Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Relationships between worklife balance and job-related factors among

child welfare workers
Lei Wu a,, Binahayati Rusyidi b, Nancy Claiborne c, Mary L. McCarthy c
a
Department of Social Work, School of Sociology and Population Studies, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
b
Department of Social Welfare, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Padjadjaran, West Java, Indonesia
c
Social Work Education Consortium, University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study examined the relationships between worklife balance and several job-related factors among 573
Received 29 June 2012 public child welfare workers in a northeastern state in the United States of America. It explored job-related
Received in revised form 28 May 2013 correlates of worklife balance and the possible mediating role of worklife balance between these factors
Accepted 28 May 2013
and job satisfaction. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the job-related factors organizational
Available online 7 June 2013
support, job value, work time, and income were signicantly associated with worklife balance among child
Keywords:
welfare workers. It also conrmed that worklife balance partially mediated the associations of organizational
Worklife balance support and job value with job satisfaction. Implications for child welfare research, policy, and practice are
Child welfare workers proposed based on the empirical ndings.
Job-related factors 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction possible job-related correlates of worklife balance in child welfare.

In the context of personal life and family demands in contemporary
society (Carlson, Grzywacz, & Zivnuska, 2009; Hobson, Delunas, & Kesic,
2001; Lewis, 2003; Moen & Yu, 2000), the capacity of balancing
employees' work and personal lives is essential for the well-being of
workforce. A national survey (Hobson et al., 2001) disclosed that the
10 most stressful life events for US workers revolved around major
life and family issues. As working couples have become the norm in
society (Moen & Yu, 2000), rising household nancial and care needs
(Hobson et al., 2001), together with increasing expectations for personal
satisfaction and enjoyment (Lewis, 2003), have a high propensity to
cause conicts between employees' work responsibilities and their
personal life demands (Carlson et al., 2009). Workers, including in
child welfare, are obliged to balance their work and life roles and
domains simultaneously. It is therefore necessary to understand their
worklife balance by administrators and researchers.
Child welfare is regarded as a demanding and stressful eld with
challenging working conditions. It entails large caseloads, long hours,
on-call responsibilities, inadequate compensation, insufcient supervi-
sion and training, lack of adequate resources to serve children and
their families, stringent state and federal policy requirements, etc.
(Westbrook, Ellis, & Ellett, 2006). On one hand, working conditions are
likely to worsen the existing conicts between work and life among
child welfare workers. This suggests a strong need to understand the
Corresponding author at: Department of Social Work, School of Sociology and
Population Studies, Renmin University of China, 59 Zhongguancun Street, Haidian District,
Beijing 100872, China.
E-mail address: leiwucn@gmail.com (L. Wu).
On the other hand, working conditions are likely to result in low job
satisfaction, which has powerful and far reaching consequences for
social workers and organizations (Lambert, Pasupuleti, Cluse-Tolar,
Jennings, & Baker, 2006). Given the evidence-based inuence of work
life balance in shaping job satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2006; Losoncz &
Bortolotto, 2009), the role of worklife balance as a mediator of the
relationship between working conditions and job satisfaction merits
close attention.
Worklife balance has been intensively studied in business, manage-
ment, and other disciplines (e.g., Carlson et al., 2009; Connell, 2005;
Dean, 2007; Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003; Hobson et al., 2001;
Jang, 2009; Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer, 2010; Lewis & Campbell, 2008;
Losoncz & Bortolotto, 2009; Mescher, Benschop, & Doorewaard,
2010; Ollier-Malaterre, 2010; Virick, DaSiva, & Arrington, 2010). How-
ever, it is still a novel research topic in social work, let alone child
welfare research. Some studies explored the association between work
life balance and job retention in child welfare (Smith, 2005; Strolin-
Goltzman, Auerbach, McGowan, & McCarthy, 2007), but various job-
related correlates of worklife balance have been under-examined so
far. Although prior research asserted the impacts of worklife balance
on social work and human service worker job satisfaction (Lambert
et al., 2006), the mediating effect of worklife balance on job satisfaction
is still an untouched issue among child welfare workforce.
This study seeks to examine the relationships between worklife
balance and job-related factors supervisor support, organizational sup-
port, job value, work time, income, supervisory status, tenure, and job
satisfaction among 573 public child welfare workers in a northeastern
state in the United States of America. It explores job-related correlates
of worklife balance and the possible mediating role of worklife

