Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2011). Organizational climate, services, and outcomes in child welfare systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(8), 582-591.
The current study analyzes the relationships between organizational climate in child welfare systems, the casework services provided, and the outcomes for maltreated youth. Data were from all 5 waves of the US National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW) over a seven-year follow-up period. The study sample comprised youth aged four to16 years (N = 1,678) and caseworkers from 88 child welfare systems (N = 1,696).
The most important finding was the relationship between organizational climate and youth outcome—long-term outcomes for maltreated children were significantly more positive for children served by agencies with more engaged organizational climates. This was true, when the effects of age, gender and ethnicity were held constant. The relationship between climate and outcome was not affected by the reported quantity and quality of casework services actually provided; this was puzzling. The authors argue that further research is needed, both on ways to improve organizational climates, and on the mechanisms linking climate to youth outcomes.
The following measurement procedures were used:
- Organizational climate was measured by the Organizational Social Context (OSC) measurement system, a well-established instrument. Scores for two dimensions, engagement and stress, were calculated for each system by aggregating responses for all caseworkers who provided child welfare services in that system.
- Original scales developed for this study measured casework services provided to each child; the tools were completed by the primary caregiver and child’s caseworker.
- The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) measured youth outcomes. The Total Problem T-score, completed by the primary caregiver, was used as a measure of a child’s overall psychosocial functioning.
Several strong points are worth noting: 1) Casework services and outcomes were measured for individual children, while climate was measured only as agency averages; therefore, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was an appropriate analytical procedure; 2) Completely different data sources were used for organizational climate (worker averages) and youth outcomes (caregiver ratings); and 3) There was no possibility of any common method error variance.
While the authors had expected increased casework services to be associated with better outcomes, the only significant effect actually found was in the opposite direction; in hindsight it seems obvious that cases with more serious problems would receive more, rather than fewer casework services. On the other hand, service quality, as described by caseworkers, was the only service variable associated with improved outcomes.