David Chenot PhD, MDiv., LCSW
California State University Fullerton
CCASSC Meeting
July 9th, 2010

The Problem
 Turnover
▪ Rates: PCWS Workforce, National: 15-22% (APHSA, 2005)
PCWS Workforce, California:
1.) Average 9.8% (Clark & Fulcher, 2005)
2.) Range 9-23% (NCCD, 2006)
▪ Highly problematic for PCWS Agencies
▪
▪
▪
▪
Cost, $10,000 annually per vacated position-(1995 dollars) (Graef & Hill, 2000)
Estimates of total cost from an 18-state study $53.84 million (APHSA, 2005)
Training issues
Overall morale
▪ Harmful to SWs & CMs who leave due to the working conditions
▪ Increases workload & stress for SWs & CMs who remain
▪ Most important, very unhealthy for children & families served in PCWS
agencies!
▪ Number-Ten
2
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton

Child Welfare: Vol. 88, Issue 5, 2009 - Special
Issue: Strengthening the Child Welfare Workforce:
Promoting Recruitment and Retention
 Joan Levy Zlotnik, Virginia C. Strand, and Gary R. Anderson
(Eds.)
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
3

The Influence of Supervisor Support, Peer Support, and Organizational Culture Among
Early Career Social Workers in Child Welfare Services

David Chenot, Amy D. Benton, and Hansung Kim

Previous studies have demonstrated that those who are in the first years of Child Welfare Services (CWS)
employment are at particularly high risk for turnover. This study explored how the effects of support and
organizational culture on retention (as the antidote for turnover) vary across different stages of CWS careers.
A sample of 767 workers was divided into subgroups based on their years in CWS. A series of multilevel models
were used to examine the differences between the groups. Findings include the crucial role supervisor support
plays in retaining workers not only in their agencies, but in the field of CWS. In addition, passive defensive
organizational culture has a negative effect on early career workers, but not on mid or late career workers.
This suggests that a unique sensitivity to passive defensive organizational cultures exists early in
CWS workers’ careers that appears to dissipate over time. Implications for organizational practices are
discussed.


David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
4

Supervisor Support
 Supervisor support has been a significant predictor of
retention or turnover in several studies on the Public Child
Welfare Services workforce:
▪ APHSA (2005); Dickinson & Perry (2002); Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, &
Withers (2008); Landsman (2001); Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001);
Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin (2005); Smith (2005)
 Supervisor support has also emerged as an important
factor in qualitative studies on PCWS retention:
▪ Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, (2007); Reagh, (1994); Rycraft, (1994)
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
5

Peer support
 Mixed results in studies on the PCWS workforce:
▪ Significant impact on retention/turnover: Dickinson & Perry
(2002); Ellett & Millar, (2004); Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin
(2005)
▪ Impact on intent to leave but not on actual turnover: Mor
Barak, Nissly, & Levin (2001)
▪ No significant impact: Jacquet, Clark, Morazes, & Withers,
(2008); Landsman (2001); Weaver, Chang, Clark, & Rhee (2007)
 An important factor in qualitative studies:
▪ Reagh (1994); Wagner, Spence, & Burnstein (2001); Wagner, van
Reyk, & Spence (2001)
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
6

Organizational Culture
 Few studies on PCWS organizations
 C0nstructive cultures have a positive impact on
job satisfaction & retention in PCWS agencies
▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James (2002); Glisson et al.,
(2008)
 Passive defensive cultures, not so much!
▪ Glisson (2007); Glisson & James, (2002)
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
7

Variables in the Study
 Individual level Variables
▪ Supervisor Support
▪ Peer Support
 Organizational Level Construct
▪ Organizational Culture
 Control Variables
▪ Title/Position in the Agency
▪ Social Work Education
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
8

Definitions
 Kadushin & Harkness (2002)
▪ Three functions of supervision: administration, education, and
support
▪ Supervisor support in this study includes aspects of –
▪ Education
 Transfer the values of the profession to line workers, increase
theoretical knowledge, improve practice skills, enhance
problem-solving & self awareness.
▪ Support
 Maintain motivation, morale & commitment, mitigate job
stress & the effects of role ambiguity – particularly in order to
prevent burnout. Professional development and career
planning appear to be involved as well.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
9