0190-7409/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.017
1448 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454
balance between these factors and job satisfaction. Implications for
child welfare research, practice, and policy are proposed based on the
empirical ndings.
2. Literature review
2.1. Worklife balance and its correlates
2.1.1. Worklife balance
Research on the balance between individuals' workplace, household,
and other aspects of life has developed over time (Dean, 2007; Jang,
2009; Lewis, 2003). Initially the studies emphasized on workfamily
balance and later on moved to worklife balance (Lewis & Campbell,
2008). The term balance was both distinct from and interrelated
with conict and enrichment in work and family domains (Carlson
et al., 2009). In general, worklife balance encompassed broader activi-
ties than workfamily conict and was keen on gender equality. While
workfamily conict focused on care for family dependents and tensions
resulting from incompatible demands of work intruding on family
responsibilities, worklife balance addressed non-earning activity and
servicing work and personal life needs for all employees (Carlson et al.,
2009; Fenner & Renn, 2010; Lewis, 2003; Lewis & Campbell, 2008).
The major concern of the research in worklife area was how to inte-
grate work and personal life of the workforce (Lambert et al., 2006).
Extant research from various elds has revealed the negative out-
comes of worklife imbalance and the benecial consequences of
worklife balance for individuals and organizations. Worklife imbalance
negatively affects productivity, absenteeism, organizational commitment,
turnover, parenting problems, domestic violence, stress, illness, life
satisfaction, etc. (Greenhaus et al., 2003; Hobson et al., 2001) and is
positively related to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, family
functioning, and well-being of employees (Carlson et al., 2009; Jang,
2009; Ollier-Malaterre, 2010).
The goal of this study is to explore correlates of worklife balance. It
concerns such job-related factors as supervisor support, organizational
support, job value, work time, income, supervisory status, and tenure.
Socio-demographic factors are also included as controls.
2.1.2. Worklife balance and supervisor and organizational support
In work environment, supervisor support was social support for
employees granted by supervisors. Employees also received support
from co-workers and organizations where they perceived that they
were valued and cared about in the organizations (Stamper & Johlke,
2003). Hopkins (2005) stated that supports from supervisors and orga-
nizations were required in successful integration of employees' work
and lives. In organizations without ofcially sanctioned worklife poli-
cies or programs, supervisor support was crucial in helping workers
strike a worklife balance. This was conrmed by Jang (2009) who stated
that both perceived supervisor support and workplace support were
related to worklife balance for working parents. Since support could
mitigate conict and stress caused by work and life responsibilities, it
is expected that child welfare workers will experience better work
life conditions if they receive more supervisor and organizational
support.
2.1.3. Worklife balance and job value
Job value, i.e., appreciation of the value of child welfare work (Smith,
2005) and its relation with worklife balance are still under-specied in
child welfare. Only one study in child welfare involved job value and it
indicated that job value was not associated with child welfare workers'
job retention (Smith, 2005). However, a study of nurses in Australia
appeared to challenge this nding because the study found that intrinsic
and extrinsic work value did impact upon intention to leave employ-
ment and job satisfaction (Hegney, Plank, & Parker, 2006). Studies con-
rmed that work value altered individuals' subjective nature of work
experience (Miller, 1980) and affected job choice decision (Judge &
Bretz, 1992). If appreciating the value of child welfare work can alter
employees' job facet perceptions and decision, it may facilitate the
workers' perception of worklife balance. However, the relationship
between job value and worklife balance is still unknown.
2.1.4. Worklife balance and other job-related factors
The job-related factors work time, supervisory status, income, and
tenure may be correlates to worklife balance among child welfare
workers. In their study of working mothers, Losoncz and Bortolotto
(2009) conrmed that negative worklife balance was associated
with long working hours and work overload. If an employee allots
more time for work, he or she will lack time and energy for personal
and family life thus resulting in conicts between work and life domains.
Similarly, supervisors, undertaking much more job responsibility, pres-
sure, and intensive work content, hence usually with higher income
than their subordinates, may have degraded worklife balance. In addi-
tion, an employee with longer tenure in the position is highly likely to be
experienced in the job and have adapted himself to it, thus having a
better worklife condition. However, work time, supervisory status,
income, and tenure have rarely been examined in worklife literature
of child welfare workers.
2.1.5. Worklife balance and socio-demographic factors
Socio-demographic variables gender, age, race, and locality have
been treated as control variables in relevant research (Lambert et al.,
2006; McGowan, Auerbach, & Strolin-Goltzman, 2009). Gender has
been strongly emphasized in worklife discussions (Connell, 2005;
Lewis, 2003; Lewis & Campbell, 2008; Mescher et al., 2010; Moen & Yu,
2000). The gendered portrayal of worklife balance practices (Lewis,
2003; Mescher et al., 2010) asks for examination of worklife balance
between gender groups. It is obvious that older workers have fewer fam-
ily responsibilities and personal development demands than young and
middle-age workers. Therefore, it may be valid to assume that older
workers may face lessened worklife imbalance than their younger
counterparts. Race has rarely been examined in previous worklife
research, but its relationship with crucial workforce constructs such as
organizational commitment in social work (Lambert et al., 2006)
reminds us of the possible ethnic differences in worklife balance.
Although the rural/urban differences in job satisfaction, intention to
leave, and retention were examined in detail among child welfare
workers (Barth, Lloyd, Christ, Chapman, & Dickinson, 2008; Strolin-
Goltzman et al., 2007; Westbrook et al., 2006), few studies have looked
at worklife balance across localities. Only McGowan et al. (2009)
reported that urban workers were lower in worklife balance than
rural workers in their research on intention to leave. Hence, socio-
demographic factors gender, age, race, and locality are included as
control variables in the present study.
2.2. Mediating effect of worklife balance on job satisfaction
Job satisfaction represented employees' evaluative feelings about
the job. This received considerable attention over the past several
decades (Sharma et al., 1997; Spector, 1985). Several studies have
examined characteristics and predictors of job satisfaction in child
welfare settings (Auerbach, McGowan, Ausberger, Strolin-Goltzman, &
Schudrich, 2010; Barth et al., 2008; Sharma et al., 1997; Vinokur-
Kaplan, 1991). Empirical research indicated that age (Spector, 1985),
salary (Spector, 1985), locality (Barth et al., 2008), supervisor support
