DHHS_ChildWelfareEdCollab_Review_2012

Fiscal Research Division
Justification Review
Executive Summary
During the winter of 2012, the Fiscal Research Division (FRD) conducted a justification review of the NC
Child Welfare Education Collaborative. Based on this review, FRD finds that the Collaborative is meeting
its objectives. However, the program has not been able to impact the State’s child welfare turnover rate.
Nonetheless, the program appears to be fiscally sound with respect to its ability to draw upon multiple
funding streams. Moreover, in the wake of funding cuts, the program has demonstrated an ability to
restructure itself and maintain its production levels. Therefore, alternative (decreased) funding levels
would only serve to hamper the program’s ability to produce degreed child welfare social workers.
One of the goals of justification reviews is to identify policy issues that should be addressed. The Child
Welfare Collaborative is part of a larger set of policies aimed at stabilizing the State’s child welfare
workforce. For the State to realize that goal, there is a need to reassess the Collaborative’s objectives and
to examine how it can be restructured to better accomplish its mission. Accomplishing those tasks would
require the General Assembly to address several policy issues including aligning the Collaborative with
broader initiatives, and providing direction to the state Division of Social Services regarding a
restructuring of the state’s social worker training infrastructure.
In light of these findings, the following recommendations are offered:
1. Re-prioritize the goals of the Child Welfare Collaborative to more consistent with the scope
of the problem.
2. Link the Child Welfare Education Collaborative to a broader workforce stabilization effort
that includes the Office of State Personnel and other stakeholders.
3. Examine how the Child Welfare Collaborative can be restructured to encompass a broader
scope that includes training and incentives for non-social workers employed in child
welfare.
4. Examine how the pre-service training program can be restructured to better accommodate
the needs of County Social Services offices.
Health and Human Services
May 25, 2012
The Child Welfare Collaborative Should Be Linked To a Broader
Child Welfare Workforce Initiative

Justification Review 2 May 25, 2012
Scope and Methodology
This review of the Child Welfare Education
Collaborative is one of four “justification reviews”
of State government programs required by S.L.
2011-145, Sec. 6.6. The Fiscal Research Division’s
(FRD) objectives for each justification
review are to:
 Provide a description of each program;
 Identify major policy issues that the General
Assembly should address;
 Explore means to achieve program
objectives more efficiently;
 Characterize the likely results of alternative
funding levels and opportunities to save
taxpayer dollars; and
 Identify performance measures that have
been established by the agency and the
usefulness of those measures as well as the
agency’s progress toward meeting their
established measures.
The findings of this review are based on
information obtained through a variety of sources
and data collection methods. Staff conducted a
rigorous review of relevant fiscal data, program
outcomes data, and reports produced by the
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Interviews were conducted with numerous key
stakeholders including agency representatives from
the Department of Social Services, the
Collaborative program director, county Social
Services agencies, and student scholarship
recipients. In addition, staff visited post-secondary
educational institutions around the state. These
institutions included UNC-Chapel Hill, UNC-
Charlotte, Fayetteville State University, and NC
State University.
Background and Mission
The Child Welfare Education Collaborative
(CWEC) was established in 1999. The program’s
purpose is to alleviate a staffing shortage in North
Carolina social services agencies. In North
Carolina, county departments of social services are
responsible for child welfare services which include
the delivery of child protective services and foster
care services. County child welfare staff investigate
child abuse and neglect, as well as find foster care
and adoption placements for children in need. Like
other states, North Carolina has high employee
turnover rates in child welfare service agencies.
Historically, North Carolina’s annual turnover rate
ranges between 32% and 44% statewide.1
The
turnover rate is determined by calculating the
number of employees leaving, divided by the
average total number of employees. Essentially, it is
a measure of how long employees tend to stay with
an employer. North Carolina’s high rate is due to a
number of factors including the stressful nature of
child welfare work and the challenge of finding
highly qualified social workers willing to work in
child welfare services.2
The Collaborative was
established by S.L. 1999-237. The program was part
of a broader set of provisions that included an
increase in the training standards for child welfare
employees, and an increase in the number of child
welfare workers across the state (S.L. 2009-451).
The CWEC is an educational incentive program.
Funding is provided to encourage college students
to pursue a career in public child welfare services.
The program is aimed at increasing the number of
qualified child welfare workers. For example, at
NC State University (NCSU), the funding provides
support for 7 students; however, the overwhelming
majority of the 196 Social Work students at NCSU
have chosen not to pursue child welfare as a
specialty area. Components of the program include:
1) use of financial incentives to encourage students
to pursue work in child welfare agencies, 2) a
requirement that students serve a year in public
child welfare for each year of funding received, and
3) inclusion of the state mandated child welfare pre-
service training in university curriculum (among
other curriculum enhancements).
The pre-service training program is an important
aspect of the Collaborative and North Carolina’s
overall child welfare preparation and delivery
system. In 1998, the State mandated that all child
welfare workers complete a pre-service training

