2006-2007 Annual ReportWork2 Effectiveness/LeadershipAcademy/2006...2006-2007 annual report school of social work university of pittsburgh . child welfare education and research programs

Child Welfare Education and Research Programs

2006-2007 Annual Report

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS

ANNUAL REPORT of the

CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR BACCALAUREATES PROGRAM (CWEB) and the

CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR LEADERSHIP PROGRAM (CWEL)

July 1, 2006 - JUNE 30, 2007

The Child Welfare Education and Research Programs are a collaborative effort of the University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work, the Pennsylvania Department

of Public Welfare, and the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators.

Published by Child Welfare Education and Research Programs

School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh

2329 Cathedral of Learning Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

www.cwerp.pitt.edu

1-866-275-2935

November, 2007

ii

GREETINGS

From the Dean

This Annual Report of the Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates (CWEB) and the Child Welfare Education for Leadership (CWEL) programs highlights the accomplishments of our efforts to strengthen public child welfare through professional education. This report completes the work of the twelfth year of the CWEL program and the sixth year of the CWEB program. The work described here is a testament of the Department of Public Welfare’s efforts to recruit and retain child welfare workers for the Commonwealth while strengthening the services received by the children and families they serve. The results continue to place Pennsylvania as a national leader.

The School of Social Work is committed to the safety, permanence, and well-being of children, youth, families, and communities by ensuring that services are provided by professionally-educated workers. I want to thank the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators for their ongoing support and partnership in our child welfare education, training, and research endeavors. Our work is critical to the vulnerable children and families served through the public child welfare system and we are thankful for these partnerships.

Larry E. Davis, Ph.D. Donald M. Henderson Professor Dean, School of Social Work From the Principal Investigator We are proud of the achievements of the CWEB and CWEL programs and for the contributions we have made to the public child welfare system in Pennsylvania. Some four hundred and seventy-five (475) CWEB students have already entered into the county agency system and six hundred and thirty-six (636) persons have graduated from the CWEL program. All have work commitments in the counties. At the same time, another 192 CWEL students continue their studies, and by May, 2008, nearly seventy-three (73) of them will graduate and return to counties all over the state. We have also witnessed the availability of an educational ladder within child welfare as 12% of eligible CWEB graduates have now entered the CWEL program after fulfilling their initial agency work commitment.

The contributions of many others are what guide, sustain and shape our programs. We salute our students with sincere admiration for their energy, vision, and productivity. The long-term benefits of their contributions to Pennsylvania’s children at risk and their families and to Pennsylvania’s citizens will be realized for many years to come. Helen Cahalane, Ph.D., ACSW, LCSW Principal Investigator, Child Welfare Education and Research Programs

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates (CWEB) Child Welfare Education for Leadership (CWEL) Progress Report and Program Evaluation November, 2007

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Greetings ...................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... iii Mission and Goals......................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 Background .................................................................................................................. 2 Program Descriptions ................................................................................................... 3 Administration ............................................................................................................. 7 Academic Program Approval and Curriculum ............................................................ 8 Commitment and Recoupment of Funds ...................................................................... 9 Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 13 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 15

Students’ responses Agency directors’ responses Degree program responses Graduates’ responses Retention research on longer-term graduates

Discussion..................................................................................................................... 30 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 39 Conclusions................................................................................................................... 42 Appendices Appendix A: Table I – Participating University Programs Appendix B: CWEB and CWEL School Participation Map Appendix C: Table II – University of Pittsburgh Child Welfare Courses Appendix D: Table III – Undergraduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of Approved CWEB Schools for 2006-2007 Appendix E: Table IV – Graduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of Approved CWEL Schools for 2006-2007 Appendix F: CWEB County Participation Map Appendix G: CWEB Cumulative Tables, 2001-2008 Appendix H: CWEL County Participation Map Appendix I: CWEL Cumulative Tables, 1995-2008 Appendix J: List of Supplemental CWEB and CWEL Materials Available On-line Appendix K: Child Welfare Training Outcomes Research Sampler Appendix L: Child Welfare Education and Research Faculty and Staff

CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR BACCALAUREATES

AND CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR LEADERSHIP

MISSION AND GOALS

OUR MISSION

The Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates (CWEB) and the Child Welfare Education for Leadership (CWEL) are the degree education programs within the Child Welfare Education and Research continuum. Administered by the University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Office of Children, Youth and Families, and the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators, the mission of these programs is to strengthen child welfare services to Title IV-E eligible children and families in Pennsylvania by increasing the number of educated professionals and equipping them to deal with the increasingly complex demands of public child welfare practice.

OUR GOALS

• Addressing the vacancy and turnover rates among public child welfare employees and the

recruitment and retention problems in Pennsylvania; • Recruiting undergraduate students throughout widely dispersed locations in order to prepare

persons for public child welfare employment; • Assisting in the retention of public child welfare staff already serving Title IV-E eligible

children and families by making graduate education with a focus on child welfare studies more readily available;

• Providing academic and curricular support for child welfare studies to university programs; • Providing a career ladder within public child welfare and assisting in the long-term career

development of child welfare professionals; • Engaging in efforts to promote the development of evidenced-based practice skills for child

welfare professionals; • Conducting research and evaluation focused on evidence-based child welfare practice and the

impact of social work education; • Advocating for practice improvement within the child welfare system through education,

ongoing training, transfer of learning, technical assistance, organizational development, and support provided by competent, committed, and confident child welfare professionals.


2

Introduction

Recruitment and retention of public child welfare personnel have been recognized as

problems not only in Pennsylvania, but nationwide for more than a decade. National studies

have concluded that “insufficient training” is one of the major factors contributing to the

difficulties in retaining child welfare personnel. Research findings document that professional

education is one of the factors that can reduce turnover, improve services, and reduce costs.

This report marks the completion of the sixth full academic year of operation for the

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates program (CWEB) and twelve (12) full academic

years of operation for the Child Welfare Education for Leadership program (CWEL) in

Pennsylvania. Both have become remarkably integrated into the fabric of public child welfare

throughout the state, with approximately 97% of the counties in the Commonwealth participating

in CWEB and CWEL. To date, over twenty percent (20%) of all the caseworkers, managers,

supervisors and administrators of the county agencies in the state have been enrolled in CWEL.

There are many other factors to be included when addressing morale, recruitment and retention

problems, but CWEB and CWEL are certainly positioned to address one of the most significant

factors and have already demonstrated their potential and effectiveness.

The need for both the baccalaureate and graduate-level child welfare education programs

and their basic designs are included in Pennsylvania’s federally approved Title IV-B plan.

Federal financial participation is based upon federal Title IV-E regulations contained in 45 CFR,

Ch. II, Part 235 and Ch. XIII, Parts 1355 and 1356.

Background

Child welfare has been an important component of education for social work practice at

the University of Pittsburgh since 1938. While it has been addressed in a number of curricular

formats, the preparation of professionals to serve society’s most vulnerable children and their

families has always been of central importance. The following timeline provides an historical

overview of child welfare education and training at the University.


3

Program Descriptions

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates Program

Designed to recruit and prepare students for a career in the public child welfare field, the

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates (CWEB) Program is offered to undergraduates at 14

schools throughout Pennsylvania. Undergraduate students who are official social work majors in

any of the fourteen approved, participating undergraduate schools are eligible to apply for the

CWEB program. (See Figure 1 for all program requirements.)

Children and Youth Concentration is introduced at the master’s level and becomes a curriculum model adopted by other schools of social work across the country.

Three-year grant received from the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect to establish the Interdisciplinary Child Abuse and Neglect training program. Five-year competency-based, interdisciplinary training grant received from the United States Children’s Bureau to advance the Title IV-B interdisciplinary agenda of building a child welfare curriculum, enhancing school/agency partnerships, and providing training at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Faculty members from Child Development and Child Care, Nursing, Medicine, Law, Psychology, Public Health, and Social Work participate as a team. Title IV-E pilot projects initiated with several Western PA counties to assist in developing a Title IV-E training model to address child welfare workforce issues and shape the School’s curriculum. The Child Welfare Education for Leadership (CWEL) program is established to provide long-term educational opportunities for public child welfare employees in PA.

Funding received from the United States Children’s Bureau for a two-year project designed to demonstrate the efficacy of developing a state-wide opportunity for potential child welfare employees (“persons preparing for employment” in the federal Title IV-E regulations). The Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates (CWEB) program initiated to provide child welfare education and training to persons preparing for a child welfare career.

Pennsylvania’s child welfare training and education model acknowledged as being “…the most comprehensive, integrated and sophisticated program seen to date” by the Administration for Children and Families. Pennsylvania’s child welfare and education and training model described as an outstanding model for other states to emulate by the Administration for Children and Families. Pennsylvania Child Welfare Training Program receives the National Staff Development and Training Association Quality Award.

1986

1972

1991

1992

1995

1998

2001

2003

2004

2005


4

Figure 1

Qualified students can get substantial financial support during their senior year in return

for a commitment to work in one of Pennsylvania’s county public child welfare agencies

following graduation. Students must satisfactorily complete child welfare course work and an

internship at a public child welfare agency. During the course of the internship, many students

are able to complete the competency-based training required for all public child welfare

caseworkers. Upon graduation, students also receive assistance with applying for Pennsylvania

Civil Service status, which accelerates the hiring process.

Nearly 507 students have graduated from CWEB during the program’s first six years.

CWEB graduates have completed internships and have been employed in 80 percent of

Pennsylvania counties. Once in the field, they are able to draw on a solid background of agency

experience as well as required training and educational preparation. County child welfare

agencies benefit immensely from the program because it addresses a critical child welfare

workforce need.

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates

Requirements

Requirements as a Student

Students must: Complete child welfare course work

Complete an internship at a public child welfare agency

Requirements as a Graduate Graduates must:

Gain and maintain, for one year, employment at a Pennsylvania public child welfare agency

Application Requirements

Applicants must:

Be a junior or above, in academic standing, enrolled at an approved university

Have a satisfactory grade point average

Have the recommendation of the social work faculty of the program in which they are enrolled

Not be in default of any outstanding federal or state educational loan

Sign a legally binding agreement which requires a work commitment following completion or termination of their studies

Submit academic transcript(s)

Provide a written statement regarding interest in public child welfare


5

Child Welfare Education for Leadership Program

The Child Welfare Education for Leadership (CWEL) Program provides substantial

financial support for graduate-level social work education for current employees of public child

welfare agencies. Caseworkers, supervisors, managers or administrators of any Pennsylvania

county children and youth agency are eligible to apply to participate in the CWEL program.

(See Figure 2 for all program requirements.) All persons enrolled met these criteria as

determined by their CWEL applications, résumés, agency approvals, notifications from the one

of the approved schools, and signed agreements.

Admissions to CWEL program increased slightly in 2007-08 Admission of Full time students increased in 2007-08 Admission of male students increased in 2007-08

Admissions to CWEL: Status & Gender

78

29

49

11

6782

39 43

16

66

0

20

40

60

80

100

Admission Full time Part time Male Female

2006-072007-08

Since CWEB continually accepts students, the numbers shown for 2007-2008 are not final CWEB has had only one part-time student since its beginning.