Definitions
▪ Supervisor Support
▪ The extent to which the employee believes their immediate
supervisor provides instrumental (knowledge/skill) and affective
(emotional) support.
 Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems,
provides good advice, very knowledgeable about child welfare.
▪ Peer Support
▪ The degree of perceived assistance and understanding received
from coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup
 Reliability in difficult situations, willingness to listen to job-related problems,
“helpful to me in getting my job done.”
(Landsman, 2000, 2001)
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
10

Definitions
 Organizational Culture
▪ A “deep” construct in organizational theory.
▪ Culture is composed of the assumptions, beliefs, values and
behavioral norms shared in organizations.
▪ The shared nature of these elements is very important to culture
as a concept.
▪ Shared behavioral expectations are the most “visible” indicators
of organizational culture
▪ At least two types of cultures:
▪ Constructive
▪ Passive Defensive
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
11

Definitions
 Organizational Culture
▪ Constructive
▪ The fulfillment of higher order satisfaction needs; i.e., self actualization,
achievement, the motivation to excel, and a humanistic orientation
marked by supportive behaviors and positive interpersonal interactions
 Proficiency = Responsiveness to clients and Competence in fulfilling
responsibilities.
▪ Passive defensive
▪ Related to lower order security and protection needs; i.e., the approval
of others (esp. authorities), conformity with conventional operations
(rule-following), high levels of dependency, evasion of responsibility,
blame and accountability
 Resistance = Apathy-social workers & case managers show little interest in
change. Suppression- change efforts, including new ways of providing services,
are suppressed by workers.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
12

Projected Retention – Two Outcome Variables
▪ In this study the focus was on retention as a desirable
outcome & the opposite of turnover
▪ Intent to stay as proxy for retention
• 1) Retention=in Public Child Welfare Services Agencies
• Intent to stay in the agency
• 2) Retention=in the Field of Child Welfare Services
• Intent to stay in the field
• CWS encompasses more than PCWS. Those who leave PCWS agencies
often go to other types of organizations in the Field of CWS.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
13
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
14

Study Design
 Cross-sectional survey research design
 Sampling
▪ Convenience sample
 Data gathered in eleven Central California PCWS Agencies
▪ Number of individuals: n=767
▪ Number of groups: n=34
▪ Number of agencies: n=11
▪ Response rate: 69%
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
15

Sample by Title in Agency
16.60%
1.20%
2%
3.10%
0.50%
Social Workers
Supervisors
AAs
Nurses
HSAs
Other
76.70%
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
16

Comparison: Retention in the Agency by Title
 Projected retention
▪ Current employing PCWS Agency
▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
17
RETENTION: AGENCY
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
2.9
2.8
SUPERVISORS
SWs & CMs
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
OTHERS
18

Comparison: Retention in the Field of CWS by
Title
 Projected retention
▪ Field of Child Welfare Services
▪ By title or position in the currently employing PCWS agency
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
19
RETENTION: CWS-FIELD
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
SUPERVISORS
SWs & CMs
OTHERS
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
20

Comparison: Retention in the Agency & the
Field by Education
 Projected retention
▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency & Field of Child
Welfare Services
▪ By highest educational level (degree) attained
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
21
Social Work Education: BSWs & MSWs vs. All Others
3.4
3.35
3.3
Intent to Stay
3.25
3.2
3.15
Others
3.1
BSWs / MSWs
3.05
3
2.95
2.9
1
2
DavidAgency
Chenot PhD, California
State University Fullerton
Field-CWS
22