Table 1 Funding
program designed to strengthen the knowledge and
skills of child welfare workers (S.L. 1997-443).
The 72 hour training program is administered by the
State and includes education on legal/state policies,
child development, cultural competency, and child
and family team dynamics.3
North Carolina is not the only state that requires this
pre-service training. Most states have similar
requirements for child welfare workers. However,
an unintended impact of the initiative was the
creation of a barrier for social work students, and
increasing the new employee training costs to
counties.4
The Division of Social Services estimates
that counties spend between $5,000 and $10,000 for
each new employee hired.5
These costs include paid
training time as well as travel and lodging
expenses.6
The Collaborative was designed [in part] to
alleviate these problems by including the pre-
service training in the university curriculum for new
child welfare graduates. In addition, the
Collaborative program included a range of
curriculum enhancements aimed at creating a
workforce capable of handling the unique demands
of child welfare work. The programs stated goals
are:
 Improve the knowledge and skills of child
welfare graduates through curriculum
expansion and enhancement
 To develop strategies, in conjunction with
local and state agencies, that address the
challenges of recruitment and retention
 Utilize research to foster excellence in
public child welfare services
 Design and implement a statewide program
that increases the number of professional
social work graduates committed to public
child welfare work
The program is housed at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. The University’s Jordan
Institute for Families, the NC Division of Social
Services, and the NC Association of County
Directors of Social Services jointly collaborated in
the creation of the program. Program
administration is handled by the Jordan Institute
which acts as financial agent and coordinates
activities for all universities in the Collaborative.
The most recent contract for the Jordan Institute
includes $367,562 in administrative costs for these
activities (28% of the total contract). The Institute
has 65 clinical and research faculty members and
received more than $12 million in grant funding
from other sources for the year ending 2011.7
The program began as a three school initiative that
has since broadened to include 11 schools across the
state.
 Appalachian State University
 East Carolina University
 NC State University
 UNC Pembroke
 UNC Wilmington
 Western Carolina University
 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
 Fayetteville State University
 NC A&T State University & UNC
Greensboro
 UNC Charlotte
FISCAL
YEAR
GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATION
FEDERAL
FUNDING
TOTAL
FUNDING*
1999-00** $750,000 No data NA
2000-01** No specific data No specific data $2,527,205
2001-02 $296,006 $1,700,000 $2,385,738
2002-03 $261,106 $1,900,000 $2,337,884
2003-04 $261,106 $1,900,000 $2,337,884
2004-05 $452,830 $2,200,200 $2,991,805
2005-06 $271,864 $2,300,000 $3,103,474
2006-07 $272,965 $2,300,000 $3,185,594
2007-08 $261,028 $2,700,000 $3,559,210
2008-09 $217,186 $1,900,000 $2,616,697
2009-10 $232,187 $1,700,000 $2,291,209
2010-11 $196,854 $1,100,000 $1,563,580
Source: NC Division of Social Services
*Total includes provider match funds from UNC System.
**Verifiable data unavailable prior to 2002. 2001 funding was part of a larger
provision for child welfare training. 2000 federal funding allocation unknown.