Admissions to CWEB: Status & Gender

93 93

07

80

6

54 54

0 2

48

40

20

40

60

80

100

Admission Full time Part time Male Female NotReported

2006-072007-08


6

CWEL has funded students from 61 counties and 10 Pennsylvania schools of social work

on both a full- and part-time basis. More than 20 percent of all caseworkers, supervisors,

managers, and administrators of Pennsylvania’s county child welfare agencies have enrolled in

CWEL to date. Additionally, CWEL serves as an educational and career ladder for public child

welfare employees. To date, approximately 12 percent of CWEB graduates have entered CWEL.

CWEL reimburses salary and benefits for full-time CWEL students and covers tuition,

fees, and other expenses for both full- and part-time students in return for a commitment to the

employing county child welfare agency upon graduation. More than 600 child welfare

professionals have earned graduate social work degrees during the first 12 years of the program.

These individuals occupy various positions, ranging from caseworker to administrator. The

program has a remarkable record of retention, with annual retention rates of more than 90

percent compared to approximate national rates of 60–70 percent.

Figure 2

Child Welfare Education for Leadership

Requirements

Application Requirements Applicants must:

Have been employed at a Pennsylvania public child welfare agency for at least one year Have at least satisfactory work performance evaluations Have been accepted for graduate study by one of the ten approved schools

Have the approval of their employer and (if accepted for full-time study) are granted an educational leave by their employer

Not be in default of any outstanding federal or state educational loan

Requirements as a StudentStudents must:

Complete child welfare course work Complete an internship serving IV-E eligible clients

Requirements as a GraduateGraduates must:

Maintain Pennsylvania public child welfare agency employment for a defined period of time

Sign a legally binding agreement which requires a work commitment following completion of their studies


7

Administration

The CWEB and CWEL programs have been administered by the School of Social Work

at the University of Pittsburgh since their inception in 2001 and 1995, respectively. [This is

outlined in Part III-A of the Project Description and Implementation.] In addition to providing

undergraduate and graduate level social work degree programs on both a full-time and part-time

basis, the School of Social Work provides academic and curriculum support for the other thirteen

(13) undergraduate universities and nine (9) graduate schools eligible to participate in the CWEB

and CWEL programs. The total number of participating school programs is sixteen (16), with

six schools at the undergraduate level only, eight university programs enrolling both

undergraduate and graduate students, and two programs at the graduate level only.

The CWEB and CWEL faculty conduct annual site visits with each university program,

including branch campus locations, and maintain ongoing contact to discuss academic programs,

issues, and progress. The CWEB and CWEL Academic Coordinators, in particular, have

hundreds of contacts with faculty and students from the fifteen other schools throughout the year.

Fiscal administration includes reimbursement to county employers of full-time graduate

students for salaries and benefits; reimbursement to students for books, payment of tuition and

fees at all approved educational institutions and, where appropriate, travel expenditures and

stipends. These payments are advanced by the University as they become due. The University,

in turn, invoices the Commonwealth and is reimbursed from a combination of state and federal

funds.

A series of formal agreements provides the mechanism for the operation of the programs.

These include the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Department of Public Welfare and

the University of Pittsburgh; a series of agreements between the University and each of the other

fifteen (15) approved institutions of higher education; and, agreements between CWEB students

with the University or by CWEL students, with their respective county employer and the

University. These agreements provide for the students’ enrollment arrangements, reimbursement

for allowable expenses, and the required post-education work commitments. Also provided for


8

are the CWEL employers’ responsibilities to maintain benefits and grant educational leave to

full-time students. Reimbursement to employers for CWEL student salaries and benefits is also

included.

To accomplish all of these tasks, a staff of approximately six (6) full-time equivalent

professional persons and one and three-quarters (1 ¾) full-time equivalent support persons have

been engaged. Program faculty all teach regular credit courses, provide academic advising to

students, and oversee student internships. In addition, the CWEB and CWEL Academic

Coordinators are responsible for overseeing program evaluation. Please refer to Appendix L for

a faculty and staff listing.

Academic Program Approval and Curriculum

All of the schools participating in the CWEB and CWEL programs are fully accredited

by both the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS) and the Council on

Social Work Education (CSWE). The sixteen (16) approved schools and their accreditation

dates are listed in Appendix A, Table I. A graphic representation showing the location of the

participating schools is included in Appendix B.

All approved undergraduate schools are required to offer at least one (1) child welfare

course and internships in county child welfare agencies. Approved graduate programs are

required to offer at least two (2) graduate-level child welfare courses and child welfare

internships. The continuing availability of these courses and internships is verified by the

CWEB Coordinator and the CWEL Academic and Curriculum Coordinator who consult

regularly with the approved schools regarding field assignments, specific courses, student

registrations, and student progress.

The graduate level offerings of the University of Pittsburgh and their enrollments are

listed in Appendix C, Table II. The 2006-2007 course offerings of the fourteen undergraduate

schools participating in CWEB and the other nine graduate schools participating in CWEL are

shown in Appendix D, Table III (CWEB) and in Appendix E, Table IV (CWEL). These course


9

listings above do not include internships, for which a minimum of four hundred (400) clock

hours is required.

At the undergraduate level (CWEB), the range of field or internship hours is from 400 to

720 with a mean of 499. However, the CWEB students are encouraged to participate in the

Pennsylvania State Civil Service County Social Casework Intern program in conjunction with

their school and the county agency in which they are completing their placements. This option

requires 975 hours of internship. The advantage to the student and the agency of this option is

that upon completion of the official County Social Casework Intern program and graduation, the

student is eligible to begin work immediately in the agency as a Caseworker II without the

requirement of a Civil Service examination. Of the sixty-six (66) CWEB students enrolled

during the 2006-2007 academic year, thirty-one (31) exercised the State Civil Service Social

Casework Intern option.

At the graduate level, nearly all placements greatly exceed the 400 hour minimum with

the average being nearly six hundred (600) hours. At the University of Pittsburgh, there are five

hundred seventy six (576) hours of internship for first year students and seven hundred twenty

(720) hours for second year students resulting in a total of 1296 hours. Comparable hours are

required at the other nine graduate schools.

CWEB county participation is included in Appendix F. CWEL county participation is

included in Appendix H.

Commitment and Recoupment of Funds

All students enrolled in the CWEB and CWEL programs must repay the educational

benefits they have received. This is accomplished in one of two ways. For CWEB graduates,

the repayment by service is one calendar year of service for one academic year of support.1 For

CWEL graduates, the length of this service is an amount of time equal to the length of their

educational leave for full-time CWEL students and equal to the proportion of the full-time length

1 45 CFR, Ch. II, §235.63 (b) (5)


10

of the degree program they have completed as part-time students.2 Students who received

support for only a portion of their program have a pro rata work commitment proportional to the

support they received. During the period of this report, seventy-two (72) CWEL students

completed their degree programs and were graduated. This brought to six hundred and thirty-six

(636) the total number of CWEL graduates as of summer, 2007. All graduates returned to their

counties of origin following graduation.

For both CWEB and CWEL graduates failing to complete their commitments the full

amount of the cash paid to the student or on the student’s behalf must be reimbursed. This

provision is contained in the agreement each student signs either with the University (as in the

case of CWEB students) or with the University and the county of their employment (as in the

case of CWEL students). During the sixth year, two (2) CWEB students withdrew or were

terminated from the program after receiving financial benefits, some after beginning their period

of commitment payback. Those who withdrew discovered early that child welfare was not what

they had anticipated and not what they wanted to pursue as a professional career. From just

about everyone’s perspective, this important discovery is to be anticipated in a certain number of

instances among undergraduate students and is better learned before great time, training, and

costs have been expended. A graphic summary of the CWEB departures and their status appears

below.

In twelve years of program operation, it is notable that less than six percent (51/883) of

the students admitted to the CWEL program have resigned or been terminated from the program.

These departures are for various reasons, represent widely distributed counties, and include most

schools. These situations, together with the actions being taken, are summarized below. The

employment (retention) of all students exiting the program will continue to be monitored as

required in Section III, G, 13 of the Project Description and Implementation, and by PL 103-432

which was enacted by the United States Congress during the first CWEL program year and

which applies to graduates funded after October 1, 1995. 2 45 CFR, Ch. II, §235.63 (b) (1)


11

STUDENT DEPARTURES FROM the CWEB PROGRAM AND RECOUPMENT

Retention has two aspects in the CWEB and CWEL programs. The first is the retention

of students just noted. In this group, the loss rate of 13.8% (73/527) among the undergraduates

and 5.7 % (51/883) among the graduate students is most reasonable considering the large number

of academic and personal factors that can affect the decision to withdraw. The second aspect is

the retention of graduates after they have completed their work commitment. Since the beginning

of the CWEB program through the fall of 2006, three hundred and ninety-two (392) students

accepted employment after graduation. Seventy-one percent (71%) of those remain in the

agencies after completing their required commitment. Of this group, forty-two percent (42%)

have exceeded their commitment by over two years. As the undergraduate schools became more

familiar with the program and public child welfare practice, it appears the selection process

improved leading to better outcomes.

Recoupment Status Collection

Initiated Obligation Satisfied

YEAR # of Students

2001-2002

12

6

6

2002-2003

14

6

8

2003-2004

14

8

6

2004-2005

16

13

3

2005-2006

15

14

1

2006-2007

2

1

1

TOTAL

73

48

25


12

STUDENT DEPARTURES FROM the CWEL PROGRAM AND RECOUPMENT

Reasons for Departure Recoupment Status Employment Withdrew

from School Academic Problems

Medical Problems

Collection Initiated

Obligation Satisfied

School # of Students T* R**

Bryn Mawr College

3

0

0

0

1

2

2

1

Marywood University

13

2

2

5

3

1

6

7

University of Pennsylvania

4

0

1

2

1

0

3

1

University of Pittsburgh

9

0

1

3

3

2

3

6

Temple University

14

3

7

2

1

1

5

9

Widener University

8

1

2

4

0

1

2

6

TOTAL 51 6 13 16 9 7 21 30

For the CWEL program, only five (5) individuals out of a total of 636 graduates have not

completed their employment commitment after graduation. All were for unavoidable reasons

having nothing to do with the employees’ desire to fulfill their commitments. The percent of

graduates who have resigned for all reasons over the life of the program averages 2.5% per year.

The reasons for leaving included death, retirement, total and permanent disability, transfer of

spouse’s employment out of state, and other routine changes of employment. In some instances,

CWEL graduates have been offered retirement incentives to reduce county payrolls, literally

finding ways to terminate some of the counties’ most experienced and best-educated professional

staff.

Despite the loss of some senior level staff, it is doubtful if there is any other program

designed to retain highly skilled employees that has such a strong record. Nevertheless, there

are real reasons behind each of the post-commitment departures. We have written about these in

* T = Terminated ** R = Resigned


13

the last several annual reports, have presented them to the state-wide Recruitment and Retention

Committee, at meetings of the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators Association, at

national professional meetings and include additional information about them later in this report.

Fortunately, most of the root causes of turnover can actually be remedied, though some are more

difficult than others. All of the remedies are beyond the scope of CWEL and lie largely with the

county agencies.

