The Child Welfare Workforce: An Overview

The Child Welfare Workforce: An Overview

Order Code RL32690
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Child Welfare Workforce:
An Overview
Updated June 7, 2005
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

The Child Welfare Workforce: An Overview
Summary
It is difficult to get a clear picture of the front-line child welfare workforce
because it is one component of larger occupational groups (“child, family, and school
social workers” as well as “social and human assistants”) employed in the public
sector (state and local governments) and private sector (individual and family
services industry) that provide a wide range of social assistance to disparate clients
(job training to adults and nonmedical home care to the elderly). That being said,
child welfare workers appear to be disproportionately women and African-Americans
who deliver social services to at-risk children.
To be hired as a social worker, a bachelor’s degree usually is necessary,
although agencies rarely require that the degree be in social work. Agencies also
employ front-line workers with little experience in social assistance or little
education beyond high school. The share of college-educated individuals in the child
welfare workforce has decreased over time, as agencies reportedly sought to expand
the supply of available and affordable personnel in response to greater reports of
child maltreatment in the 1960s and 1970s.
The annual earnings of child, family, and school social workers at private
individual and family services agencies are $32,130 on average. State and local
governments pay $37,920 and $42,100, respectively, to this group of social workers
(excluding those employed in schools). The average earnings of social and human
assistants at private agencies are $24,170, and in state and local government, $29,790
and $29,640, respectively. The wages of both occupational groups do not compare
favorably with most other occupations having similar educational qualifications.
In addition to comparatively low salaries, child welfare workers are reported to
experience threats of/actual violence. The nature of the work also can be emotionally
draining and stressful given heavy case/workloads. Caseloads appear to be higher
at public than private child welfare agencies, with relatively more government
managers stating that caseloads are highly problematic for staff retention. Turnover
rates are estimated to be in the double-digits: rates average about 40% for
professionals in private child welfare agencies and about half that in public agencies.
Nonetheless, other state and local government employees seemingly exhibit much
less turnover. High turnover rates are of concern because they can pose problems,
such as the continued provision of quality service to clients. Factors associated with
turnover and retention, in addition to heavy workloads, are the extent of supervisory
and collegial support as well as the employee’s degree of satisfaction with such
organizational variables as compensation, administrative duties, and professional
development.
Prospects are good for those interested in front-line child welfare jobs. Above-
average rates of job growth are projected, particularly in private agencies and for
social/human assistants. Existing jobs are expected to open up, as well, due to
current workers leaving for other fields or retiring. Prospects may not be as good for
recruiting professionals into the human services workforce, however. This report
will not be updated.

Contents
Who Are Child Welfare Workers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Education and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Gender and Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Size and Job Characteristics of the Child Welfare Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Size and Composition of the Workforce by Industry and Occupation . . . . . 8
Private Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Public Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Earnings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Working Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Job Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Lowest Degree Accepted by Local Public Agencies for Child
Welfare Services Workers by Type of Worker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Revenue Sources Utilized by Public Agencies to Support
Caseload-Carrying Child Welfare Workers and/or Supervisors Pursuing
Degrees in Social Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Wage and Salary Employment of Child, Family, and School Social
Workers and of Social and Human Service Assistants by Selected
Industries, 2002 and 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Child Welfare Workforce: An Overview
Child welfare workers typically come to the general public’s awareness as a
result of news stories about the abuse or death of children “the system” allowed to
remain with parents or placed in foster homes. Journalists then commonly describe
child welfare workers with heavy caseloads and paperwork requirements that cut
down the time they have to investigate reports of child maltreatment and to assist the
children already in their care. Reporters often speak of a revolving door through
which burned-out workers exit and new employees enter to begin anew with the
children entrusted to them. In addition to the nonpecuniary effects of high job
turnover on children and families (e.g., trust) and on workers (e.g., morale), the
financial costs to the agencies of near-constant recruitment and training of new
employees may be mentioned.1
Congress has directed resources toward training potential and current members
of the child welfare workforce with the goal of improving the quality of service to
clients. In FY2004, the federal share of state claims for training costs under Title IV-
E of the Social Security Act was $271 million, up from about $250 million in
FY2003 but down from comparable claims in FY2002 ($286 million).2
Appropriations for a federal child welfare training program, authorized under Section
426 of the Social Security Act, have remained between $7.0 million and $7.5 million
from FY1999 through FY2004.3 Title IV-E is an open-ended entitlement. It allows
states to obtain partial reimbursement for training costs of agency staff incurred in
connection with children eligible for services under the federal foster care program
and under the adoption assistance program. Section 426 authorizes discretionary
grants to public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education to develop and
improve education/training programs and resources for persons providing child
1 See, for example, Stephen Buttry, “Capping Caseloads Pays Off,” Omaha World-Herald,
Feb. 15, 2004; Patricia Callahan, “Child Welfare Workers Flagged: Task Force Bemoans
Lack of Training, Heavy Caseloads, and High Turnover,” Denver Post, Oct. 7, 1999; Kris
Wise, “State Will Add Social Workers,” Charleston Daily Mail, Apr. 28, 2004; and Mary
Zahn, “Child Welfare Services Still Found Lacking,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Mar. 22,
2004.
2 Title IV-E funds are used to train not only child welfare workers at public and private
agencies but also foster and adoptive parents. States may claim training for public agency
staff at 75% of their eligible expenses, while training of private agency staff may be claimed
at the regular administration rate of 50%. The figure in the text above includes claims for
training of foster and adoptive parents but does not including training costs of private
agency workers.
3 There are other sources of federal funds that may go toward training child welfare workers
if the training is associated with the overall purpose of the program (e.g., Social Services
Block Grant, Title IV-B-1 Child Welfare Services, and state grants under the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act).