(Rauktis & Koeske, 1994), supervision (Barth et al., 2008), and tenure
(Lambert et al., 2006) had their roles in explaining job satisfaction for
social workers or child welfare workers. For nurses and other work-
forces, perceived organizational support (Bradley & Cartwright, 2002;
Lee & Cummings, 2008; Stamper & Johlke, 2003), job values (Blood,
1969; Bokemeier & Lacy, 1987; Hegney et al., 2006; Kwak, Chuang,
Xu, & Eun-Jung, 2010; Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989; Miller, 1980;
 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454
Stamper & Johlke, 2003), work time (Miller, 1980), and position
(Bokemeier & Lacy, 1987; Miller, 1980) were related to job satisfaction.
Previous research has established the association of worklife bal-
ance and job satisfaction, within or outside of social work. Strain and
conict in worklife relations were found to have negative effects on
job satisfaction for social and human services workers (Lambert et al.,
2006) and working mothers (Losoncz & Bortolotto, 2009). In addition,
measures facilitating worklife balance such as exible working
arrangements and telecommuting were reported to relate with changes
in job satisfaction (Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Virick et al., 2010).
As discussed earlier, job-related and socio-demographic factors
associated with worklife balance in prior research also impacted job
satisfaction. However, the mechanism that can explain the relationships
among these factors, worklife balance, and job satisfaction warrants
further investigation. It is possible that, as an important stressor or
contributor in shaping job satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2006), work
life balance also mediates the relationship between the previously
mentioned factors and job satisfaction. Child welfare workers may be
experiencing worse worklife balance when they labor under unpleasant
working conditions, which leads to lower evaluation of their job.
Improvement of working conditions may positively change workers'
perception toward their worklife relationships and transform into pos-
itive perceptions of job satisfaction. In short, empirical and logic-based
evidence implies the mediating role of worklife balance in the rela-
tionship between job-related factors and job satisfaction. This is to be
explored in the present study.
2.3. Conceptual model, research questions, and hypotheses
The conceptual model tested in the study is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The present study intends to address two research questions and
relevant hypotheses: What job-related factors are closely associated
with worklife balance among child welfare workers? It is hypothesized
that supervisor support, organizational support, job value, and tenure
are positively associated with child welfare workers' perception of
worklife balance, while work time, income, and supervisory status are
negatively associated with worklife balance. Does worklife balance
partially mediate the inuence of job-related factors on job satisfaction?
It is hypothesized that worklife balance partially mediates the relation-
ships between several job-related factors and job satisfaction.
3. Method
3.1. Data and sample
This study used a secondary dataset of public child welfare case-
workers and front line supervisors in a northeastern state of the United
States of America. The original data were part of the Workforce
Job-related factors:
Work time
Income Work-life
Supervisory status balance
Tenure
Supervisor support
Organizational support
Job value Job
Socio-Demographic satisfaction
factors:
Gender
Race
Locality
Age
Fig. 1. Conceptual model.
1449
Retention Survey which was funded by the U.S. Children's Bureau and
collected from 2002 to 2005. Participants of the survey were sampled
non-randomly and from 25 public child welfare agencies across the
state (for details of the survey, see Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2007). Only
baseline data of 782 respondents were involved in this study. To avoid
the negative impacts of missing values on the analyses, 206 respon-
dents were excluded from the study using listwise deletion technique
due to their incomplete answers for any of the analyzed variables
(Allison, 1999, p. 79, 2002, p. 6). In addition, frequencies and histograms
of all variables were checked to assess the minimum and maximum
values, outliers, and distribution. This led to the exclusion of additional
three respondents with extreme answers of more than 70 hours or less
than one hour weekly working time. These 209 respondents excluded
were primarily female (84.1%), whites (92.8%), and urban staff
(75.6%), with a mean age of 43 years. As a result, 573 valid samples
were included in this study and the sample size was large enough to
do multivariate analyses.
3.2. Measures and variables
3.2.1. Worklife balance
Worklife balance was measured by a scale consisted of eight items
(shown in Table A) to assess child welfare workers' perception of how
balanced their job was with their personal lives (Strolin-Goltzman
et al., 2007). The items were adopted based on thorough literature review
(Carlson et al., 2009; Jang, 2009; Smith, 2005; Strolin-Goltzman et al.,
2007). Items were measured with a ve-point Likert scale from 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. For each respondent, the
total score of the items was divided by the number of items. The mean
score of the items indicated respondents' perception of worklife balance
with higher scores representing better worklife balance and vice versa.
The Cronbach's alpha of the scale in this study was 0.76.
3.2.2. Job satisfaction
A single item asking respondents All in all I am satised with my
job was used to assess their overall job satisfaction. Using a global
measure to investigate the overall job satisfaction rather than assessing
dimensions of job satisfaction was acceptable in relevant research
(Bradley & Cartwright, 2002; Lambert et al., 2006). In the original
dataset, this was the sole item to assess overall job satisfaction. The
item was measured with a ve-point Likert scale from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
3.2.3. Supervisor support and organizational support
Supervisor support was measured by a thirteen-item scale and
organizational support was measured by an eleven-item scale (Table A).
Both scales were in a ve-point Likert scale format ranging from 1 for
strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree. The mean score of each
scale represented the variable with higher scores indicating more
perceived support. The scales were validated in previous research on
job retention (Smith, 2005). In this study, the Cronbach's alphas for
each instrument were 0.95 and 0.71 respectively.
3.2.4. Job value
Job value was measured by a nine-item scale (Table A), which was
found to be reliable and valid in a previous study (Smith, 2005). It was a
ve-point Likert scale with 1 for strongly disagree and 5 for strongly
agree and the mean score indicated the variable. In this study it had a
Cronbach's alpha of 0.75.
3.2.5. Other job-related factors
Work time was measured by asking respondents On average how
many hours per week do you work in your county child welfare job?
The self-reported answers were recorded as a continuous variable in
hours. Income was measured by asking respondents for their annual
salary. It was an ordinal scale (1 = less than $25,000, 2 = $25,001
1450 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454

