and reach thousands of daily visitors
11 MAY 2009
NO 1434
Retention of group care workers
The retention of personnel represents a significant challenge for child welfare service providers on both sides of the Atlantic (GAO, 2003; McCarthy, 2004; ADSS, 2005; CWLA, 2005; DfES, 2005a; Smith, 2005). In the US, much concern centres around high turnover resulting from stress-induced burnout (Decker et al., 2002), with factors such as geographical location serving to exacerbate the problem in Canada (Schmidt, 2004). Recent estimates suggest that annual turnover for child welfare staff in the US ranges from 30% to 40%, with average time in post being less than 2 years (GAO, 2003). The highest turnover is evident in relation to staff engaged in child protection (American Public Human Services Association, 2004), with some commentators (see, for example, Bednar, 2003) noting that rapid staff turnover seriously undermines such work.
The UK Government highlighted the problem of retention in the recent Children's Workforce Strategy (DfES, 2005b). In 2004, over half (54%) of local authorities in England reported difficulties in retaining children's social workers (Social Care and Health Workforce Group, 2004). Stress has proved a major factor in decisions to leave child welfare (Coffey et al., 2004). The staffing shortage has reached crisis proportions in London and the south-east of England (Harlow, 2004). Moreover, in Wales, the Children's Commissioner (2004) has described the shortage of social workers as constituting `an emergency'. Given the importance of providing continuity of care for young people placed away from home, the turnover rate for residential group care workers has been a cause of particular concern in the UK. In England, the annual turnover of such personnel increased from 11 % in 1999 to 15% in 2001 (Social Care and Health Workforce Group, 2002). The figure for Wales was higher than that reported for England, at 20% in 2001 (National Assembly for Wales, 2001).
There has been an ongoing decline in group care for children and youth across Europe for some 30 years, and a corresponding growth in the use of family foster care (Hellinckx, 2002). However, the decline in residential group care is more discernible in some, countries than in others. The majority of children in out of home care in Ireland, Norway, Sweden, the US, and the UK are in foster placements (Colton et al., 2002; Colton and Williams, 2006). In 2004, 71% (3,075) of the 4,315 children looked after in Wales, for example, were in foster care placements (NAW Statistical Directorate, 2005). By contrast, in the Autonomous Region of Catalonia in Spain, however, the numbers in family foster care and residential group care are roughly equal (Del Valle and Casas, 2002). Admissions to residential group care in the Netherlands are increasing (Knorth, 2002), and in Japan most children placed away from their birth parents live in residential group homes (Colton and Williams, 2006).
Although the use of residential group care has declined sharply in the UK, such care continues to perform a vital role in child welfare. Some young people express a clear preference for group care over family placement (Sinclair and Gibbs, 1998). Estimates suggest that between a third and two thirds of youth in residential care in the UK will have been abused prior to placement (National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, 1996). Increasingly, young people in group care in the UK are presenting with mental health problems (McCann et al., 1996). Moreover, many will have experienced foster placement breakdown, and group care can be the only viable placement where young people's complex needs effectively rule out other options (ibid.).
In North America, residential group care has until recently been perceived to be part of the problem as opposed to the solution to child and family difficulties. However, factors such as disappointing research outcomes, and the challenges encountered in caring for youth with complex needs have led to a renewed interest in group care. According to Whittaker (2000):
'A full and rigorous examination of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of residential group care with respect to their implications for current service policy, practice and future research is long overdue and ought to receive the highest priority on the new century's emergent agenda.' (p. 60)
One of the key themes to emerge from the spate of child abuse scandals in residential group homes across the UK has been the urgent need for high quality residential group care personnel (Utting, 1991; 1997; Waterhouse et al., 2000). Given that many young people in group care may have experienced neglect or abuse at home, and that their situation is often compounded by poor social skills and low self-esteem, those who care for them are faced with a particularly difficult task (Berridge and Brodie, 1998). It has been argued that this task is made more arduous by the crisis of confidence in residential group care which is characterised by factors such as its poor public image and a disempowered staff base (Gibson et al., 2004). Increasingly, residential group care personnel express concerns about the behaviour of the young people looked after, and the violence, or threat of violence they face in their work on a daily basis (AFSCME, 1998). McAdams (2002) has noted the growing trend amongst youth in group care towards `proactive aggression', and the inability of service providers to deal with this problem.
In light of the above, it is essential that the human resource base of residential group care is stable and, thus, able to supply continuity of care for young people and effective support and supervision for group care workers themselves. Where there is stability within a staff group over time, levels of knowledge and experience build substantively providing an invaluable resource to aid the task of caring.
M. COLTON AND S.
ROBERTS
Colton, S. and Roberts, M. (2006). The retention of
residential group care workers. International Journal of Child and
Family Welfare, 9, 3. pp. 160-162.
