Cited by 744Child Welfare and AdoptionSocial Work Education and PracticePublic Policy and Administration Research

The Effects of Organizational Climate and Interorganizational Coordination on the Quality and Outcomes of Children’s Service Systems

Glisson, Charles, Hemmelgarn, Anthony·1998·Child Abuse & Neglect

Abstract

Objective This study examines the effects of organizational characteristics, including organizational climate and interorganizational coordination, on the quality and outcomes of children's service systems. Method A quasi-experimental, longitudinal design was used to assess the effects of increasing interorganizational services coordination in public children's service agencies. The research team collected both qualitative and quantitative data over a 3-year period describing the services provided to 250 children by 32 public children's service offices in 24 counties in Tennessee. Results Findings show that organizational climate (including low conflict, cooperation, role clarity, and personalization) is the primary predictor of positive service outcomes (the children's improved psychosocial functioning) and a significant predictor of service quality. In contrast, interorganizational coordination had a negative effect on service quality and no effect on outcomes. Conclusions Efforts to improve public children's service systems should focus on creating positive organizational climates rather than on increasing interorganizational services coordination. This is important because many large-scale efforts to improve children's service systems have focused on interorganizational coordination with little success and none to date have focused on organizational climate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0145-2134(98)00005-2

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The staff survey included the Organizational Social Context instrument as well as questions about the respondent's current practice, knowledge, beliefs, and demographic characteristics.

    “The staff survey included the Organizational Social Context instrument (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998) as well as questions about the respondent's current practice, knowledge, beliefs, and demographic characteristics.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A.
Affiliations
University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Glisson, Charles
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-05
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
401-421
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141572169
Cited by
744
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 48 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 40
FWCI
39.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH46124, R01MH046124, MH53623, R24MH053623)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
organizational climate, inter-organizational coordination, public child welfare agencies, service quality, child outcomes, psychosocial functioning, role clarity, personalization, organizational conflict, inter-agency cooperation, child welfare reform, child welfare workforce, child welfare caseloads, child welfare services
MeSH terms
Child, Child Welfare, Foster Home Care, Humans, Interinstitutional Relations, Longitudinal Studies, Social Work, Tennessee, Cohort Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review