CRS-2
welfare services. Congress has shown its continuing interest in enhancing the quality
of the child welfare workforce and in attracting/retaining more individuals to the field
through, for example, the introduction of legislation extending loan forgiveness to
students who complete bachelor’s or master’s degrees in social work and remain
employed in public or private child welfare agencies for a given period of time.4
This report provides an overview of the child welfare workforce. It begins with
a discussion of the duties, education and training, and other demographic
characteristics of child welfare workers. The report next estimates the size of the
child welfare workforce and examines its occupational composition, earnings, and
other job characteristics (e.g., turnover). It concludes with an analysis of the job
outlook for those interested in pursuing a career in the child welfare field.
Who Are Child Welfare Workers?
Child welfare workers are part of a larger group of individuals who provide
social assistance to others with the goal of improving their lives. The assistance
rendered to children specifically includes “adoption and foster care, drug prevention,
life skills training, and positive social development.”5
Members of the child welfare workforce may be employed under a variety of job
titles. They include child welfare social workers, family services social workers,
child protective social workers, social work assistant, child abuse worker, and case
management aide.6
Education and Training
Education. Although some staff in public agencies that have dependent and
neglected children as clients and in private nonprofit agencies that provide services
under contract to these children, may be referred to as social workers, they may lack
“professional training in social work.”7 A bachelor’s degree in social work or in a
closely related undergraduate major (e.g., psychology or sociology) commonly is
required of persons seeking employment in social work. Some agencies require a
master’s degree, again, either in social work or another field.8 Among child welfare
caseworkers/case managers employed full-time by private agencies, for example, it
4 For more information on federal legislation, see “Student Loan Forgiveness” in CRS
Report RL31746, Child Welfare Issues in the 108th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
5 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Career Guide to Industries, 2004-05 Edition, p.
223. (Hereafter cited as BLS, Career Guide to Industries.) Available at
[http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs040.htm].
6 BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2004-05 Edition. (Hereafter cited as BLS,
Occupational Outlook Handbook.) Available at [http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos060.htm], and
[http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos059.htm ].
7 Elizabeth M. Tracy and Barbara A. Pine, “Child Welfare Education and Training: Future
Trends and Influences,” Child Welfare, Jan./Feb. 2000, p. 95.
8 BLS, Career Guide to Industries.

CRS-3
appears that more employees have a bachelor’s than master’s degree, and among
those with a bachelor’s degree, in a field other than social work.9
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L.
104-193) authorized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
undertake a national random sample survey of children and families investigated for
abuse and neglect. The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being
(NSCAW) collects longitudinal data related to 6,100 children from public child
welfare agencies in 92 localities. Information is gathered from administrators in local
and state child welfare agencies to supplement the NSCAW’s main focus on child-
level statistics collected from children, families, caregivers, caseworkers, and
teachers. As shown in Table 1, the local agency survey found that virtually all public
child welfare agencies require at least a bachelor’s degree. Most accept a bachelor’s
rather than a master’s degree. And, of those public agencies requiring a bachelor’s
degree, most accept one in a field other than social work.
Table 1. Lowest Degree Accepted by Local Public Agencies for
Child Welfare Services Workers by Type of Worker
Type of worker
In-home
service
Foster care
Adoption
Lowest degree accepted
Investigator
workers
workers
workers
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
No degree
3.0
13.0
11.0
14.0
Bachelor’s degree
96.0
87.0
89.0
86.0
— in social work
16.0
6.0
6.0
12.0
— in other major
80.0
81.0
83.0
74.0
Master’s degree
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.2
— in social work
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
— in other major
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Child, Youth, and Families,
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: Local Child Welfare Agency Survey: Report, Washington,
D.C., June 2001.
When looked at on a worker as opposed to agency basis, another analysis of
NSCAW data found that child welfare staff in public agencies who deal with children
9 Alicia Drais-Parrillo, 2003 Salary Study (Washington, DC: CWLA Press, 2003).
(Hereafter cited as Drais-Parrillo, 2003 Salary Study.) Note: Caseworkers/case
management staff are persons, other than child protective services workers, who deliver
direct assistance or who coordinate services (e.g., in-home and foster care, adoption, and
reunification) to children and families.