Table 2
Since the beginning, program administrators have
promoted the use of proven research based
strategies in the program’s overall design. A review
of the research literature by FRD shows that many
of the program features mirror promising practices
found in programs of this type.8
Notable features
include: a focus on graduate level training and
including slots for existing child welfare
professionals.
The program receives federal and state funding.
For fiscal year 2011-12, federal funding comprises
87% and State General Funds make up 12% of
funding. Federal funds include a combination of
grant funds and funding targeted specifically for
child welfare service (Title IV funding). Included in
the federal grant funding for the Collaborative are
two grant programs that are appropriated by the
General Assembly - TANF Grant funding
(Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) which
comprise up to 48% of total funding for FY 2011-
12, and the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
which makes up 3% for 2011-12.
Funding By Source
Between 2005 and 2008, the program averaged $3.2
million dollars annually in funding from all sources.
Beginning in 2009, the program has experienced
successive cuts in its funding. For the current fiscal
year, the current allocation of $1.5 million represent
a 50% reduction in funding from the program’s
average funding during the 2005 to 2009 time frame
and a 40% reduction from its 2001 allocation.
Figure 1
Funding by Source
Source: NC DSS Financial Data Reports
Table 2 shows a comparison of funding across all funding sources for years FY2002-03 and 2011-12
(FY2002-03 is the first year for which detailed info is available). For all years, TANF has consistently been
the main source of funding for the Collaborative. Other sources include Title IV funds (federal child welfare
funding), SSBG (Social Services Block Grant), and provider match funds (UNC System funding).
Program Performance
One objective of a justification reviews is to examine the performance measures of a program, their
usefulness, and the agency’s progress toward meeting those measures. Consistent with the goals of the
SOURCE AMOUNT PERCENT SOURCE AMOUNT PERCENT
State $397,623 16.67% State $196,854 12.59%
Medicaid $47,714 2.00% Medicaid $2,971 0.19%
IV-E Admin $270,385 11.33% IV-E FC Admin $226,641 14.50%
SSBG $47,714 2.00% SSBG $47,611 3.04%
TANF $1,288,299 54.00% TANF $754,115 48.23%
IV-B1 $47,714 2.00% IV-B1 $40,106 2.57%
ILP $23,858 1.00% IV-E Adopt Admin $18,216 1.17%
Provider Match Funds $262,431 11.00% Provider Match Funds $277,066 17.72%
$2,385,738 $1,563,580
2002-03 2011-12
FUNDING COMPARISON
Source: NC DSS Financial Data

41
52
50
70
53
55
71
62
60
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
program, the section below will focus on three key
measures: the retention rate, the number of program
graduates, and the geographic dispersion of
graduates.
Since its inception, the program has graduated 793
students.9
Initial projections for the program were
for an annual production of 100 program graduates
annually. However, the program averages 61
graduates per year. These students are selected for
the program through a process that includes an
interview panel and a written questionnaire. Upon
being selected as a Child Welfare Scholar, students
sign an annual contract that obligates them to a year
of service in a public child welfare position for
every year of funding they receive. The average
student receives two years of funding at an annual
cost of $12,000 for Bachelors level students and
$16,000 for Masters level students (plus allowances
for books and travel). Most students are funded for
two years (42% for 2 years, 40% for 1 year).10
Figure 2
Student Placements in DSS Agencies
School Years 2001 - 2010
By the 2008-2009 year, the program was expanded
to seven additional schools from its original three
schools. The program’s expansion was intended to
broaden the reach of the program and to increase
the number of counties served. Although the
program is still housed at all 10 institutions, these
program offerings have been scaled back
significantly as a result of funding cuts. Because of
decreased funding, the program has been
restructured resulting in the elimination of
positions. Program support personnel housed at the
network of universities were eliminated. However,
to implement the Collaborative at their respective
institutions, universities receive a contracted
amount for providing personnel, facilities, and for
general administration (total contract amount
(Approximately $552,000 for year 2010-2011).
Despite the reductions, Universities report that they
are fully committed to the program and have been
supplying significant in-kind contributions to
continue program operations.
In addition to the Collaborative stipend program,
the program has produced a Recruitment and
Retention tool kit for local DSS agencies (at no cost
to counties). This tool was designed to address the
organizational factors that contribute to employee
turnover in child welfare. These factors include:
inadequate supervisory training, employee
orientations, and hiring processes.11
While there are
no statistics available on the adoption rate of these
tools, anecdotal evidence suggests that counties can
significantly decrease their turnover rate through
adoption of the prescribed strategies. For example,
Nash County reported to FRD their experience with
the tool was positive. They possess one of the
lowest turnover rates in the state and they attribute
it to the Retention and Recruitment tool supplied by
the Collaborative.
Retention Statistics
After 3 years, 86% of Collaborative graduates
remain in the employment of North Carolina’s
public agencies.12
More importantly, their retention
rate is much higher than non-collaborative
graduates. That is, Collaborative graduates stay
longer than the average employee who enters child
welfare. The average employment term for typical
child welfare employees is 2 years.13
A program evaluation produced by the Jordan
Institute demonstrates that 90% of program
Source: UNC Jordan Institute
NumberofPlacements