Deliverables

Extensive efforts to inform all interested parties about the CWEB and CWEL programs

have continued. The entry of four hundred and seventy-five (475) CWEB students into the

agency system and the return of six hundred and thirty-six (636) CWEL graduates to sixty-one

(61) counties has been very helpful in making the value of the program more visible. Current

and former students are a valuable source of recruitment, as are county agency directors and

school faculty members. The volume of inquiries and applications, and the increase in the

number of participating counties suggest information about the program is reaching those

eligible to participate as students or employers. To further facilitate inquiries and calls for

assistance, a “toll-free” line was installed. The number, 1 (866) ASK - CWEL, [1 (866) 275-

2935], has been well received and has had steady use. The presence on the world wide web

already noted also received numerous visits. Frequently, the out-of-state inquiries come from

persons who have visited the website first.

The following efforts and products were delivered by the University during 2006-2007 in

accordance with the approved Project Description and Implementation plan:

• 2005-2006 Annual Report was provided to all county administrators, DPW officials, ACF officials, CWEB and CWEL academic partners and other interested state and federal officials

• CWEB and CWEL brochures were distributed to all counties and participating schools

• Individual letters were sent to county agencies not currently participating in CWEL to provide information, invite any questions, and encourage their participation


14

• Professors Bradley-Pugh, Cahalane, Donohue, and Winter attended the fall, winter, and spring meetings of the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators

• Dr. Cahalane presented an overview of the CWEB program at annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Association of Undergraduate Social Work Educators

• Dr. Bradley-Pugh represented the CWEB and CWEL programs at the annual job fair sponsored by the state Recruitment and Retention Committee

• Program evaluation instruments were mailed to all participating counties, schools, current students, and a sample of graduates from both CWEB and CWEL as part of the annual program evaluation, the results of which are described later in this report

• Dr. Cahalane served on the state advisory board of the Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP) Training and Technical Assistance Institute and the planning committee for the CASSP annual conference which provided opportunities to publicize the CWEB and CWEL programs at CASSP-sponsored events

• Dr. Cahalane presented a research paper at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education on recruitment and retention in public child welfare and is currently awaiting publication of an article regarding this work in the journal, Child Welfare

• In addition to the specific activities noted above, hundreds of telephone and e-mail inquiries were handled from potential students, agency administrators, county commissioners, other states, and other colleges and universities

• Faculty visits were held with each participating school program beginning in the fall of 2006 and continuing through the spring of 2007. These visits are summarized below and include meetings with prospective students, current students, academic faculty, and academic program administrators

The attendance and participation of the CWEB and CWEL constituencies at all of the

campus sites were excellent. Wide ranging discussions of policy issues, academic concerns,

administrative procedures, and other matters were frank, constructive and overwhelmingly

positive. Because this was the twelfth year of participant and constituency visits for the CWEL

program and the sixth for the CWEB program, student and county CYS attendees tended to fall

into two groups. One group was familiar with policy and procedure, knew staff personally, and

was knowledgeable about program goals and requirements. Another group was just submitting

their first invoices or facing their first mid-term examinations. What might have become

difficult sessions as staff sought to respond to these two groups with very different questions,


15

became constructive seminars/workshops instead. The more experienced were quick and eager

to be helpful to the new-comers; second year graduate students could encourage, support and

counsel with first year students; and CWEB and CWEL staff could facilitate the process and

respond as needed.

School Progam Date of Visit Target Audience California University 9/13/06 CWEB Shippensburg University 10/20/06 CWEB Slippery Rock University 10/24/06 CWEB Marywood University – Lehigh Valley campus 10/30/06 CWEL Bryn Mawr College 10/31/06 CWEL Bryn Mawr College 11/1/06 CWEL alumni Widener University 11/1/06 CWEB & CWEL Temple University 11/1/06 CWEB & CWEL University of Pennsylvania 11/2/06 CWEL Marywood University – Reading campus 11/2/06 CWEL Kutztown University 11/3/06 CWEB Marywood University – Scranton campus 11/3/06 CWEB & CWEL Edinboro University 11/14/06 CWEB Millersville University 11/21/06 CWEB Bloomsburg University 12/4/06 CWEB Lock Haven University 12/5/06 CWEB Mansfield University 12/5/06 CWEB Edinboro University 3/21/07 CWEB & CWEL California University 3/28/07 CWEL Temple University – Harrisburg campus 4/10/07 CWEL Widener University – Harrisburg campus 4/11/07 CWEL

Evaluation

Introduction

The CWEL and CWEB programs have several critical stakeholder groups from which we

regularly seek feedback: the schools participating in CWEL and CWEB, current and graduated

students, and the organizations that employ them. Because these are such important constituent

groups, they are surveyed on a yearly basis. Their responses provide valuable information about

the usefulness and quality of the curriculum and field work as well as the quality and the value

that the CWEL and CWEB students bring to the schools and the child welfare organizations. In


16

addition, we ask program graduates about the climate of their work environment. This

information helps us to better understand what aspects of organizational climate are associated

with positive outcomes; for example, commitment to the field, job satisfaction and personal

achievement. All of this information is shared with the CWEL and CWEB staff and

administrators and professors as well as the organizations to improve the quality of the services,

curriculum and working environment.

The following sections include findings from this year’s evaluation. The first two

sections review results from current students and recent graduates of the CWEL and CWEB

programs. The third section highlights the findings from the faculty of the schools participating

in CWEB and CWEB. The final sections summarize what long-term program graduates say

about the climate of the child welfare agencies that they work in, as well as the organizational

view of the value of the CWEL and the CWEB programs.

How satisfied are the current CWEB and CWEL students?

“I do appreciate the staff at CWEL. They have been reachable via email, mail, and telephone. I can always expect a speedy response to any questions/concerns that I might have” “The incentives that I received from the CWEB program were particularly positive. With the help of this program I was able to concentrate and dedicate my time towards my college education”

Surveys were mailed to the 28 CWEB and 109 CWEL students enrolled as of summer, 2007.

The return rates were 79% for the CWEB students and 87% for the CWEL students. Both

surveys ask the students’ opinion on program and processes, the agency’s interface with the

CWEL or CWEB program, communication and an overall opinion about the degree program.

• The ratings are at 80% and above for all areas except for agency interface for the CWEL students

• In general, CWEL students report higher ratings than the CWEB students in all of the

areas, except for agency interface and the overall rating of the program

o This may be a reflection of the age and experience of the CWEB students relative to the CWEL students


17

* The questions posed to CWEB and CWEL student relating to Agency Interface are different; therefore, a combined statistic is not available

The lower rating (77%) on the agency interface item for the CWEL students was further

examined. These items reflect the students’ perception of how easy or difficult it is to arrange

taking time to attend classes part time or returning to work in the summer for the full time

students. It also includes items about the ease of arranging time for field placement for part time

students and general awareness of the agency about the program and the ease of making

arrangements for summer return to the agency. • The open-ended items about problems show that the CWEL students report the part-time

student load and ease of arranging field to be challenging • These two items are rated on the lower end of the scale by the part-time students, with the

average score for “time off for field” at 3.2 reflecting a lower to neutral opinion about how easy it is to arrange time for field as a part time student

o This suggests that the part-time CWEL students find it challenging to balance the

demands of working in their organization, attending classes and also completing their field placement requirements

Student ratings of “somewhat” or “highly positive”

N=20 CWEB; N=95 CWEL

93% 92% 88%

77%

85% 80%

95%

88%90% 90% 92%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Program Process Communication Degree ProgramOverall

Agency InterfaceOverall*

CWEL CWEB Combined Items

88% of the CWEL students surveyed reported high levels of satisfaction 95% of the CWEB students surveyed reported high levels of satisfaction


18

How satisfied are the recent graduates of the CWEL and CWEB programs?

“If I hadn’t had an internship, I would probably would have started this job overwhelmed and confused…” (CWEB Student) “(The CWEL program) gave me the opportunity to learn new skills and knowledge that helps me to provide better service to the families we serve. Also, as a new supervisor, I have been able to provide workers with new trainings and help them with acquiring new knowledge in child welfare issues”

Surveys were mailed to the 73 CWEB and 77 CWEL students who have recently

graduated from the program. The return rates were 59% for the CWEB and 77% for the CWEL

students. Graduates are asked for their opinion about whether the CWEB/CWEL program led to

increased knowledge, better practice skills, preparation for practice, positively impacted their

career and increased their commitment to the field of public child welfare. They are also asked

about their colleague’s reactions to their graduation from the program. Although the surveys are

similar, the CWEL graduates are asked additional questions about current and future leadership

opportunities and, for CWEB graduates, if their experience in the program helped to prepare

them for practice and graduate education.

• Acquiring knowledge and skills were the highest rated items for both CWEL and CWEB graduates (combined 89%)

• 84% surveyed felt prepared for practicing in child welfare settings • CWEL graduates surveyed reported higher ratings than CWEB graduates in all but one

category

• CWEL graduates surveyed reported lower levels of positive colleague reactions to their advanced degree than the CWEB graduates

o This is due to a larger percentage of “neutral” responses by the CWEL

respondents

• The CWEL graduates were more likely to endorse a strong positive commitment to the field whereas the CWEB graduates were neutral or somewhat positive about their future commitment


19

Summary of current and recent graduates

Overall, the students were positive about the processes, communication and agency

interface with the CWEL and CWEB programs. They believed that their participation in these

programs gave them valuable knowledge and practical skills. In particular, the CWEL graduates

reported strong commitment to continuing in the child welfare field. However, the CWEL

students also reported challenges in balancing work, field placement and classes and they also

perceived that their advanced degrees were not always viewed as an asset by their colleagues.

This is a culture and staffing issue that should be addressed. How can students share their new

knowledge and skills with their colleagues? How can organizations flex schedules to allow

students to take classes without over-burdening the rest of the staff? The CWEB students

reported less stress in managing schedules but as a whole were less committed to the field. The

challenge for this group is to nurture their commitment to the child welfare field through support

and supervision.

Recent graduate ratings of “somewhat” or “highly positive”N=42 CWEB; N=59 CWEL

97% 98% 92%

66%

88%

80% 79% 76% 74%

85% 83%

69%

89% 89% 84%

74%

86%

75%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CW Knowledge CW Skills Prep for CWPractice

CW ColleagueReactions

CW Career Degree Impact

CWCommitment

CWEL CWEB CWEL & CWEB Combined Items

89% of the graduates surveyed reported increased knowledge as well as skills in child welfare84% of the graduates surveyed felt better prepared for practice 86% of the graduates surveyed felt that their degree enhanced their career


20

How do Schools view the CWEB and CWEL program?

“Our CWEB students have been excellent. The extra training that they receive from the CYF agencies is noticeable” “The CWEL students have consistently been among my hardest-working, most invested and most professional students”

The response rate for the survey was 100%. Respondents were asked the same set of

questions for both CWEL and CWEB programs about the quality of the program and processes

and the curriculum and field instruction and the quality of the CWEL and CWEB students. • The average score for the aspects of the CWEL program pertaining to program

processes and procedures was 4.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5) and 4.7 for curriculum and field

• The respondents rated the CWEB program similarly (4.3 for CWEB program process

and 4.4 for curriculum and field) • Overall, the responses from the schools were uniformly positive

• 100% of the respondents surveyed reported that the CWEL and CWEB students

contribute positively to the school environment

School rating of "somewhat” or “highly positive"

87% 100%

83% 84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Program Process Curriculum & Field

CWEL CWEB

87% of the schools surveyed reported excellent CWEL program processes 100% of the schools surveyed reported excellent field and curriculum in the CWEL program


21

Summary of Schools

The schools were very positive in their feedback about the CWEL and CWEB students.

