Investing in the Child Welfare System Through the Workforce: Lessons Learned from a Title IV-E Child Welfare Stipend Program

Abstract

The child welfare system is designed to promote child safety, well-being, and permanency, but the high stress and intensity of cases require a specialized workforce. Using a qualitative case study design, this study explored the perspectives of current and former Title IV-E stipend recipients on their preparation and readiness to actively participate in the child welfare workforce. The research team conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 individuals who had participated in a large Title IV-E stipend program in a southern state during a five-year period (2020–2025). Using applied thematic analysis, four main themes emerged: (1) bridging the classroom-practice gap; (2) professional preparation and development; and (3) experiences and future directions for Title IV-E Programs. We explored implications for Title IV-E policies and programs on specific strategies to best prepare the child welfare workforce so that they can best ensure child safety, permanency, and well-being.

1. Introduction

The child welfare system is designed to promote child safety, well-being, and permanency. To achieve this, the child welfare workforce is responsible for making decisions across the continuum of child welfare services (Hanna et al. 2021). However, high caseloads and frequent interactions with children and families who have experienced complex trauma can result in vicarious trauma and emotional burnout among the child welfare workforce (Kim et al. 2024; Molnar et al. 2020). Child welfare workers experience high levels of both physical and emotional exhaustion and stress as they work with children and families who go through trauma and crisis-related issues (He et al. 2018; Jonson-Reid et al. 2010). Demanding caseloads have detrimental effects on the well-being of child welfare workers, which can lead to job burnout, lower job satisfaction, and high turnover (Li et al. 2020; Park et al. 2024). Therefore, strengthening the capacity and preparedness of the child welfare workforce remains a critical priority.

In parallel, recent changes to federal and state policies have led to a changing profile of children and families involved in child welfare (Jenkins et al. 2025b). Some states, such as Texas, have seen an increase in mental health needs among youth in care, often creating challenges to find adequate placements (LaBrenz et al. 2024). At the national level, approximately 80% of children and youth in foster care have mental health issues (National Conference of State Legislatures 2019). The high prevalence of mental health issues highlights the substantial behavioral health needs among children and youth in foster care and underscores the importance of comprehensive assessment and service provision for youth in care. Therefore, it is essential to continue strengthening child welfare workforce through education, training, and professionalization, so child welfare workers are prepared to understand and serve children and families with complex needs.

1.1. Title IV-E Child Welfare Stipend Programs

Title IV-E Child Welfare Stipend Programs (aka “Title IV-E Programs”) were developed in 1980 to provide specialized training and professional development for the child welfare workforce. Funded by federal Title IV-E training funds, Title IV-E Programs consist of partnerships between state universities and child welfare agencies that provide financial assistance to current or prospective child welfare workers pursuing BSW or MSW (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2025, § 8.1H; 45 C.F.R. § 1356.60; Falk 2015). While the core mission of stipend programs is to strengthen the public child welfare workforce, the emphasis, design, and scope of these programs have significantly evolved over time. In 1980, Title IV-E Programs were originally created to support foster care and adoption assistance and to ensure a qualified workforce to carry out these programs, including pre-service and in-service education (Falk 2015). The focus of stipend programs has switched from recruitment and retention for public child welfare to professionalization and competency-based education. Meanwhile, the training content has broadened from the emphasis on child protection, case management, and compliance with federal mandates to competency-based coursework and supervised practice that build job readiness (Falk 2015).