Comparison: Retention in the Agency
 Projected retention
▪ Public Child Welfare Services Agency
▪ By years in the agency
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
23
4
Years in the Agency & Retention-Agency
Intent to Stay-Agency
3.5
3
2.5
2
<1 Year
2-3 Years
4-5 Years
6-10 Years
11-15 Years
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
16-19 Years
>20 Years
24
Characteristics
Total
Early Career
(1 Day – 3 Years)
n
( %)
Mid Career
(4 Years - 10 Years)
n
( %)
Late Career
(> 11 Years)
n
( %)
767 (100)
261 (34.0)
323 (42.2)
181 (22.6)
SWs/CMs
587 (76.6)
229 (87.8)
246 (76.2)
111 (61.9)
Supervisors
128 (16.7)
7 (2.7)
57 (17.6)
64 (35.4)
52 (7.0)
25 (9.5)
21 (6.2)
6 (3.4)
High school
19 (2.5)
9 (3.4)
7 (2.2)
3 (1.7)
Community college
61 (8.0)
30 (11.5)
20 (6.2)
11 (6.2)
Bachelor’s degrees
372 (48.7)
135 (51.7)
161 (49.8)
75 (42.1)
Master’s degrees
308 (40.3)
87 (33.3)
132 (40.9)
88 (49.4)
Ph.D
Social Work Education
4 (0.5)
0 (0.0)
3 (0.9)
1 (0.6)
BSW
79 (10.4)
23 (8.8)
39 (12.1)
17 (9.7)
MSW
202 (26.7)
69 (26.5)
80 (24.9)
53 (30.3)
No social work
476 (62.9)
168 (64.6)
202 (62.9)
105 (60.0)
n
Samplea
( %)
Agency Title
Other titles
Education
education
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
25
 HLM analyses: Three models
▪ Unconditional model
▪ Variance across groups on outcome variables
▪ Conditional model-Predictors at level-1 only
▪ Individual level effects of predictors on outcome variables
▪ Cross-level interactions: Predictors at level 1 & level 2
▪ Cross-level effects of both the level 1 & level 2 predictors. Tests
effects of the level 2 predictors on the intercepts and on the
slopes
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
26

Retention-Agency
 Significant variance across groups (not shown)
Retention in
the Agency
Fixed Effects
Intercept
Model 2
Model 1
Model 3
Coef.
SE
T-ratio
Coef.
SE
T-ratio
Coef.
SE
3.19
0.08
39.11**
3.19
0.08
39.13**
3.20
0.07
42.84**
0.22
0.10
2.22*
0.21
0.10
2.22*
0.36
0.08
4.23**
0.36
0.08
4.32**
0.12
0.14
0.87
0.13
0.14
0.90
-0.56
0.11
-4.93**
-0.55
0.11
-5.00**
-0.21
0.10
-2.06*
-0.21
0.11
-1.96†
0.00
0.07
0.06
-0.20
0.07
-2.77*
Peer Support
Supervisor
Support
SWs/CMs
MSW
BSW
COC
T-ratio
PDOC
Note. †p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
27

Retention Agency
 Supervisor support & peer support predicted
retention in the agency but supervisor support
was strongest
▪ Both MSW & BSW negatively predicted remaining in the
agency but MSW was the strongest predictor in the
model
 Passive defensive organizational culture had a
negative effect on the level of retention in the
agency across groups
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
28
Retention in the Agency
3.53
Retention - Agency
3.36
3.18
3.00
2.83
-1.64
-0.76
0.11
0.98
1.85
Passive Defensive Organizational Culture
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
29

Retention-Field-CWS
 No significant variance across groups (not shown)
Retention in
the Field
Fixed Effects
Model 2
Model 1
Model 3
Coef.
SE
T-ratio
Coef.
SE
T-ratio
Coef.
SE
3.29
0.06
52.53**
3.29
0.06
52.86**
3.29
0.06
54.28**
0.09
0.10
0.92
0.09
0.10
0.95
Supervisor
Support
0.35
0.06
5.51**
0.34
0.06
5.48**
Social
Worker/CM
-0.09
0.12
-0.72
-0.09
0.12
-0.76
-0.33
0.09
-3.45**
-0.33
0.10
-3.47**
-0.38
0.20
-1.91†
-0.38
0.20
-1.91†
-0.07
0.05
-1.24
-0.10
0.06
-1.75†
Intercept
Peer Support
MSW
BSW
COC
PDC
T-ratio
Note. †p<0.10 *p<0.05. **p<0.01
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
30