Justification Review 6 February 27, 2013
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
12
months
18
months
24
months
36
months
236
50
251
52
NumberofGraduates
participants complete their program and serve their
required commitment.14
Comparatively, the
average tenure for Collaborative graduates is also
higher than similar programs housed in other states.
Looking at a similar program in California, 95% of
North Carolina’s graduates remain employed after
their commitment compared to 78% of California’s
(6 months to 1 year after commitment ended).15
Regarding the quality of the programming and the
quality of collaborative graduates, county Directors
of Social Services report high satisfaction levels
with the performance of program graduates. In
Wake and Nash counties, the program has become
the preferred source for newly hired child welfare
social workers.16
Geography
The program has placed students in 74 of the states’
100 counties.17
Largely, the graduates have been
employed in urban or urban-adjacent counties.
Other factors that influence where graduates are
employed include: a county’s proximity to a
university, county capacity to supervise interns, and
Figure 3
TENURE OF COLLABORATIVE
GRADUATES
student choice in assignment. The expansion of the
program to counties like Robeson (UNC
Pembroke), Jackson County (Western Carolina
University), and Cumberland County (Fayetteville
State) was intended to broaden the reach of the
program consistent with program objectives. The
rural counties bordering these schools have a high
placement rate for Collaborative graduates as
compared to other rural counties.
Findings
Finding 1: Generally, the collaborative has been
successful, however, the largest impact has been on
urban counties.
Overall, the state has benefitted from the
Collaborative program. Prior to the program, most
universities did not offer child welfare as a regular
course because of a lack of student interest.
Although we have not calculated the cost savings
associated with this program, we can estimate cost
savings for the State of North Carolina. Research
has demonstrated more positive outcomes for youth
when highly trained child welfare workers are
employed versus those who are not.18
However, rural counties have not been able to
benefit from the program to the same extent as
urban. Only 12% of Collaborative graduates have
gone on to employment in non-urban, non-urban
adjacent, or University proximate communities
(counties with a nearby University presence).19
Given that 30% of the state population is rural, this
deserves greater scrutiny.
Rural counties are at a distinct disadvantage due to
a number of factors including:
 Diminished capacity to supervise
Collaborative graduates due to the need for a
Master’s level program supervisor. Many
rural counties don’t possess a sufficient
number of Master’s level supervisors so they
cannot take advantage of the program.
Source: UNC Jordan Institute