1.2. Title IV-E Programs and Workforce Outcomes

A growing body of research has examined the relationship between Title IV-E Program participation and child welfare workforce outcomes. A recent scoping review examined the effects of stipend programs in the last decade and identified seven main domains that Title IV-E Program research has targeted: (1) retention and intent to stay, (2) workplace environment and supervision, (3) preparedness for the job, (4) diversity, equity, and inclusion, (5) social work education, (6) burnout and stress, and (7) client outcomes (Jenkins et al. 2025a). In general, Title IV-E recipients have lower intent to leave and are more likely to remain employed (Barbee et al. 2018; Falk 2015; Madden et al. 2014; Trujillo et al. 2020; Slater et al. 2018). Protective factors identified by Title IV-E recipients that enhance their retention and intention to stay are better supervision, reduced caseloads, positive work climate, peer support, and professional development (Barbee et al. 2018; Benton 2016; Falk 2015; Trujillo et al. 2020). Supervisors who are Title IV-E recipients also recognized the need to help their workers with addressing secondary trauma (Hernandez-Mekonnen and Konrady 2017). In addition, Title IV-E recipients report feeling prepared to think critically and engage in clinical assessments, trauma-informed practice, and client understanding, while feeling unprepared to testify in court (Falk 2021; Greeno et al. 2017a; Slater et al. 2018).

However, the findings of the impact of Title IV-E Programs on the well-being of child welfare workers are inconsistent. Hermon et al. (2018) report that Title IV-E recipients still experienced higher stress and burnout despite having stronger commitment to child welfare. In parallel, few studies have connected the participation of Title IV-E Programs to client outcomes; LaBrenz et al. (2023) found that children from the states that had invested in Title IV-E Programs reunified faster than children in other states. In a follow-up study, LaBrenz et al. (2025) found that children in states that had invested in Title IV-E Programs spent fewer days in care on average than children in other states.

1.3. Current Study

While existing research highlights the impact of Title IV-E Programs on improving workforce development, particularly on retention and preparedness, the continued presence of burnout and stress among recipients underscores a critical gap in understanding how Title IV-E Programs are experienced in practice, especially among individuals who enter the programs with prior child welfare work experience. Previous child welfare work experience, such as lived experience, informal/volunteer experience, and professional involvement, plays an important role in shaping students’ learning experience with Title IV-E Programs, which consequently impact their workforce outcomes. These previous experiences expose and prepare students to the field of child welfare system, which increases self-competency and perceived practice skills among Title IV-E students (Cheung and Tang 2010; Greeno et al. 2017b). Few studies examine how students with existing field experience make meaning of their training. It is urgent to address this gap to inform the design of workforce development that not only enhances competencies but also better align trainings with the complex realities of child welfare practice.

Building upon recent literature that has identified changing characteristics of children, youth, and families in foster care, this study explored the perspectives of Title IV-E stipend recipients on their learning experiences during and after the Title IV-E program. Given the high proportion of Title IV-E recipients in the particular state who enroll in the program as current child welfare practitioners, all participants in the study were Title IV-E recipients (current and one recent graduate) who were already employed by child protective services when they started the program. The specific research questions that guided this study were: (1) what are the experiences of student recipients and/or recent graduates who had prior child welfare work experiences with the Title IV-E program? and (2) how can Title IV-E Programs best prepare students to practice in the field of child welfare and work with children and families?

2. Method

Data for this study were drawn from a qualitative research project exploring Title IV-E student recipients’ perspectives on their preparation to engage in trauma-informed child welfare work. A case study design was used in which a large Title IV-E stipend program at a public university in a southern state, with the aim of exploring students’ experiences and how the program prepared them to work with children and families with complex traumatic experiences. This case was selected because of its large size, diverse student population, and substantial proportion of student recipients with prior child welfare experience before entering the program. A qualitative case study design was appropriate as it provided an in-depth exploration of students’ perspectives within the bounded context of the Title IV-E Program at the southern university (Baxter and Jack 2008). By drawing multiple sources of data, this approach provides contextualized understanding of students’ perspectives on their learning experience and professional preparation.

Student recipients of the Title IV-E Program and recent graduates (within the past five years) were recruited from a large Southern university. The last author recruited all current student recipients and recent graduates via email, using lists generated by the Title IV-E Program coordinators. All recruitment occurred in Summer 2025, and all eligible Title IV-E student recipients and recent graduates were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore their experiences. A total of n = 46 Title IV-E recipients were eligible to participate based on the criteria that: (1) they had received a stipend between 2020 and 2025; and (2) had an email address on file. Of these, n = 12 email addresses were invalid (e.g., bounced back or generated automatic replies indicating the individual was no longer available at that address). Among the remaining n = 34 recipients, n = 10 (21.7%) responded with interest and the research team was able to schedule and conduct interviews with all ten.