Retention Field-CWS
 Supervisor support predicted retention in the field
but peer support did not
▪ Having earned an MSW negatively predicted remaining
in the field but having a BSW did not
 Neither type of organizational culture had a
significant effect on the level of retention in the
field across groups
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
31

Mid Career
 Supervisor support significantly predicted
retention in the agency & the field
 Peer support did not either
 Passive defensive organizational culture did not
predict retention
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
32

Late career
 Supervisor support significantly predicted
retention in the agency but not in the field
 Peer support did not predict either
 Passive defensive organizational culture did not
predict retention
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
33

Results
 Supervisor support predicted retention in PCWS agencies




at every career level but was strongest in early and mid
career
Peer support predicted retention in PCWS agencies only
among those early in their careers
Supervisor support was a significant predictor of retention
in the Field-CWS and in early and mid career only.
Peer support did not predict retention in the field in any
career group
Retention in the agency was negatively affected by
passive defensive organizational cultures. This influence
emerged only among those early in their careers
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
34

The Role of Supervisor Support in Retention and
Professional Development
 The influence of PCWS agency supervisors is strong enough to
affect longevity and possibly career decisions in PCWS
agencies. That influence extends to Child Welfare Services as a
field of practice among those early in their careers.
▪ Supervisors appear to play a pivotal role in the professional
development of PCWS social workers.
 In early career, peers impact PCWS social workers but the
influence of supervisors is stronger and more pervasive.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
35

Supervisor Support
 PCWS supervisors have a great deal of influence over the
working lives of social workers
▪ This appears to be particularly true for new social workers but
lasts throughout their careers.
▪ There appears to be an acculturation or socialization process for
new social workers in PCWS agencies and CWS as a field of practice.
PCWS supervisors and peers are the prime movers in that process.
▪ Supervisors in particular help new PCWS social workers learn both
about their agencies and the Field of CWS.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
36

Supervisor Support
▪ How can supervisors support their workers ? They must
feel supported by the agency administration
▪ When supervisors were analyzed alone their ratings of
“supervisor support” (administrators) were significant for both
retention in the agency (.35, p<.01) and retention in the FieldCWS (.31, p<.01).
 Administrators must attend to the needs of supervisors and
support their supervisors if a stable, committed workforce is a
goal for the agency.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
37

The Influence of the Organizational Context
 Passive defensive organizational culture
▪ Those early in careers that were in groups that rated their
agencies’ cultures as passive defensive in nature were less
likely to project that they would remain in their agencies.
▪ However, this was only the case among those early in their careers.
▪ There may be an unhealthy acculturation process that takes
place during PCWS careers.
▪ Workers appear to become desensitized to the passive defensive
nature of their agency cultures when they progress into mid and late
career. (i.e., avoidance of responsibility, accountability, and blame;
apathy & resistance to change).
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
38

The Cultures of our Agencies May be Driving
Out New Social Workers
 When social workers elect to stay, what do the
passive defensive aspects of the cultures do to
them?
 Do they encourage competent practice?
 Changes should focus on promoting creativity,
autonomous decision making, participatory
decision making, etc.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
39

Second study
 Masters of Social Work only
 202 participants with MSW degrees
▪ With Title IV-E funding during their master’s education:
n=155.
▪ Without Title IV-E funding during their master’s
education: n=47.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
40
1.
Will PCWS social workers with Title IV-E
training (while in MSW Programs) be more
likely to remain in PCWS organizations and in
the Field of CWS than those without
Title IV-E training (while they were in MSW
Programs)?
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
41

Independent variables
 Years in the agency/field
 Racial/ethnic background
 Job position (supervisors,
social workers)
 Service orientation
 Supervisor support
 Peer support

 Organizational climate
▪ Engaging organizational climate
▪ Stressful organizational climate
 Job satisfaction
 Organizational commitment
 Commitment to the Field of
CWS
 Title IV-E
Outcome variables
 Intent to stay=PCWS
Agency
 Intent to stay=Field of CWS
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
42

Service orientation
 Belief that social work practice in CWS is valuable to society.