30,000, 3 = $30,00135,000, 4 = $35,00145,000, and 5 = more
than $45,000). Supervisory status was coded 0 if the respondent
was a caseworker and 1 if he/she was a supervisor. Tenure was
operationalized as years of time in a position which was calculated
by subtracting the start date from the survey date (Smith, 2005). It
was a continuous variable in years.
3.2.6. Socio-demographic variables
The socio-demographic information consisted of age (self-reported
in years), gender (0 = male, 1 = female), race (0 = nonwhite, 1 =
white), and locality (0 = rural county, 1 = urban county). The rural
urban division followed the 2003 RuralUrban Continuum Codes (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 2003).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 for Windows
was used to analyze the data. The sample consisted of 573 participants
in total. Table 1 shows that the sample was made up of primarily
women, whites, and urban staff, with a mean age of 40 years. The
participants reported that they worked 39 hours per week in their
child welfare job and one-fth of them were supervisors. Nearly
one-third (32.3%) of the employees had an annual income less than
$30,000. Forty-ve percent of the participants indicated that they
were very or somewhat satised with their job. Minimum and maximum
values of the variables are reported in Table 1. Descriptive data for the
measures of perceived supervisor support, organizational support, job
value, and worklife balance are also presented in Table 1. The mean of
worklife balance was 3.32, with a standard deviation of 0.62.
4.2. Predicting worklife balance
Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to examine the
relationships between worklife balance and the preceding variables
and the results are summarized in Table 2. The results show that work
time, income, organizational support, and job value had statistically
signicant relationships with worklife balance. When the appreciation
for the child welfare work value increased so did their perception of
worklife balance. Organizational support also assisted in explaining
worklife balance because the more organizational support perceived,
the higher worklife balance reported. As work time and income
decreased, the workers reported more balance between their work
and personal lives. However, supervisor support and other factors had
no signicant impacts on worklife balance in the regression model.
In terms of magnitude of effects as reported in the column (the stan-
dardized regression coefcient) of Table 2, job value had the largest
impact which was nearly 1.5 times the magnitude of impact than orga-
nizational support, followed by income and work time. Furthermore,
the overall model explained 48% (F = 47.84, p b 0.001) of variance in
worklife balance. In addition, the values of Variance Ination Factor
(VIF) for all the entered variables were below 2.00, indicating that
multicollinearity was not a problem in the study (Allison, 1999, pp.
140142). The normal PP plot of regression standardized residuals
indicated that the residuals were normally distributed and the scatter
plot of the standardized residuals on the standardized predicted values
reected that heteroskedasticity was not a problem in the regression
analysis (Allison, 1999, pp. 125128).
4.3. Mediating effect of worklife balance on job satisfaction
Four steps performed with three regression equations (Baron &
Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004) were used to establish the
mediating role of worklife balance on job satisfaction. Step 1 involved
determining the signicant relationship between job-related variables
and job satisfaction without the presence of worklife balance. Step 2
was to show that these job-related factors were related to the mediating
variable of worklife balance. Step 3 required a signicant association
between worklife balance and job satisfaction, controlling for other
variables. Finally, in step 4, the strength of the relation between these
job-related variables and job satisfaction was remarkably reduced after
controlling for the mediating variable of worklife balance. Table 3
shows the results of the analyses.
Results show that worklife balance partially mediated the rela-
tionship between two job-related variables of organizational support