All participants were either currently enrolled in or had completed an MSW through the Title IV-E Program. Nine were current MSW students, and one had recently graduated. All ten had prior experience in child welfare before entering the program. Therefore, the Title IV-E program was a mechanism for professional development and further specialization for practitioners already in the child welfare system. Participants ranged in age from 25 to 50 years, with an average of 39.90 years (SD = 7.88 years). One participant self-identified as male, while all others self-identified as female. One person self-identified as Asian, another self-identified as Native American/Alaskan Native, three self-identified as Black/African American, and five self-identified as White/Caucasian.

All procedures were vetted and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the lead author’s institution. Participants were provided with an informed consent form and gave verbal consent prior to the interviews. All interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams using a semi-structured interview guide and were audio recorded with automatic transcription.

2.1. Semi-Structured Interview Guide

All five authors contributed to the development of the semi-structured interview guide. Topic areas of interest were identified through a review of the literature and through previous child welfare workforce studies (LaBrenz et al. 2022, 2024; Jenkins et al. 2025a). Questions were divided into three categories: (1) questions for all recipients; (2) questions for alumni-only; and (3) questions for current recipients-only. All participants were asked about their overall experiences in the Title IV-E Program, as well as the skills, connections, and supports they found most helpful. Alumni and current students who were employed in child welfare were additionally asked about their experiences working with children and families who had experienced trauma. Current students were further asked about their confidence in preparing to enter post-graduation work with this population. The full interview guide is available in Supplementary Materials.

2.2. Data Analysis

The researchers used an applied thematic analysis approach to analyze interview transcripts (Guest et al. 2012). A two-step coding process was used. In the first step, two team members independently conducted line-by-line coding of two transcripts using an inductive approach and identified emerging codes, rather than mapping codes onto the interview guide. After independently coding and creating codebooks for two transcripts, the team met to compare codebooks and started the second stage of coding based on a constant comparison method to collapse codes into larger themes. During this stage, as the team agreed on collapsing codes, a new codebook was created with the combined codes and themes. In the case of discrepancies, unique codes were retained.

After creating the initial combined codebook, two team members were assigned to independently code the remaining transcripts. The codes from the initial transcripts were updated with the collapsed categories and themes in the final round of analysis. After completing coding, the research team met and resolved discrepancies and finalized themes. The research team also engaged in a reflexive thematic analysis approach, focused on meaning generated through the analysis and interpretation process instead of “information redundancy” by estimating saturation (Braun and Clarke 2019, p. 201). To enhance rigor, the researchers connected emerging themes with literature (LaBrenz et al. 2022), used direct quotes and words from the participants (Hamilton 2020), and kept audit trails documenting key analytic decisions (Johnson et al. 2020).

2.3. Positionality Statement

Each author in this study all has extensive child welfare research experience. Each of them also conducted interviews and analyzed the transcripts. The second author has been working with Title IV-E Program for over 20 years. The third author has lived experience with child welfare system. The last author is a tenured faculty member and has over 7 years of previous experience as a frontline child welfare practitioner in Latin America. The authors acknowledge that both personal and professional experience help shape our understanding of the data and may bring biases into the study.

3. Results

Three main themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) bridging the classroom-practice gap; (2) professional preparation and development; and (3) experiences and future directions for Title IV-E Programs. Together, these themes highlighted the importance of ongoing hands-on and skills-based training opportunities to best prepare the child welfare workforce to engage, assess, and intervene in trauma-informed systems.

Table 1. The Definitions and Exemplary Quotes for the Key Themes.

