Turnover of SWer in HK
Content
Report on Survey on Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel
November 2010
Prepared by Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel
CONTENTS
Page 1 1 1-2
Background Survey Reference Period Data Collection Methodology Response Situation – I. Exit Questionnaire from SWP Leavers and Proforma from Participating Organisations Telephone Interview Script, Pre-coded Answers and Q&A for the Interview Results of Telephone Interviews
3
II.
3-4
Profile of the Respondents to the Exit Questionnaire Data Analysis – Exit Questionnaire Data Analysis – Telephone Interview Limitations of the Study Conclusions Recommendations Annexes Annex I – Terms of Reference and Membership of the Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel Annex II – Exit Questionnaire (English and Chinese versions) Annex III-A – Script for Telephone Interview Annex III-B – Pre-code Answers Used When Collecting Interviewees’ Recommendation for Retaining SWP in the Social Work Profession Annex III-C – Questions and Answers
5 - 12 13 - 17 18 19 20 - 21 22
23
24 - 31 32 33
34 - 35
Survey on Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel
Background 1. To better understand the turnover and wastage situation of social work field, the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning (ACSWTMP) set up a Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel (Working Group) in August, 20081. A one-off survey was conducted to obtain a better understanding of the reasons of turnover and wastage, and the views of the social workers who had left their jobs. The survey collected data at individual level, i.e. directly from the social work personnel (SWP)2 leavers.
2.
3.
Survey Reference Period 4. The survey reference period lasted for six months, running from 1 May to 31 October 2009. The cut-off date for receiving completed questionnaires was set on 8 December 2009.
Data Collection Methodology 5. The unit of enquiry in this survey was individual SWP job leavers. As at 31 March 2008, there were about 410 organisations (including non-governmental organisations (NGOs)3, Social Welfare Department (SWD), Department of Health (DH) and local training institutions (TIs) offering social work training programmes) employing SWP. Before the commencement of the survey, an invitation letter was sent to these organisations to appeal for their assistance in distributing the self-administered survey questionnaire (exit questionnaire) at Annex II to each SWP leaving their organisations during the survey reference period. The SWP leavers were asked
6.
1
See Annex I for the Terms of Reference and Membership of the Working Group. “Social Work Personnel” (SWP) refer to staff who are holding full-time or part-time posts requiring social work qualifications, regardless they proclaim their status as “social worker” or not. The major responsibilities of SWP include (i) direct practice; (ii) supervisory, administrative and management duties; (iii) teaching and training; (iv) research; and (v) any combination of the above. For Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS), NGO refers to all non-governmental welfare organisations employing SWP. Hospitals (under Hospital Authority), special schools (subvented by Education Bureau), and service units subvented by Home Affairs Bureau employing SWP, as well as major non-conventional settings such as private elderly homes, private residential care homes for persons with disabilities and primary schools employing SWP are also included. 1
2
3
to complete the exit questionnaire and return it to the Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS) Office by mail or fax directly as soon as possible. Electronic template of the questionnaire was also available upon request. 7. In order to derive the overall response rate for the survey, a proforma was also sent to each participating organisation in November 2009 requesting for the provision of information on the total number of SWP leavers during the reference period, as well as their date of birth, gender and type of posts. Data collected from the exit questionnaires returned by SWP leavers and the proformae returned by participating organisations were subject to thorough checking by staff of SWMRS Office and validation checks by computer before tabulation. Such checking included completeness of entries and consistency among data items. Dubious cases were checked and verified by staff of the SWMRS Office, followed by telephone confirmation with the job leavers or participating organisations as far as possible and where applicable. These measures were adopted to ensure that data collected from the survey were of good quality. In order to boost the response rate of the survey, the following measures were taken before/during the data collection period An article introducing the launch of the survey and soliciting the support of registered social workers was published in the Newsletter of the Social Workers Registration Board (April 2009 issue); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) issued a memorandum appealing to its member agencies for support to the survey in May 2009; Between May and July 2009, SWD and HKCSS made telephone calls to the participating organisations explaining the purpose of the survey and addressing their queries or concerns. Opportunity was also taken to seek their support and assistance in distributing the exit questionnaires to the SWP leavers and to solicit their support; and Apart from telephone contacts, courtesy reminders were also sent to the organisations in early August 2009, appealing for their continued support to the survey. 10. To collect qualitative views on the recommendations for retaining SWP in the social work profession from the job leavers, a special telephone survey was conducted in November and December 2009. SWP leavers who had completed the exit questionnaires and provided their contact means were interviewed by telephone. Their views were summarised and categorised for analysis purpose.
8.
9.
2
Response Situation I. Exit Questionnaire from SWP Leavers and Proforma from Participating Organisations After the survey reference period, efforts were made to collect the general profile of the SWP leavers directly from the participating organisations. 406 out of 413 organisations responded. A total of 746 SWP leavers during the survey reference period were recorded by these organisations. Among the 746 SWP leavers, 152 of them completed the exit questionnaires and all of the questionnaires were received by 8 December 2009. The overall response rate was 20.4% (152 / 746 x 100%). Out of these returns, 137 (90.1%) provided telephone numbers for subsequent contacts if necessary, such as for clarification of the response made in the returned questionnaires.
11.
12.
13.
II. 14.
Telephone Interview Out of these 152 returns, 137 (or 90.1%) had provided contact telephone numbers for conducting subsequent special telephone survey. Coupled with the information on strength of participating organisations kept in the SWMRS, the distribution of returned questionnaires containing contact telephone numbers by size of organisation and sector was summarised as follows -
Table 1: Number of returned questionnaires containing contact telephone numbers
Size of organisations employing SWP Small (1 – 20) Medium (21 – 50) Large (>50) Total Leaving sector NGOs 28 12 86 126 (92.0%) 9 9 (6.6%) 2 2 (1.5%) SWD/DH TIs Overall 28 (20.4%) 12 ( 8.8%) 97 (70.8%) 137 (100.0%)
Script, pre-coded answers and Question and Answer (Q&A) for the telephone interview 15. A script for self-introduction of interviewer, purpose of this interview and the open-ended questions were attached at Annex III-A. To facilitate the interviewer in recording interviewees’ views, some pre-coded answers were provided in the coding sheet at Annex III-B. These pre-coded answers would not be read out to the interviewees.
3
16.
17.
To facilitate the interviewer answering enquiries raised by the selected survey respondents, a set of Q&A was also prepared and attached at Annex III-C.
Results of telephone interviews 18. Of the 746 SWP job leavers recorded from the returned proformae, 102 job leavers were successfully contacted for the telephone interviews by end of the data collection period. The overall response rate was 13.7% (102 / 746 x 100%).
Table 2: Result of telephone interviews Result Successful contact cases Non-contact cases Refusal cases Cases with wrong telephone number Duplicated cases Total Number of cases 102 21 9 3 2 137
4
Profile of the Respondents to the Exit Questionnaire 19. Similar to the gender distribution of social workers in general, 73.0% of the respondents were female. Table 3: Gender of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 41 27.0 209 28.0 111 73.0 537 72.0 152 100.0 746 100.0 Strength as at 31/3/044 % 28.7 71.3 100.0
Gender Male Female Total
20.
It is apparent that respondents who left their employing agencies were relatively younger. Almost half (47.4%) of them were 29 years old or below.
Table 4: Age of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 21 13.8 89 12.0 51 33.6 242 32.7 36 18 9 6 4 5 2 152 23.7 11.8 5.9 3.9 2.6 3.3 1.3 100.0 154 96 65 48 15 22 9 740* 20.8 13.0 8.8 6.5 2.0 3.0 1.2 100.0 Strength as at 31/3/044 % 6.7 18.7 23.5 19.6 16.2 9.1 4.8 1.2 0.2 100.0
Age 24 or below 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 or above Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
4
The most update information available on distribution of gender and age of SWP was as at 31 March 2004, which was collected under the Social Work Manpower Planning System (SWMPS) and published in the report “Social Work Manpower Statistics as at 31 March 2004”. The SWMPS was then modified and replaced by the Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS) to better reflect its function of analysing and keeping track of the manpower situation of social work professional in the sector. Coverage of the data collected was adjusted accordingly with information such as gender, age and ranks of SWP no longer captured by the system. 5
21.
While the number of turnover cases for Diploma posts was relatively higher than that for Degree posts, the number of respondents who completed and returned the exit questionnaires was also slightly higher for Diploma posts.
Table 5: Type of post Degree Diploma Total
Type of post of respondents Strength as at 31/3/095 % 52.2 47.8 100.0
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 61 40.1 367 49.3 91 152 59.9 100.0 377 744* 50.7 100.0
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
22.