They found the students to be invested, hard-working and committed. They were also satisfied

with the processes and communication with the University of Pittsburgh staff and the faculty.

This level of satisfaction speaks to the hard work done behind the scenes to coordinate with

students, faculty and field supervisors.

What do program graduates say about the climate of child welfare agencies?

The climate of the work environment in child welfare may relate to graduates’ interest in

staying with agencies beyond their educational commitment. Long-term graduates of the CWEB

and CWEL programs were mailed the Children’s Services Survey (Glisson & Hemmelgarn,

1998), a 121-item scale that measures aspects of the work environment such as fairness, clarity

of employees’ role in the organization, level of cooperation among co-workers, job satisfaction

and sense of personal accomplishment, and the extent to which employees see opportunities for

advancement and growth within the agency. Also assessed are levels of emotional exhaustion,

role overload and role conflict, and depersonalization of the work.

The surveys were sent to 315 CWEL and CWEB graduates and returned as valid by just

over one-half (n=172). The sample includes those who graduated or whose agency hire date was

in the 2005-2006 school year (at least 1 year post-graduation or post-hire). Graduates were asked

to rate their experiences at the child welfare agency using a 5-point Likert scale.

Among graduates who responded to the survey, most were between ages 25 to 34 (63%

and 45% of CWEB and CWEL responders, respectively). One-quarter of CWEB graduates who

responded were younger than 25 years, while there were no CWEL graduate respondents in this

age group. CWEL graduates who responded were older than CWEB graduates overall: 36% were

ages 35 to 49, and 19% were over age 50. Most respondents in both groups are female (over 90%

total). Among CWEL respondents who reported their racial/ethnic identity, 17% are African-

American and 83% are Caucasian. Most CWEB respondents are also Caucasian (85%), followed

by African-American (11%), Hispanic/Latino (2%), and other racial/ethnic identities (2%).


22

Graduates were asked about their length of employment in child welfare, at their current

agency, and their average child/family caseload. CWEL graduates reported a longer length of

employment at their agency and in child welfare services compared with CWEB graduates.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of CWEB graduates reported working in child welfare for less than 5

years, while just 10% of CWEL graduates reported the same. One-quarter of CWEL graduates

reported working in child welfare 15 years or longer. Most CWEB graduates reported working at

their current agency for less than 5 years (83%), while most CWEL graduates reported working

at their current agency for 5 years or more (93%). This difference in tenure is expected, as the

CWEB graduates are those new to public child welfare employment while the CWEL graduates

are those already working for the agency prior to involvement in the program. The following

chart shows the average caseload size reported by CWEB and CWEL graduates. Caseload size

did not vary notably among these groups.

Admisson Ethnicity CWEB and CWEL Students 2006-08

16 15

6759

10 411 12

34

67

8 30

1020304050607080

CWEB AfricanAmerican

CWEL AfricanAmerican

CWEB White CWEL White CWEB NativeAmerican,

Latino, Otheror Not

Reported

CWEL NativeAmerican,

Latino, Otheror Not

Reported

Ethnicity

Num

ber

2006-07 2007-08


23

Results of the organizational climate survey show that many graduates report high ratings

of having feelings of personal accomplishment as a child welfare worker, being clear about their

role at the agency, and feeling a level of cooperativeness among their co-workers. Negative

qualities of the work environment include role overload, routinization of the work, and

emotional exhaustion. The following two graphs highlight these results.

Graduates report the highest ratings concerning having feelings of personal accomplishment when working at a child welfare agency. Similar to agency directors, graduates report least favorably about opportunities for growth and advancement at their child welfare agency.

Average caseload size

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

<15 15-20 21-30 31-40 over 40

Prop

ortio

n

CWEB CWEL

Mean ratings of positive work qualities reported by graduates

1 2 3 4 5

Fairness

Growth and Advancement

Job Satisfaction

Organizational Commitment

Personal accomplishment

Role Clarity

Cooperation

Scal

e

Not at all To a great extent


24

How is agency climate related to retention?

We compared the responses of CWEB graduates who remained at their agency at the

time of the survey (n=69) with CWEB graduates who had left the agency at the time of the

survey (n=50). Bivariate t-tests were used to compare mean scores for these groups on the 10

domains of the questionnaire.

Results showed significant differences (p<.05) between the groups regarding the level of

commitment to the agency, with graduates who remained at the agency reporting higher levels of

commitment (mean=2.87) compared with graduates who had left the agency (mean=2.75).

There were statistical trends (p<.10) between the groups concerning role clarity and

levels of personal accomplishment. Graduates who remained at the agency reported higher levels

of role clarity and feelings of personal accomplishment compared with graduates who had left

the agency.

Graduates reported most negatively regarding role overload and routinization in the work that they do. Graduates reported low levels of depersonalization in their work, such as feeling “hardended”, lackadaisical, or ambivalent about the children they work with.

Mean ratings of negative work qualities reported by graduates

1 2 3 4 5

Role Conflict

Role Overload

Emotional Exhaustion

Depersonalization

Hierarchy

Routinization

Formalization

Scal

e

Not at all To a great extent


25

Mean score

Domain Remained at agency (n=69)

Left agency (n=50)

Depersonalization 2.16 2.35 Emotional exhaustion 3.05 3.38 Fairness 2.86 2.70 Opportunity for growth and advancement

2.35 2.34

Hierarchical structure 2.85 2.85 Job satisfaction 3.09 3.04 Organizational commitment 2.87 2.75 Sense of personal accomplishment

3.48 3.35

Role clarity 3.38 3.33 Role conflict 2.99 3.13 Role overload 3.64 3.78 Routinization 3.33 3.35 Cooperativeness of co-workers

3.33 3.27

Formalization of procedures 2.87 2.83 Note: Results should be considered preliminary because of low response rates.

Summary of graduates’ reports of organizational climate

Overall, graduates were not notably positive or negative about the work environments of

child welfare agencies in which they currently work, or have worked in the recent past.

Graduates reported moderate levels of job satisfaction, cooperativeness among co-workers,

fairness in the workplace, emotional exhaustion, and role conflict. Graduates and agency

directors, however, agree that there are limited opportunities for advancement in the child

Role clarity includes factors such as: • understanding how work performance is evaluated; • having clearly defined job responsibilities; • being well-informed and; • having adequate information about rules and procedures.

Personal accomplishment is high when workers report: • being able to deal effectively with children’s problems; • feeling exhilarated after working with families and; • feeling calm while dealing with the emotional problems of families.


26

welfare field. Some factors that may offset this detriment are having clear roles and

responsibilities, a high level of commitment to the agency, and a sense of personal

accomplishment at the end of the workday.

The empirical literature on retention clearly points to the quality of supervision as a key

factor in the work environment. The presence of supportive and instructive supervision is likely

to influence these findings in a more positive direction.

To what extent do child welfare agency administrators value the CWEL and CWEB

programs?

Agency administrators were asked to complete a survey rating the value of the CWEB

and CWEL programs on the following dimensions:

• impact on the quality of agency practice, staff retention, recruitment, and motivation

• work performance of graduates and interns employed at their agency and

• value of the programs at the state-level (PA’s Children and Youth Agencies)

A total of 119 surveys were returned, representing a 94% response rate for agencies reporting

on CWEB graduates and a 96% response rate for agencies reporting on CWEL graduates. Across

the agencies surveyed, there were 256 employed CWEL graduates, 166 employed CWEB

graduates, and 53 CWEB interns. As shown, most agency administrators reported positively

about the programs. Included in the work performance dimension were items concerning

graduates’ level of knowledge and skill, ability to apply their education to practice, preparedness

for assignments, extent of meaningful contributions to the agency, and receptiveness to new

assignments.


27

Administrators responded very favorably about graduates employed at their agency: • 87% of administrators reporting on the CWEL program and 91% of administrators reporting

on the CWEB program rated graduates’ ability to apply social work education to child welfare practice as “good” or “outstanding”

• 84% of administrators reporting on the CWEL program and 78% of administrators reporting

on the CWEB program reported that graduates made “quite helpful” or “exceptionally helpful” contributions to the agency

Staff strive to make the process of having CWEL and CWEB programs at local agencies as

smooth as possible. Agency administrators were asked about the extent to which staff provide

them with adequate information about the programs, have been responsive to questions, handle

problems and complaints satisfactorily, and are accessible. Satisfaction levels were very high for

administrators who reported on the CWEL program and high for administrators who reported on

the CWEB program: 71 to 77% of CWEB administrators reported positively, and 87 to 94% of

CWEL administrators reported positively about program management.

75% of administrators surveyed reported that the CWEB and CWEL program have had a positive impact on the quality of practice at their agency When barriers to retention of CWEL graduates were mentioned, administrators most often reported salaries (43%) and limited opportunities for advancement (20%).

Administrators' ratings of "somewhat or highly positive"

85

70

90

0

20

40

60

80

100

Impact on agency Work performance Value at the state level

Dimension

Prop

ortio

n


28

Child welfare workers are more satisfied when their work utilizes their unique skills and

abilities. Agency administrators were asked to comment on changes they have made to take

advantage of the skills and abilities of program graduates. Most frequently, administrators

reported that graduates were assigned more difficult cases, specialized caseloads, or special

projects (n=52), provided specialized practicum instruction (n=22), and received promotions to

higher-level positions (n=26). Many also reported involving graduates in policy development or

planning (n=16), and assigning graduates to leadership roles (n=16).

Administrators' Reports of Positive Views of Program Management

77 77 75 7791 94 929087

71

0

20

40

60

80

100

AdequateInformation

Responsiveness ProblemResolution

StaffAccessibility

OverallSatisfaction

Item

%CWEL CWEB

Agency use of CWEL graduates

5

11

13

16

16

20

21

22

26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Other

Special projects

New /Rev program

Leadership role

Planning/policy dev

Special caseload

Challenging cases

Spec practicum instructor

Promotion

Number of grads


29

Summary of Feedback from Agency Administrators

Feedback from agency administrators shows that CWEL and CWEB graduates are valued

members of the child welfare workforce at both the state and local levels. Administrators were

very positive about the programs, graduates, and administration. Graduates are receiving

assignments and supervision that encourage their professional development and are likely to

enhance their skills and abilities. Graduates and agencies alike benefit when such mechanisms

are in place to ensure that graduates maximize their education and training. This may result in

more leadership roles for program graduates, thereby increasing their chances for promotion and

long-term agency employment. Children and families also benefit from having caseworkers and

supervisors who are experienced and committed to helping them resolve their family difficulties

over time.

Notable Facts

• Pennsylvania is the 5th most populated state in the country, with a total population of 12.3 million people (Source: US Census Bureau 2000)

• African-Americans are 10.4% of the population; Whites comprise 85.4% • There is substantial variation in the counties, with Philadelphia County containing the

largest population of African Americans, and Lehigh and Berks county having the largest concentration of the Hispanic population

• According to the 2000 census, 13% of the child population in Pennsylvania was

African American and 78% was white • The demographics of children in foster care in Pennsylvania is 49% African-

American and 42% white

Summation

The evaluation sought to answer several questions related to satisfaction with the CWEL

and CWEB programs from the perspectives of students, faculty and agency administrators.