Theme	Definition	Contributing Participants
Bridging the classroom-practice gap	Participants valued the opportunities to integrate knowledge acquired in the classroom with real-world child welfare practice.	Participants 1, 3, 4, 7, 10
Professional preparation and development	Participants emphasized that initial academic training must be supplemented by continuous professional development and sustained connections with educational institutions. It also includes the development of advocacy skills at both individual and systemic levels.	Participants 1, 4, 9, 10
Experiences and future directions for Title IV-E programs	Participants reflected on their overall experiences with the Title IV-E Program and emphasized the need to adapt it to evolving policy contexts and workforce demands. Participants recommended expanding training content, improving practicum alignment with career goals, and strengthening experiential opportunities and broadening eligibility to include a wider range of child welfare roles, particularly upstream services.	Participants 1, 4, 5

presented each theme with its definition in this study, followed by the number of participants who contributed to it.

3.1. Theme One: Bridging the Classroom-Practice Gap

Throughout the interviews, participants highlighted the importance of bridging the gap between classroom learning and practice to ensure students are adequately prepared to work with children and families in the field. As one participant noted, “the program is great because it allows you to get hands on experience and see what works doesn’t work for people”. Participants identified several methods that facilitated this integration of knowledge and practice, including internship, case studies, and previous working experience. Having real-life examples or case studies help connect concepts into authentic situations and create opportunities to bridge theory and practice. Participant 1, a female IV-E recipient in the MSW program, highlighted that:

I just don’t feel like case management is something that you’re gonna learn in any classroom. Even with training, you’re not gonna learn it. You’re gonna put the pieces together. I’m like, oh, I remember talking about this, but you’re not gonna know what they’re talking about without being in the field. So, for me, case studies are very important…having those real-life examples.

(Participant 1)

The need for real-world interactions and examples was echoed by other participants, who identified opportunities for more hands-on learning and experiences as part of coursework. One participant indicated:

For my generalist classes, we have to go out in the field and interview. I would have loved the professors offering like real life situations. For example, when I had to interview a client, my interview took three hours. I had to actually do [a] psychosocial assessment on this client and that was my very first time doing one. I read about it and saw a video about it, but it would have been helpful to be more hands on. A speaker on some of those topics so that we can get a better understanding and see it in real time instead of a video. Some of those videos were old…like really old…so also updating the videos with current information.

(Participant 3)

Participants in this study all had prior experience with children and families but often started their work prior to formal social work studies. Prior professional experience working with children and families before entering the Title IV-E Program facilitated students’ learning by providing concrete, real-world contexts that helped them better understand and apply conceptual and theoretical content. One participant shared how her previous work experience reinforced her learning experience:

I did not have the background of social work or anything like that. I learned it all through experience. When I started off, I had no experience with social work or any of the theory behind it or any of the practices. I had to figure it out on my own and just learn things through experience now going backwards and now going into school and learning. The different processes and theories and the education part that I missed is very, very insightful. I’m looking at it and understanding it and going wow, I didn’t realize I was doing this and it had a specific name and it has a specific protocol and process. To me it’s very enlightening. I recognize that it’s different because I’m doing it backwards, but I feel like it’s enhanced my ability. I now understand it better and I can do it better because now I’m getting the education part of it that I didn’t get in the beginning.

(Participant 7)

Participants facilitated the integration of theoretical knowledge, particularly trauma-informed and neurodevelopmental perspectives into their prior professional experiences working with children who had experienced complex trauma. Building on their hands-on practice, participants shared that their coursework deepened their understanding of how early prenatal substance exposure and adverse childhood experiences impacts brain development and behavioral outcomes across the life course. What they learned from the classroom prepares them to contextualize child’s behaviors and interpret them as adaptive responses to trauma rather than isolated or problematic actions. For example, one IV-E recipient who was already a child welfare practitioner when they entered the program indicated:

[The coursework] prepared me to work directly with children, like working with kids who have experienced trauma. A lot of times we see [traumatic experiences] come out in behaviors and negative coping skills. Being able to recognize those things through studying them has been really eye opening. I took a brain and behavior class and learned about alcohol and drugs in utero and how the brain develops and how trauma and adverse childhood experiences can impact the brain and what that looks like when they go into adulthood.