Supervisor Support
 Belief that the immediate supervisor provides instrumental
(knowledge/skill) and affective (emotional) support.

Peer Support
 Perceived assistance and understanding received from
coworkers particularly in the immediate workgroup.

Organizational Climate
 Employees’ perceptions of the effects their work environments
have on them:
▪ a sense of well-being or lack of well-being within the agency, etc.
▪ the impact employees have on the services they provide.
▪ Two types:
▪ Engaging: composed of personal accomplishment and ‘personalization.’
▪ Stressful: composed of emotional exhaustion, role conflict and role overload.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
43
▪ Job Satisfaction
▪ Cognitive appraisal of work experiences and affective states
connected to those appraisals.
▪ Commitment to the Organization
▪ Identification and involvement with the organization.
▪ Commitment to the Field of Child Welfare Services
▪ Identification and involvement with the field of CWS.
▪ Retention
▪ Intent to stay has been the strongest predictor of retention in
many cross-sectional studies historically
▪ Intent to stay was the proxy for retention in this study
 Intent to stay in the PCWS agency
 Intent to stay in the field of CWS
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
44
4
3.6
3.3
3.5
3
3
2.7
2.9
3
2.5
Title IV-E
2
No Title IV-E
1.5
1
0.5
0
Less than 4
4-10 years
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
more than 10
years
45
3.8
4
3.5
3
3.4
3
2.9
3.6
3.1
2.5
Title IV-E
2
No Title IV-E
1.5
1
0.5
0
Less than 4
4-10 years
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
more than 10
years
46
Hierarchical Regression: Standardized coefficients
Intent to stay in the agency
Predictors
Years in the field
Years in the agency
Asian
Black
Hispanic
White
Supervisor position
Service orientation
Supervisor support
Peer support
Engagement org. climate
Stressful org. climate
Organizational commitment
Commitment to the field
Job satisfaction
Title IV-E during MSW
Model Summary
R2 change
F change
Note. * p < 0.05
Intent to stay in the field
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
0.03
0.19
0.06
-0.19
-0.06
-0.13
0.04
0.14
0.26*
0.02
0.04
-0.31*
0.15
0.07
0.01
-0.15
-0.05
-0.06
-0.04
-0.08
0.06
0.03
0.00
-0.10
0.42*
0.06
0.24*
0.13
0.05
-0.01
-0.16
-0.04
-0.09
-0.02
-0.07
0.08
0.03
-0.00
-0.10
0.41*
0.07
0.23*
-0.13*
0.18
0.02
0.07
-0.16
-0.07
0.03
0.04
0.15*
0.15*
-0.01
0.10
-0.25*
0.11
0.06
0.03
-0.14
-0.06
0.05
-0.00
-0.06
0.02
0.01
-0.03
-0.10
0.05
0.56*
0.17*
0.10
0.05
0.01
-0.14
-0.06
0.04
0.14
-0.05
0.03
0.00
-0.03
-0.10
0.04
0.56*
0.16*
-0.09
0.30
6.66*
0.20
24.47*
0.01
5.07*
0.24
4.98*
0.29
38.67*
0.01
2.41
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
47




Dissimilarity concerning tenure on the job or in the
field between Title IV-E and Non Title IV-E
participants made no difference in the regression
analysis.
Similarly, ethnic differences in the sample did not
play a significant role in the regression analysis.
Unexpected findings: Title IV-E participants were less
likely to remain in their agencies than their
counterparts.
Unexpected findings: Title IV-E was not associated
with participants’ intention to stay in the field (no
positive impact by Title IV-E).
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
48

Organizational commitment and job satisfaction are the most consistent
predictors of retention in PCWS Agencies (Landsman, 2001, etc.).