Table 1
A brief summary of descriptive statistics of the variables (N = 573).

Variables Frequency (%) Mean (SD)/median Minimum Maximum Cronbach's

Gender
Male 115 (20.07)
Female 458 (79.93)
Race
Nonwhite 36 (6.28)
White 537 (93.72)
Locality
Rural 185 (32.29)
Urban 388 (67.71)
Age 40.07 (10.04) 22 62
Work time 39.07 (5.72) 7 70
Income 30,00135,000
b25,000 41 (7.16)
25,00130,000 144 (25.13)
30,00135,000 112 (19.55)
35,00145,000 169 (29.49)
>45,000 107 (18.67)
Supervisory status
Worker 458 (79.93)
Supervisor 115 (20.07)
Tenure 4.07 (4.26) 0.1 24.4
Supervisor support 3.68 (0.78) 1.08 5.00 0.95
Organizational support 3.07 (0.53) 1.27 4.64 0.71
Job value 3.35 (0.54) 1.67 4.67 0.75
Worklife balance 3.32 (0.62) 1.12 5.00 0.76
Job satisfaction 3.17 (1.05) 1.00 5.00

Notes: SD: standard deviation.

 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454 1451

Table 2 reected that heteroskedasticity was not a problem in any of the regres-
Regression of worklife balance on the job-related variables (N = 573). sion analyses (Allison, 1999, pp. 125128).
Independent variables B (SE) The Sobel's (1982) test indicated that the indirect effect of organiza-
tional support over worklife balance to job satisfaction was signicant
Gender 0.01 (0.05) 0.01
Race 0.11 (0.08) 0.04 (z = 5.36, p b 0.001). Moreover, the indirect effect of job value over
Locality 0.00 (0.05) 0.00 worklife balance to job satisfaction was signicant (z = 6.45, p b
Age 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 0.001). According to the calculation approach proposed by Sobel
Work time 0.01 (0.00) 0.08
(1982), the amount of mediating effect was 0.18 for organizational
Income 0.07 (0.02) 0.13
Supervisory status 0.04 (0.05) 0.02 support and 0.26 for job value in this research. In short, these ndings
Tenure 0.01 (0.01) 0.04 suggested that worklife balance partially mediated the associations
Supervisor support 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 of organizational support and job value with job satisfaction.
Organizational support 0.35 (0.05) 0.30
Job value 0.51 (0.05) 0.44
R2 0.48 5. Discussion and conclusion
Adjusted R2 0.47
F (signicance) 47.84 (0.000)
df 11/561
5.1. Summary

Notes: df: degrees of freedom.

Signicance levels.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.001.
and job value and job satisfaction. Organizational support, shown in
Table 3, was signicantly related to job-satisfaction in step 1 ( =
0.33, p b 0.001), controlling for other variables. In step 2, it was asso-
ciated signicantly with worklife balance ( = 0.30, p b 0.001). In
step 3 after controlling for worklife balance and other variables, it
was remarkably related to job satisfaction ( = 0.24, p b 0.001). In
step 4, there was a decrease in value from 0.33 in step 1 to 0.24
for the association between organizational support and job satisfac-
tion with the inclusion in the regression model of worklife balance.
In the same vein, job value was signicantly associated with job
satisfaction in step 1 ( = 0.43, p b 0.001), worklife balance in step 2
( = 0.44, p b 0.001), and job satisfaction in step 3 ( = 0.30, p b
0.001). There was also a decrease in value from 0.43 in step 1 to 0.30
for its association with job satisfaction with the inclusion in the regres-
sion model of worklife balance. The values of VIF for the independent
variables examined in all regression analyses were below 2.28, indicat-
ing that there was no problem of multicollinearity (Allison, 1999,
pp. 140142). The normal PP plot of regression standardized residuals
indicated that the residuals were normally distributed and the scatter
plot of the standardized residuals on the standardized predicted values
This study examined job-related correlates and the mediating role
of worklife balance among 573 public child welfare workers. The
regression results demonstrated that organizational support, job value,
work time, and income were signicantly associated with worklife
balance, thus partly supporting the rst hypothesis that job-related fac-
tors were associated with child welfare workers' perception of worklife
balance. Worklife balance was conrmed to partially mediate the asso-
ciations of organizational support and job value with job satisfaction. So
far, the second hypothesis was partly supported.
5.2. Contribution
This study contributes to worklife balance research by identifying
organizational support, job value, work time, and income as job-
related correlates of worklife balance. In an integrative framework,
the combined and relative impacts of these correlates were examined.
It also contributes by proposing the mediating role of worklife balance
in the relationships between two job-related factors of organizational
support and job value and job satisfaction. The inuencing mechanisms
of these factors on job satisfaction were claried, therefore enriching
the literature on worklife balance and job satisfaction. In addition, it
has merits in specifying characteristics and correlates of worklife
balance in a child welfare setting thus expanding knowledge of child
welfare workforce.

Table 3
Mediational analyses (N = 573).