Additionally, it sought to better understand the working environment and factors that may

positively impact the work climate.


30

From all perspectives, the stakeholders are pleased with the quality of the students, the

curriculum and with what the students bring to their organizations. However, what does this

mean in light of the larger context of child welfare in Pennsylvania? What does this say about

child welfare workforce development in our state?

Over 21,768 children in Pennsylvania were in foster care in 2003 (U.S. DHHS, 2003).

Every county is working within the economic and political realities of their region. It is vital that

we have a well-trained and supported workforce in child welfare. With the ever increasing need

for services, along with the reduction in available resources, workers in the field will need to be

creative, flexible, use the resources well and be able to implement the most effective practices.

Supervisors will need to do all of the above as well as provide supportive and practical

supervision, provide role clarity and promote feelings of accomplishment in their team. Agency

administrators will need to continue to find ways to promote competence and support initiative in

their graduates.

The CWEB and CWEL programs are a longer term strategy for the state’s workforce

development. They will not solve immediate problems but are a longer term solution that has

benefits: Research supports that better-trained workers tend to remain committed (Robin &

Hollister, 2002). Training is associated with more effective services: evidence based practices

in child mental health and child welfare include substantial training, coaching and supervision

(Bazelon Center, 2001). Recommendations for maximizing how to best develop the workforce

using CWEB and CWEL at the state, county and University level will be in the final section of

this report.

Discussion

CWEB

After just six years of operation, the CWEB program has made remarkable gains.

Fourteen (14) universities, fifty-five (55) counties and five hundred and twenty-seven (527)

students made major investments in its operational success. The Department of Public Welfare

(including its personnel division), the State System of Higher Education, the State Civil Service


31

Commission and the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators, Inc. all lent extensive

infrastructure support. Numerous operational details of all sorts and sizes presented themselves

for problem solving. All hands contributed to these efforts out of a genuine desire to see that the

program succeeded and from a deep reservoir of good will.

The evaluations over the past six year period have been most helpful in suggesting

program improvements, and we are now in a position to analyze our lessons learned from

administering the program thus far. Early in the program’s history, issues such as timely tuition

payments, direct deposit of stipend payments, and issues specific to the Philadelphia Civil

Service system were resolved. Some of these issues, such as school tuition and student stipend

payments, represented larger systems issues over which the University has limited control.

Barriers to the timeliness of Philadelphia’s hiring of CWEB graduates were addressed and have

been successfully resolved for the most part.

Close follow-up by the CWEB Coordinator has resulted in the majority of graduates

securing county agency employment within sixty days of graduation. Students may pursue

employment in any county in the state, and the vast majority find employment quickly. Most

wish to remain in the county where they completed their internship, and most do. However,

there are some students who are reluctant to relocate and who live in areas where there are no

immediate openings. When students fail to follow through on their contractual obligations, the

CWEB program initiates an aggressive collection procedure that can include obtaining a court

judgment against the student. This is rarely necessary as nearly all students honor their

obligations. As has been discussed previously, a career in public child welfare is not for

everyone. The process of student discovery is a normal, healthy process which results in

decisions which benefit students and counties. The CWEB program facilitates that process by

counseling with the students and graduates and then providing a professional, business-like

collection system for reimbursement when necessary.


32

Suggestions for CWEB program improvements and our action plan are summarized

below.

Suggested Program Improvement Action Plan

Improve successful outcomes for students by refining admission criteria and participant selection

• Two additional requirements have been added to the admission criteria: student transcripts and a personal statement regarding the desire to pursue public child welfare as an area of practice

Further guidance to university faculty on the details of civil service requirements and other technical aspects related to county internship and employment

• Intensify school visitation and informational meetings

• “Frequently Asked Questions” fact sheet

posted on CWERP website • Presentation by CWEB faculty at annual

PAUSWE (PA Undergraduate Social Work Educators) meeting

Increase participation in Civil Service Social Work Internship program

• Intensify outreach to schools and students regarding the benefit of completing 975 hours of internship (e.g., civil service standing, exemption from SCSC exam, ability to complete competency-based training as part of internship, greater marketability for hiring)

• Enlist county agency support in providing

arrangements for extended internship by CWEB students

Increase county participation in the CWEB program

• Increase direct consultation with counties • Increase school engagement of counties in

the field practicum process • Presentation by CWEB faculty at PCYA

meetings Improve successful job placement following graduation

• Ongoing assistance by CWEB Coordinator in identifying county casework vacancies, facilitating referrals for interviews, and counseling graduates regarding child welfare employment


33

CWEL

After twelve years of operation, the CWEL program has continued to reach additional

students and counties while maintaining its commitment to close, collaborative working

relationships with the Department, students, county agencies, and schools of social work in

Pennsylvania. The number and diversity of counties has continued to increase; the number of

students continues to meet the projected goals; and the number of applications exceeds the

number of budgeted student openings. The program is portrayed as providing students with a

valuable educational experience; as useful in their child welfare practice; as a major asset to

public child welfare in Pennsylvania; as well administered and user friendly; as having a long-

term impact on public child welfare practice; and as a positive element in the continuing struggle

to retain workers.

Narrative responses gathered during the program evaluation contain a number of

suggestions. Some are impractical or impossible to implement. Others are based upon

misinformation. Most of the suggestions gleaned from the evaluations point to important

questions that bear thoughtful review. Several of these will be highlighted because they come

from multiple sources or were reported in so many different ways that all of the partners ought to

be thinking about them in the next program period.

One such series of comments concerns the climate, salaries, job classifications,

assignments and opportunities for career development which graduates of the CWEL program

encounter upon their return to the county agencies. The following are key points which were

repeated by multiple respondents:

• lack of differentiation in job classifications among workers with and without graduate degrees

• lack of salary incentives in many counties

• hostile, skeptical and jealous reception workers sometimes face upon return to their agency after graduation

• difficulty of some in negotiating assignments that capitalize on the returning worker’s new skills and advanced training


34

• scarcity of opportunities for promotion in some (perhaps many) counties

• the sense that advanced educational achievement is not matched with respect and leadership opportunities (reported in a number of counties)

In other counties, returning graduates have been welcomed with open arms and invited to

participate in planning creative and challenging assignments that are advantageous to both the

worker and the agency. The contrast in the moods of these two groups of students is stark. One

group of graduates speaks of long-term commitment to public child welfare and the other group

is beginning to think of other ways they can serve children at risk and their families where the

opportunities are better fitted to their skills. Graduates do not speak of reneging on their

commitments and when they do contemplate other options such as moving to employment with

private providers or other counties after completion of their commitments, they do so with

sadness for the most part. Perhaps it is because the number of graduates completing their

commitments and the number returning surveys has grown significantly, but the CWEL faculty

view the comments of graduates about agency climate as more prominent and more poignant

than ever before. Counties and agencies that ignore these concerns should not be surprised by

the loss of valuable staff. There is extensive research evidence of the importance of non-salary

factors in retention. (See Appendix K) However, the results of this and previous surveys

suggest that salary is very important in Pennsylvania.

Well-educated and skilled professionals who serve children at risk and their families will

benefit public child welfare wherever they practice and will return the investment made on their

training by the taxpayers many times over. But a major opportunity will have been lost if

agencies do not take full advantage of the skills, optimism and enthusiasm of the returning

workers. Retention has always been one of the goals of federal funding for child welfare training

and the CWEB and CWEL programs. It is well known from research that workers who are

skilled in the services they are asked to provide and who receive strong agency support have

higher retention rates.3 All indications suggest that CWEB and CWEL students have received

3 Jones, Loring P. and Okamura, Amy. (2000). Reprofessionalizing Child Welfare Services: An Evaluation of a Title IVE Training Program. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(5), 607-621.


35

good training. It remains for the partners in this enterprise to be as creative, innovative and

energetic in following through after graduates return as they were in designing, creating and

implementing the program. The 12 or so months CWEB students and the 20 or so months full-

time CWEL students spend in training is very modest when compared to the many years their

potential child welfare careers will span following graduation.

CWEL has a remarkable record of retention. Of the 636 graduates who have completed

the program, only five (5) have failed to complete their work commitment. Another one hundred

and fifty-four (154) have resigned after completing their commitments for all reasons. That

represents a loss rate of only 2.5% per year for the life of the program. The research literature on

long-term retention of workers with no legal work commitment clearly shows the importance of

agency climate, quality of supervision, intrinsic worker fulfillment and job satisfaction from

appropriate assignments, and personnel policies along with salaries as some of the keys to long-

term retention.4 Unfortunately, there is little or nothing CWEB or CWEL can do about any of

these important factors except to continue to provide non-identifying feedback to the

Department, county agencies, and PCYA regarding what the child welfare graduates are

experiencing and saying. The Principal Investigator and the CWEB Coordinator have been

serving on the state Recruitment and Retention Committee where some creative ideas have been

discussed. Getting these implemented at both the state and county levels is highly political and

often difficult. We hope and believe that the longitudinal research on the retention of CWEL

students conducted by Dr. Cahalane can contribute to this discussion.

The subject of the advantages and disadvantages of full and part-time study continues to

surface, particularly for CWEL students. There is no doubt this is one of the areas in which

county differences occur, but there is also no doubt from student evaluations and the many years

of collective experience the schools have had, that the educational experiences of full-time

students are clearly superior. Full-time students have many more opportunities to interact with

their academic advisors and other faculty outside of class; more time to network with other 4 Glisson, Charles and Hemmelgarn, Anthony. (1998), op. cit..


36

students; more time available for library research; more choice of elective courses; more time to

write papers and prepare other assignments; and more options for completing their internships.

They can do this with less commuting, less stress from two major work-related responsibilities,

less conflict between work schedules (e.g. court appearances) and class schedules, and less time

away from their family responsibilities. The tuition for full-time completion of a degree is also

less than for part-time study. Full-time students require only half as much time or less to

complete the program. This means a quicker return to full productivity in the agency. Part-time

studies often take as long as four years to complete. This is an extraordinary period for students

to be attempting work, studies and the other responsibilities in their lives.

The agencies’ primary concern with full-time study for CWEL students most frequently

is whether or not the agency can fill the position while the student is away for full-time study.

The counties that have hired replacements have experienced no major difficulties and have been

able to do so without any financial cost because of the reimbursement they receive for the salary

and benefits of the trainee in school. Schools and students almost unanimously favor the full-

time model. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the voluntary withdraws from the program reflect the

stress and schedule problems of being a part-time student. These are serious, costly and

unnecessary losses. Another reason counties give for refusing to permit full-time study is that

part-time students are likely to have higher retention rates after graduation. There is absolutely

no evidence for this contention. By far the greatest number of complaints and the most

impassioned complaints from students are that they are not permitted to engage in full-time

study. These students are angry, bitter, under pressure from their families, sleepless at night

because of their worries over the children in their caseloads, and some express a determination to

resign as soon as their commitments are completed. We have watched it happen. We believe

this is a shortsighted and counter-productive agency policy. Moreover, administratively, only

full-time students may be used by the University in generating the substantial matching funds it

contributes to balance the project’s budget. The CWEL program began as a largely full-time

program. At this time, 59% of the students are part-time. This actually reduces the total number


37

of students who can participate, reduces the federal contribution to the program and increases the

state matching funds required.