CRS-4
in foster care much more often possess bachelor’s than master’s degrees (61% and
37%, respectively). Among those with bachelor’s degrees, the major less often is
social work (25%) than another field (36%).10 This pattern among public agencies
concurs with the previously mentioned pattern among child welfare caseworkers/case
managers at private agencies.
Agencies also employ individuals with little experience in social assistance or
little schooling beyond high school.11 For example, between 3% and 14% of local
public agencies do not require a college education for employment as a child welfare
worker. (See Table 1.) When employees rather than agencies are the unit of
analysis, the NSCAW foster care survey estimated that 2% of child welfare workers
do not have at least a bachelor’s degree.12
Over time, there has been a decline in the share of college-educated child
welfare workers.13 The increased reporting of child maltreatment in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, which reportedly stemmed from greater public awareness of the
issue and the resulting passage of child maltreatment reporting laws, appears to have
caused agencies to lower educational standards for child welfare workers in order to
expand the supply of available and affordable staff.14 This is referred to as the
deprofessionalization or deskilling of the field, a phrase that has come to mean not
so much the employment of persons without a college degree but the employment of
college-educated individuals with a major other than social work.
Efforts to reprofessionalize the child welfare workforce through social work
education were given a boost by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980 (P.L. 96-272). The law created Title IV-E and authorized 75% federal
matching specifically for public child welfare training expenditures but “was little
used by schools of social work for degree education until several social work
education leaders and child welfare administrators began promoting its availability
around 1990.”15 The Family Preservation and Support Services provisions of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) did not directly address
10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Child, Youth, and
Families (ACYF), National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: One Year in Foster
Care Report, Washington, D.C., Nov. 2003. (Hereafter cited as HHS, NSCAW: One Year
in Foster Care.)
11 BLS, Career Guide to Industries.
12 HHS, NSCAW: One Year in Foster Care.
13 Alvin L. Schorr (“The Bleak Prospect for Public Child Welfare,” The Social Service
Review, Mar. 2000) cites HHS and GAO publications showing that in 1958, 62% of child
welfare workers were college graduates compared to 28% three decades later.
14 Sue D. Steib and Wendy Whiting Blome, “Fatal Error: The Missing Ingredient in Child
Welfare Reform, Part I,” Child Welfare, vol. 82, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 2003.
15 Joan Levy Zlotnik, “Preparing Social Workers for Child Welfare Practice: Lessons from
an Historical Review of the Literature,” in Katharine Briar-Lawson and Joan Levy Zlotnik
eds., Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University-
Public Agency Partnerships (Binghampton, N.Y.: The Haworth Press), 2002, p. 11.
(Hereafter cited as Briar-Lawson and Zlotnik, Evaluation Research in Child Welfare.)

CRS-5
workforce quality although, in its implementation of the law’s mandate that states set
long-term goals, HHS required states to provide a staff development and training
plan. In the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89), Congress
established new timelines and procedural requirements to ensure safety and timely
permanency planning for children. While the effectiveness of these provisions
assumed competent staff with reasonable caseloads, the law contained no provisions
explicitly related to workforce quality.
Table 2. Revenue Sources Utilized by Public Agencies to
Support Caseload-Carrying Child Welfare Workers and/or
Supervisors Pursuing Degrees in Social Work
Number of states supporting
employees who are pursuing:
Bachelors degrees
Master’s degrees
Sources of financial support
in social work
in social work
Title IV-E federal payments to states for
18
28
foster care and adoption training
Federal child welfare discretionary
4
4
training grants
Federal social services block grant
2
3
Federal child abuse state grants (Child
4
1
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act)
State revenues
9
12
Local revenues
1
2
Other sourcesa
4
5
Source: Gary Cyphers, Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency
Findings (Washington, DC: APHSA, Feb. 2005).
a. A few states indicated such other sources as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
and the Title IV-B, Subpart 2 program.
Information is quite limited on the use of government funds to reprofessionalize
the child welfare workforce. As shown above in Table 2, the federal share of foster
care and adoption training authorized by Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is the
source that public child welfare agencies most often utilize to provide financial
assistance to caseload-carrying child welfare employees and/or supervisors pursuing
bachelor’s and master’s degrees in social work. State revenues come in a distant
second according to public agencies that responded to a 2004 survey, but still well
ahead of other federal sources of financial support to caseload-carrying child welfare
staff seeking postsecondary degrees in social work. States also assist individuals in

CRS-6
these two occupational groups who are seeking related degrees. In these instances,
the agencies more often rely upon state than federal revenues.16
Training. There are no federal standards regarding the education of child
welfare workers, although federal law does include limited requirements for staff
training as a condition of state receipt of certain welfare funding. As implemented
by HHS, the federal Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) is a mandatory,
consolidated plan for child welfare services that must be developed in consultation
with other relevant parties in the state and incorporates the conditions and objectives
of federal funding to states under the Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Programs authorized under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act,
state grants authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA, Section 106), and funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program and related Education and Training Vouchers (authorized under Section 477
of the Social Security Act). States are required to have training programs that
support the goals of their CFSPs; address services provided under the major child
welfare grants to states authorized under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act; and include initial and ongoing training for child welfare workers who
deliver family preservation and support services, child protective services, foster care
services, adoption services, and independent living. The training must “include
content from various disciplines and knowledge bases relevant to child and family
services policies, programs and practices” and must support coordination among
various systems that service children and families.17 In addition, CAPTA was
amended in P.L. 108-36 to require that states give assurance they have provisions that
address training of child protective services workers about their legal duties as well
as provisions and procedures for improving training, retention, and supervision of
caseworkers.
Public agencies typically impose pre-service training requirements on new
employees. Some 7% of local public agencies require 1-3 days; 38%, 4-10 days; and
53%, 11-14 days of training before new employees start work.18 Many fewer
agencies mandate in-service training, with one in five lacking such a requirement and
one in two requiring less than one day, according to an NSCAW survey of local
public child welfare agencies. On a worker rather than agency basis, the pre-service
training requirement at state agencies averages 141 hours for child protective service
workers, 147 hours for in-house protective service workers, and 151 hours for foster
16 Gary Cyphers, Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency
Findings (Washington, D.C.: APHSA, February 2005). (Hereafter cited as Cyphers, Report
from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency Findings.)
17 For more information see ACYF-CB-PI-04-01, issued Feb. 2, 2004 and available at
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0402all.pdf] and 45 C.F.R. [Code of
Federal Regulations] § 1357.15(t)(1).
18 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Child, Youth, and
Families, National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being: Local Child Welfare Agency
Survey: Report, Washington, D.C., June 2001.

