought this job was a tremendous idea — a little like a local Peace Corps. I believed then that I could really make a difference. Even I knew that I was naive, but surely enthusiasm and hard work would make up for inexperience and my utter lack of training.

Twenty-six years later, I no longer work shifts and it has been a long time since I built my last tree house. The experiences of that summer, however, and those of my succeeding years as a child care worker, shaped my life, both professionally and personally. Today, the dilemma we face throughout all of child welfare has remained much the same since 1966.

Child care — a real job?
There are enthusiastic, excited and interesting people out there. Sometimes we can attract them into the field, sometimes we cannot. Some of those whom we hire remain, yet many seem to try it out and then move on to “real” jobs elsewhere. The quality of staff recruitment and retention is widely agreed to be a central factor in both child welfare’s successes and failures. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, the heightened social consciousness of the “Great Society” spawned a great many programmes for children and families. A profession that revolved around helping people was a fashionable, respectable one. Despite great demand for staff, we remember a time when there were ample applicants for even the most poorly paid entry-level positions. Baby-boomers with college degrees and high ideals were anxious to do their stint. Even if their educational background was in political science or English literature, they thought that on-the-job experience would surely fill in the gaps.

Fast food or computers
Starting earlier, but becoming fully apparent by the early 1 980s, a shift occurred. Some staff, having done their time in human services, moved into the corporate world. The economic boom lowered unemployment nearly everywhere. The cost of education grew rapidly. Those with degrees, who faced the prospect of loan repayment and high costs of living, increasingly chose careers with greater potential for economic growth and security. Child welfare agencies were often not being selected by those who had arguably better offers in the areas of fast food and computers. At the same time, jobs in human services were becoming increasingly demanding. Professional and even personal risks increased in an era of increasing poverty, violence and drugs. In many places a more culturally and ethnically diverse clientele entered the system. Agencies who had employed predominately white, young people from middleclass backgrounds discovered that good intentions did not always result in cultural responsiveness. Staff questioned their own relevance. Litigation became a growing concern. It seemed that one could be sued for anything. Child and youth care workers, foster parents, teachers and others felt increasingly exposed. Nearly everyone could recount highly publicised accounts of child abuse allegedly perpetrated by the same workers who were charged with helping children. It was difficult for even the most caring administrators and supervisors not to sometimes fall into cynicism and suspicion.

Funding
The 1990s seem to present a mixed bag. The recession has resulted in difficult times for families and children. It has, however, actually improved prospects in recruitment and retention of staff. Higher unemployment has increased the pool of those who would consider jobs in human services. Employees of human service agencies are tending to stay longer, in part due to fewer and less attractive options elsewhere. Unfortunately, at the same time funding has been reduced for social programs and the needs and numbers of the client population have dramatically increased. These factors combine to require workers to do more with less — a hard sell to those who already realise the enormous challenge of this job.

Today’s questions
When it comes to the staff of children’s organisations, the questions we struggle with now are how to:

• Attract individuals to the field with the diverse background, training and skills necessary to meet today’s needs;

• Enhance their skills throughout their period of employment; and

• Retain those who have the most to offer the children and families in positions where they can do the most good.

Effective staff recruitment and retention: remembering why we’re here
The story we have told of the last quarter century is only useful if it makes us examine how we could have done it differently. There is no experience like personal experience. Remembering this experience is the key to finding, developing and keeping quality staff in our agencies. All who are charged with these responsibilities should ask themselves three fundamental questions:

1. Why did I get into this line of work?

2. What, if anything, made me hesitant about the choice; what made me think twice?

3. What would cause me to get out of the field? At the same time, it is a good idea to ask these questions of your staff, prospective applicants and departing staff at exit interviews. The answers might be surprising, but they hold the key to attracting and keeping quality staff. Following are examples of answers to these very important questions, summarised feedback from the experiences of many.

Why get into this line of work?
Invariably, three very simple answers head the list:

• Because I enjoy kids;

• Because I want to make a difference;

• Because of the influence that another person, or persons — role models —have had on me.