Another concern with which all four partners must constantly struggle is differences in

policies or requirements. County personnel policies differ in ways such that CWEB and CWEL

students in the same classroom with their respective program classmates may be subject to

incongruent requirements. Curricular requirements or academic calendars among the schools

may differ enough that students from the same county (but not attending the same school) also

have incongruent requirements.

The CWEB and CWEL faculty are keenly aware of these differences and seek to assist

the other partners in being aware of alternative approaches that might be helpful. But in the final

analysis, uniformity is not the goal. These are not seen as fairness issues. As long as the Title

IV-E regulations are followed, the effort has been to allow for local conditions and needs to

guide local decision-making. Workers in some counties are employed under union conditions.

Others are not. Small counties face somewhat different personnel issues than larger ones.

College or university calendars may control social work department or school schedules. The

number of child welfare students in a given school has an effect on the number of child welfare

courses that can be offered. Consequently, students and others who observe some differences are

quite correct and refer to a diversity that is neither possible nor desirable to control centrally. It

is always the goal of the CWEB and CWEL programs to provide:

1. Easy access to the programs for trainees, counties and schools

2. Equitable distribution of resources that assures as many schools and counties have the opportunity to participate as possible

3. Streamlined administrative procedures and timely reimbursements

4. Strict observation of Title IV-E regulations

5. Full disclosure of all aspects of the program’s operation among the partners and to the public

6. As little interference as possible with selection of trainees and implementation models

by counties and with schools in their selection and admissions processes


38

Suggestions for quality improvement and our action plan for the CWEL program are

summarized below.

Suggested Program Improvement Action Plan

Alteration in commitment time for part-time students (suggested by participants)

• Part-time student commitment period is already pro-rated in order to avoid a longer commitment time. Commitment time begins upon graduation

Expansion of commitment time for all participants

• This is precluded by federal Title IV-E regulations [45 CFR, Ch. II § 235.63 (b) (1)]

Permission for students to major in administration or macro practice

• Students in a current administrative or managerial position are permitted to pursue an administrative or macro track. Those in direct service positions must focus upon direct practice. This policy is in keeping with the federal expectation that trainees are being prepared for best practice in that aspect of IV-E services to which they are assigned by the agency.

• Students may take courses in administration as electives

Continued focus upon agency working environment and opportunities for graduates to use their expanded skills and abilities within the agency

• Targeted intervention with agency supervisors and administrators

• Ongoing feedback to county administrators • Ongoing CWERP faculty participation in

statewide Recruitment and Retention Committee

Inclusion of advanced level child welfare coursework in school curriculum, particularly in evidence-based practice

• Curricular consultation to schools • Provision of technical assistance • Pilot offering of FGDM course scheduled for

spring ’08 in two university programs Increase in full-time student enrollment • Continue to encourage counties to hire

replacement staff using the reimbursement received for the salary and benefits of the school trainee

Increase salary of child welfare workers • Continue to advocate at the county, state, and federal level that salaries must be adequate to compensate for the demands of public child welfare jobs


39

Recommendations

We are committed to continuous quality improvement and understand that no successful

program is static. Areas for future consideration for both programs are summarized below.

Recommendation Background Information and Rationale

Maintain CWEB enrollment number at 100 This enrollment target appears sufficient at this time. However, in the event that our recruitment efforts at the participating university programs increase student interest in child welfare, demand will surpass capacity.

Increase CWEL enrollment to 210 An additional university program recently became accredited for the 2007-2008 academic year. Larger enrollment makes it possible for schools with a smaller number of child welfare students to expand course offerings.

Inclusion of additional graduate degree programs in Pennsylvania as they become accredited

Increasing the number of schools allows for greater student access, reduces student commuting time and decreases program costs. The Bradford campus of the University of Pittsburgh opened in 2002-2003 and has a child welfare focus. Marywood University has opened a branch campus in Central Pennsylvania. Kutztown University received full accreditation beginning with the 2007-2008 academic year. The Millersville-Shippensburg program has made application to the Council on Social work Accreditation for pre-candidacy eligibility and final approval of accreditation is anticipated in 2008-2009.


40


Consideration of an additional component to the CWEL program in order to recruit new employees for the counties. These persons would never have worked in a county CYS before, but would be trained and would have the same length of work commitment as that currently required of CWEL students.

The provision in the federal Title IV-E regulations which permits the training of persons “preparing for [public child welfare] employment”5 provides this opportunity. A principal advantage is cost savings. To test the viability of this option, the University was funded by the United States Administration for Children and Families for $226,644 to undertake a demonstration, pilot project. The project extended for two (2) years from October 1, 1998, through September 30, 2000. The evaluations of this project were very positive. The cost of all this to the Department would be the non-federal match. With preparation during the 2007-2008 program year, this initiative could be in place for the 2008-2009 academic year.

It is recommended again that consideration be given to including the fourteen (14) private, accredited undergraduate social work programs in Pennsylvania in the CWEB consortium.

Many of the schools presently participating in CWEB have small enrollments. Unlike the CWEL program, there is no backlog of persons waiting their turn to participate in CWEB. If all of the fourteen additional schools chose to participate, met the requirements, and were approved, the potential would be to approximately double the enrollment. The demand from counties for new bachelor’s graduates is at least that great. Unfortunately, the cost of dong this would be borne largely by the Department as the University has little with which to match federal funds in the CWEB program. The two largest line items in the CWEB budget are tuition and stipends, neither of which is subject to indirect costs. This is an opportunity that should receive consideration in the period ahead, and is a question constantly asked by the non-participating schools.

5 45 CFR, Ch. II, §235.63 (a).


41


Consideration of CWEL participation by Department employees, i.e., DPW Regional Office employees, Childline employees, perhaps others.

This recommendation has been made for several years and nothing has developed on this matter. The Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan placed much emphasis on education and this seems a logical direction to take. The cost to the Department would be negligible because of the relatively small numbers of persons involved and would fit within the projected enrollment parameters. This would allow additional trainees to benefit from the CWEL program and, in turn, would benefit our families.

Consideration of a doctoral-level CWEL option.

This recommendation for a very small program with guidelines carefully developed by the Department and the University has been made for several years. This option could provide an additional research arm for the Commonwealth and further our mission of establishing evidence-based child welfare practice across the state. Schools are receptive to this and there continues to be a strong demand from counties and individuals. Research at the doctoral level would make an even greater contribution to the Commonwealth and the field. The CalSWEC program in California is the oldest and largest IV-E program in the nation similar to CWEL. CalSWEC celebrated its fourteenth anniversary in 2007. In order to advance the extent and quality of child welfare research available, CalSWEC has initiated a program of funding both doctoral students and other, independent research the state needed. In a very short period of time, a stream of research reports and papers has emerged. The impact has been felt widely. Pennsylvania is in an excellent position to make a similar contribution. This could be coordinated with the emerging research efforts of our Child Welfare Education and Research Programs. A reasonable objective might be one (1) doctoral student in each of the five (5) schools with a doctoral program.


42


Reimbursement to counties for 100% of the salaries of full-time students and for fringe benefits at the same level (40.7%) that the Department currently reimburses counties.

When the CWEL program was initiated, it was decided to reimburse counties for only ninety-five percent (95%) of full-time students’ salaries. It was hypothesized that counties would pass the five percent (5%) reduction along to students and this amount in the aggregate would be used as part of the non-federal matching funds required under IV-E regulations. However, this approach was quickly abandoned. First, it became evident that federal authorities would classify contributions from students as “private funds” which are prohibited except under very obtuse rules this approach could not meet. Secondly, a number of counties continued to pay the workers their full salaries even though the counties were reimbursed at only the ninety-five percent (95%) level. Adding to this is the burden of the very low salaries that so many CWEL students earn. Especially those students with families find even the five percent (5%) salary reduction very difficult to endure. This may also assist counties in considering allowing more employees to become full-time students.

Conclusions

The faculty of the programs sincerely believe the Department and the counties can

rightfully be proud of the achievements of the CWEB and CWEL programs. While we are proud

to be part of this remarkable venture and partnership, we instantly acknowledge that the

contributions of many others are what guide, sustain and shape this program.

The county children and youth service administrators have been unfailingly responsive as

individuals and through their organization, the Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators,

Inc. The Department of Public Welfare, especially Secretary Estelle B. Richman and her staff

have all played important roles. The sixteen (16) academic partners have also made major

contributions. Admissions, registrations, invoices, graduations, academic schedules, course

listings, internships and dozens of other details must be coordinated and carefully attended. The


43

United States Children’s Bureau, and especially its Region III office in Philadelphia, has

continued its strong support, not least of which is extensive funding of both the CWEB and

CWEL programs. The State System of Higher Education has enabled the ten (10) state

universities with accredited undergraduate social work programs to become part of the

consortium.

Finally, no amount of contracts, agreements, budgets, reports, curricula, faculty or any

other of the myriad academic and administrative components of this project could produce a

successful outcome without exceptional students. It is to the everlasting credit of the schools

(undergraduate and graduate) and the counties that the vast majority of the CWEB and CWEL

students selected to participate in these programs have been exceptional achievers academically

and leaders among their academic and professional peers. The students’ investments, risks,

energy, vision and productivity are more responsible than anything else for the success of this

program in the final analysis. We salute them with sincere admiration.

Appppeennddiicceess

A. Table I: Participating School Programs B. CWEB and CWEL School Participation Map C. Table II: University of Pittsburgh Child Welfare Courses D. Table III: Undergraduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of Approved CWEB Schools for 2006-2007 E. Table IV: Graduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of Approved CWEL Schools for 2006-2007 F. CWEB County Participation Map G. CWEB Cumulative Tables, 2001-2008 H. CWEL County Participation Map I. CWEL Cumulative Tables, 1995-2008 J. List of Supplemental CWEB and CWEL Materials Available On-line K. Child Welfare Training Outcomes Research Sampler L. Child Welfare Education and Research Faculty and Staff

Appendix A

Table I

Participating School Programs

TABLE I

PARTICIPATING SCHOOL PROGRAMS

SCHOOL MSACS CSWE CWEB

only

CWEB/

CWEL

CWEL

only

Entry into

program

Bloomsburg University

2009 2009 x 2001

Bryn Mawr College 2009 2008 x 1995

California University 2010 2008 x 2001

Edinboro University 2013 2013 x CWEB 2001 CWEL 2006

Kutztown University 2013 2013

x CWEB 2001 (CWEL 2007)