CRS-7
care/adoption workers.19 The average time spent in mandatory in-service training is
about 29-30 hours for the three occupations.
The federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) is intended, in part, to
monitor the degree of state compliance with federal child welfare policies including
those related to staff training. The initial round of the review (FY2001-FY2004)
suggests that states perform slightly better on initial as compared to ongoing training
of personnel. An HHS analysis of the review’s findings identified common
challenges states faced in meeting the initial training requirement: assignment of
cases to workers who had not yet received or completed initial training, and training
inadequate to prepare caseworkers for their jobs. With regard to the ongoing training
requirement, the challenges most often mentioned by states were limited staff
participation due to heavy caseloads and a lack of funds.20 Other training concerns
identified in state final reports of the CFSR include lack of cultural competency
training, training too theoretical in content, failure of the state to have ongoing
training curriculum or requirements, lack of supervisory training in child welfare
practice as opposed to management, uneven training opportunities and inconsistent
training requirements within the same state, and training resources stretched thin by
high staff turnover.21
Gender and Race
Child welfare staff are predominantly and disproportionately women.
According to 2004 data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), women account
for 79% of all persons (regardless of occupation) employed in the “individual and
family services” industry. (This is the federal industrial classification that includes
private agencies engaged in child welfare assistance.) The same pattern prevails in
public administration at the federal, state, and local levels: of all personnel staffing
government human resources programs, including child welfare services, 71% are
women. Similarly, on an occupational basis, women represent almost 4 of every 5
individuals employed as social workers in the public and private sectors. In contrast,
women comprise somewhat less than 1 of every 2 employed persons in the labor
force.
19 Cyphers, Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency Findings.
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, General Findings from the Child and
Family Services Review, posted online October 2004 at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/
programs/cb/cwrp/results/statefindings/genfindings04/genfindings04.pdf]. Note: “Common
challenges” were identified as those reported by at least 12 of the 35 states that were
reviewed during FY2002-FY2004. (Seventeen states whose CFSRs occurred in FY2001
were not included in this content analysis due to changes in the format of the state final
reports.)
21 The provision of initial and ongoing training is first discussed in the Statewide
Assessment that precedes the onsite CFSR review. Ratings related to training indicators are
based on interviews with relevant stakeholders during the onsite portion of the review. For
state final CFSR reports go to [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/staterpt/
index.htm]. Items 32 and 33 address initial and ongoing training, respectively.

CRS-8
The child welfare workforce appears to be disproportionately composed of
African-Americans as well. Blacks represent a minority of employees in the
individual and family services industry and in the administration of government
human resources programs: about 20% in 2004, according to CPS data. On an
occupational basis, African-Americans comprise 1 out of 5 individuals who are
employed as social workers. In contrast, blacks represent a little more than 1 of every
10 employed persons in the United States.
Size and Job Characteristics
of the Child Welfare Workforce
The performance of the child welfare function in two broad industry groups
complicates analysis of the child welfare workforce. State and local government
employees as well as private sector workers in the “social assistance, excluding child
day care” industry group provide a wide range of social services (e.g., worker
training, nonmedical home care, and emergency provision of food and shelter). More
specifically, as noted above, the federal industrial classification system places child
welfare activities in the “individual and family services” segment of the private sector
establishments that provide social assistance. Individual and family services is the
largest component of the social assistance (excluding child day care) industry group,
but even this segment focuses on more than children (e.g., the elderly and persons
with disabilities). Similarly, child welfare is subsumed within the wide-ranging
human resources activities of state and local government, thereby further increasing
the difficulty of utilizing federal statistics to analyze just the child welfare workforce.
Reliance on nongovernment data sources is problematic as well. Some
associations conduct surveys of their members, who may not be representative of
workers in the child welfare field. As with federal data, these and other surveys may
cover workers who assist individuals other than at-risk children. In addition, small
sample sizes may make it inaccurate to disaggregate survey results to look only at
child welfare workers.
What follows then, is an impression rather than a precise accounting of
members of the child welfare workforce. The focus is on front-line workers rather
than on others who perform functions that support the primary mission of assisting
at-risk children.
Size and Composition of the Workforce by Industry and
Occupation
Private Agencies. According to May 2004 data from the Occupational
Employment Statistics (OES) program, some 847,000 persons are employed by non-
profit and for-profit organizations in the private sector that provide individual and
family services. These private agencies have 43,9000 child, family, and school social
workers on their payrolls; they account for a little more than 5% of total employment

CRS-9
in the individual and family services industry.22 Social and human service assistants,
who aid social workers and other professionals in delivering services to clients,
number 58,830. They comprise 7% of total employment in the individual and family
services industry.
Private agencies, which typically are small,23 have played an increased role in
the delivery of child welfare services over time. Although public agencies have paid
private non-profit organizations to deliver child welfare services since the early
1800s, contracting out to for-profit firms began to grow substantially during the
1960s and 1970s. The more recent participation of for-profit businesses in human
services fields (e.g., child support enforcement and correctional facilities) has less
often extended to child welfare practice.24 According to one estimate, 31% of child
welfare jobs are in non-profit and religious agencies, 16% in multi-employee
businesses, and 3% in single-employee/self-employed business.25 That leaves
government as the single largest employer of child welfare workers.
Public Agencies. The OES program does not report government employment
separately by type of social service performed. It does, however, produce data on
government employment by occupational group. State government is the largest
employer of child, family, and school social workers at 57,070 persons.26 Local
government is second at 50,800. (These figures exclude child, family, and school
social workers employed by schools.) State government also employs 50,650 social
and human service assistants; local government, 43,640. It should be recalled that
not all employees in the two occupational groups provide child welfare assistance.
State governments reported employing 107,720 workers and local governments,
94,440 workers in the two broad occupational groups as of May 2004. Actual state
versus local government breakdowns may vary from one area to the next, with state-
administered systems likely to have more state government employees performing
child welfare services compared to county-administered systems. There also are a
few cases in which state and local governments have contracted with private agencies
to perform most child welfare activities (e.g., Illinois, Kansas, and New York City).
Earnings
Annual earnings averaged across all child, family, and school social workers
regardless of industry are $37,830, according to OES data for May 2004. The
earnings of child, family, and school social workers at private individual and family
22 BLS, [http://stats.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/naics4_624100.htm].
23 BLS, Career Guide to Industries.
24 Madelyn Freundlich and Sarah Gerstenzang, An Assessment of the Privatization of Child
Welfare Services (Washington, DC: CWLA Press, 2003).
25 Paul C. Light, The Health of the Human Services Workforce (Washington., DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 2003). (Hereafter cited as Light, The Health of the Human
Services Workforce.)
2 6 B L S [ h t t p : / / s t a t s . b l s . g o v / o e s / 2 0 0 3 / m a y / o e s 2 1 1 0 2 1 . h t m ] , a n d
[http://stats.bls.gov/oes/2003/may/oes211093.htm].