We noted that more than half (53.3%) of the respondents were occupying Social Work Assistant (SWA) posts or equivalent, and another 35.5% of the respondents were occupying Assistant Social Work Officer (ASWO) posts or equivalent. While we would expect a higher turnover rate for entry-level ranks (i.e. SWA and ASWO), we were unable to test this hypothesis6 as the SWMRS did not have updated information on the current distribution of ranks in the field.
Table 5a: Rank of post of respondents Rank Senior Social Work Officer (or equivalent) or above Social Work Officer (or equivalent) Assistant Social Work Officer (or equivalent) Senior Social Work Assistant (or equivalent) or above Social Work Assistant (or equivalent) Student Guidance Personnel (Academic requirement: Dip/HD/AD) Professorial staff Total No. 2 3 54 7 81 3 2 152 % 1.3 2.0 35.5 4.6 53.3 2.0 1.3 100.0
5 6
The information is extracted from the SWMRS. The most update information available on detailed distribution of ranks in the social work field was as at 31 March 2004. At that time, the percentages of ASWOs in officer grades and SWA in assistant grades were 77.2% and 81.5% respectively. The current percentages of ASWOs and SWAs among the respondents were 91.5% and 89.0% respectively, which were obviously higher than the distribution figures in 2004. However, it should also be noted that entry job ranks increased substantially in the recent years without a corresponding increase in senior posts. 6
23.
On the other hand, we found a much higher percentage of respondents, who were in Degree posts, managed to find new jobs in the social welfare sector after they left their original posts.
Table 5b: Type of post
Type of post left by and new post of respondents Job left No. % 40.1 59.9 100.0 No. 44 32 76 61 91 152 New Job % 57.9 42.1 100.0
Degree Diploma Total
24.
We noted that the majority (73.3%) of the turnover cases had three years or less of service in the post. However, it was noted that in the sample of respondents completing the exit-questionnaire, junior staff was relatively under-represented. In other words, as indicated by the percentage distribution of years of experience among the sample subjects, those with one year or less experience in the post were less likely to complete and return the questionnaire in the exit survey.
Table 6:
Length of service in the Degree/Diploma posts of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 34 40 26 18 4 11 18 151* 22.5 26.5 17.2 11.9 2.6 7.3 11.9 100.0 272 174 97 54 27 62 55 741* 36.7 23.5 13.1 7.3 3.6 8.4 7.4 100.0
Length of service in leaving post (Degree/Diploma post) 1 year or less More than 1 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 to 4 years More than 4 to 5 years More than 5 to 10 years More than 10 years Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
7
25.
While it was observed that the turnover cases in NGOs and TIs were substantially higher than that in SWD/DH, the return rate of exit questionnaire was very much higher among those job leavers from SWD but particularly low for those from TIs.
Table 7:
Sector that respondents served Strength as at 31/3/09 % 78.4 17.7 3.9 100.0
Sector NGOs SWD/DH TIs Total
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 140 92.1 664 89.0 10 2 152 6.6 1.3 100.0 22 60 746 2.9 8.0 100.0
26.
It was noted that disproportionally, the turnover cases were represented by staff in fixed-term contracts. This was at least partly related to the fact that staff involved in turnover cases were relatively younger.
Table 8:
Type of employment contract of the respondents Turnover cases Exit All turnover cases questionnaire No. % No. % 29 19.1 119 16.0 116 6 1 152 76.3 3.9 0.7 100.0 547 74 5 745* 73.4 9.9 0.7 100.0
Type of employment contract of the leaving post
Permanent (non-time-limited) contract Fixed-term contract Temporary contract Others Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
8
27.
It was noted that among those who were employed under fixed-term contract, the majority (over 61%) of the contracts were one year or shorter. While it might appear that duration of fixed-term contract had an impact on turnover rate, there was no knowledge on the prevalence of fixed-term contract and their usual duration in practice. Thus, it was not able to test the validity of this hypothesis. However, it was worthwhile to note that the duration of the new jobs was not much different, i.e. 65.1% were contracts of one year or less.
Table 8a: Duration of fixed-term contract for post left by and new post of respondents Duration 0.5 year or less More than 0.5 to 1 year More than 1 to 1.5 year More than 1.5 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 years Total Job left No. % 1 0.9 70 60.9 4 3.5 27 23.5 10 8.7 3 2.6 115* 100.0 New job No. % 1 1.6 40 63.5 1 1.6 9 14.3 12 19.0 --63* 100.0
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
28.
Noted from the recent rounds of SWMRS reports that the median turnover rates for various types of organisation size were of not much difference.
Table 9:
Turnover rate of organisations by average strength of social workers 2008/09 1st and 3rd Quartile Turnover Rate (%) 0.0 , 33.3 10.8 , 28.0 10.2 , 35.6 11.3 , 22.9 2007/08 2006/07
Average Strength ≦5 5.5 – 20 20.5 – 50 > 50
Median Turnover Rate (%) 0.0 16.7 15.6 17.5
1st and 3rd 1st and 3rd Quartile Quartile Median Turnover Median Turnover Turnover Rate Turnover Rate Rate (%) (%) Rate (%) (%) 0.0 0.0 , 48.6 0.0 0.0 , 50.0 18.8 0.0 , 35.3 14.3 0.0 , 32.8 15.1 11.2 , 24.3 17.7 9.8 , 34.6 17.6 12.0 , 23.0 17.2 13.2 , 22.6
9
29.
There was no obvious difference in the response rates of organisations of different sizes. Table 10: Size of organisations served by respondents
Size of organisation (No. of staff) Small-sized (1-20) Medium-sized (21-50) Large-sized (>50) Total
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 29 19.1 153 20.5 12 111 152 7.9 73.0 100.0 69 524 746 9.2 70.2 100.0
Strength as at 31/3/09 % 12.0 7.4 80.6 100.0
30.
Among those turnover cases, majority of respondents’ previous fields of practice were “youth services”, “family and child welfare services”, “elderly services” and “rehabilitation services”. For respondents who have got new social work posts, it appeared to have a shift of practice from “youth services”, “elderly services” and “school social work” to “medical social services”. Though this was consistent with the common impression, the data collected was not sufficient to establish statistical significance.
Table 11: Respondents’ field of practice Field of practice All respondents Previous field No. % 38 25.2 22 14.6 24 15.9 30 19.9 1 0.7 4 2.6 8 5.3 1 0.7 2 1.3 15 9.9 3 2.0 3 2.0 151* 100.0 For respondents who have got new social work posts Previous field New field No. % No. % 18 23.7 14 18.7 12 15.8 12 16.0 11 14.5 7 9.3 18 23.7 17 22.7 8 10.7 1 1.3 3 4.0 4 5.3 3 4.0 1 1.3 3 4.0 7 9.2 2 2.7 2 2.6 1 1.3 3 3.9 4 5.3 76 100.0 75* 100.0
Youth services Rehabilitation services Elderly services Family and child welfare services Medical social services Community development Services for offenders / drug abusers Administration Social work teaching and training School social work Multiple services Other types of social work Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
10
31.
Though only 21.7% of the turnover cases had worked in the social work field for two years or less, slightly over half (52.0%) of them had worked in the organisation for two years or less. It might be right that a large portion (Table 8a refers) of them was on short-term contracts for two years or less. We also noted that about half (49.3%) of the respondents had worked in the social work field for not more than five years.
Table 12: Respondents’ length of service in organisation and in social work field Length of service 1 year or less More than 1 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 to 4 years More than 4 to 5 years More than 5 to 10 years More than 10 to 15 years More than 15 to 20 years More than 20 years Total In organisation No. % 42 27.6 37 24.3 23 15.1 10 6.6 5 3.3 12 7.9 10 6.6 5 3.3 8 5.3 152 100.0 In social work field No. % 13 8.6 20 13.2 19 12.5 11 7.2 12 7.9 40 26.3 17 11.2 9 5.9 11 7.2 152 100.0
32.
Probably owing to the common adoption of short-term contract in the NGOs sector recently, over 86% of respondents indicated that they had served in one to three organisations.
Table 13: Number of organisations that the respondents had served in social work field Number of organisations 1 2 3 4 5 or more Total No. 52 41 39 12 8 152 % 34.2 27.0 25.7 7.9 5.3 100.0
11
33.
In the study, most of the turnover cases (90.8%) had never been promoted within the organisation. It was noted earlier that 15.1% (Table 12 refers) of them had worked in the organisation for 10 or more years.
Table 14: Whether the respondents had ever been promoted within the organisation they had just left
Ever been promoted within the organisation just left No Yes Total
No. 138 14 152
% 90.8 9.2 100.0
12
Data Analysis - Exit Questionnaire
34.