Lock Haven University

2010 2008 x 2001

Mansfield University 2012 2014 x 2001

Marywood University

2011 2008 x 1995

Millersville University

2008 2011 x 2001

Shippensburg University

2008 2009 x 2001

Slippery Rock University

2012 2014 x 2001

Temple University 2015 2007 x CWEB 2001 CWEL 1995


2014 2009 x

1995


2011 2012 x CWEB 2001 CWEL 1995

West Chester University

2010 2013 x CWEB 2001 CWEL 2001

Widener University 2012 2013 x CWEB 2001 CWEL 1995

Appendix B

CWEB and CWEL

School Participation Map

Child Welfare Education and Research Programs Participating Schools

Bloomsburg University

California University

Edinboro University

Lock Haven University

Kutztown University

Mansfield University Marywood

University – Main Campus

Millersville University

Shippensburg University

Slippery Rock University

Temple University –

Main Campus

West Chester University

Widener University


Marywood University –

Center ValleyTemple

University - Harrisburg

Marywood University –

Reading


Bryn Mawr University

CWEL Only CWEB Only CWEB and CWEL

Widener University - Harrisburg

University of Pittsburgh -

Bradford

Marywood University – Central PA

Appendix C

Table II

University of Pittsburgh Child Welfare Courses

TABLE II

UNIVERSITY OF PITTBURGH CHILD WELFARE COURSES

FALL TERM 2006

Course Title Enrollment

Child and Family Advocacy 15 Child and Family Policy 28 Child Development 60 Child Development: Conception to Early Childhood (two sections) 37 Child Permanency 12 Children and Families at Risk (two sections) 37 Child Sexual Abuse 24 Developmental Practice Seminar I (two sections) 30 Direct Practice with Children and Adolescents (two sections) 46 Family Violence 19 Short-term Treatment (two sections) 33 Social Work with Drug & Alcohol Dependent Persons (two sections) 59

SPRING TERM 2007

Course Title Enrollment

Child and Family Policy (two sections) 34 Children and Families at Risk (two sections) 39 Child Physical Abuse 12 Child Welfare Services 21 Developmental Practice Seminar II (two sections) 30 Family Violence 18 Short Term Treatment 25 Social Work Practice with Families 23 Social Work with African-American Families 15 Social Work with Drug and Alcohol Dependent Persons 26

SUMMER TERM 2007

Course Title Enrollment Social Work Practice with Drug and Alcohol Dependent Persons 18 Social Work Practice with Families 19

Appendix D

Table III

Child Welfare Course Offerings

Approved CWEB Schools

2006-2007

TABLE III

Undergraduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of

Approved CWEB Schools for 2006-2007

Bloomsburg University Child Welfare California University Child Welfare Edinboro University Child Welfare Kutztown University Child Welfare and Social Work Practice Lock Haven University Child Welfare Services Mansfield University Child Welfare Marywood University Child Welfare Practice and Services Millersville University Social Work and Child Welfare Shippensburg University Child Welfare Slippery Rock University Introduction to Child Welfare Temple University Child Welfare Policy University of Pittsburgh Child Welfare Services6 West Chester University Child Welfare Practice and Policy Widener University Families at Risk

6 In addition to the undergraduate course “Child Welfare Services,” University of Pittsburgh undergraduate students are permitted to register for any of the graduate level courses shown in Table 1 above as electives. The two graduate courses “Child and Family Policy” and “Children and Families at Risk” can be used.

Appendix E

Table IV

Child Welfare Course Offerings

Approved CWEL Schools

2006 - 2007

TABLE IV

Graduate Child Welfare Course Offerings of

Approved CWEL Schools for 2006-2007 (University of Pittsburgh is shown on Table II)

Bryn Mawr College, Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research:

Adolescents in Family Therapy Alcohol and Drug Control Policies

Child Welfare Policy, Practice and Research Clinical Social Work Practice with Children and Adolescents Clinical Social Work and Substance Abuse Clinical Social Work with Women in Families Contextual Interventions with Severely Challenged Families Family Therapy: Theory and Practice Psychopathology The Politics of Welfare Reform

California University, Department of Social Work and Gerontology Advanced Child Welfare Seminar Legal Issues in Child Welfare Practice with Children and Youth The African American Child in Social Work Practice Edinboro University, Department of Social Work Clinical Practice for Families and Children in Child Welfare Family Social Work Practice I Family Social Work Practice II Marywood University, School of Social Work * Critical Issues in Chemical Dependence

Child Welfare Practices and Services Family Focused Social Work Practice Social Work Perspectives on Psychopathology

Social Work Practice with Children

• Advanced standing students attending Marywood University must take an additional course beyond that required for the MSW in order to meet the child welfare course requirements.

The University of Pennsylvania, School of Social Work

Intimate Violence Mental Health Diagnostics Middle Childhood and Adolescence Policies for Children and Their Families

Poverty, Welfare and Work Practice with Families Practice with At-Risk Youth Prenatal and Early Childhood Development

Social Work Practice with Children and Adolescents Substance Abuse Interventions Temple University, School of Social Administration

Assessment and the DSM-IV Child and Family Practice

Child and Family Human Behavior in the Social Environment Child and Family Policy

Interdisciplinary Responses to Child Abuse and Neglect West Chester University, Graduate Department of Social Work Social Work in Child Welfare Advanced Social Work Practice with Families

Social Work and Chemical Dependency

Widener University, Center for Social Work Education Advanced Social Work Practice with Families Child Welfare: Practice and Policy Social Work Practice with Addicted Persons and Their Families Social Work Practice with Children and Adolescents Treating Trauma

Appendix F

CWEB County Participation Map

PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES PARTICIPATING IN THE CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR BACCALAUREATES PROGRAM

1995-2007

Erie

Crawford

Warren

Bedford Somerset

Huntington

Fulton Fayette Greene

Washington

Franklin Adams

Cumberland

Westmoreland

Blair Cambria

Perry

York

Lancaster

Dauphin

Lebanon

Chester

Berks

Indiana

Armstrong

Allegheny

Butler Clearfield

Centre

Mifflin Beaver

Lawrence

Jefferson

Mercer Venango

Clarion

Forest

McKean

Elk

Potter Tioga

Cameron

Clinton

Lycoming

Bradford

Juniata

Union

Snyder Schuylkill

Lehigh

Montgomery

Delaware

Bucks

Northampton

Montour

Sullivan

Columbia

Luzerne

Susquehanna

Wyoming

Carbon

Monroe

Lackawanna Pike

Wayne

Northumberland

Philadelphia

Appendix G

CWEB Cumulative Tables

2001- 2008

TABLE I

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates 2001-2008 Admissions

by School

Admissions School 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Bloomsburg University 50 9 4 California University of Pennsylvania 26 4 3 Edinboro University 44 7 5 Kutztown University 47 13 2 Lock Haven University 24 3 1 Mansfield University 24 7 2 Marywood University 2 3 0 Millersville University 11 5 5 University of Pittsburgh 57 11 5 Shippensburg University 59 12 7 Slippery Rock University 26 1 1 Temple University 63 10 13 West Chester University 36 1 2 Widener University 23 7 3 Totals 492 93 53

TABLE II

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates 2001-2008 Admissions by School and Gender

Gender Male Female Unreported

School 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Bloomsburg University 2 1 0 38 8 3 6 0 0 California University of Pennsylvania 1 0 0 15 4 1 5 0 1 Edinboro University 4 1 0 35 6 5 3 0 0 Kutztown University 2 1 1 33 12 1 6 0 0 Lock Haven University 3 0 0 18 2 1 3 1 0 Mansfield University 0 0 0 22 7 1 2 0 0 Marywood University 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 Millersville University 2 1 0 6 3 5 3 1 0 University of Pittsburgh 2 1 0 45 10 4 5 0 2 Shippensburg University 4 0 0 44 9 7 8 3 0 Slippery Rock University 0 0 0 20 1 1 2 0 0 Temple University 3 1 0 47 9 13 13 0 0 West Chester University 0 0 0 29 1 2 6 0 0 Widener University 3 0 1 17 7 1 2 0 1 Totals 26 7 2 371 80 45 64 6 4

Table III

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates 2001-2008 Admissions

by School and Ethnicity

Ethnicity AA W NA, L, An, O & Undeclared

School 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Bloomsburg University 9 2 2 29 7 2 8 0 0 California University of Pennsylvania 3 1 0 13 3 2 5 0 1 Edinboro University 6 0 0 31 7 4 5 0 1 Kutztown University 2 2 0 33 10 1 6 1 1 Lock Haven University 1 0 0 17 2 1 6 1 0 Mansfield University 1 1 0 19 5 1 4 1 0 Marywood University 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Millersville University 0 1 1 7 3 3 4 1 1 University of Pittsburgh 5 1 0 33 10 4 14 0 2 Shippensburg University 1 2 0 44 7 6 11 3 1 Slippery Rock University 3 0 0 15 1 1 4 0 0 Temple University 23 3 7 20 6 6 20 1 0 West Chester University 1 0 1 24 1 1 10 0 0 Widener University 7 3 0 10 4 2 5 0 1 Totals 63 16 11 296 67 34 102 10 8

TABLE IV Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates

2001-2008 Student Progress & Enrollment

2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 School Admitted Graduated Withdrew Admitted Graduated Withdrew Admitted Graduated Withdrew Bloomsburg University 50 36 6 9 13 1 4 0 0 California University of Pennsylvania 26 16 6 4 7 1 3 0 0 Edinboro University 44 42 3 7 7 0 5 0 0 Kutztown University 47 40 6 13 6 0 2 7 0 Lock Haven University 24 22 2 3 1 0 1 1 0 Mansfield University 24 20 2 7 5 0 2 1 0 Marywood University 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 Millersville University 11 8 3 5 3 1 5 0 0 University of Pittsburgh 57 50 8 11 10 1 5 0 2 Shippensburg University 59 50 5 12 10 0 7 3 0 Slippery Rock University 26 18 6 1 3 0 1 0 0 Temple University 63 58 4 10 11 1 13 0 0 West Chester University 36 35 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 Widener University 23 22 1 7 7 0 3 0 0 Totals 492 419 53 93 84 6 53 12 2

TABLE V Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates

2001-2008 Employment by County

Graduations

County 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Adams 4 1 0 Allegheny 63 11 0 Beaver 1 0 0 Berks 17 5 3 Blair 3 0 0 Bradford 6 0 0 Bucks 5 0 0 Butler 3 0 0 Cambria 1 1 0 Centre 2 0 0 Chester 23 1 1 Clinton 2 1 0 Columbia 2 1 0 Crawford 9 1 0 Cumberland 11 2 0 Dauphin 14 4 1 Delaware 38 8 0 Erie 31 2 0 Fayette 1 0 0 Franklin 4 0 0 Fulton 0 1 0 Huntingdon 1 1 0 Jefferson 2 1 0 Lackawanna 1 0 0 Lancaster 9 2 0 Lebanon 3 0 0 Lehigh 21 2 3 Luzerne 5 2 0 Lycoming 2 0 0 Mercer 4 1 0 Mifflin 1 0 0 Monroe 2 0 0 Montgomery 10 1 1 Montour 1 0 0

TABLE V, continued

Child Welfare Education for Baccalaureates 2001-2008 Employment

by County

Graduations County 2001-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Northampton 5 0 0 Northumberland 9 3 0 Perry 1 0 0 Philadelphia 44 10 0 Pike 1 0 0 Snyder 3 0 0 Somerset 3 0 0 Tioga 4 3 0 Venango 4 0 0 Warren 0 2 0 Washington 0 2 0 Wayne 1 0 0 Westmoreland 3 1 0 York 10 1 0 Schuykill 0 0 0 Snyder 2 0 0 Somerset 1 0 0 Sullivan 0 0 0 Susquehanna 0 0 0 Tioga 3 0 0 Union 0 0 0 Venango 3 0 0 Wayne 1 0 0 Westmoreland 3 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 York 10 0 0 Totals 413 71 9

Appendix H

CWEL County Participation Map

PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES PARTICIPATING ON THE CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR LEADERSHIP (CWEL) PROGRAM