CRS-10
services agencies are below the all-industries’ average, at $32,130. In contrast, state
government ($37,920) and local ($42,100) government pay above-average wages to
members of the occupational group (excluding those employed by schools). More
specifically, the average annually salary of employees in child protective service
positions at public agencies is $35,553; in home protective service jobs, $34,929; in
foster care/adoption positions, $35,911; and in jobs involving multiple programs,
$36,136.27
The average annual earnings of social and human service assistants in the
individual and family services industry ($24,170) are below the all-industries average
for the occupation ($25,890). In contrast, social and human service assistants
employed by state ($29,790) and local ($29,640) governments (excluding those in
schools) are paid above the average wage.
The wages of child welfare workers typically do not compare favorably with
occupations having similar educational qualifications. Half of the child, family, and
school social workers at private individual and family services agencies earn more,
and half earn less, than $30,680. The median annual wages of these social workers
in state government are $35,070; in local government, $40,620. Almost all
occupations for which the usual credential is a bachelor’s degree pay median salaries
higher than those of child, family, and school social workers. This often holds true,
as well, for female-dominated occupations in which a bachelor’s degree is the usual
educational minimum (e.g., elementary and kindergarten school teachers).
Similarly, most jobs that can be proficiently performed with moderate-term on-
the-job training (according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) typically are paid
more than social and human assistant positions. Half of all social and human
assistants who work in the individual and family services industry earn more, and
half earn less, than $23,400. The median annual earnings of these employees in local
government are $28,230, and in state government, $29,270. Most of the better-
paying jobs in this education/training category predominantly employ men (e.g.,
machine operators), leaving only a handful of somewhat higher paying occupations
in which women are very prevalent.
The positive relationship that generally exists between salary level and
educational attainment can be illustrated by looking at caseworkers and case
management staff in private child welfare agencies. The average starting salary for
someone without a college degree is $21,840.28 Starting salaries for employees with
a bachelor’s degree are higher: an average of $26,063 for those with an
undergraduate degree in social work and $25,072 for those with an undergraduate
degree in another field. Persons having a master’s degree in social work start at still
higher average salaries ($30,436), as do individuals with a graduate degree in another
field ($29,703). These figures also show that, on average, a wage premium goes to
new hires who have a degree in social work as opposed to another field.
27 Cyphers, Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency Findings.
28 Drais-Parrillo, 2003 Salary Study.

CRS-11
Working Conditions
Safety. According to a one-time survey sent to affiliates of the American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) that represent
professional child welfare workers, more than 70% of 29 affiliates in 10 states said
their members had been victims of violence or received threats of violence while
performing their jobs. In addition to confronting actual or threatened physical harm,
the affiliates reported that these child welfare workers encountered acts of vandalism,
stalking, attempted rape, and kidnaping.29
Threats and violence aimed at child welfare workers are not limited to those
employed in urban areas. For example, a survey of employees and supervisors at the
Montana Department of Family Services concluded “that each year, one of every 10
workers is pushed, shoved, or hit by one or more agency clients.”30 This figure does
not include instances in which clients unsuccessfully tried to harm agency employees,
which happened almost as frequently as actual infliction of injury. It also excludes
the very frequent occurrence of angry clients screaming or cursing at workers. In
addition, death threats directed toward agency employees are common, as is fear
among child protective services employees that their jobs might be the cause of harm
to their family members.
Workload. The nature of the work, while satisfying, can be emotionally
draining. Substantial case/workloads can produce a stressful work environment as
well.31
There is no universally agreed-upon measure of the various activities performed
in diverse agency settings by child welfare workers. The Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA) has developed “best practice” ratios of client to staff members.
The advocacy organization recommends that one child protective social worker
involved in:
! initial assessment/investigation should handle no more than 12
active cases per month,
! ongoing cases should handle, at most, 17 active families with 1 new
case assigned for every six open cases, and
! a combination of assessment/investigation and ongoing cases should
handle a maximum of 10 active ongoing cases and four active
investigations.
For foster family care services, the CWLA standard is 12-15 children per social
worker.
29 American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Double
Jeopardy: Caseworkers at Risk Helping At-Risk Kids (Washington, DC, 1998).
30 Charles Horejsi, Cindy Garthwait, and Jim Rolando, “A Survey of Threats and Violence
Directed Against Child Protection Workers in a Rural State,” Child Welfare, vol. 73, no. 2,
(Mar.-Apr. 1994), p. 175.
31 BLS, Career Guide to Industries.