Though the reported average of satisfaction towards various aspects was somewhat between “no comment” and “satisfied”, the items with the lowest average satisfaction were “promotion prospects”, “fair treatment”, and “professional development”. They were very much related to human resource management practices in the organisation. On the other hand, items with the highest average satisfaction were “relationship with peers”, “job content”, and “relationship with supervisor” which were primarily intrinsic in nature.
Table 15: Respondents’ satisfactions towards various aspects of job
Aspect of job
Promotion prospects Fair treatment Professional development Salary Job guidance and advice from supervisor(s) Workload Sense of achievement Working hours arrangement Relationships with supervisor(s) Job content Relationships with peer(s) Overall degree of satisfaction
Very satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) No comment (3) Dissatisfied (2) Very dissatisfied (1) Total (%) Average No.
3.3% 7.2% 6.6% 7.9% 7.9% 3.3% 8.6% 7.9% 14.5% 8.0% 26.3% 8.6%
21.1% 36.8% 42.8% 43.4% 44.1% 50.7% 44.7% 58.6% 49.3% 62.7% 57.2% 49.3%
53.9% 29.6% 25.0% 19.7% 22.4% 19.7% 22.4% 13.8% 21.7% 18.0% 9.9% 23.7%
16.4% 19.7% 19.1% 25.7% 18.4% 20.4% 18.4% 16.4% 10.5% 10.7% 5.9% 17.8%
5.3% 6.6% 6.6% 3.3% 7.2% 5.9% 5.9% 3.3% 3.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.5
152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 150* 152 152
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
13
35.
Slightly more than one-third of the turnover cases (40.0%) indicated that the main reason for leaving the job was because of dissatisfaction with the post. Of all the respondents, only 7.3% indicated that they intended to leave the social work field.
Table 16: Respondents’ main reason for leaving job
Main Reason for Leaving Job Dissatisfaction with leaving post Try to work in other field / change working environment Better career prospects / development in new job Further studies in SW or in SW-related programme Further studies in non-SW or in non-SW-related programme Intention of leaving social work field Emigration / Personal reason Retirement Expiry of contract and without contract renewal Lapsing of the post Total % Total No. of Respondents
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
% 40.0 12.0 3.3 9.3 6.0 7.3 8.0 5.3 4.7 4.0 100.0 150*
14
36.
We noted that the above analysis was primarily applicable to those turnover cases in NGOs. The number of responses from SWD/DH was small and the major reason of turnover was mostly retirement. The number of responses from TIs was too small to draw any meaningful observation.
Table 16a: Main reason for leaving job by sector*
Reason Lapsing of the post Expiry of contract and without contract renewal Further studies in SW or in SW-related programme Further studies in non-SW or in non-SW-related programme Retirement Dissatisfaction with leaving post Intention of leaving social work field Try to work in other field / change working environment Better career prospects / development in new job Emigration / Personal reason Total
NGOs No. 6 7 14 9 % 4.3 5.1 10.1 6.5
SWD/DH No. %
7 57 11 17 5 12 138* 41.3 8.0 12.3 3.6 8.7 100.0 10 3
70.0 30.0
100.0
Note: 1. Excluding the sector of TIs due to its very small number of responses. 2. * Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
15
37.
Among the 60 respondents who left their job for reason of not satisfied with their posts, the three major factors were “unfavourable salary”, “lack of professional development”, and “inadequate job guidance and advice from supervisors”. Table 17: Factors related to post causing the respondents to leave the job
Factor Unfavourable salary Lack of professional development Inadequate job guidance and advice from supervisor(s) Heavy workload Without sense of occupational achievement Lack of promotion prospects Poor relationships with supervisor(s) Poor working hours arrangement Poor relationships with peer(s) Others
Note: Multiple answers of not more than 3 were allowed.
No. 28 25 24 19 18 14 10 9 5 5
% 46.7 41.7 40.0 31.7 30.0 23.3 16.7 15.0 8.3 8.3
38.
While about 46.7% (Table 17 refers) of those who left their job because of not satisfied with their posts indicated that the main factor was “unfavourable salary”, we noted that 61.2% of respondents with a new job actually had an increase in salary.
Table 18: Change in salary after changing jobs Change in salary Decrease in salary Range > 20% > 10% ~ 20% > 0% ~ 10% Sub-total of decrease Same in salary No change Increase in salary > 0% ~ 10% > 10% ~ 20% > 20% ~ 30% > 30% No specific range given Sub-total of increase Total no. of job leavers with new job arrangement No. 4 6 11 21 12 14 14 17 4 3 52 85 % 4.7 7.1 12.9 24.7 14.1 16.5 16.5 20.0 4.7 3.5 61.2 100.0
16
39.
Among those who indicated that they intended to leave the social work field, approximately half of the factors were related to mostly personal reasons and another half of the factors were related to the conditions in the social work field, mainly, “disappointment with the prospects of social work field” and “inadequate respect for working in social work field”. Though there were respondents considering workload or work pressure as relevant factors, the number was very small in this study.
Table 19: Factors causing the respondents to leave the social work field
Factors I. Mostly personal reasons Wishing to develop in non-social work field Not suitable working in social work field Loss of interest in social work field II. Reasons related to the factors in the social work field Disappointment with the prospects of social work field Inadequate respect for working in social work field High work pressure in social work field Heavy workload in social work field Unstable working hours in social work field Total no. of respondents
Note: Multiple answers of not more than 3 were allowed.
No.
8 2 1 6 5 2 1 1 11
17
Data Analysis – Telephone Interview 40. Through conducting telephone interview with the respondents, it aimed at finding out what they would like to recommend for retaining social workers in the field. The most commonly mentioned recommendation was related to the remuneration package, particularly in the NGOs. “Workload” was the second common item, in particular among those in the NGOs. For those respondents from SWD/DH, “career development and guidance” was the most frequently mentioned area (this conclusion may not be genuine given the small number of job leavers and the remarks at para. 36 that the major reason for SWD/DH staff to leave the organisation was due to retirement).
Table 20: Recommendations from respondents Recommendation Remuneration package Workload Career development and guidance Professionalism Management support Terms of appointment Training Government policy Others Total number of recommendations
No. 68 38 25 20 16 11 10 5 10 203 NGOs % 33.5 18.7 12.3 9.9 7.9 5.4 4.9 2.5 4.9 100.0 SWD/DH No. 4 3 5 2 2 3 2 21 % 19.0 14.3 23.8 9.5 9.5 14.3 9.5 100.0 4 100.0 1 1 25.0 25.0 No. 2 TIs % 50.0 All respondents No. % 72 31.6 43 18.9 30 22 19 12 13 5 12 228 13.2 9.6 8.3 5.3 5.7 2.2 5.3 100.0
Note: Multiple recommendations from each respondent were allowed.
18
Limitations of the Study 41. Of the 746 SWP job leavers during the six-month period of the study, the overall response rates for exit questionnaire and special telephone survey were 20.4% (152 / 746 x 100%) and 13.7% (102 / 746 x 100%) respectively. Although a number of measures attempting to boost the response rate were taken before/during the data collection period, the outcome was still unfavourable. Results should not be generalised to represent all SWP leavers during the survey reference period. Readers should take note of this limitation and be cautious when interpreting the survey findings in this study. Owing to the limited number of respondents from TIs and SWD/DH7, the results were primarily relevant to the situations of the participating NGOs. Given a sample size of 152, it was not able to perform more elaborative analyses such as detailed cross-tabulation. Similarly, owing to the limited number of turnover cases, many observations in this study would remain hypothetical and could not be treated as conclusive. Again, owing to the limited number of wastage cases (i.e. those who have intention of leaving the social work field), the findings of this study were mainly relevant to mobility within the social work field.
42.
43.
44.
7
As noted earlier, seven out of the 10 SWD/DH respondents left SWD/DH because of retirement. 19
Conclusions 45. According to the various responses related to satisfaction, reasons of leaving the organisation and recommendations, there are two sets of factors related to the turnover of SWP, namely extrinsic factors including “salary” and “workload”; and intrinsic factors including “professional development” and “supervisory support and guidance”. Both “salary” and “workload” are primarily management issues of NGOs. Though “salary” may not be a conclusive reason for attracting people to join the social work field, this can be a source of dissatisfaction for people to leave their job or organisation. To help retain quality staff, “salary” management practice is still a big challenge to NGOs. Promotion of the best practice in this area would help reduce the turnover of staff. The increasing service demand, increasing competition in obtaining service contracts, and reducing staff cost are the major sources of the increase of workload. While the issue of “increasing service demand” is mainly extrinsic to management decisions, strategies to bidding contracts and reducing staff costs are primarily issues of management decisions. Also, workload is not just a matter for social workers but a general issue for the Hong Kong working population, the issue of workload would remain difficult to handle if management takes “doing more with less” as a motto. Apparently, “achieving more with less” instead of “doing more with less” would give the management one strategic direction in managing workload, i.e. deploying existing staff resources more efficiently from tasks of lower values to tasks of higher values would enable more achievement with less or no additional resources. The recent establishment of the Social Welfare Development Fund would enable the improvement in professional development and training of social welfare staff including social workers engaged in SWD subvented posts. It would be even more advantageous if the NGOs could re-focus their existing resources in staff development and training to social workers who are not engaged in subvented posts. The issue of “supervisory support and guidance” has caused substantial concern in the past few years. Prior to the implementation of lump sum grant system, there was a mechanism to work out the target subvention for administrative and supervisory support. Though such targets had hardly been achieved in the past, efforts to seek additional resources to meet these targets were made from time to time in the resource allocation exercise within the Government. This problem was exacerbated by the increasing trend for NGOs to seek funding from multiple sources that they normally would not consider administrative and supervisory support as “supportable”. As a result, front-line and mid-level management in the social work field have to stretch their span of control and hence supervisory
20
46.