 Students are less likely to choose a rural
county as a destination after graduation.
 A student’s ability to participate in an
internship is partially dependent upon the
county’s proximity to a University.
 Rural counties are at a pay disadvantage as
compared to urban counties. New graduates
can earn as much $8,000 to $10,000 more in
an urban county (average annual salary
statewide is $33,924; salary ranges from
$27,000 to $47,500).20
Finding 2: Pre-service training structure is
ineffective at meeting the needs of county DSS
agencies.
It is necessary to examine the collaborative program
alongside the pre-service training program. For
some counties in urban areas, and for select rural
counties, collaborative program graduates have
become the preferred pool from which to hire new
employees. These employees receive the training as
part of their university training. In other counties,
the pre-service training program administered by
the Division of Social Services still serves as the
primary avenue. This poses a challenge for the
majority of counties that still remain reliant on the
Division training for which counties incur training
costs for new employee travel and accommodations.
The training is held at regular intervals, however, it
is held less frequently in rural areas. Primarily, the
training is held at one of four regional training
centers located in Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro,
and Fayetteville. Even for urban counties, the pre-
service training poses a challenge. All counties face
the challenge of aligning hiring with the training
schedule so as to maintain their ability to adequately
staff child protective services teams. Also,
expending funds for sending a new staff member for
training is still a challenge faced by all county DSS
offices. As mentioned above, pre-service training
can cost counties between $5,000 and $10,000 per
employee. DSS Directors indicated that the training
quality has improved significantly in recent years.
Yet, they voice a need for training that is more
responsive and accommodating.
Finding 3: Collaborative graduates have longer
tenure than non-Collaborative graduates. However,
the Collaborative has not been able to impact the
statewide retention rate for child welfare workers.
According to the US Government Accountability
Office yearly child welfare staff turnover is
estimated to be between 30 percent and 40 percent
nationwide.21
North Carolina’s rate has historically
averaged around 30%.22
The average tenure for
child welfare workers is less than 2 years.
Collaborate graduates have tended to stay well
beyond their commitments (most graduates have a
2-year commitment). At the 4-year mark, 74% of
graduates remain employed.23
One of the underlying motivations for the programs
creation was its projected ability to impact the
statewide turnover rate. However, despite the longer
average tenure of Collaborative graduates, statewide
turnover has remained relatively stable.
A consistent theme in the interviews with
Collaborative students was their intent to remain in
child welfare for approximately 5 years. This is
consistent with the average number of years
workers remain on a job across all other
industries.24
The overwhelming majority intended
to move on to supervisory positions in child welfare
or to private practice as Licensed Clinical Social
Workers (it is worth noting that child welfare has
historically served as a training ground for other
social/human services areas).
Presently, the program produces an average of 57
new graduates annually. Initial projections were for
100 graduates.25
Program personnel indicate that
funding cuts have impacted the program’s ability to
increase their production of graduates. Nonetheless,
one hundred new graduates annually would
represent less than 5% of the 2300+ Child Welfare
employees in the state of North Carolina. This is
significantly less than the 614 child welfare
positions vacancies in 2010.26
Given that reality it