(Participant 4)

Another participant noted the utility of connecting classroom lessons or theories to clients in real time. One participant shared that even though the topics initially seemed unrelated, they were able to translate classroom learning into meaningful strategies for supporting children who were separated from their parents and experience complex trauma. They reported:

There was a lot of good information in my different classes that I was able to bring back to working with my kids. And even the courses that didn’t seem like they would be relevant ended up being relevant. I took death and dying, which you would think doesn’t have anything to do with child welfare…until you factor in that people who have death and dying are dealing with the separation and grief of being separated from someone. You can then say, well, kids in foster care have been separated from everybody and everything they’ve known…so then you can use that grief work. You can apply that to your kids.

(Participant 10)

The theme of bridging classroom-practice gap was also reflected in the need for out-of-the-classroom learning; as Participant 1 noted with casework, another participant noted the challenges of truly being prepared for child welfare work from classroom lessons and emphasized the importance of having field training. This participant indicated:

And I say that with a caveat because nothing can truly prepare you for work inside the department until you come in as a trainee employee. And that’s just because child protective services are their own special kind of thing. And then the [private agencies] also have their special programs and protocols.

(Participant 10)

Beyond formal learning activities through the program, participants also underscored the value of mentorship within agencies. Mentoring relationships allow students and novice practitioners to shadow experienced professionals, gain insight into agency-specific practices, and receive guidance in navigating the complexities of child welfare work. Collectively, these learning opportunities are essential components in bridging the classroom-practice gap and enhancing job readiness for frontline child welfare practitioners.

3.2. Theme Two: Professional Preparation and Development

The second theme that emerged was the need for professional preparation and development. Given that all of the participants in this study had child welfare experience prior to entering the Title IV-E program, the second theme captured elements that could help better prepare students broadly for child welfare work and opportunities during the Title IV-E program and beyond for professional development. Both during the program and after graduation from the Title IV-E Program, recipients identified a need for ongoing professional development and training to meet evolving needs of children and families.

One key area where participants identified a need for ongoing professional preparation was trauma—as one participant stated, “trauma looks different in the real-world (Participant 9).” The same participant shared how the Title IV-E Program prepared them to work with children who’ve experienced trauma. They indicated:

A lot of theory and stuff is totally different once you’re in the field and you see the kids that were in the textbooks. You’re like, oh, this is what trauma-based behaviors actually look like. Looks like they’re running away from their placement. Or they’re assaulting people. It’s not just a report anymore…we’re actually getting phone calls. In a perfect world, everything’s trauma informed. We can respond appropriately, but at the same time, we are human and we have our own stuff we’re dealing with.

(Participant 9)

In parallel to specific topics like trauma-informed care, participants identified other professional development opportunities that could be helpful to support Title IV-E current recipients and alumni, such as licensure preparation and continued education. Two Title IV-E recipients signaled:

When I thought about moving forward after graduation, I thought about getting licensed. So, offering some resources to get licensed as a social worker would be good […] The program needs a class [focusing] on the licensing exam. Being able to talk to people that have gone through and know what to expect would be incredibly helpful. I also think it would be important to be able to offer financial support to take the test.

(Participant 4)

I would say the licensure stuff would probably be the highest value. I know once we’re in child welfare, [an] LMSW and MSW are looked at the same. But in the broader scheme of social work or moving agencies, the licensure is really important to have.

(Participant 9)

Finally, Title IV-E recipients reported that professional development could also include ongoing “connections with the school” (Participant 10). This could include:

Continuing education all around. Those annual trainings are really important for knowledge and skills. Continued education is important in all of those areas that I talked about.

(Participant 4)

Together, these quotes reflect the importance of ongoing development for the child welfare workforce, including the role that universities could play in continuing relationships and providing ongoing continuing education opportunities.