47.
48.
49.
support and guidance would be inevitably “thinning” out. An additional recurrent resource of $200 million was allocated to strengthen the administrative support for NGOs starting from the financial year 2008-09, the extent to which such resources were deployed to strengthen supervisory support is unknown. Apparently, a more thorough review on the support of supervisory support and guidance might be useful. 50. The Social Workers Registration Board has completed the “Study on the Current State of Supervision for Social Workers in Hong Kong” in 2006 and recommended, amongst other things, to improve the training for supervisors, the development of peer supervision from experienced workers, and re-focusing supervisory support to new entrants of social work field. Apparently, little attention has been paid to these recommendations, let alone implementing them. There might be a need to revisit these recommendations. Employment contract practices had been a concern in the NGO sector ever since the implementation of the new subvention system. Though the observations about the impact of short-term contracts on turnover rates from this study cannot be conclusive, there may be a need to obtain more objective data on this issue, and, at least, to promote good practice in staff contract management.
51.
21
Recommendations 52. The draft report was submitted to the ACSWTMP on 29 June 2010. After discussion, the Committee had the following views – a) it was noted from the survey findings that while many SWP showed strong commitment to the profession, they might not be so committed to their organisations. The high turnover rate in the social work sector might in turn adversely affect the quality of services to clients. Enhancing professional development was one of the possible ways to retain SWP serving in the same organisations; and it was considered that the following four factors leading to high turnover would be worthwhile for further study, namely employment contract management, salary and promotion, supervisory support and guidance, and professional development.
b)
53.
Having regard to the views of ACSWTMP and those identified key factors related to the turnover of SWP in the social work field as set out in the above paragraphs, the Working Group recommends the following which may be conducive to retaining SWP in the field a) The survey results will be shared with NGOs to encourage them to allocate more resources to professional training and supervisory support of their staff. Better management practices, including those related to “salary”, “workload” and “employment contract” will also be promoted. Findings of the survey will be referred to SWD for considering related strategies as well as advising NGOs on professional training and career development of SWP. As professional training and development are crucial for retaining SWP in the field, ACSWTMP is suggested to continue keeping track of the needs among SWP and advise the Government as appropriate.
b)
c)
22
Annex I Terms of Reference and Membership of Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel [under the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning]
I.
Terms of Reference The Working Group aims to –
(a) study the turnover and wastage situations of social work personnel in the recent years, including the trends and reasons behind, as well as the implications on the social work manpower; and (b) report to the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning (ACSWTMP) on the findings and recommend the way forward.
II. Membership
Convenor:
Mr Joseph WONG [ACSWTMP Member and Joint Committee on Social Work Manpower Requirements (JCSWMR) Member] Dr LAW Chi-kwong, SBS, JP [JCSWMR Member] Ms Rainbow CHEUNG, JP [ACSWTMP Member and JCSWMR Member] Mr WONG Yuk-tong [C(SDT), SWD] Mr Patrick LAM [Stat(SW)1, SWD]
Members:
Secretary: Ms Loletta LAU [Secretary, ACSWTMP]
23
Annex II
Exit Questionnaire (English Version)
24
25
26
27
Exit Questionnaire (Chinese Version)
28
29
30
31
Annex III-A
Script for Telephone Interview 引言： 早晨／午安／晚安，我姓（講出姓氏） ，係社署統計組嘅職員。我哋較早前收 到你寄／Fax返嚟關於「社會工作者離職及流失調查」嘅問卷。首先多謝你嘅回 覆。我哋想喺電話喥問多一條補充問題。請問你而家方唔方便呢？ （如對方冇時間／唔方便） 咁樣我幾時方便再聯絡你？係唔喺打返呢個電話號碼呢？‥‥‥唔該。 （如對方提供再聯絡的時間是非辦公時間） 唔好意思，我哋嘅辦公時間係朝早九點至晏晝六點；如果方便嘅話，希望你盡 量揀選辦公時間，食晏時段都無問題，我哋會盡量配合。 a)（如對方不願意） （追問）你畀嘅資料會絕對保密，我哋好希望你可以俾到意見關於點樣先至能 夠挽留喥社工繼續喺社福界服務？ b)（如對方繼續不願意） ，咁多謝你之前嘅回覆，打攪晒。 （如對方有時間） （慢讀出） 「就你個人嘅意見，你認為點樣先至能夠挽留喥社工繼續為社福界 服務呢？」 （按次序記錄對方提出嘅重點 …） （如對方只說出一兩點）（繼續追問）仲有冇呢？你可以再諗一諗。 ， （繼續按 次序記錄對方提出嘅重點 …）？ 就你剛才提出嘅意見（概括地說出對方提出嘅重點） ，你認為邊樣最能夠挽留 喥社工呢？笫二，笫三… （訪問完結時） 另外，為咗保證我哋嘅訪問質素，社署統計組主任或會喺稍後時間再聯絡閣下 確認啱啱嘅對話，確保資料嘅準確性。 多謝閣下今次寶貴嘅意見。拜拜。
32
Annex III-B
Pre-code Answers Used When Collecting Interviewees’ Recommendation for Retaining Social Work Personnel in the Social Work Profession
Making reference to the findings in the Report on the Wastage Study on Trained Social Workers published in May 1982, the following are some pre-coded answers to use: ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 改善晉升機會／工作前景 增加薪金和附帶福利 提高專業地位 為員工提供更多發展機會 改善聘用機構的機構管治
• • • • •
improve promotion/career prospects increase salary and fringe benefits enhance professional recognition increase staff development opportunities improve the employing organisations' corporate governance
(Note: Items other than the above will be recorded by the interviewer for subsequent analysis.)
33
Annex III-C Questions and Answers 1. What is the purpose/objective of this survey? Ans: 我哋發現近年社工嘅離職及流失率比以前大，為咗了解情況， 所以進行今次嘅問卷調查。 Which department commissions this survey? Ans: 調查係由「社會工作人力需求聯合委員會」進行，委員會成員 嚟自社聯同社署。 Why do you phone to me after I returned the questionnaire for quite a while? Ans: 我哋而家做緊資料分析，為令調查結果更全面，所以想請你 再幫一幫忙答呢條補充問題。 Why do you not conduct focus groups or individual interviews? Ans: 考慮資源同其他因素，我哋覺得用電話訪問比較合適。 What is your office telephone number so that I can call you back when I am free? Ans: 2892 5237. Who are you? How can I check your identification? Ans: 我姓（講出姓氏） ，係社署統計組嘅職員。 你可以喺政府網上電話簿搵到我直屬上司嘅電話同埋e-mail， 網址係 “http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0273005762_CHI.html” 。 你亦可以打電話比我嘅上司作身分確認。 Is there any telephone no. or email address for me to lodge a complaint? Ans: 我直屬上司係陳小姐，佢係社署嘅統計主任，電話2892 5230， email address [email protected]。 How do you analyze the data collected in the telephone interview? Ans: 我哋會將收集返嚟嘅資料作重點綜合分析。 When will the survey result be available? Ans: 大約喺明年初。
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
34
10. Will the survey results be released to the public? Ans: 而家未定。 11. Will responses collected from the job leavers be published? Ans: 我哋會以總計形式公佈調查結果，而你提供嘅資料同個人意見 會絕對保密，唔會向任何機構或人士披露（包括政府部門） 。 12. Will my ex-employer know my views collected from either my returned questionnaire or in this telephone interview? Ans: 一定唔會，你可以放心，你提供嘅意見，我哋只會用作統計分 析，絕對唔會將有關資料向任何機構或人士披露。
35
November 2010
Prepared by Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel
CONTENTS
Page 1 1 1-2
Background Survey Reference Period Data Collection Methodology Response Situation – I. Exit Questionnaire from SWP Leavers and Proforma from Participating Organisations Telephone Interview Script, Pre-coded Answers and Q&A for the Interview Results of Telephone Interviews
3
II.
