and reach thousands of daily visitors
Listen to thisAs mentioned, care workers represent the most important, most influential
discipline within residential care. They are the ones that fill in 'those
other 23 hours' with children by means of the situations they arrange in the
group and beyond, by means of the social climate they create, and – not
least – by means of the way they shape the relationship between themselves
and the children (cf. Kok, 1997). Or, to quote Clough, Bullock and Ward
(2004, p. 118): 'It is not surprising that the quality of the relationship
between adult carer and child is frequently cited as a key factor in
successful practice in (...) residential care'. But what do we actually
know about these care workers in residential settings?
Functioning
In the Netherlands Van der Ploeg was one of the
first academics to perform empirical research on the role and significance
of the group leadership in residential care (Van der Ploeg, 1984; Van der
Ploeg, et al., 1981). Around 30 years ago, he initiated a study that
examined which factors might explain the fact that some care workers
function much better than others. In this setup, he applied the assumption
that the chance of making a positive contribution in the development of a
child in residential care will decline in proportion to the degree to which
the care worker emits signals that he or she is performing the work under
too much stress (Van der Ploeg, 1984, p. 9). Stress is inherent in the work
of the residential staff. When a care worker cannot handle this, there is a
real threat of dysfunction and – in the long term – a burnout, which is a
phenomenon that refers to physical and emotional exhaustion as a result of
the excessive demands that are made upon the possibilities and resources of
a working person (cf. Freudenberger, 1977).
In Van der Ploeg's
study, the functioning of the care workers (N = 239) was determined by means
of diverse criteria. The two most important of these were (1) the judgement
that the group worker him or herself gives, as well as the judgement of
others on this functioning, and (2) feelings of wellbeing/distress, and of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction that the group worker experiences. The
following factors appeared to enhance the chances of functioning poorly as a
group worker.
They have been divided into four levels, in order of importance:
Personality of the group worker – with the indicators:
a. Risk personality (referring to aspects such as
structural anxiety, negative self-image, neurotic complaints, and
inadequate, passive coping style)
b. Drastic adverse occurrences or
'life events' in one's own life, with which one has not come to terms
c.
An authoritarian personality, or the inclination towards one
Team – with the indicators:
a. No support from direct colleagues
b. Perceived
tension within the team/organization
Community or group – with the indicators:
a. Presence of many 'extremely unmanageable'
children4
b. Negative appraisal of group climate by the children
Organization – with the indicators:
a. Too much or too little influence on decisions in
the organization
b. Many staff changes within the organization
Van der Ploeg himself said it was remarkable that the 'level of
education' factor did not play a role as a predictor of the capacity to
function well. He consequently formed the conclusion that the professional
training for this activity (at the end of the 1970s) apparently did not make
a clear contribution to the level of functioning of group workers, at least
not to the extent that this led to recognizable differences.
Job satisfaction
In later research Van der Ploeg
and Scholte (1998) focused on a single aspect of functioning, namely the job
satisfaction of residential workers. This study indicated that those who
were best educated were the least satisfied, probably because residential
work offered too little status and insufficient career opportunities. The
results of this second research confirmed the importance of adequate
supervision and support (cf. level 2), and a balanced participation of
workers in the organization (cf. level 4).
Studies on job satisfaction and the corresponding problem of staff turnover among group workers have been carried out in many countries over the past few years. Data from the Netherlands and the UK show that the proportion of group workers who are (moderately to extremely) satisfied with their work ranges from around two thirds to three quarters of the staff. According to Tham (2007), job satisfaction is mainly determined (or threatened) by factors at organizational level: an insufficiently supportive or cohesive climate in the organization is more often cited as a factor in job dissatisfaction and staff turnover than the challenging nature of work in child welfare (see also Petrie et al., 2006). In agreement with these findings, Colton and Roberts (2006) established by means of logistic regression that, in a sample of 129 residential childcare workers, job satisfaction could be well predicted by the following four (compiled) variables:
An analysis with these predictors resulted in a model with Significant reliability which produced, taken as a whole, 84% accurate classifications of satisfaction/dissatisfaction among group workers. The first two variables – (1) the organization's acknowledgement of training requirements, and (2) ensuring good staffing – were the strongest predictors.