CRS-12
In contrast to these guidelines, the average caseload per child protective service
worker is 24 at public agencies and 13 at private agencies when a child is defined as
a case, according to a survey of public and private agencies conducted by the
Alliance for Children and Families, the American Public Human Services
Association, and the CWLA. It is 17 and 13, respectively, when a family is defined
as a case. The caseload for other direct service caseworkers (excluding
paraprofessionals) averages 31, when based on a child, and 20, when based on a
family, at public agencies. It averages 14 and 11, respectively, at private agencies.32
Perhaps not surprisingly given the heavier caseloads at public compared to
private child welfare agencies, managers and supervisors at relatively more public
(62%) than private (13%) agencies report that caseloads are highly problematic for
staff retention. Some 39% of private agencies did note that workload in general is
highly problematic for staff retention.33 And, according to an HHS survey of
randomly selected counties, the majority (69%) of local child protective services
agencies consider their workloads to be excessive for at least one function (screening
and intake, investigations, and alternative response).34
Turnover. The strain of heavy workloads commonly is offered as one factor
prompting child welfare workers to leave their employers specifically or the field
generally. Other frequently mentioned contributors include uncompetitive wage
levels, increased administrative (including paperwork) burdens, insufficient
supervisory support, little time for in-service training, inadequate pre-service training,
unsafe working conditions, and the greater complexity of cases.35
Turnover rates are estimated to be in the double-digits, with employee
separations as a percent of staff employment higher in private than public agencies.
The average turnover rate among child welfare professionals at private agencies
might be between 40% and 45% depending upon the exact definition of the measure
and the workers covered.36 State agencies report average turnover rates half as high
32 Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), and Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), The Child Welfare Workforce
Challenge: Results from a Preliminary Study, presented at Finding Better Ways 2001,
Dallas, TX, May 2001. (Hereafter cited as Alliance for Children, APHSA, and CWLA, The
Child Welfare Workforce Challenge.)
33 Ibid.
34 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Study of Child Protective
Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Findings on Local CPS Practices, May 2003,
available at [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cps-status03/CPS-practices03/index.htm].
35 U.S. General Accountability Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in
Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357, Mar. 2003.
36 Drais-Parrillo, 2003 Salary Survey; and Alliance for Children, APHSA, and CWLA, The
Child Welfare Workforce Challenge. Note: The former defines the turnover rate as the ratio
of staff who exited positions (including those who changed positions within an agency) to
the number of positions (whether filled or vacant) on a particular date; the latter defines the
turnover rate as the ratio of staff who exited positions (excluding those who changed
positions within an agency) to the number of authorized full-time-equivalent positions on
(continued...)

CRS-13
despite their previously mentioned greater caseloads. The wide disparity between
private and public agencies, on average, may be associated with a few private
agencies at which large shares of staff left over the course of a year. When the
comparator is all state and local government employees rather than child welfare
workers at private agencies, turnover at public child welfare agencies appears to be
quite high.37
Interest exists in reducing the rate of turnover among front-line child welfare
workers because of its impact on the continuity and quality of service delivery to
clients. Rapid turnover also appears to be a problem for staff who remain: they must
pick up the slack not only from leavers, but also from sometimes inexperienced
individuals hired to fill vacated positions. As previously mentioned, pre-service
training usually is required for child welfare workers, and even after this training
period is completed, the number of cases handled by new hires may be increased only
gradually thereby “continuing the pressure on the existing staff to carry the overall
caseload and workload during the new staff “gearing-up” period.”38
Research has been conducted to determine why some workers stay and others
leave the child welfare field. Despite disparate methodologies (surveys and
interviews), populations (all child welfare professions, caseworkers, and Title IV-E
scholarship recipients), and scope (public agencies in different states and in different
counties within one state), and dependent variables (intention to leave or to stay, and
actual turnover or retention), the outcomes of these empirical studies are fairly
similar. Although they do play a role, personal characteristics of child welfare staff
(age, gender, and race) do not appear to be strong predictors of intention to leave.
Instead, certain professional and organizational characteristics are estimated to
account for much of the variation in who decides to leave or remain. This has been
taken as a positive sign because “there might be a great deal that both managers and
policy makers can do to prevent turnover.”39
Supervisory support and internal career ladders are among the organizational
characteristics estimated to be related to turnover and retention. This twin finding
prompted the recommendation that public child welfare agencies utilize career
36 (...continued)
a particular date. The former applies to caseworker and case management positions; the
latter to child protective service workers and other direct service workers (excluding
paraprofessionals).
37 Cyphers, Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency Findings.
38 Gary Cyphers, Report from the Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and County Data
and Findings (Washington, D.C.: APHSA, May 2001), p. 4.
39 Michael E. Mor Barak, Jan A. Nissly, and Amy Levine, “Antecedents to Retention and
Turnover among Child Welfare, Social Work, and Other Human Service Employees: What
Can We Learn from Past Research? A Review and Metanalysis,” Social Service Review, vol.
75, no. 4 (Dec. 2001), p. 625 (hereafter cited as Mor Barak, Nissly, and Levine, Antecedents
to Retention and Turnover.). See also Dale Weaver and Janet Chang, The Retention of
California’s Public Child Welfare Workers, California Social Work Education Center,
Berkeley, CA, October 2004.