Subtheme: Incorporating Advocacy into Workforce Preparation

Within the theme of professional preparation and development, a subtheme that emerged was incorporating advocacy into workforce preparation. In addition to learning about trauma and its impact on children, participants highlighted the importance of learning advocacy skills both to better advocate for clients and also to advocate for oneself as part of professional preparation. These included activities related to self-reflection and self-advocacy that were considered beneficial for future child welfare practitioners to be able to advocate for their clients. As one participant reported:

By the time I started I had been in child welfare for a decade. I was still able to learn and improve as a worker and feel like it gave me more knowledge to help my kids. Even in the position that I’m currently in, that’s not direct casework. I feel like it gave me a lot of tools to use to advocate for the kids that I’m working with.

(Participant 10)

Students in the Title IV-E Program have developed and practiced advocacy skills at the individual client level through class activities such as case studies. Throughout their coursework, they have been trained to view individuals within the context of their environments. Participants shared that they recognized the importance of advocating not only for individual clients, but also for changes in the environment in which clients live. Such advocacy work includes supporting clients’ access to tangible resources (e.g., public assistance and housing) as well as promoting policy changes aimed at reducing disparities. Participant 1 shared:

Those case studies where students are able to see what CPS actually does. CPS is not there to take your children. CPS is not there to break up families or simply punish you for abusing your child. Having those real-life examples of what a what a case looks like for children and families…. [and] how resources are provided to families so that their children are able to remain in the home. Understanding the community resources and how they are used. I’ve been in plenty of homes as an investigator where there was no food in the refrigerator and I went and brought groceries for the family. We didn’t remove the kid because there were no groceries in the home. We provided them with groceries. We provided them with car seats. We provided them with the necessary resources and that kid did not get removed. But social media and false information would have you believe DFPS removes kids for anything, but they don’t.

(Participant 1)

Another participant echoed the importance of learning to advocate for clients; in this case, the participant’s own lived experiences motivated her to pursue social work and work to advocate for children in care. They stated:

I was adopted at a young age and had a wonderful family and wonderful advocates. This set me up for success in the future and I feel like it was important for me to have a full circle moment where I can do the same for kids that are in care now. Reliving that experience and learning a lot about myself throughout the process…working through child welfare as an adult has been super empowering. I do it because I needed the support when I was little and I like providing it now.

(Participant 4)

3.3. Theme Three: Experiences and Future Directions for Title IV-E Programs

The final theme that emerged was experiences and future directions for Title IV-E Programs. In this final theme, participants shared their perspectives on their overall experiences with the program and provided recommendations to strengthen the program in the future. On the one hand, participants identified specific topics or trainings that could be covered in more depth through Title IV-E trainings and coursework. This included topics like “independent living skills” and “trainings for foster parents” (Participant 1), as well as current trends and challenges facing families. A Title IV-E recipient in the MSW program indicated:

I think that a social worker needs to have knowledge of what’s going on with families? What kind of services we can offer them. And then what kind of support can we offer them? A lot of our families that we have are young. They’re in their early 20s. Some of them have grown up in the system themselves and now they’re repeating it to where they’re doing the same things their families were doing. Trying to help our families get better jobs and educate them the best we can and try to just help our families.

(Participant 5)

On the other hand, participants provided suggestions on practicum options, including a better matching process to align topic areas and provide more experiences with children and families. Participant 4 noted:

For the most part, the classes prepare us well. Especially if it’s related to direct practice or like micro or macro practice. Those classes were directly aligned with child welfare. I think that some of the internships are not super directly related. They’re related to counseling, but sometimes its substance use or mental health or things like that. It’s important to be able to get paired with someone or a program that is directly related to whatever practice you’re going to be doing moving forward. That’s the only way I think that it could be improved is just making sure that those internships and the practicums are directly related to the work that we’ll be doing long term.