3-4
Profile of the Respondents to the Exit Questionnaire Data Analysis – Exit Questionnaire Data Analysis – Telephone Interview Limitations of the Study Conclusions Recommendations Annexes Annex I – Terms of Reference and Membership of the Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel Annex II – Exit Questionnaire (English and Chinese versions) Annex III-A – Script for Telephone Interview Annex III-B – Pre-code Answers Used When Collecting Interviewees’ Recommendation for Retaining SWP in the Social Work Profession Annex III-C – Questions and Answers
5 - 12 13 - 17 18 19 20 - 21 22
23
24 - 31 32 33
34 - 35
Survey on Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel
Background 1. To better understand the turnover and wastage situation of social work field, the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning (ACSWTMP) set up a Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel (Working Group) in August, 20081. A one-off survey was conducted to obtain a better understanding of the reasons of turnover and wastage, and the views of the social workers who had left their jobs. The survey collected data at individual level, i.e. directly from the social work personnel (SWP)2 leavers.
2.
3.
Survey Reference Period 4. The survey reference period lasted for six months, running from 1 May to 31 October 2009. The cut-off date for receiving completed questionnaires was set on 8 December 2009.
Data Collection Methodology 5. The unit of enquiry in this survey was individual SWP job leavers. As at 31 March 2008, there were about 410 organisations (including non-governmental organisations (NGOs)3, Social Welfare Department (SWD), Department of Health (DH) and local training institutions (TIs) offering social work training programmes) employing SWP. Before the commencement of the survey, an invitation letter was sent to these organisations to appeal for their assistance in distributing the self-administered survey questionnaire (exit questionnaire) at Annex II to each SWP leaving their organisations during the survey reference period. The SWP leavers were asked
6.
1
See Annex I for the Terms of Reference and Membership of the Working Group. “Social Work Personnel” (SWP) refer to staff who are holding full-time or part-time posts requiring social work qualifications, regardless they proclaim their status as “social worker” or not. The major responsibilities of SWP include (i) direct practice; (ii) supervisory, administrative and management duties; (iii) teaching and training; (iv) research; and (v) any combination of the above. For Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS), NGO refers to all non-governmental welfare organisations employing SWP. Hospitals (under Hospital Authority), special schools (subvented by Education Bureau), and service units subvented by Home Affairs Bureau employing SWP, as well as major non-conventional settings such as private elderly homes, private residential care homes for persons with disabilities and primary schools employing SWP are also included. 1
2
3
to complete the exit questionnaire and return it to the Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS) Office by mail or fax directly as soon as possible. Electronic template of the questionnaire was also available upon request. 7. In order to derive the overall response rate for the survey, a proforma was also sent to each participating organisation in November 2009 requesting for the provision of information on the total number of SWP leavers during the reference period, as well as their date of birth, gender and type of posts. Data collected from the exit questionnaires returned by SWP leavers and the proformae returned by participating organisations were subject to thorough checking by staff of SWMRS Office and validation checks by computer before tabulation. Such checking included completeness of entries and consistency among data items. Dubious cases were checked and verified by staff of the SWMRS Office, followed by telephone confirmation with the job leavers or participating organisations as far as possible and where applicable. These measures were adopted to ensure that data collected from the survey were of good quality. In order to boost the response rate of the survey, the following measures were taken before/during the data collection period An article introducing the launch of the survey and soliciting the support of registered social workers was published in the Newsletter of the Social Workers Registration Board (April 2009 issue); The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) issued a memorandum appealing to its member agencies for support to the survey in May 2009; Between May and July 2009, SWD and HKCSS made telephone calls to the participating organisations explaining the purpose of the survey and addressing their queries or concerns. Opportunity was also taken to seek their support and assistance in distributing the exit questionnaires to the SWP leavers and to solicit their support; and Apart from telephone contacts, courtesy reminders were also sent to the organisations in early August 2009, appealing for their continued support to the survey. 10. To collect qualitative views on the recommendations for retaining SWP in the social work profession from the job leavers, a special telephone survey was conducted in November and December 2009. SWP leavers who had completed the exit questionnaires and provided their contact means were interviewed by telephone. Their views were summarised and categorised for analysis purpose.
8.
9.
2
Response Situation I. Exit Questionnaire from SWP Leavers and Proforma from Participating Organisations After the survey reference period, efforts were made to collect the general profile of the SWP leavers directly from the participating organisations. 406 out of 413 organisations responded. A total of 746 SWP leavers during the survey reference period were recorded by these organisations. Among the 746 SWP leavers, 152 of them completed the exit questionnaires and all of the questionnaires were received by 8 December 2009. The overall response rate was 20.4% (152 / 746 x 100%). Out of these returns, 137 (90.1%) provided telephone numbers for subsequent contacts if necessary, such as for clarification of the response made in the returned questionnaires.
11.
12.
13.
II. 14.
Telephone Interview Out of these 152 returns, 137 (or 90.1%) had provided contact telephone numbers for conducting subsequent special telephone survey. Coupled with the information on strength of participating organisations kept in the SWMRS, the distribution of returned questionnaires containing contact telephone numbers by size of organisation and sector was summarised as follows -
Table 1: Number of returned questionnaires containing contact telephone numbers
Size of organisations employing SWP Small (1 – 20) Medium (21 – 50) Large (>50) Total Leaving sector NGOs 28 12 86 126 (92.0%) 9 9 (6.6%) 2 2 (1.5%) SWD/DH TIs Overall 28 (20.4%) 12 ( 8.8%) 97 (70.8%) 137 (100.0%)
Script, pre-coded answers and Question and Answer (Q&A) for the telephone interview 15. A script for self-introduction of interviewer, purpose of this interview and the open-ended questions were attached at Annex III-A. To facilitate the interviewer in recording interviewees’ views, some pre-coded answers were provided in the coding sheet at Annex III-B. These pre-coded answers would not be read out to the interviewees.
3
16.
17.
To facilitate the interviewer answering enquiries raised by the selected survey respondents, a set of Q&A was also prepared and attached at Annex III-C.
Results of telephone interviews 18. Of the 746 SWP job leavers recorded from the returned proformae, 102 job leavers were successfully contacted for the telephone interviews by end of the data collection period. The overall response rate was 13.7% (102 / 746 x 100%).
Table 2: Result of telephone interviews Result Successful contact cases Non-contact cases Refusal cases Cases with wrong telephone number Duplicated cases Total Number of cases 102 21 9 3 2 137
4
Profile of the Respondents to the Exit Questionnaire 19. Similar to the gender distribution of social workers in general, 73.0% of the respondents were female. Table 3: Gender of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 41 27.0 209 28.0 111 73.0 537 72.0 152 100.0 746 100.0 Strength as at 31/3/044 % 28.7 71.3 100.0
Gender Male Female Total
20.
It is apparent that respondents who left their employing agencies were relatively younger. Almost half (47.4%) of them were 29 years old or below.
Table 4: Age of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 21 13.8 89 12.0 51 33.6 242 32.7 36 18 9 6 4 5 2 152 23.7 11.8 5.9 3.9 2.6 3.3 1.3 100.0 154 96 65 48 15 22 9 740* 20.8 13.0 8.8 6.5 2.0 3.0 1.2 100.0 Strength as at 31/3/044 % 6.7 18.7 23.5 19.6 16.2 9.1 4.8 1.2 0.2 100.0
Age 24 or below 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60 or above Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
4
The most update information available on distribution of gender and age of SWP was as at 31 March 2004, which was collected under the Social Work Manpower Planning System (SWMPS) and published in the report “Social Work Manpower Statistics as at 31 March 2004”. The SWMPS was then modified and replaced by the Social Work Manpower Requirements System (SWMRS) to better reflect its function of analysing and keeping track of the manpower situation of social work professional in the sector. Coverage of the data collected was adjusted accordingly with information such as gender, age and ranks of SWP no longer captured by the system. 5
21.
While the number of turnover cases for Diploma posts was relatively higher than that for Degree posts, the number of respondents who completed and returned the exit questionnaires was also slightly higher for Diploma posts.
Table 5: Type of post Degree Diploma Total
Type of post of respondents Strength as at 31/3/095 % 52.2 47.8 100.0
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 61 40.1 367 49.3 91 152 59.9 100.0 377 744* 50.7 100.0
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
22.
We noted that more than half (53.3%) of the respondents were occupying Social Work Assistant (SWA) posts or equivalent, and another 35.5% of the respondents were occupying Assistant Social Work Officer (ASWO) posts or equivalent. While we would expect a higher turnover rate for entry-level ranks (i.e. SWA and ASWO), we were unable to test this hypothesis6 as the SWMRS did not have updated information on the current distribution of ranks in the field.