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Steps 3 & 4

B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)

Gender 0.03 (0.08) 0.01 0.01 (0.05) 0.01 0.03 (0.07) 0.01
Race 0.17 (0.13) 0.04 0.11 (0.08) 0.04 0.11 (0.12) 0.03
Locality 0.05 (0.09) 0.02 0.00 (0.05) 0.00 0.05 (0.08) 0.02
Age 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 0.00 (0.00) 0.00
Work time 0.01 (0.01) 0.05 0.01 (0.00) 0.08 0.00 (0.01) 0.02
Income 0.06 (0.04) 0.07 0.07 (0.02) 0.13 0.10 (0.03) 0.11
Supervisory status 0.05 (0.08) 0.02 0.04 (0.05) 0.02 0.04 (0.08) 0.01
Tenure 0.01 (0.01) 0.05 0.01 (0.01) 0.04 0.02 (0.01) 0.07
Supervisor support 0.09 (0.04) 0.07 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 0.08 (0.04) 0.06
Organizational support 0.65 (0.08) 0.33 0.35 (0.05) 0.30 0.47 (0.08) 0.24
Job value 0.85 (0.08) 0.43 0.51 (0.05) 0.44 0.59 (0.08) 0.30
Worklife balance 0.50 (0.06) 0.30
R2 0.54 0.48 0.58
Adjusted R2 0.53 0.47 0.57
F (signicance) 59.03 (0.000) 47.84 (0.000) 64.98 (0.000)
df 11/561 11/561 12/560