Surprisingly money is rarely mentioned as a reason for entering the field. The importance of financial rewards in both recruitment and retention will be covered later.

What made me hesitant to apply for my first job in the field?
Most frequent answers include:

• Image — Media and public perception that workers are sometimes child abusers in disguise. Who wants a job that you would have difficulty describing to your grandmother? If it is an entry level position, who wants to do what the general public perceives to be babysitting? Prevailing attitudes toward gender roles leaves many males seeing nurturing roles as “women’s work”. Conversely women often do not see themselves as effective with acting out, sometimes violent children.

• Job difficulty—“The job is too hard” — “I don’t know if I can do it.” Many people view line-work as a teacher or child and youth care worker as a solitary profession — “Me against the world". The fear of exposure, and ultimately, of failure is a major cause of hesitancy.

• Career change — “It’s too late to change my career direction.” Experience and training in other areas, education bills, the more obvious advancement possibilities elsewhere, all combine to make many hesitant.

• Working conditions —Shift work, evenings and weekends are usually not attractive. A physically unattractive work environment makes a poor first impression. The “war stories” about on-the-job dangers are disconcerting, significant and of very real concern.

• Cultural sensitivity — Especially in agencies where there is little evidence of staff diversity, many prospective applicants feel that they will not fit in. They may also feel their perceptions of the clients may differ from those of other staff and administration, and consequently receive limited consideration.

The last question, and the one which is often the most difficult to answer is:

What would cause me to leave?
Despite the difficulties many have in answering this question, the answers tend to be relatively few and simple. Generally, one would leave if:

• Any of the answers given to the first question, “Why did I get into the work?” were found not to be true. That is, if one’s job experience has left him or her feeling that he or she did not like kids, or if the conditions made it difficult to enjoy them. If one finds that, no matter what he or she tries to do, he or she does not appear to “make a difference.” Finally, if new role models — negative influences — replace the original ones and other positive models do not exist in the workplace.

• They experience a lack of support. Once someone enters the field, the hypothetical concerns mentioned earlier concerning being “out there alone” can become very real. Lack of support from peers, supervisors and administrators all play a part.

• Working conditions are poor. Once again, while fears about working conditions make many hesitant, the reality of poor or dangerous working conditions is a major factor that drives employees away.

• They don’t receive adequate compensation. Salary and other compensations rarely appear in answers to the first two questions. They are, however, nearly always noted as reasons for leaving. Researchers have found that “money is a dissatisfier, but not necessarily a satisfier” (Leonard, Margolis and Keating, 1981).

This quote is illustrative of the fact that money has two kinds of value — face value and symbolic value. Its face value is obvious. Staff will leave if they are not compensated to adequately support themselves and their families. The importance of money increases over time, even when it was not a factor in the person s original decision to accept the position. Also, money is valued as a symbol of appreciation, of how the agency values the worker. Money’s symbolic value becomes greater when the agency does not have other ways to recognise a staff member’s importance. If money is the only yard stick by which an agency expresses staff value, the lack of it is a strong dissatisfier.

Job satisfaction is rarely a simple salary issue. Other issues such as prospects of promotion, the nature and amount of supervision, the quality of peer interaction, job content and autonomy, the level of responsibility and role clarity are all critical contributors to the length of a person’s employment (Porter and Steers, 1973). Curiously, Fleischer (1985) noted “that while salary continues to be a concern among child care workers, satisfaction with salary is actually higher among those who leave than among those who stay”, suggesting that the basic reasons for leaving extend well beyond money.

In 1990, the state of Florida contracted with the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) to evaluate staff retention issues among state social service workers. A part of the study focused on job satisfaction factors from two points of view — staff perception of what is important, and staff perception of agency performance. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the results. Of special importance to the final recommendations, were those areas rated high in importance and at the same time low in agency performance. Several are noteworthy:

• Realistic workload — first in importance, second to last in agency performance

• Financial compensation —second in importance, fifth from last in agency performance

• Legal liability protection —third and third respectively

• Sufficient resources — sixth and fourth respectively

• Participation in decision-making — ninth and ninth respectively

• Promotional opportunity —eleventh and tenth respectively

These factors indicate places where important job satisfiers were seen as largely neglected by the agency. Each relates strongly to the answers to the initial questions posed in this article. Each indicates areas where improvement in agency performance would likely result in significant improvement in its retention rates.