may be unreasonable to expect the Collaborative
program to produce the necessary numbers of
graduates to significantly impact the statewide rate.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Prioritize the goals of the Child
Welfare Collaborative.
The lack of an impact on the statewide retention
rate is likely due to a number of factors. Most
importantly, as it relates to North Carolina and the
Collaborative, there is a lack of correspondence
between program capacity and the actual problem.
Other factors include: 1) the constant churning in
the workforce, and 2) a lack of a career ladder
within child welfare work that would be an
inducement for workers to stay longer. Research
has pointed to these additional factors as being
critically important.
As mentioned above, the total number of program
graduates represents just a fraction of the total
number of vacancies that present in a given year.
So there is an inherent mismatch. With rural
counties having a limited absorption capacity, the
remaining counties become the primary source of
employment opportunities. Because the state is
heavily rural, this poses a significant challenge.
Therefore it is worth asking the question: Is the
goal of decreasing the turnover rate an achievable
goal?
Notwithstanding funding cuts, even at its highest
level of funding, the program’s production level has
remained constant. Program administrators have
opted to eliminate some of the instructional and
educational components as opposed to eliminating
funding for actual students. Still, it is questionable
whether counties are even in a position to benefit
from increased numbers of graduates. One of the
other goals of the Collaborative is to “develop
strategies, in conjunction with local and state
agencies that address the challenges of recruitment
and retention.” As mentioned above, Nash County
has experienced success with implementing the
strategies. It is reasonable to surmise that the state
can significantly impact its turnover rate if these
strategies are implemented statewide. However, the
challenge for the Collaborative is getting counties to
adopt the strategies. While this goal is necessary
and sufficient, it is not a goal the Collaborative can
accomplish alone. Consideration should be given to
how the Division of Social Services can provide
incentives to counties to adopt these strategies.
Recommendation 2: Link the Child Welfare
Education Collaborative to a broader effort that
includes the Office of State Personnel and other
stakeholders.
In a 2004 survey, the Office of State Personnel
found that seventy-three percent (73%) of child
welfare employees have less than 5 years of
experience.27
A significant number of those
employees were hired as trainees who need 3 years
of experience before being considered fully
qualified. Another finding from this survey showed
that employees cited a lack of a higher job
classification category as a reason for their
departure from public employment.28
Considering this, it is worthwhile to consider
whether the actual structure of our child welfare
agencies is conducive to retaining employees.
Some counties that tend to do well in retaining
workers have independently created career ladders
within their child welfare divisions. Their
employees are able to continue service in child
welfare but in different capacities. Catawba
County and Wilson County are two examples of
counties that have created opportunities for
employees to do specialized work in clinical child
welfare services delivery. This work follows more
of a treatment oriented model. Additionally, this
type of work specialization is potentially Medicaid
reimbursable which in turn creates more funding for
the agency to retain and recruit talented workers.
This does not increase the numbers of individuals
served by Medicaid; it merely changes the treatment
agency from a private provider to the licensed
county child welfare social worker.

A consistent theme in the interviews with students
and employees was a desire to utilize the clinical
skills many garner through their licensure process.
A similar theme centered on the desire for work
flexibility and variation. One of the impediments to
this strategy is the State Personnel Act and the
classification system that hampers the ability of
county DSS agencies to create more differentiated
job classification schemes. In 2004, the Office of
State Personnel created a new classification: Social
Worker- Investigative/Assessment and Treatment.
While this new position is of benefit to counties, its
benefits are limited. A newly hired Masters level
social worker would likely be hired as a Social
Worker III. This new classification provides only
one career step for a Social Worker III [before
supervisory positions]. So in essence, we are still
lacking a true career ladder in child welfare.
Notwithstanding this limitation, this classification
scheme has allowed counties like Catawba and
Wilson (mentioned above) to create differentiated
work system. However, it does not appear that
counties are generally aware of these strategies and
as a result have not employed them widely across
the state. The General Assembly could commission
a study on the feasibility of creating a career ladder
within child welfare. It would be necessary to
involve the office of State Personnel, county DSS
offices, the state Division of Social Services, and
the Jordan Institute.
Recommendation 3: NC DSS should examine how
the Child Welfare Collaborative can be restructured
to encompass a broader scope that includes training
and incentives for non-social workers employed in
child welfare.
Because, the majority of the current child welfare
workforce did not come through the Collaborative
program, it is incumbent upon the state to focus
attention on retaining the existing workforce. An
existing workforce retaining strategy that has
showed promise is loan repayment programs. Prior
to the establishment of the Collaborative, the
General Assembly funded a loan repayment
program for child welfare social workers (S.L.
1993-769). That program served as the foundation
for the current Collaborative program. This
program would ideally be targeted toward those
new employees (non-Collaborative) hired into child
welfare (in exchange for a commitment of service).
Because of the difficulty in recruiting workers to
rural areas, it may be necessary to examine the
feasibility of prioritizing work in rural counties.
Federal programs provide incentives to health care
professionals who choose employment in rural
areas. Similarly, the Teach for America program
provides incentives for teachers who commit to
serve in designated areas. This could be
accomplished through higher stipend rates for those
who pledge to work in a rural county. In a 2007
published report, the Collaborative identified this as
an objective and has indicated that this is
worthwhile endeavor.29
Regarding the quality of the workforce, it may be
necessary to enhance the skill sets of the current
workforce through targeted training and skills
development. Nearly one-half of the child welfare
workers in the state have degrees in disciplines
other than social work. Research demonstrates
higher service quality and improved outcomes for
children and their families served by social workers
as compared to other degree holding professionals
(psychology, sociology, etc.). However, while
increasing the number of degreed social workers is
a laudable goal, attention must be paid to shoring up
the skills of our existing non-social worker
personnel. With half of the workforce being non-
social workers, NC needs to determine if the current
required training is adequate. That is, does it
sufficiently equip employees with the skills to be
successful and thereby improve their willingness to
remain in the public system? Other states require
significantly higher numbers of hours of pre-service
training prior to securing a full caseload (whereas
North Carolina requires only 72).