Notes: in step 2, the dependent variable is worklife balance. In steps 1, 3, & 4, the dependent variable is job satisfaction. df: degrees of freedom.
Signicance levels.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.001.
1452 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454
In this study, appreciation for child welfare work value was a
signicant predictor and had the greatest magnitude of impact on
perception of worklife balance. It also exerted indirect inuence on
job satisfaction through worklife balance. This is the rst time re-
search conrms the impacts of job value on and through employee
worklife balance. It was possible that the mission to help children
and families in need facilitated the balance between child welfare
workers' job and personal lives, keeping them positively perceive
their job even in unpleasant working conditions. As a relatively con-
stant variable, job value formed a powerful motivator of employees
toward appreciating their work and personal lives, possibly offsetting
the stressful and demanding working conditions child welfare workers
encountered in their work environments. As a result, strengthening job
value may be helpful for organizations if working conditions are hard to
improve.
The association between organizational support and worklife
balance in the framework conrmed the importance of organizational
support in successful integration of employees' work and life (Hopkins,
2005; Jang, 2009). As no prior research investigated the impact of orga-
nizational support through worklife balance on workforce satisfaction,
this nding is a pioneering one. Obviously, more organizational support
might mitigate work pressure and reduce conicts between work and
life, thus enhancing satisfaction in professional life. In the vein of the
mediating effect of worklife balance, organizational support was linked
with job satisfaction by dual ways a direct way and an indirect way.
This means that, for administrations concerned worker performance
and retention in the job, worklife issues should not be neglected. Still,
the quality and quantity of support in work environments are essential
for workers to weather excessive personal barriers and demands, as
well as unpleasant working conditions.
Unexpectedly, supervisor support did not predict worklife bal-
ance as organizational support did. When organizational support
positively impacted the workers' worklife balance through mea-
sures and climate in the overall work environment, it was plausible
that supervisors had no control over issues related to worklife
balance with the current regulatory driven practice focus. Thus, a su-
pervisor might be as helpless as his/her workers to change working
conditions regarding work and life. Moreover, because the em-
ployees were somewhat satised with the supervisor support they
received as shown in the descriptive statistics, it was evident that
the supervisor support received was not impacting their worklife
conditions.
While child welfare workers generally enjoyed their work and
personal life relation as shown in the descriptive results, the ndings re-
mind us of the detrimental inuence of overtime work on the workers'
worklife balance which was consistent with Losoncz and Bortolotto's
(2009) research. The negative impact of income on worklife balance
may be explained using the relationships between income and other
conditions like position and job responsibilities. Higher income usually
is related with higher position and greater responsibilities which could
impact the worklife relation. This nding complements the lack of
evidence regarding the relationship between income and worklife
balance. Besides work time and income, other job-related and socio-
demographic factors (tenure, supervisory status, locality, age, race, and
gender) did not predict worklife balance which warrants examination
in future research.
5.3. Limitations
Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the
ndings. First, this study used a secondary dataset which lacked
many important variables such as marital status, physical and mental
health, and work overload. These variables may have important impacts
on worklife balance but, since they were missing in the dataset, they
cannot be tested in the model. Second, the scales used in the study
were developed by child welfare administrators and researchers for the
purpose of workforce retention administration and research (Smith,
2005; Strolin-Goltzman et al., 2007). They were not intended for a sec-
ondary study and may need modication for research focusing
on worklife balance and its correlates. Even though the scales
were found to be reliable and valid in previous and present
studies, they have not been standardized. Third, job satisfaction
was measured with one item in the secondary dataset rather
than a scale of all possible dimensions (see Spector, 1985). Even
though measuring the concept globally was accepted (Bradley
& Cartwright, 2002; Bokemeier & Lacy, 1987; Lambert et al.,
2006; Rauktis & Koeske, 1994; Sharma et al., 1997), assessing it
with dimensions would provide much information. More rigorous
measurement of job satisfaction is needed in future research on
worklife balance.
Fourth, this study employed a cross-sectional design, which
prohibited establishing a causal model. Although logic and plausibil-
ity can help in making a conclusion in the present study, future
studies with a longitudinal design may be able to establish causal
relationships. Fifth, the survey applied a nonprobability sampling
and was conned to 25 counties of one state. Study ndings cannot
be generalized to an overall picture. Sixth, even if the four conditions
of a meditational model were met in the study, there are likely to be
alternative models that t the data (Frazier et al., 2004). Because the
predictors, mediator, and outcome were measured at the same point
in time, the direction of the relationships among these variables was
unclear. For instance, a reverse causal order could exist. Further,
omitted variables may impact both the mediator and the outcome
variable.
5.4. Implications
As no prior research has probed into correlates and medicating
role of worklife balance, this study is, by nature, exploratory. Its
tentative ndings offer insights to future research on worklife balance
in child welfare. More empirical research is needed to verify the
ndings of the present study. For instance, the lack of supervisor
support impacting worklife balance warrants justication with future
studies. The exploration of mediating effects of worklife balance
among job-related factors needs to be replicated with other samples
and research designs. Further efforts also need to rule out alternative
models and might use other methods such as Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) to test the meditating role of worklife balance.
In addition, more variables need to be included to assess their
inuence.
The ndings of the study suggest several practice and policy impli-
cations. Given the critical role of job value in work environment, the
way to develop and strengthen job value in social work education
and organization practices merits strong consideration. The study
also suggests the adoption and evaluation of measures to increase
the quality and quantity of organizational support in child welfare.
The lack of supervisor support implies that a worklife orientation
should be stressed in the supervisors' providing support to their subor-
dinates in child welfare practice. Moreover, all kinds of ways should be
taken to control overwork and its detrimental effects on employees'
work and personal lives. In short, structural and cultural transitions of
organizations such as implementing exible job designs and favorable
human resource policies and advocating for supportive climate
(Hobson et al., 2001; Kelliher & Anderson, 2010; Kossek et al., 2010;
Lewis, 2003; Lewis & Campbell, 2008; Peters & Heusinkveld, 2010;
Virick et al., 2010) are possible ways for child welfare organizations to
facilitate their workers' worklife balance. In closing, this study asks
administrators and policy-makers to address worklife balance of
child welfare workers in an era of challenging working conditions and
excessive work demands, as well as imperative family responsibilities
and personal requirements.
 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454
Appendix A
Table A
Construction of the scales.
Scales Items
Worklife There is a good t between my personal life and work life.
balance There is a good t between my family life and work life.
I receive support and recognition from family members.
There is a good t between my job and my personal health.
I am able to do my job and not burnout.
This job enables me to continue living where I live now.
I have sufcient emotional energy for the job.
My work offers schedule exibility.
Supervisor My supervisor genuinely cares about me.
support My supervisor gives me help when I need it.
My supervisor shows approval when I succeed.
My supervisor provides the help I need to complete my required tasks.
My supervisor provides the help I need to complete required
paperwork.
My supervisor supports me in balancing the demands of my job