Translate experience into action
It is now time to return to the first question asked at the beginning of this article: Why did get into this line of work in the first place? The answers may serve as an outline for the creation of attractive work environments for staff, and identify those areas which provide the best opportunity to retain those who can serve children and families most effectively.
 

Because I enjoy kids
Even though the primary attraction for many is the joy of spending time with children, this is often soured during one’s initial experience. This is a real tragedy. This work is not all fun and games —work with troubled children can be discouraging — but perhaps our own attitudes contribute to a greater degree than we think. Many administrators have said that they always give the bad news about the job first, to ensure that no one is hired without a keen awareness of the challenges involved.

Being realistic with applicants and new staff is necessary but our efforts to portray the downside can often be unbalanced and biased. For example, several years ago I reviewed a sample of child care worker employee files. I looked for both reprimand and congratulatory letters. To my surprise, and considerable embarrassment, I found that these letters nearly always dwelt on such subjects as inappropriate client management, punctuality and related negative performance issues. Staff were reprimanded for making mistakes and congratulated when they did not make them. Rarely was there a letter applauding relationship building or teamwork, nor were people reprimanded for not being inventive enough in their activity planning. I found that my words during interviews were saying, “I want well-rounded, creative people”, while the evidence in personnel files indicated that I wanted people who risked little and made few mistakes. It is very difficult to enjoy children when the real basis for performance appraisal is risk management.

The tendency only to reward staff members who avoid trouble can be very dangerous for an organisation. Staff need the opportunity to risk, to move out of the narrow, sometimes repressive, roles which we create for them. The same child who, out of boredom, antagonises peers and adults, can be a joy to be around if we take a risk and vary the group size, plan an activity just for fun, or alter a boring routine. If we really want our staff to be creative we must find ways to encourage some of the same traits we often try to eliminate. Granted, mistakes will be made, peace and order may suffer from time to time, but the result will more likely be that staff feels empowered to enjoy, and not simply control the kids.

Job advertisements, public relations, and public education material should do a much better job of explaining the rewards of the work and the strengths of the clients. Playing up only the desperate need of the clients contributes to a slanted, negative image which sets the stage wrongly. If an agency is unable to promote and foster positive client-staff relationships, it will neither attract nor retain the staff it wants.

Because I want to make a difference
Staff will invest energies if they feel their skills will be used and the net result will be a positive impact on the clients. Studies have consistently shown that a sense of accomplishment is a major reason why some stay in the field, while the lack of meaning and positive outcome stemming from one’s efforts is a source of great dissatisfaction to those who leave (Leonard, Margolis and Keating, 1981). How can agencies enhance a worker’s chances to make a difference:

1) They should have higher expectations of all staff
 Often administrators and supervisors who have experienced a decline in the numbers and qualifications of those who apply for jobs, feel they cannot expect too much of the employees they hire. Staff roles and assignments should not be limited by the job market, but rather determined by the needs of the clients. Few people ever come fully prepared for a job. The challenge of growing into a job is one of the cornerstones of developing a sense of accomplishment.

2) Agencies should establish strong pre-service training and new staff orientation programs.
Higher expectations require agencies to help staff members acquire the skills necessary to meet these requirements. Failure to orient and train early on is a major cause of high staff turnover. Preservice training should be designed to give all staff a fundamental understanding of the job and the basic skills necessary to function successfully. New staff orientation should likewise acquaint workers with the agency, its mission, clients and their roles within it.

3) Agencies also should develop in-service training programs that provide staff with a rounded educational experience.
Employees learn much about an agency’s real agenda from the subjects covered in its in-service programs. Agendas that deal solely with the issue of the day, responding only to crises, give a clear message that managing risk is a more valuable skill than other aspects of care. In-service training can also be used to help experienced staff grow into more advanced specialties and career tracks. Potential for growth and advancement is a consistent feature of effective staff retention programs.