Table 5a: Rank of post of respondents Rank Senior Social Work Officer (or equivalent) or above Social Work Officer (or equivalent) Assistant Social Work Officer (or equivalent) Senior Social Work Assistant (or equivalent) or above Social Work Assistant (or equivalent) Student Guidance Personnel (Academic requirement: Dip/HD/AD) Professorial staff Total No. 2 3 54 7 81 3 2 152 % 1.3 2.0 35.5 4.6 53.3 2.0 1.3 100.0
5 6
The information is extracted from the SWMRS. The most update information available on detailed distribution of ranks in the social work field was as at 31 March 2004. At that time, the percentages of ASWOs in officer grades and SWA in assistant grades were 77.2% and 81.5% respectively. The current percentages of ASWOs and SWAs among the respondents were 91.5% and 89.0% respectively, which were obviously higher than the distribution figures in 2004. However, it should also be noted that entry job ranks increased substantially in the recent years without a corresponding increase in senior posts. 6
23.
On the other hand, we found a much higher percentage of respondents, who were in Degree posts, managed to find new jobs in the social welfare sector after they left their original posts.
Table 5b: Type of post
Type of post left by and new post of respondents Job left No. % 40.1 59.9 100.0 No. 44 32 76 61 91 152 New Job % 57.9 42.1 100.0
Degree Diploma Total
24.
We noted that the majority (73.3%) of the turnover cases had three years or less of service in the post. However, it was noted that in the sample of respondents completing the exit-questionnaire, junior staff was relatively under-represented. In other words, as indicated by the percentage distribution of years of experience among the sample subjects, those with one year or less experience in the post were less likely to complete and return the questionnaire in the exit survey.
Table 6:
Length of service in the Degree/Diploma posts of respondents Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 34 40 26 18 4 11 18 151* 22.5 26.5 17.2 11.9 2.6 7.3 11.9 100.0 272 174 97 54 27 62 55 741* 36.7 23.5 13.1 7.3 3.6 8.4 7.4 100.0
Length of service in leaving post (Degree/Diploma post) 1 year or less More than 1 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 to 4 years More than 4 to 5 years More than 5 to 10 years More than 10 years Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
7
25.
While it was observed that the turnover cases in NGOs and TIs were substantially higher than that in SWD/DH, the return rate of exit questionnaire was very much higher among those job leavers from SWD but particularly low for those from TIs.
Table 7:
Sector that respondents served Strength as at 31/3/09 % 78.4 17.7 3.9 100.0
Sector NGOs SWD/DH TIs Total
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 140 92.1 664 89.0 10 2 152 6.6 1.3 100.0 22 60 746 2.9 8.0 100.0
26.
It was noted that disproportionally, the turnover cases were represented by staff in fixed-term contracts. This was at least partly related to the fact that staff involved in turnover cases were relatively younger.
Table 8:
Type of employment contract of the respondents Turnover cases Exit All turnover cases questionnaire No. % No. % 29 19.1 119 16.0 116 6 1 152 76.3 3.9 0.7 100.0 547 74 5 745* 73.4 9.9 0.7 100.0
Type of employment contract of the leaving post
Permanent (non-time-limited) contract Fixed-term contract Temporary contract Others Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
8
27.
It was noted that among those who were employed under fixed-term contract, the majority (over 61%) of the contracts were one year or shorter. While it might appear that duration of fixed-term contract had an impact on turnover rate, there was no knowledge on the prevalence of fixed-term contract and their usual duration in practice. Thus, it was not able to test the validity of this hypothesis. However, it was worthwhile to note that the duration of the new jobs was not much different, i.e. 65.1% were contracts of one year or less.
Table 8a: Duration of fixed-term contract for post left by and new post of respondents Duration 0.5 year or less More than 0.5 to 1 year More than 1 to 1.5 year More than 1.5 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 years Total Job left No. % 1 0.9 70 60.9 4 3.5 27 23.5 10 8.7 3 2.6 115* 100.0 New job No. % 1 1.6 40 63.5 1 1.6 9 14.3 12 19.0 --63* 100.0
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
28.
Noted from the recent rounds of SWMRS reports that the median turnover rates for various types of organisation size were of not much difference.
Table 9:
Turnover rate of organisations by average strength of social workers 2008/09 1st and 3rd Quartile Turnover Rate (%) 0.0 , 33.3 10.8 , 28.0 10.2 , 35.6 11.3 , 22.9 2007/08 2006/07
Average Strength ≦5 5.5 – 20 20.5 – 50 > 50
Median Turnover Rate (%) 0.0 16.7 15.6 17.5
1st and 3rd 1st and 3rd Quartile Quartile Median Turnover Median Turnover Turnover Rate Turnover Rate Rate (%) (%) Rate (%) (%) 0.0 0.0 , 48.6 0.0 0.0 , 50.0 18.8 0.0 , 35.3 14.3 0.0 , 32.8 15.1 11.2 , 24.3 17.7 9.8 , 34.6 17.6 12.0 , 23.0 17.2 13.2 , 22.6
9
29.
There was no obvious difference in the response rates of organisations of different sizes. Table 10: Size of organisations served by respondents
Size of organisation (No. of staff) Small-sized (1-20) Medium-sized (21-50) Large-sized (>50) Total
Turnover cases Exit questionnaire All turnover cases No. % No. % 29 19.1 153 20.5 12 111 152 7.9 73.0 100.0 69 524 746 9.2 70.2 100.0
Strength as at 31/3/09 % 12.0 7.4 80.6 100.0
30.
Among those turnover cases, majority of respondents’ previous fields of practice were “youth services”, “family and child welfare services”, “elderly services” and “rehabilitation services”. For respondents who have got new social work posts, it appeared to have a shift of practice from “youth services”, “elderly services” and “school social work” to “medical social services”. Though this was consistent with the common impression, the data collected was not sufficient to establish statistical significance.
Table 11: Respondents’ field of practice Field of practice All respondents Previous field No. % 38 25.2 22 14.6 24 15.9 30 19.9 1 0.7 4 2.6 8 5.3 1 0.7 2 1.3 15 9.9 3 2.0 3 2.0 151* 100.0 For respondents who have got new social work posts Previous field New field No. % No. % 18 23.7 14 18.7 12 15.8 12 16.0 11 14.5 7 9.3 18 23.7 17 22.7 8 10.7 1 1.3 3 4.0 4 5.3 3 4.0 1 1.3 3 4.0 7 9.2 2 2.7 2 2.6 1 1.3 3 3.9 4 5.3 76 100.0 75* 100.0
Youth services Rehabilitation services Elderly services Family and child welfare services Medical social services Community development Services for offenders / drug abusers Administration Social work teaching and training School social work Multiple services Other types of social work Total
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
10
31.
Though only 21.7% of the turnover cases had worked in the social work field for two years or less, slightly over half (52.0%) of them had worked in the organisation for two years or less. It might be right that a large portion (Table 8a refers) of them was on short-term contracts for two years or less. We also noted that about half (49.3%) of the respondents had worked in the social work field for not more than five years.
Table 12: Respondents’ length of service in organisation and in social work field Length of service 1 year or less More than 1 to 2 years More than 2 to 3 years More than 3 to 4 years More than 4 to 5 years More than 5 to 10 years More than 10 to 15 years More than 15 to 20 years More than 20 years Total In organisation No. % 42 27.6 37 24.3 23 15.1 10 6.6 5 3.3 12 7.9 10 6.6 5 3.3 8 5.3 152 100.0 In social work field No. % 13 8.6 20 13.2 19 12.5 11 7.2 12 7.9 40 26.3 17 11.2 9 5.9 11 7.2 152 100.0
32.
Probably owing to the common adoption of short-term contract in the NGOs sector recently, over 86% of respondents indicated that they had served in one to three organisations.
Table 13: Number of organisations that the respondents had served in social work field Number of organisations 1 2 3 4 5 or more Total No. 52 41 39 12 8 152 % 34.2 27.0 25.7 7.9 5.3 100.0
11
33.
In the study, most of the turnover cases (90.8%) had never been promoted within the organisation. It was noted earlier that 15.1% (Table 12 refers) of them had worked in the organisation for 10 or more years.
Table 14: Whether the respondents had ever been promoted within the organisation they had just left
Ever been promoted within the organisation just left No Yes Total
No. 138 14 152
% 90.8 9.2 100.0
12
Data Analysis - Exit Questionnaire
34.
Though the reported average of satisfaction towards various aspects was somewhat between “no comment” and “satisfied”, the items with the lowest average satisfaction were “promotion prospects”, “fair treatment”, and “professional development”. They were very much related to human resource management practices in the organisation. On the other hand, items with the highest average satisfaction were “relationship with peers”, “job content”, and “relationship with supervisor” which were primarily intrinsic in nature.