Recommendation 4: Examine how the pre-service
training program can be restructured to better
accommodate the needs of county DSS offices.
North Carolina mandates pre-service training for all
child welfare workers. This training provides some
foundational tools for employees who are new to
the states’ child welfare services system. Most
states require a similar training. Training in other
states is significantly longer than North Carolina’s.
For example, the state of Michigan requires 270
hours compared to North Carolina’s 72 hour
requirement.30
Whereas, Collaborative graduates already have this
training, sending new non-Collaborative employees
to the training poses a cost burden to county
departments of social services (estimated at $10,000
per employee). The North Carolina Criminal
Justice Education and Training Standards
Commission also has a pre-employment
requirement for law enforcement personnel.
Candidates for employment in Sherriff’s
departments are required to complete the Basic Law
Enforcement Training program held at community
colleges across the state. The structure of their
training diminishes or eliminates the costs to county
sheriff’s offices. After completing the training,
students are not guaranteed employment but the
training is a pre-requisite for employment
consideration. This model may be worth
consideration by the state as it seeks to deal with the
issue of recruiting qualified applicants (especially in
rural areas). This would involve collaboration with
the Community College system. Discussions with
DSS directors indicate that they are receptive to this
model. The major impediment to this model would
be the required “transfer of learning” training
module wherein trainees serve as job shadows in c
county DSS prior to completing their training.
However, there is nothing to preclude the adoption
of a program similar to the police ride along
program wherein citizens witness first hand actual
law enforcement activities. While care would need
to be taken to ensure confidentiality of children and
families, it would be possible to expose non-
employed trainees to certain aspects of child
welfare. It is also worth noting that the Division of
Social Services has made accommodation in the
past by substituting the “transfer of learning”
component with video based instruction. Through
efforts like these, counties would not incur
significant labor and training costs associated with
the current hiring practices.
Of concern is whether this would create an
additional barrier to employment in an already high-
need area. Arguably, this could create another
avenue primarily for: social workers trained in other
states, non-social workers with degrees in other
disciplines who are seeking a hiring advantage, and
existing DSS staff members seeking to transition
into child welfare. Offering signing bonuses to
employees who have completed training prior to
being employed could serve as a further enticement.
Additionally, creating a certification program for
county employed trainers could be of benefit. The
effect of such a program would be the creation of a
statewide network of senior county DSS employees
who can serve as trainers for their own staff
members. This would decrease the wait time for
open classes, decrease travel costs, and thus
decrease the county expenditures for training new
child welfare workers. Lastly, combining these
strategies is potentially a low costs alternative that
could create a system that is more responsive to the
needs of county agencies.
Conclusion
The CWEC is accomplishing two of its three goals.
The CWEC has met the objective of increasing the
number of qualified child welfare social workers. It
has also brought research based resources to
counties for dealing with staff turnover and
retention. However there is no data to support that it
has reduced the state wide turnover rate.
While the program has expended significant funds
over the course of its 11 year existence, the Division