4) Agencies should encourage opportunities for input into decision-making.
Many staff members perceive participation in the decision-making process as a very important determinant related to staying in a job. It is also an area where staff in general feel that agencies do not perform very well. Input into decisions illustrates both a real concern, that everyone’s perspective is brought to bear on behalf of the clients, as well as a symbolic one. Involvement in planning is a measure of how one’s input, skills and abilities are valued by the organisation. It is, for many, the ultimate symbol of appreciation.

Because of the influence of a role model
Most of the successful staff in a child welfare agency can remember a person somewhere in their lives without whom they would not have likely become involved in work with children. Parents, teachers, public figures and friends have a profound influence on the decisions we make. Successful recruitment and retention depends upon the field creating and promoting its own role models. This entails developing an appropriate, active public response to the negative stereotypes of abusing foster parents who so often receive front page coverage. It also entails a strong campaign of public education that presents the reality of the many fine role models that we employ every day in our agencies. Agencies that attend to this are invariably successful recruiters.

Of equal importance are the role models that staff encounter once hired. Mentors, experienced and capable staff who lead by doing and impart their skills informally, are invaluable assets to an agency. They represent the new role models who reaffirm that the work is worthwhile, meaningful and fun. Too often, these individuals are promoted out of positions where they are most useful because agencies have no other ways of rewarding them for superior performance. Remaining in their places are role models who are often not so encouraging. Agencies who retain staff successfully do so by creating a culture that encourages positive models while preventing negative influences from having too broad an impact. In American society, whether we like it or not, salary will always be the primary yardstick by which success and appreciation are judged. Professionals make more than non-professionals, great baseball players always make more than ones with lesser skills. While research has disagreed as to whether higher salaries always result in better recruitment and retention, a staff member’s perception that his or her work is appreciated by the boss is always a central factor. Everyone has basic human needs, which require adequate compensation. If we expect people to stay, the wage must at least reflect the realistic cost of living. What we pay is also a strong indicator of what we value. Applicants are attracted to jobs and the workers stay in positions when the value is apparent and represented by the agency’s efforts to show its appreciation, monetarily and otherwise.

Money is an important, but not the single important way in which agencies show appreciation. It will not alone determine an employee’s longevity or effectiveness. Agencies would be wise to assess money’s importance in conjunction with other factors and incentives discussed earlier. A balanced approach that realistically meets an employee’s expectations in all of these areas will result in recruiting and retaining an agency’s most valuable employees.

The administrator is responsible for recruitment and retention The task of attracting qualified, dedicated staff and retaining the best employees is central to the role of the administrator. Arguably, this is the single administrative duty that requires the bulk of our time and effort, and the one upon which the success of our agencies ultimately rests. It is a difficult job, however, made much more difficult when we lose sight of the fundamental value of the work and of the worker. Effective employees do not come to the job by accident, nor do they arrive in search of monetary wealth. The ability to remember the things we once hoped to find in child welfare, and to ensure that this search is rewarded for our staff, is the key to ensuring that every child and family receives the best we have to offer.

References
Fleischer, B. J. (1985). Identification of strategies to reduce turnover among child care workers. Child Care Quarterly, 14(2). 130-1 39.
Helfgott, K (1991). Staffing the child welfare agency. Recruitment and retention.
Leonard, H. S.; Margolis, H. & Keating, D. J.(1 981). Salient factors influencing resident advisor turnover: An exploratory study. Child Care Quarterly, 10(4), 329-333.
Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organisational work and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151 -176.
Ross, A. L (1983). Mitigating turnover of child care staff in group care facilities. Child Welfare, LXII, i, 63-67. CWLA Salary study — 1991. A study of the salary structure, career ladder, and turnover rate of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services dependency staff with findings and recommendations to the Florida Legislature. (1990). Washington, D.C. Child Welfare League of America.