Table 15: Respondents’ satisfactions towards various aspects of job
Aspect of job
Promotion prospects Fair treatment Professional development Salary Job guidance and advice from supervisor(s) Workload Sense of achievement Working hours arrangement Relationships with supervisor(s) Job content Relationships with peer(s) Overall degree of satisfaction
Very satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) No comment (3) Dissatisfied (2) Very dissatisfied (1) Total (%) Average No.
3.3% 7.2% 6.6% 7.9% 7.9% 3.3% 8.6% 7.9% 14.5% 8.0% 26.3% 8.6%
21.1% 36.8% 42.8% 43.4% 44.1% 50.7% 44.7% 58.6% 49.3% 62.7% 57.2% 49.3%
53.9% 29.6% 25.0% 19.7% 22.4% 19.7% 22.4% 13.8% 21.7% 18.0% 9.9% 23.7%
16.4% 19.7% 19.1% 25.7% 18.4% 20.4% 18.4% 16.4% 10.5% 10.7% 5.9% 17.8%
5.3% 6.6% 6.6% 3.3% 7.2% 5.9% 5.9% 3.3% 3.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7%
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
3.0 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.0 3.5
152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 150* 152 152
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
13
35.
Slightly more than one-third of the turnover cases (40.0%) indicated that the main reason for leaving the job was because of dissatisfaction with the post. Of all the respondents, only 7.3% indicated that they intended to leave the social work field.
Table 16: Respondents’ main reason for leaving job
Main Reason for Leaving Job Dissatisfaction with leaving post Try to work in other field / change working environment Better career prospects / development in new job Further studies in SW or in SW-related programme Further studies in non-SW or in non-SW-related programme Intention of leaving social work field Emigration / Personal reason Retirement Expiry of contract and without contract renewal Lapsing of the post Total % Total No. of Respondents
* Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
% 40.0 12.0 3.3 9.3 6.0 7.3 8.0 5.3 4.7 4.0 100.0 150*
14
36.
We noted that the above analysis was primarily applicable to those turnover cases in NGOs. The number of responses from SWD/DH was small and the major reason of turnover was mostly retirement. The number of responses from TIs was too small to draw any meaningful observation.
Table 16a: Main reason for leaving job by sector*
Reason Lapsing of the post Expiry of contract and without contract renewal Further studies in SW or in SW-related programme Further studies in non-SW or in non-SW-related programme Retirement Dissatisfaction with leaving post Intention of leaving social work field Try to work in other field / change working environment Better career prospects / development in new job Emigration / Personal reason Total
NGOs No. 6 7 14 9 % 4.3 5.1 10.1 6.5
SWD/DH No. %
7 57 11 17 5 12 138* 41.3 8.0 12.3 3.6 8.7 100.0 10 3
70.0 30.0
100.0
Note: 1. Excluding the sector of TIs due to its very small number of responses. 2. * Excluding cases with no answer given for the corresponding variable.
15
37.
Among the 60 respondents who left their job for reason of not satisfied with their posts, the three major factors were “unfavourable salary”, “lack of professional development”, and “inadequate job guidance and advice from supervisors”. Table 17: Factors related to post causing the respondents to leave the job
Factor Unfavourable salary Lack of professional development Inadequate job guidance and advice from supervisor(s) Heavy workload Without sense of occupational achievement Lack of promotion prospects Poor relationships with supervisor(s) Poor working hours arrangement Poor relationships with peer(s) Others
Note: Multiple answers of not more than 3 were allowed.
No. 28 25 24 19 18 14 10 9 5 5
% 46.7 41.7 40.0 31.7 30.0 23.3 16.7 15.0 8.3 8.3
38.
While about 46.7% (Table 17 refers) of those who left their job because of not satisfied with their posts indicated that the main factor was “unfavourable salary”, we noted that 61.2% of respondents with a new job actually had an increase in salary.
Table 18: Change in salary after changing jobs Change in salary Decrease in salary Range > 20% > 10% ~ 20% > 0% ~ 10% Sub-total of decrease Same in salary No change Increase in salary > 0% ~ 10% > 10% ~ 20% > 20% ~ 30% > 30% No specific range given Sub-total of increase Total no. of job leavers with new job arrangement No. 4 6 11 21 12 14 14 17 4 3 52 85 % 4.7 7.1 12.9 24.7 14.1 16.5 16.5 20.0 4.7 3.5 61.2 100.0
16
39.
Among those who indicated that they intended to leave the social work field, approximately half of the factors were related to mostly personal reasons and another half of the factors were related to the conditions in the social work field, mainly, “disappointment with the prospects of social work field” and “inadequate respect for working in social work field”. Though there were respondents considering workload or work pressure as relevant factors, the number was very small in this study.
Table 19: Factors causing the respondents to leave the social work field
Factors I. Mostly personal reasons Wishing to develop in non-social work field Not suitable working in social work field Loss of interest in social work field II. Reasons related to the factors in the social work field Disappointment with the prospects of social work field Inadequate respect for working in social work field High work pressure in social work field Heavy workload in social work field Unstable working hours in social work field Total no. of respondents
Note: Multiple answers of not more than 3 were allowed.
No.
8 2 1 6 5 2 1 1 11
17
Data Analysis – Telephone Interview 40. Through conducting telephone interview with the respondents, it aimed at finding out what they would like to recommend for retaining social workers in the field. The most commonly mentioned recommendation was related to the remuneration package, particularly in the NGOs. “Workload” was the second common item, in particular among those in the NGOs. For those respondents from SWD/DH, “career development and guidance” was the most frequently mentioned area (this conclusion may not be genuine given the small number of job leavers and the remarks at para. 36 that the major reason for SWD/DH staff to leave the organisation was due to retirement).
Table 20: Recommendations from respondents Recommendation Remuneration package Workload Career development and guidance Professionalism Management support Terms of appointment Training Government policy Others Total number of recommendations
No. 68 38 25 20 16 11 10 5 10 203 NGOs % 33.5 18.7 12.3 9.9 7.9 5.4 4.9 2.5 4.9 100.0 SWD/DH No. 4 3 5 2 2 3 2 21 % 19.0 14.3 23.8 9.5 9.5 14.3 9.5 100.0 4 100.0 1 1 25.0 25.0 No. 2 TIs % 50.0 All respondents No. % 72 31.6 43 18.9 30 22 19 12 13 5 12 228 13.2 9.6 8.3 5.3 5.7 2.2 5.3 100.0
Note: Multiple recommendations from each respondent were allowed.
18
Limitations of the Study 41. Of the 746 SWP job leavers during the six-month period of the study, the overall response rates for exit questionnaire and special telephone survey were 20.4% (152 / 746 x 100%) and 13.7% (102 / 746 x 100%) respectively. Although a number of measures attempting to boost the response rate were taken before/during the data collection period, the outcome was still unfavourable. Results should not be generalised to represent all SWP leavers during the survey reference period. Readers should take note of this limitation and be cautious when interpreting the survey findings in this study. Owing to the limited number of respondents from TIs and SWD/DH7, the results were primarily relevant to the situations of the participating NGOs. Given a sample size of 152, it was not able to perform more elaborative analyses such as detailed cross-tabulation. Similarly, owing to the limited number of turnover cases, many observations in this study would remain hypothetical and could not be treated as conclusive. Again, owing to the limited number of wastage cases (i.e. those who have intention of leaving the social work field), the findings of this study were mainly relevant to mobility within the social work field.
42.
43.
44.
7
As noted earlier, seven out of the 10 SWD/DH respondents left SWD/DH because of retirement. 19
Conclusions 45. According to the various responses related to satisfaction, reasons of leaving the organisation and recommendations, there are two sets of factors related to the turnover of SWP, namely extrinsic factors including “salary” and “workload”; and intrinsic factors including “professional development” and “supervisory support and guidance”. Both “salary” and “workload” are primarily management issues of NGOs. Though “salary” may not be a conclusive reason for attracting people to join the social work field, this can be a source of dissatisfaction for people to leave their job or organisation. To help retain quality staff, “salary” management practice is still a big challenge to NGOs. Promotion of the best practice in this area would help reduce the turnover of staff. The increasing service demand, increasing competition in obtaining service contracts, and reducing staff cost are the major sources of the increase of workload. While the issue of “increasing service demand” is mainly extrinsic to management decisions, strategies to bidding contracts and reducing staff costs are primarily issues of management decisions. Also, workload is not just a matter for social workers but a general issue for the Hong Kong working population, the issue of workload would remain difficult to handle if management takes “doing more with less” as a motto. Apparently, “achieving more with less” instead of “doing more with less” would give the management one strategic direction in managing workload, i.e. deploying existing staff resources more efficiently from tasks of lower values to tasks of higher values would enable more achievement with less or no additional resources. The recent establishment of the Social Welfare Development Fund would enable the improvement in professional development and training of social welfare staff including social workers engaged in SWD subvented posts. It would be even more advantageous if the NGOs could re-focus their existing resources in staff development and training to social workers who are not engaged in subvented posts. The issue of “supervisory support and guidance” has caused substantial concern in the past few years. Prior to the implementation of lump sum grant system, there was a mechanism to work out the target subvention for administrative and supervisory support. Though such targets had hardly been achieved in the past, efforts to seek additional resources to meet these targets were made from time to time in the resource allocation exercise within the Government. This problem was exacerbated by the increasing trend for NGOs to seek funding from multiple sources that they normally would not consider administrative and supervisory support as “supportable”. As a result, front-line and mid-level management in the social work field have to stretch their span of control and hence supervisory
20
46.