Beyond suggestions for topics to incorporate and internship placements, participants also had larger suggestions about the structure of the Title IV-E Program and eligibility. One concern that echoed concerns in prior literature was that only certain positions were eligible, leaving important upstream positions in investigations or in-home services ineligible for the IV-E stipend. Although some states have more open criteria for Title IV-E program eligibility, the state where this study was conducted only allowed child welfare practitioners in specific positions related to foster care or family group decision making to receive Title IV-E stipends. Some participants noted this as a limitation and recommended expanding eligibility, particularly in light of recent state policy changes that have altered thresholds for child removals and increased the proportion of children with higher levels of need in the system. As a result, gaps in the workforce’s knowledge and skills for serving children with complex needs have become more pronounced, especially among child protection workers from more upstream (e.g., investigations and family-based services). Participant 4 stated:

The thing is they only allow the program for certain positions. You had to be in a certain position to be able to participate in the program…like family-based safety services was not a part of the program. There were some other departments as well. In our information packet it said these were eligible and these were not eligible.

4. Discussion

This study explored the experience of current and past Title IV-E recipients with Title IV-E Program. As the rates of turnover and burnout among child welfare workers remain high, it is urgent for social work educators and scholars to better prepare and support future social workers to work with children and families with complex needs. Overall, participants in our sample highlighted the importance of bridging the gap between classroom and practice, the need to have ongoing professional development support, and the desire of staying connected with universities after graduation. The findings of this study should be interpreted with the consideration of the small sample size.

4.1. Bridging the Gap Between Classroom and Practice

The findings of this study highlighted the need to bridge the gap between classroom learning and practice. All participants in this study had prior child welfare work experience, and they reflected that the theoretical knowledge they learned during the program facilitated their learning experience, particularly around trauma related behaviors and symptoms. Consistent with prior literature, hands-on experience such as internships, case studies, and prior professional work experience was identified as key elements for integrating theory into practice and enhancing skill development (Agllias et al. 2021; Hargreaves and Hadlow 1997). Furthermore, the importance of mentorship and field placement highlighted the need to build stronger partnerships between academic institutions and community agencies.

4.2. Professional Preparation and Development

The findings from this study highlighted the importance of preparation and ongoing professional development as an essential component of workforce preparation and retention in child welfare. The child welfare experience among participants in this study prior to entering the Title IV-E program provided a unique perspective as the program served as professional development and more specialized training. This call for professional preparation and development aligns with findings from national studies that ongoing professional development is pivotal to ensuring workforce stability and enhancing service quality (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2025). While the Title IV-E Program in this study provided foundational knowledge and financial support during participants’ academic training, graduates emphasized that the training during the program could be strengthened to better meet the complex and evolving demands of practice.

In addition to more experiential opportunities and evolving topics, participants identified licensure preparation and continued connection with academic institutions as critical areas for ongoing support. The desire for continued engagement with universities points to the potential for Title IV-E Programs to function not only as pre-service training models but also as hubs for ongoing professional development, mentorship, and continuing education. Strengthening these post-graduation supports may contribute to improved workforce retention, increased professional competence, and better outcomes for children and families (Leung et al. 2021; Washburn et al. 2025).

Although this study only documented a few quotes related to self-advocacy, participants from the study brought attention to the importance of learning advocate skills during the Title IV-E Program. Preparing students with advocacy skills is also aligned with CSWE EPAS competencies and are fundamental to ethical, justice-oriented, and effective child welfare practices. As articulated in the National Association of Social Workers [NASW] Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers n.d.), social workers promote social justice and social changes with and on behalf of clients. Child welfare workers not only routinely make decisions about the child removal and parental treatment but also engage children and families to make informed decisions. Child welfare workers often collaborate with multidisciplinary professionals to improve the outcomes of children and families involved in the child welfare system. From a macro social work perspective, advocacy further requires the ability to critically analyze how policies and regulations translate into frontline practice decisions, reinforcing the need for advocacy training across micro, mezzo, and macro levels of child welfare education.