of Social Services has leveraged state funding well
(only 12% of funding coming from state
appropriations). The Collaborative’s ability to draw
down on multiple sources of federal funding is a
commendable model for post-secondary education
programming. Similar education support programs
funded by the state rely on significantly higher
general fund appropriations (for example: Teaching
Fellows $13.5million annually prior to budget
reduction).31
This review does not recommend alternative
funding levels for the program. Based on the
available evidence, it is unlikely the program could
survive intact by further reducing funding. While
the program could function, the reduced numbers of
students being produced would call into question
the logic of continuing the program. If the state is
willing to support the primary goal of increasing the
number of quality child welfare social workers, then
the Collaborative is a good option. However, it is
worth examining whether a re-alignment of funds
into alternative methods of training and retention
[of existing workers] can achieve reductions in the
statewide turnover rate.
While the Collaborative has found some success in
patching the pipeline and increasing worker quality,
there is a need for a fresh look at the overall
structure of child welfare training. The depth of the
problem it was designed to address necessitates a
systemic response. Because the scope of the
problem is so broad, it is advisable for the state to
begin the process of enhancing its training capacity,
re-examining the roles and responsibilities of its
stakeholders, and examining the priorities of the
current system to see if we can better serve rural
counties. To date, the response by the state has
been to utilize the resources of the university system
and the state Division of Social Services. But, there
is a need for a more systems level approach. The
recommendations laid out in this document take that
perspective.
For additional information, please contact:
Donnie Charleston
Fiscal Research Division
NC General Assembly
300 N. Salisbury St., Room 619
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-5925
(919) 733-4910
donnie.charleston@ncleg.net
1
2011 Data report from the NC Division of Social Services.
2
Child Welfare Crisis Compensation and Classification
Study. NC Office of State Personnel February. 2004 report:
3
Training Matters. An Overview of NC’s Child Welfare
Training System. Volume 10, Number 1. November 2008
4
FRD Interview with CWEC Principal Investigator, January
2012.
5
Initial pre-service training costs are estimated to be
approximately $5,000 whereas a county can expend
upwards of $10,000 for the entire range of courses required
in the first year of employment.
6
Report submission from NC Division of Social Services.
November 2012.
7
UNC School of Social Work http://ssw.unc.edu/about
8
Briar-Lawson, K. & Zlotnik, J. L. (Eds.). 2002. Evaluation
research in child welfare: Improving outcomes through
university-public agency partnerships.
9
Data report submission from the UNC Jordan Institute.
10
Ibid
11
Jordan Institute for Families. 2006. Staying Power! A
Director’s Guide to Child Welfare Retention.
12
Jordan Institute for Families. 2008. Where Are They
Now? NC Child Welfare Education Collaborative Post
Graduate Data.
13
United States General Accounting Office. 2003. Child
Welfare HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff.
14
Graduate Data.
15
Dickinson, N.; Perry, R. 2001.Factors Influencing the
Retention of Specially Educated Public Child Welfare
Workers. Journal of Health and Social Policy.
16
FRD interviews with Melvia K. Batts, Director Nash
County DSS and Lisa Cauley, Child Welfare Assistant
Division Director Wake County Human Services
17
2011 DSS – UNC Jordan Institute contract summary.
18
Fox, S.R., Miller, V.P. & Barbee, A.P. (2003). Finding
and keeping child welfare workers: Effective use of
training and professional development. Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2),
67-81.
19
Data report submitted by UNC Jordan Institute.
Employment (Detailed Grid) Grouped By County, Grad
Date, Obligation

20
21
United States General Accounting Office. 2003. Child
Welfare HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child
Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff.
22
2011 Data submission from the NC Division of Social
Services.
23
Graduate Data.
24
US Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Median years of tenure with current employer for employed
wage and salary workers by age and sex, selected years,
1996-2010
25
UNC Jordan Institute. Promotional Materials. NC Child
Welfare Education Collaborative Executive Summary.
26
2011 Data submission from the NC Division of Social
Services.
27
28
29
2007 Annual Report. NC Child Welfare Education
Collaborative.
30
The State of Michigan requires 270 hours of training prior
to obtaining a full case load. Michigan Department of
Human Services. Child Welfare Training Institute.

DHHS_ChildWelfareEdCollab_Review_2012

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (19)

Similaire à DHHS_ChildWelfareEdCollab_Review_2012

Similaire à DHHS_ChildWelfareEdCollab_Review_2012 (20)

DHHS_ChildWelfareEdCollab_Review_2012