Colton and Roberts (2006) also established, partly to their own surprise and probably to their own disappointment, that a high score on job satisfaction was no guarantee whatsoever for group workers staying in the job. They refer to other factors – like status of the job, salary levels, alternative career opportunities, and family commitments – as also having an influence on such decisions (see also Smith, 2005).
The literature suggests that job satisfaction is an important precondition for high-quality care. However, this says little about the way group workers actually perform their duties. Questions that arise in this context include: What is the precise content of the social care activities of the group workers? Do they apply a certain approach? Is this aligned to the needs of the children? And which outcomes does it produce? Such questions penetrate to the heart of residential care.
References
Clough, R., Bullock, R., & Ward, A. (2004). Research into the residential care of children and young people. In: Review of the purpose and future shape of fostering and residential care services for children and young people in Wales: What works in practice? A review of research evidence (pp. 93- 159). Cardiff, UK: National Assembly for Wales, http://www.childrenfirst.wales.gov.uk/content/ placement/index-e.htm accessed: December 20st, 2007).
Colton, M. J., & Roberts, S. (2006). The retention of residential group workers. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 9 (3),160-177.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1977). Burn-out: Occupational hazard of the child care worker. Child Care Quarterly, 6 (2), 90-99.
Kok, J. F. W. (1997). Bringing up children remedially. Orthopedagogical theory and practice. Leuven/ Amersfoort: Acco (OK Series, nr. 6 – in Dutch).
Petrie, P., Boddy, J., Cameron, C., Wigfall, v., & Simon, A. (2006). Working with children in care: European perspectives. Maidenhead (UK) /New York: Open University Press/McGraw Hill Education.
Smith, B. D. (2005). Job retention in child welfare: Effects of perceived organizational support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job value. Children and Youth Services Review, 27 (2), 153-169.
Tham, p. (2007). Why are they leaving? Factors affecting intention to leave among social workers in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37 (7),1225-1246.
Van der Ploeg, J. D. (1984). The performance of care givers in residential groups. In W. HellaInckx (Ed.), Begeleiding van de groepsleiding in de residentiele orthopedagogische hulpverlening (pp. 9-27). Leuven/Amersfoort: Acco (OK Series, nr. 5 – in Dutch).
Van der Ploeg, J. D., Brandjes, M., Nass, C. H. TH., & Defares, P. B. (1981). Stress with residential caregivers. In J. D. Van der Ploeg [Ed.), Jeugd (z)onder dak. Deel2: Opvoeding, organisatie en onderzoek in de residentiele hulpverlening (pp. 43-60). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom (in Dutch).
Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Scholte, E. M. (1998). Job satisfaction in residential care. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 3 (3), 228-241.
Wozner, Y. (1990). People Care in Institutions: A Conceptual Scheme and its Application. Child and Youth Services, 15 (1),1-237 (special issue).
Zegers, M. A. M. (2007). Attachment among institutionalized adolescents. Mental representations, therapeutic relationships and problem behavior. PhD Thesis. Leiden: Leiden University.
Zegers, M. A. M., Schuengel, C., Van Ilzendoorn, M. H., & Janssens, J. M. A. M. (2006). Attachment representations of institutionalized adolescents and their professional caregivers: Predicting the development of therapeutic relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 325-334.
Erik Knorth, Annmiek Harder, Anne-Marie Huyghen, Margrite
Kalverboer and Tjalling Zandberg (2010).
Extract from: Residential Youth
Care and Treatment Research: Care Workers as Key Factor in Outcomes?International
Journal of Child and Family Welfare 2010/1-2, pp. 49-67