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as engaging
were not significant predictors in these models.

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as stressful
had negative direct effects on job satisfaction and/or commitment.
Supervisor support had positive effects on retention in agencies and the
field.
Service orientation had a positive effect on retention in the Field of CWS.


 Further exploration requires analyses to better understand the paths of
the effects and potential indirect effects indicated in these models.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
49


Exploratory analysis
Research question: What factors lead to lower retention
in PCWS agencies among those with Title IV-E training
than Non-Title IV-E MSWs (in this sample)?
▪ Sample = Title IV-E participants only (n=155)
▪ Outcome variables: retention in the agency only
▪ Model includes many of the same predictors used in
previous models

Path analysis with SEM
 Resultsh
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
50
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
51

Title IV-E participants only:

Supervisor support had positive indirect effects on retention in PCWS
agencies through job satisfaction and commitment.

Perceptions of the organizational climates of these agencies as
stressful had negative indirect effects on retention in PCWS agencies
through job satisfaction and commitment.

Service orientation had a strong positive indirect effect on retention in
PCWS agencies, through job satisfaction.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
52

Implications
 Unexpected findings: we expected quite the opposite
in this comparison of MSWs with & without Title IV-E
training concerning retention in PCWS Agencies.
▪ Are those who received specialized Title IV-E education in
their MSW Programs more susceptible to these stressful
climates than MSWs who did not participate in Title IV-E
Programs (in this sample)?
▪ Perhaps they become disillusioned more easily since their goal during
graduate school was to make a difference in the lives of children and
families in the child welfare system. Upon graduation they encounter
a stressful system that makes it difficult to realize their dream. This
would be consistent with a high sense of service orientation.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
53

Implications
 Title IV-E specific MSW education, supervisor
support and service orientation
▪ Supervisor support has been a very important factor for
retention/turnover in many studies (Chenot, Benton, & Kim,
2009; Mor Barak, Travis, Pyun, & Xie, 2009)
▪ It could be that service orientation is enhanced through
Title IV-E education
▪ However, service orientation appears to be
counteracted or overwhelmed by stressful climates
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
54

Implications
 Title IV-E specific MSW education and organizational
climate.
▪ No matter how specialized the Title IV-E education is that
MSWs receive during their graduate programs; once they
experience the stressful climates in PCWS agencies for a few
years, it appears to have a deleterious effect on retention.
▪ Stressful climates combined with certain types of
organizational cultures appear to form a toxic combination
for public child welfare social workers (Chenot, Benton, Kim,
2009).
▪ Social workers appear to become acculturated to the nature of the
cultures they practice within and many have lowered job satisfaction
and decreased commitment to their organizations due to the
prevailing stressful climates in their organizations.
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
55

Implications
▪ Why do those who received specialized Title IV-E
education in their MSW Programs appear to be more
susceptible to these stressful climates than MSWs who
did not participate in Title IV-E Programs (in this
sample)?
▪ One possibility:
▪ Realistic job preview. Perhaps the job preview Title IV-E students
engage in is too realistic (ie., PCWS field placements during MSW
education). There is some evidence, in other fields, that job
previews which include too many negative experiences are
counterproductive (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 1997; Wanous,
1992).
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
56

Implications
 Another possibility:
▪ Expectations: perhaps our expectations of the Title IV-E
program are too lofty.
▪ Retention expectations of those with Title IV-E training in their
MSW Programs may need to be tempered.
 Expectations: Perhaps retention needs to be reconceptualized
 Is staying two years “good enough” for the PCWS workforce in
an environment with multiple opportunities for MSWs external
to PCWS? (Clark)
 It will not build a stable workforce but provides educated MSWlevel social workers temporarily.
▪ For Title IV-E students who graduate and go on to work in PCWS;
what is a “good enough” retention rate?
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
57

Thank you
 David Chenot Ph.D, MDiv., LCSW
▪ dchenot@fullerton.edu
David Chenot PhD, California State University Fullerton
58