47.
48.
49.
support and guidance would be inevitably “thinning” out. An additional recurrent resource of $200 million was allocated to strengthen the administrative support for NGOs starting from the financial year 2008-09, the extent to which such resources were deployed to strengthen supervisory support is unknown. Apparently, a more thorough review on the support of supervisory support and guidance might be useful. 50. The Social Workers Registration Board has completed the “Study on the Current State of Supervision for Social Workers in Hong Kong” in 2006 and recommended, amongst other things, to improve the training for supervisors, the development of peer supervision from experienced workers, and re-focusing supervisory support to new entrants of social work field. Apparently, little attention has been paid to these recommendations, let alone implementing them. There might be a need to revisit these recommendations. Employment contract practices had been a concern in the NGO sector ever since the implementation of the new subvention system. Though the observations about the impact of short-term contracts on turnover rates from this study cannot be conclusive, there may be a need to obtain more objective data on this issue, and, at least, to promote good practice in staff contract management.
51.
21
Recommendations 52. The draft report was submitted to the ACSWTMP on 29 June 2010. After discussion, the Committee had the following views – a) it was noted from the survey findings that while many SWP showed strong commitment to the profession, they might not be so committed to their organisations. The high turnover rate in the social work sector might in turn adversely affect the quality of services to clients. Enhancing professional development was one of the possible ways to retain SWP serving in the same organisations; and it was considered that the following four factors leading to high turnover would be worthwhile for further study, namely employment contract management, salary and promotion, supervisory support and guidance, and professional development.
b)
53.
Having regard to the views of ACSWTMP and those identified key factors related to the turnover of SWP in the social work field as set out in the above paragraphs, the Working Group recommends the following which may be conducive to retaining SWP in the field a) The survey results will be shared with NGOs to encourage them to allocate more resources to professional training and supervisory support of their staff. Better management practices, including those related to “salary”, “workload” and “employment contract” will also be promoted. Findings of the survey will be referred to SWD for considering related strategies as well as advising NGOs on professional training and career development of SWP. As professional training and development are crucial for retaining SWP in the field, ACSWTMP is suggested to continue keeping track of the needs among SWP and advise the Government as appropriate.
b)
c)
22
Annex I Terms of Reference and Membership of Working Group to Study the Turnover and Wastage of Social Work Personnel [under the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning]
I.
Terms of Reference The Working Group aims to –
(a) study the turnover and wastage situations of social work personnel in the recent years, including the trends and reasons behind, as well as the implications on the social work manpower; and (b) report to the Advisory Committee on Social Work Training and Manpower Planning (ACSWTMP) on the findings and recommend the way forward.
II. Membership
Convenor:
Mr Joseph WONG [ACSWTMP Member and Joint Committee on Social Work Manpower Requirements (JCSWMR) Member] Dr LAW Chi-kwong, SBS, JP [JCSWMR Member] Ms Rainbow CHEUNG, JP [ACSWTMP Member and JCSWMR Member] Mr WONG Yuk-tong [C(SDT), SWD] Mr Patrick LAM [Stat(SW)1, SWD]
Members:
Secretary: Ms Loletta LAU [Secretary, ACSWTMP]
23
Annex II
Exit Questionnaire (English Version)
24
25
26
27
Exit Questionnaire (Chinese Version)
28
29
30
31
Annex III-A
Script for Telephone Interview 引言： 早晨／午安／晚安，我姓（講出姓氏） ，係社署統計組嘅職員。我哋較早前收 到你寄／Fax返嚟關於「社會工作者離職及流失調查」嘅問卷。首先多謝你嘅回 覆。我哋想喺電話喥問多一條補充問題。請問你而家方唔方便呢？ （如對方冇時間／唔方便） 咁樣我幾時方便再聯絡你？係唔喺打返呢個電話號碼呢？‥‥‥唔該。 （如對方提供再聯絡的時間是非辦公時間） 唔好意思，我哋嘅辦公時間係朝早九點至晏晝六點；如果方便嘅話，希望你盡 量揀選辦公時間，食晏時段都無問題，我哋會盡量配合。 a)（如對方不願意） （追問）你畀嘅資料會絕對保密，我哋好希望你可以俾到意見關於點樣先至能 夠挽留喥社工繼續喺社福界服務？ b)（如對方繼續不願意） ，咁多謝你之前嘅回覆，打攪晒。 （如對方有時間） （慢讀出） 「就你個人嘅意見，你認為點樣先至能夠挽留喥社工繼續為社福界 服務呢？」 （按次序記錄對方提出嘅重點 …） （如對方只說出一兩點）（繼續追問）仲有冇呢？你可以再諗一諗。 ， （繼續按 次序記錄對方提出嘅重點 …）？ 就你剛才提出嘅意見（概括地說出對方提出嘅重點） ，你認為邊樣最能夠挽留 喥社工呢？笫二，笫三… （訪問完結時） 另外，為咗保證我哋嘅訪問質素，社署統計組主任或會喺稍後時間再聯絡閣下 確認啱啱嘅對話，確保資料嘅準確性。 多謝閣下今次寶貴嘅意見。拜拜。
32
Annex III-B
Pre-code Answers Used When Collecting Interviewees’ Recommendation for Retaining Social Work Personnel in the Social Work Profession
Making reference to the findings in the Report on the Wastage Study on Trained Social Workers published in May 1982, the following are some pre-coded answers to use: ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 改善晉升機會／工作前景 增加薪金和附帶福利 提高專業地位 為員工提供更多發展機會 改善聘用機構的機構管治
• • • • •
improve promotion/career prospects increase salary and fringe benefits enhance professional recognition increase staff development opportunities improve the employing organisations' corporate governance
(Note: Items other than the above will be recorded by the interviewer for subsequent analysis.)
33
Annex III-C Questions and Answers 1. What is the purpose/objective of this survey? Ans: 我哋發現近年社工嘅離職及流失率比以前大，為咗了解情況， 所以進行今次嘅問卷調查。 Which department commissions this survey? Ans: 調查係由「社會工作人力需求聯合委員會」進行，委員會成員 嚟自社聯同社署。 Why do you phone to me after I returned the questionnaire for quite a while? Ans: 我哋而家做緊資料分析，為令調查結果更全面，所以想請你 再幫一幫忙答呢條補充問題。 Why do you not conduct focus groups or individual interviews? Ans: 考慮資源同其他因素，我哋覺得用電話訪問比較合適。 What is your office telephone number so that I can call you back when I am free? Ans: 2892 5237. Who are you? How can I check your identification? Ans: 我姓（講出姓氏） ，係社署統計組嘅職員。 你可以喺政府網上電話簿搵到我直屬上司嘅電話同埋e-mail， 網址係 “http://tel.directory.gov.hk/0273005762_CHI.html” 。 你亦可以打電話比我嘅上司作身分確認。 Is there any telephone no. or email address for me to lodge a complaint? Ans: 我直屬上司係陳小姐，佢係社署嘅統計主任，電話2892 5230， email address [email protected]。 How do you analyze the data collected in the telephone interview? Ans: 我哋會將收集返嚟嘅資料作重點綜合分析。 When will the survey result be available? Ans: 大約喺明年初。
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
34
10. Will the survey results be released to the public? Ans: 而家未定。 11. Will responses collected from the job leavers be published? Ans: 我哋會以總計形式公佈調查結果，而你提供嘅資料同個人意見 會絕對保密，唔會向任何機構或人士披露（包括政府部門） 。 12. Will my ex-employer know my views collected from either my returned questionnaire or in this telephone interview? Ans: 一定唔會，你可以放心，你提供嘅意見，我哋只會用作統計分 析，絕對唔會將有關資料向任何機構或人士披露。
35