with my personal life.
My supervisor supports me in difcult case situations.
My supervisor helps me learn and improve.
My supervisor values and seriously considers my opinion in case
decision making.
My supervisor can accept an alternative perspective.
My supervisor is supportive of any on-the-job-training I attend.
My supervisor is available to me when I ask for help.
My supervisor helps me prevent and address burn-out.
Organizational My agency is committed to my personal safety in the ofce.
support My agency is committed to my personal safety in the eld.
The support staff in the agency is adequate.
Physical work space is satisfactory.
My professional opinions are respected in this agency.
When my co-workers are successful, I feel successful.
There is a can do attitude among co-workers.
I receive support and recognition from co-workers.
The work I do is recognized by other professionals in the community.
The agency is respected in the community.
I would recommend my agency to others seeking employment in
child welfare.
Job value In my work, I have a feeling of success and accomplishment.
Clients regularly succeed in reaching goals.
My work offers opportunities to make a difference.
My work offers opportunities for improving knowledge and skills.
My work offers opportunities to ensure the safety and well-being
of clients.
I am prepared for my job because of my prior training and education.
The job has the right level of challenge.
The agency helps me to implement best practices.
This job ts with my career goals.
References
Allison, P. D. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Auerbach, C., McGowan, B. G., Ausberger, A., Strolin-Goltzman, J., & Schudrich, W.
(2010). Differential factors inuencing public and voluntary child welfare workers'
intention to leave. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 13961402.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.
Barth, R. P., Lloyd, C. E., Christ, S. L., Chapman, M. V., & Dickinson, N. S. (2008). Child
welfare worker characteristics and job satisfaction: A national study. Social Work,
53, 199209.
Blood, M. R. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53,
456459.
Bokemeier, J. L., & Lacy, W. B. (1987). Job values, rewards, and work conditions as
factors in job satisfaction among men and women. The Sociological Quarterly, 28,
189204.
Bradley, J. R., & Cartwright, S. (2002). Social support, job stress, health, and job satisfaction
among nurses in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Stress Management, 9,
163182.
Carlson, D. S., Grzywacz, J. G., & Zivnuska, S. (2009). Is workfamily balance more than
conict and enrichment? Human Relations, 62, 14591486.
1453
Connell, R. W. (2005). A really good husband: Work/life balance, gender equity and
social change. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 40, 369383.
Dean, H. (2007). Tipping the balance: The problematic nature of worklife balance in a
low-income neighborhood. Journal of Social Policy, 36, 519537.
Fenner, G. H., & Renn, R. W. (2010). Technology-assisted supplemental work and work-
to-family conict: The role of instrumentality beliefs, organizational expectations
and time management. Human Relations, 63, 6382.
Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in
counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115134.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between workfamily
balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510531.
Hegney, D., Plank, A., & Parker, V. (2006). Extrinsic and intrinsic work values: Their
impact on job satisfaction in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, 271281.
Hobson, C. J., Delunas, L., & Kesic, D. (2001). Compelling evidence of the need for
corporate work/life balance initiatives: Results from a national survey of stressful
life-events. Journal of Employment Counseling, 38, 3844.
Hopkins, K. (2005). Supervisor support and worklife integration: A social identity
perspective. In Ellen Ernst Kossek, & Susan J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration:
Organizational, cultural, and individual perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Jang, S. J. (2009). The relationships of exible work schedules, workplace support,
supervisory support, worklife balance, and the well-being of working parents.
Journal of Social Service Research, 35, 93104.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 77, 261271.
Kelliher, C., & Anderson, D. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices
and the intensication of work. Human Relations, 63, 83106.
Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2010). Worklife initiatives and organizational
change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream.
Human Relations, 63, 319.
Kwak, C., Chuang, B. Y., Xu, Y., & Eun-Jung, C. (2010). Relationship of job satisfaction
with perceived organizational support and quality of care among South Korean
nurses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Study, 47, 12921298.
Lambert, E. G., Pasupuleti, S., Cluse-Tolar, T., Jennings, M., & Baker, D. (2006). The
impact of workfamily conict on social work and human service worker job satisfac-
tion and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Administration in Social
Work, 30(3), 5574.
Lee, H., & Cummings, G. G. (2008). Factors inuencing job satisfaction of front line
nurse managers: A systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 768783.
Lewis, S. (2003). The integration of paid work and the rest of life: Is post-industrial
work the new leisure? Leisure Studies, 22, 343355.
Lewis, J., & Campbell, M. (2008). What's in a name? Work and family or work and life
balance policies in the UK since 1997 and the implications for the pursuit of gender
equality. Social Policy & Administration, 42, 524541.
Losoncz, I., & Bortolotto, N. (2009). Worklife balance: The experiences of Australian
working mothers. Journal of Family Studies, 15, 122138.
McGowan, B. G., Auerbach, C., & Strolin-Goltzman, J. S. (2009). Turnover in the
child welfare workforce: A different perspective. Journal of Social Service Research, 35,
228235.
Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate
culture: A eld test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424432.
Mescher, S., Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (2010). Representations of worklife
balance support. Human Relations, 63, 2139.
Miller, J. (1980). Individual and occupational determinants of job satisfaction: A focus
on gender differences. Work and Occupations, 7(3), 337366.
Moen, P., & Yu, Y. (2000). Effective work/life strategies: Working couples, work condi-
tions, gender, and life quality. Social Problems, 47, 291326.
Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2010). Contributions of worklife and resilience initiatives to the
individual/organization relationship. Human Relations, 63, 4162.
Peters, P., & Heusinkveld, S. (2010). Institutional explanations for managers' attitudes
towards telehomeworking. Human Relations, 63, 107135.
Rauktis, M. E., & Koeske, G. F. (1994). Maintaining social worker morale: When supportive
supervision is not enough. Administration in Social Work, 18, 3960.
Sharma, J., McKelvey, J., Hardy, R., Epstein, M. H., Lomax, R. G., & Hruby, P. J. (1997). Job
satisfaction of child welfare workers in an urban setting: Status and predictors.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 6, 209219.
Smith, B. (2005). Job retention in child welfare: Effects of perceived organizational
support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job value. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 153169.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement and human service staff satisfaction: Development of
the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693713.
Stamper, C. L., & Johlke, M. C. (2003). The impact of perceived organizational support
on the relationship between boundary spanner role stress and work outcomes.
Journal of Management, 29, 569588.
Strolin-Goltzman, J., Auerbach, C., McGowan, B. G., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The rela-
tionship between organizational characteristics and workforce turnover among
rural, urban, and suburban public child welfare systems. Administration in Social
Work, 32, 7791.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2003). Ruralurban continuum codes. Retrieved from.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes.aspx
Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1991). Job satisfaction among social workers in public and volun-
tary child welfare agencies. Child Welfare, 70, 8191.
1454 L. Wu et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 35 (2013) 14471454

Virick, M., DaSiva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation Westbrook, T. M., Ellis, J., & Ellett, A. J. (2006). Improving retention among public child
between extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance welfare workers: What can we learn from the insights and experiences of committed
outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63, 137154. survivors? Administration in Social Work, 30(4), 3762.