4.3. Extending Eligibility for Title IV-E Programs

Participants in this study acknowledged that the Title IV-E Program provides financial and academic support for their education, which benefits their professional pursuits in child welfare. However, they reported a need to expand eligibility for Title IV-E Programs to include child welfare workers in investigations and family preservation services. This recommendation reflects a recognition that the current child welfare system extends beyond foster care placement and increasingly prioritizes prevention and early intervention. This finding aligns with a prior case study in Texas, in which Findley et al. (2023) advocated for expanding Title IV-E Programs eligibility to better reflect shifts in child welfare policy and practice. This finding could be further triangulated through additional research with Title IV-E recipients in other states with limited eligibility to explore perceptions of program expansion, as well as its potential benefits and challenges.

4.4. Strengths and Limitations

Both strengths and limitations need to be considered as we interpret the findings of this study. This study explored the voices of Title IV-E recipients on their learning experiences with Title IV-E Program and their preparations to engage in child welfare casework. The current study also pointed out the directions of Title IV-E Programs to better prepare future child welfare workers working with children and families experiencing complex trauma.

This study also has several limitations. First, the researchers used a convenience sample of Title IV-E recipients from one institution of higher education. Participants may reflect institution-specific experiences that are not representative of IV-E students or child welfare workers in other regions or educational settings. The small sample size further limits the breadth of perspectives captured. Further research is needed to explore whether these findings are transferable to other samples and contexts. Second, the sample was largely female (90%), which reflects the gender composition of the social work workforce but limits the ability to explore the potential gender differences in learning experiences among IV-E students. Third, all participants from this study had prior child welfare work experience before entering the Title IV-E Program and received stipends to complete this Master of Social Work degree. Therefore, the findings may not be applicable to Title IV-E recipients without prior child welfare work experience, those who enter the field after graduation, or bachelor students. It is worth noting that the sample did reflect demographics of recent Title IV-E recipients at this particular program, as all spots in recent years have been filled by “current” child welfare employees, providing additional specialization and development for individuals already working in child welfare. There was also only one participant who had recently graduated; in this case, the participant had graduated within two months of the interview and therefore all results are presented together instead of comparing alumni and current students. Finally, participants’ dual roles as students and Title IV-E recipients may have influenced their responses. Future study should include more diverse samples across multiple institutions and participants with different levels of prior child welfare experiences to better capture the learning experience among IV-E students.

4.5. Implications and Need for Future Research

This study has several implications for future social work education and research. First, given the limitations with the sample size, there is a need to examine the transferability of these findings to Title IV-E recipients in other programs within the same state, as well as across diverse state contexts. In addition, more research is needed to triangulate these findings with other data sources. Drawing on the findings of this study, social work educators should intentionally bridge the gap between classroom learning and practice by creating opportunities for students to practice clinical skills, such as case management, client engagement and assessment, and advocacy in real-world contexts. In addition, based on the findings from these ten recipients, professional preparation and development could be areas that the Title IV-E program could support. This could include offering seminars or trainings with relevant foci (e.g., trauma-informed care; preparing youth to age out), licensure preparation support, and continuing professional development opportunities.

While this study highlights the positive learning experiences of current and former IV-E students with prior child welfare work experience, future research should compare workforce outcomes between those with and without prior experience in the field. Additionally, quantitative studies with larger samples are needed to examine the long-term impacts of Title IV-E Programs, including retention among child welfare workers beyond the required payback period and permanency outcomes for children and families involved in the child welfare system. Ongoing continuous quality improvement efforts are also needed to ensure that curricula and trainings remain responsive to the evolving needs of children and families involved in the child welfare system.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the perspectives of IV-E recipients at a large public university on their preparedness and readiness for working in child welfare. Based on this initial study of ten Title IV-E recipients, participants highlighted opportunities through which the Title IV-E program may help strengthen students’ job readiness by bridging the classroom-practice gap and preparing them for the workforce through advocacy skills. In addition, participants provided recommendations on continuing fostering the connections between IV-E alumni and the university beyond graduations and expanding the program eligibility. Future research should examine the transferability of these findings to other Title IV-E recipients.