CRS-14
ladders not only to encourage “professional development and advancement” but also
“to support stronger mentoring roles for supervisors.”40 Agencies also
might provide greater and more systematic supervisory training, reduce
supervisor:employee ratios, reduce the rotation of supervisors to promote
stability, and redistribute work tasks so that supervisors can spend more time
with their workers. Similarly, coworker support might be improved through
reducing the frequency of employee transfers across work units and by
implementing regular peer-support meetings and other forms of team
development.41
One professional characteristic — described in different studies as a sense of
mission, commitment, and a belief that social work provides a valuable service to
society — was estimated to strongly influence allegiance to the occupation and to
remaining in the child welfare field.42 This finding led to the suggestion that an
individual’s “orientation to service” be considered when recruiting employees as it
might increase their likelihood of staying. But, even when the intrinsic value of the
job is strong, other factors such as affective and competent supervisory support as
well as organizational characteristics (turnover and caseload) appear to be important
contributors to the likelihood of job retention.43
Not only do short-tenured child welfare workers with the strongest intention to
remain in the field differ from those with the weakest intention in their professional
commitment, but they also were found to differ in levels of job stress, perceptions
about supervisory quality and leadership received, views about the degree of co-
worker support, and their extent of job satisfaction with organizational variables
including caseloads, compensation, paperwork, and support.44 Other results show
that relatively inexperienced workers and those who feel less competent are more
inclined to leave, suggesting that
managers might avoid turnover if they invest in training and job-related
education that increased work-related knowledge and employee efficacy. This
40 Miriam J. Landsman, “Commitment in Public Child Welfare,” Social Service Review, vol.
75, no. 3 (Sept. 2001), p. 408. (Hereafter cited as Landsman, Commitment in Public Child
Welfare.)
41 Jan A. Nissly, Michael E. Mor Barak, and Amy Levine, “Stress, Social Support, and
Workers’ Intentions to Leave Their Jobs in Public Child Welfare,” Administration of Social
Work, vol. 29, no. 1 (2005), pp. 96-97.
42 Alberta J. Ellett, Chad D. Ellett, and John K. Rugutt, A Study of Personal and
Organizational Factors Contributing to Employee Retention and Turnover in Child Welfare
in Georgia, June 2003 (Hereafter cited as Ellett, Ellett, and Rugutt, A Study of Personal and
Organizational Factors); Landsman, Commitment in Public Child Welfare; and Joan R.
Rycraft, “The Party Isn’t Over: The Agency Role in the Retention of Public Child Welfare
Caseworkers,” Social Work, vol. 9, no. 1 (Jan. 1994).
43 Brenda D. Smith, “Job Retention in Child Welfare: Effects of Perceived Organizational
Support, Supervisory Support, and Intrinsic Job Value,” Children and Youth Services
Review, vol. 27, no. 2 (Feb. 2005).
44 Ellett, Ellett, and Rugutt, A Study of Personal and Organizational Factors.

CRS-15
might be accomplished through more comprehensive new-employee orientation
programs, the development of peer-support groups, or the teaming of new
employees and more experienced colleagues.45
Indeed, a longitudinal analysis of child protective services caseworkers in one state
estimated that supervisory support for training and transfer of learning is associated
with retention — perhaps because it implies to employees a willingness on the part
of the agency to invest in her career development. The same study similarly found
that coworker support for training helped to promote staff retention.46
Degree of support from co-workers and supervisors as well as salary level were
estimated to affect the retention likelihood of persons who receive Title IV-E
stipends while pursuing their masters in social work (MSW). Title IV-E program
graduates who remain in public child welfare jobs also appear to be less emotionally
exhausted (burned out) and to spend less time on court-related tasks than Title IV-E
graduates who leave or plan to do so.47 MSW graduates who receive Title IV-E
scholarships may remain at public child welfare agencies for a longer period of time
than other child welfare professionals.48 In addition, a majority of employees at
public and private non-profit child or family service agencies who utilized the
cancellation provisions of the Federal Perkins Loan Program indicated an intention
to remain with their employers after the debt was forgiven.49 (This study included
no group for purposes of comparison, however.)
Through the previously described CFSR process, HHS identified relatively new
training procedures put in place in Delaware as a “promising practice” for improving
staff training and retention. State legislation in 1997 increased education
requirements for caseworkers to attainment of a bachelor’s degree in a field closely
related to child welfare, created promotional opportunities for caseworkers,
established caseload standards, and allowed overstaffing to enable new staff to
complete initial training before assignment of caseloads. In addition to their
performance plans including expectations about turnover, supervisors now receive
additional training in how to support staff. The state subsequently reduced both
45 Mor Barak, Nissly, and Levine, Antecedents to Retention and Turnover, p. 656.
46 Dale Curry, Timothy McCarragher, and Mary Dellmann-Jenkins, “Training, Transfer, and
Turnover: Exploring the Relationship among Transfer of Learning Factors and Staff
Retention in Child Welfare,” Child and Youth Services Review, vol. 27, no, 8 (2005).
47 Nancy S. Dickinson and Robin E. Perry, “Factors Influencing the Retention of Specially
Educated Public Child Welfare Workers,” in Briar-Lawson and Zlotnik, Evaluation
Research in Child Welfare.
48 Ellett, Ellett, and Rugutt, A Study of Personal and Organizational Factors; and Loring
Jones, “A Follow-Up of a Title IV-E Program’s Graduates’ Retention Rates in a Public
Agency,” in Briar-Lawson and Zlotnik, Evaluation Research in Child Welfare.
49 Sunny Harris Rome, “Serving High-Risk Children: Recruiting Through Student Loan
Forgiveness,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 25, no. 10 (Oct. 2003). (Hereafter
cited as Rome, Serving High-Risk Children.)

CRS-16
turnover and case backlog (i.e., reports of child maltreatment not investigated in a
timely manner).50
Job Outlook
Prospects are good for those interested in employment as child, family, and
school social workers as well as social and human service assistants. BLS projects
relatively greater net employment growth for child, family, and school social workers
(23%) and for social and human service assistants (49%) than for all workers on
average (15%).51
More robust job gains are anticipated among social and human service assistants
than among child, family, and school social workers, in part, because private social
services agencies are increasingly expected to restructure their operations and hire
more lower paid personnel.52 In 2012, the employment of social and human
assistants at private agencies delivering services to individuals and families could
total 92,000 or 75% (40,000) more than in 2002. Over the same period, employment
of child, family, and school social workers at these private agencies could reach
62,000 or 41% (18,000) above the 2002 level. (See Table 3.)
Public agencies also are projected to increase their employment of child, family,
and school social workers as well as of social and human service assistants. As
shown in Table 3, BLS projects state and local governments (excluding education
and hospitals) could post a 9% (10,000) net gain in child, family, and school social
workers and a 5% (4,000) net gain in social and human service assistants. These
figures are considerably below those projected for private agencies, reflecting the
expectation that government will contract out some social services activities.
However, actual employment levels in future years at both public and private social
assistance agencies likely will be affected by the fluctuating availability of
government resources.
In addition to net employment growth due to increased demand for social
services, many existing jobs could become available given the need to replace
persons who switch to other occupations or leave the labor force (e.g., retire). In
each year of the 2002-2012 projection period, an average of 75,000 positions for
social and human service assistants (regardless of industry) could become available
as a result of net job growth and replacement needs.53 For the same two reasons, BLS
projects that an average of 49,000 positions for child, family, and school social
workers could develop annually.
50 See [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/promise/de.pdf] for a summary of
Delaware’s approach.
51 BLS, Occupational Projections and Training Data, 2004-05 Edition, Bulletin 2572
(Washington, D.C., Mar. 2004). (Hereafter cited as BLS, Occupational Projections and
Training Data.)
52 BLS, Occupational Outlook Handbook.
53 BLS, Occupational Projections and Training Data.

CRS-17
Many of the job openings for social workers could come about as a result of the
baby-boom generation’s retirement. The youngest baby-boomer will be 48 by the
end of the projection period, the oldest, 66. Some 43% of child, family, and school
social workers (excluding those in schools and hospitals) are employed by state and
local governments, most of which have pension plans enabling otherwise eligible
employees to retire at or before age 55.54 (The age composition of social workers in
child welfare practice may differ from child, family, and school social workers
overall, however.)
Based upon a 2002 survey of students a few weeks shy of obtaining bachelor’s
degrees in liberal arts or in social work, however, prospects are not nearly as good
for recruiting professionals into the human services workforce (defined as jobs in
child welfare, child care, youth services, juvenile justice, and employment and
training). Relatively few had given serious consideration to getting jobs in any of
these fields, and even among those who had, a minority were knowledgeable about
how to find one. Additionally, 45% of students with the greatest interest in these
fields called the hiring process confusing; 71%, characterized it as slow. Almost 3
out of 5 students who were very or somewhat interested in obtaining human services
jobs anticipated remaining in them for five or fewer years.55
Findings like these have caused concern in some quarters that without effective
recruitment strategies, the demand for child welfare service professionals might
outweigh their supply. It appears that one federal initiative to increase recruitment
of college graduates to the child and family welfare field may not be having much of
an impact: as some 43% of survey respondents eligible for cancellation of Federal
Perkins Loans under Section 465(a) of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992
(P.L. 102-325) did not learn of the cancellation opportunity until after college
graduation, it is not surprising that only 12% reported the availability of loan
forgiveness influenced their employment preference. Reasons other than timing that
students offered for the seemingly limited usefulness of this program as a recruitment
tool include the small share of indebtedness accounted for by Perkins awards, the
lengthy employment period (five years) before cancellation occurs, and the rate at
which forgiveness takes place within that period.56 There also is concern that absent
the implementation of effective retention strategies at public and private agencies,
child welfare and other human services workers could “continue to cycle through the
workforce with little lasting impact on behalf of the people they serve.”57
54 Arlene Dohm, “Gauging the Labor Market Effects of Retiring Baby-Boomers,” Monthly
Labor Review, July 2000.
55 Light, The Health of the Human Services Workforce.
56 Rome, Serving High-Risk Children. Note: For information on student loan cancellation
generally, see CRS Report RL32516, Student Loan Forgiveness Programs, by Gail
McCallion.
57 Light, The Health of the Human Services Workforce, p. 8.

CRS-18
Table 3. Wage and Salary Employment of Child, Family, and
School Social Workers and of Social and Human Service
Assistants by Selected Industries, 2002 and 2012
2002 Employment
2012 Employment
Change
Distri-
Distri-
Occupation by selected
Number
bution
Number
bution
Number
industries
(000)
(%)
(000)
(%)
(000)
%
Child, family, and school
270
100
333
100
63
23
social workers
Individual and family
44
16
62
19
18
41
services
Other social assistancea
17
6
25
8
8
47
Nursing and residential
20
7
31
9
11
53
care
State and local
governmentb
115
43
125
38
10
9
State
63
23
67
20
4
7
Local
52
19
58
17
6
11
Social and human service
305
100
453
100
148
49
assistants
Individual and family
53
17
92
20
40
75
services
Other social assistancea
41
13
76
17
35
85
Nursing and residential
49
16
86
19
37
76
care
State and local
governmentb
79
26
83
18
4
5
State
35
11
36
8
1
3
Local
44
14
47
10
3
6
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment Projections.
a. Other private sector social assistance industries are community food and housing, and emergency and other
relief services; vocational rehabilitation services; and child day care services.
b. State and local government excludes educational services and hospitals.