1995-2007

Erie

Crawford

Warren

Bedford Somerset

Huntington

Fulton Fayette Greene

Washington

Franklin Adams

Cumberland Westmoreland

Blair Cambria

Perry

York

Lancaster

Dauphin

Lebanon

Chester

Berks

Indiana

Armstrong

Allegheny

Butler Clearfield

Centre

Mifflin Beaver

Lawrence

Jefferson Mercer Venango

Clarion

Forest

McKean

Elk

Potter Tioga

Cameron

Clinton

Lycoming

Bradford

Juniata

Union

Snyder Schuylkill Lehigh

Montgomery

Delaware

Bucks

Northampton

Montour

Sullivan

Columbia

Luzerne

Susquehanna

Wyoming

Carbon

Monroe

Lackawanna Pike

Wayne

Northumberland

Philadelphia

Appendix I

CWEL Cumulative Tables

1995 - 2008

TABLE I Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County

County Admissions 1995-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Adams 11 5 2 Allegheny 74 9 5 Armstrong 9 0 2 Beaver 11 2 0 Bedford 1 1 0 Berks 40 5 3 Blair 1 0 0 Bradford 9 0 1 Bucks 34 3 9 Butler 11 1 1 Cambria 9 1 1 Carbon 1 0 0 Centre 2 0 0 Chester 21 0 2 Clarion 7 0 0 Clearfield 1 0 1 Columbia 1 1 0 Crawford 2 0 2 Cumberland 9 2 1 Dauphin 22 7 3 Delaware 14 4 3 DPW 2 0 0 Elk 1 0 0 Erie 2 0 0 Fayette 2 0 0 Franklin 1 0 0 Fulton 1 1 0 Greene 5 0 0 Huntingdon 5 0 0 Indiana 4 0 1 Jefferson 1 1 1 Juniata 1 0 0 Lackawanna 13 2 5 Lancaster 51 4 4 Lawrence 4 0 1 Lebanon 1 0 0 Lehigh 39 5 5 Luzerne 17 3 2 Lycoming 7 1 1 McKean 6 0 3 Mercer 7 1 1

TABLE I, continued Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County

County Admissions 1995-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 Mifflin 3 0 0 Montgomery 22 0 1 Northampton 14 2 1 Northumberland 8 3 4 Perry 3 0 0 Philadelphia 112 8 13 Pike 4 0 0 Potter 1 0 0 Schuylkill 8 0 0 Snyder 2 0 0 Somerset 4 0 0 Susquehanna 2 0 0 Tioga 2 1 0 Union 1 0 1 Venango 3 2 1 Warren 6 0 0 Washington 14 1 2 Westmoreland 15 2 0 Wyoming 1 0 1 York 25 0 0 TOTALS 710 78 84

TABLE II Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Student Status

Student Status

County FT PT 1995-

2006 2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Adams 8 2 0 3 3 2 Allegheny 43 2 3 31 7 2 Armstrong 7 0 2 2 0 0 Beaver 9 2 0 2 0 0 Bedford 0 0 0 1 1 0 Berks 17 0 0 23 5 3 Blair 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bradford 9 0 1 0 0 0 Bucks 0 0 0 34 3 9 Butler 11 1 1 0 0 0 Cambria 8 1 1 1 0 0 Carbon 0 0 0 1 0 0 Centre 1 0 0 1 0 0 Chester 11 0 0 10 0 2 Clarion 7 0 0 0 0 0 Clearfield 0 0 0 1 0 1 Columbia 1 0 0 0 1 0 Crawford 2 0 2 0 0 0 Cumberland 7 2 0 2 0 1 Dauphin 0 0 0 22 7 3 Delaware 0 1 0 14 3 3 DPW 0 0 0 2 0 0 Elk 0 0 0 1 0 0 Erie 2 0 0 0 0 0 Fayette 1 0 0 1 0 0 Franklin 0 0 0 1 0 0 Fulton 1 0 0 0 1 0 Greene 5 0 0 0 0 0 Huntingdon 4 0 0 1 0 0 Indiana 3 0 1 1 0 0 Jefferson 1 0 1 0 1 0 Juniata 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lackawanna 0 0 0 13 2 5 Lancaster 0 0 0 51 4 4 Lawrence 4 0 1 0 0 0 Lebanon 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lehigh 38 5 5 1 0 0 Luzerne 2 0 0 15 3 2

TABLE II, continued Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Student Status

Student Status

FT PT

County 1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Lycoming 6 1 1 1 0 0 McKean 5 0 2 1 0 1 Mercer 6 1 1 1 0 0 Mifflin 2 0 0 1 0 0 Montgomery 9 0 0 13 0 1 Northampton 7 1 1 7 1 0 Northumberland 0 0 0 8 3 4 Perry 0 0 0 3 0 0 Philadelphia 112 8 13 0 0 0 Pike 0 0 0 4 0 0 Potter 0 0 0 1 0 0 Schuylkill 0 0 0 8 0 0 Snyder 1 0 0 1 0 0 Somerset 4 0 0 0 0 0 Susquehanna 0 0 0 2 0 0 Tioga 1 0 0 1 1 0 Union 0 0 1 1 0 0 Venango 3 1 1 0 1 0 Warren 5 0 0 1 0 0 Washington 12 1 2 2 0 0 Westmoreland 0 0 0 15 2 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 1 0 1 York 14 0 0 11 0 0 TOTALS 391 29 40 319 49 44

TABLE III Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Gender

Gender

Male Female

County 1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Adams 4 2 0 7 3 2 Allegheny 10 2 0 64 7 5 Armstrong 0 0 0 9 0 2 Beaver 2 1 0 9 1 0 Bedford 0 0 0 1 1 0 Berks 2 1 2 38 4 1 Blair 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bradford 0 0 0 9 0 1 Bucks 4 0 0 30 3 9 Butler 1 0 1 10 1 0 Cambria 1 0 0 8 1 1 Carbon 0 0 0 1 0 0 Centre 0 0 0 2 0 0 Chester 3 0 1 18 0 1 Clarion 1 0 0 6 0 0 Clearfield 0 0 0 1 0 1 Columbia 0 0 0 1 1 0 Crawford 0 0 1 2 0 1 Cumberland 0 0 0 9 2 1 Dauphin 1 1 1 21 6 2 Delaware 1 0 0 13 4 3 DPW 1 0 0 1 0 0 Elk 0 0 0 1 0 0 Erie 1 0 0 1 0 0 Fayette 1 0 0 1 0 0 Franklin 1 0 0 0 0 0 Fulton 0 0 0 1 1 0 Greene 1 0 0 4 0 0 Huntingdon 0 0 0 5 0 0 Indiana 1 0 1 3 0 0 Jefferson 0 0 0 1 1 1 Juniata 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lackawanna 2 0 1 11 2 4 Lancaster 10 0 0 40 4 4 Lawrence 0 0 0 4 0 1 Lebanon 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lehigh 4 2 0 35 3 5 Luzerne 3 0 0 14 3 2 Lycoming 2 1 1 5 0 0

TABLE III, continued Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Gender

Gender

Male Female

County 1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

McKean 1 0 0 5 0 3 Mercer 0 0 0 7 1 1 Mifflin 0 0 0 3 0 0 Montgomery 4 0 1 18 0 0 Northampton 0 0 0 14 2 1 Northumberland 0 0 0 8 3 4 Perry 0 0 0 3 0 0 Philadelphia 26 1 6 86 7 7 Pike 0 0 0 4 0 0 Potter 0 0 0 1 0 0 Schuylkill 1 0 0 7 0 0 Snyder 0 0 0 2 0 0 Somerset 1 0 0 3 0 0 Susquehanna 0 0 0 2 0 0 Tioga 0 0 0 2 1 0 Union 1 0 0 0 0 1 Venango 0 0 0 3 2 1 Warren 0 0 0 6 0 0 Washington 2 0 0 12 1 2 Westmoreland 0 0 0 15 2 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 1 0 1 York 4 0 0 21 0 0 TOTALS 98 11 16 612 67 68

TABLE IV Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Ethnicity

Ethnicity

AA W NA, L , An & O

County 1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Adams 18 1 0 11 3 2 0 1 0 Allegheny 18 3 0 56 6 5 0 0 0 Armstrong 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 0 Beaver 2 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 0 Bedford 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Berks 2 0 0 36 5 2 2 0 1 Blair 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bradford 0 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 0 Bucks 1 1 0 33 2 9 0 0 0 Butler 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 Cambria 0 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 0 Carbon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Centre 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Chester 5 0 1 16 0 1 1 0 0 Clarion 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Clearfield 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Columbia 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Crawford 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 Cumberland 0 0 0 9 2 1 0 0 0 Dauphin 3 0 0 20 6 3 0 1 0 Delaware 3 2 0 11 2 3 0 0 0 DPW 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Elk 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Erie 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Fayette 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Franklin 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Fulton 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Greene 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Huntingdon 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Indiana 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 Jefferson 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Juniata 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lackawanna 1 0 0 12 2 5 0 0 0 Lancaster 4 0 0 43 3 4 4 1 0

TABLE IV, continued Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by County and Ethnicity

Ethnicity AA W NA, L, An & O

County

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

1995-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

Lawrence 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 Lebanon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lehigh 2 0 1 36 4 4 1 1 0 Luzerne 0 0 0 17 3 2 0 0 0 Lycoming 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 McKean 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 Mercer 1 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 Mifflin 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Montgomery 0 0 0 21 0 1 1 0 0 Northampton 0 0 0 13 2 1 1 0 0 Northumberland 0 0 0 8 3 4 0 0 0 Perry 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Philadelphia 85 7 10 20 1 1 7 0 2 Pike 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Potter 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Schuylkill 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 Snyder 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Somerset 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Susquehanna 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Tioga 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Union 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Venango 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 Warren 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Washington 0 0 0 14 1 2 0 0 0 Westmoreland 0 0 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 Wyoming 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 York 1 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 129 15 12 566 59 69 15 4 3

TABLE V Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Admissions by School and Student Status

Student Status

Full-Time Part-Time

Sub-Totals

Totals

School 95-06 06-07 07-08 95-06 06-07 07-08 95-06 06-07 07-08 1995-2008

Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research,

Bryn Mawr College

52

5

5

10

2

1

62

7

6

62 FT 13 PT

Department of Social Work, California University of

Pennsylvania

2

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

2 FT 1 PT

Department of Social Work, Edinboro University

0

1

4

0

1

0

0

2

4

5 FT 1 PT

Social Work Program, Kutztown University

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0 FT 1 PT

School of Social Work, Marywood University

65

7

8

90

13

20

155

20

27

80 FT 123 PT

School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania

39

3

0

20

2

3

59

5

3

42 FT 25 PT

School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh

145

9

14

53

10

3

198

19

16

168 FT 66 PT

School of Social Administration,

Temple University

63

0

2

90

10

5

153

10

7

65 FT 105 PT

Social Work Department, West Chester University

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0 FT 1 PT

Center for Social Work Education,

Widener University

31

4

7

48

12

11

79

16

18

42 FT 71 PT

TABLE VI

Child Welfare Education for Leadership 1995-2008 Admissions

by Agency Position and Years of Service

POSITION NUMBER AVERAGE YEARS IN PRESENT AGENCY

AVERAGE YEARS IN OTHER SOCIAL SERVICE

JOB 95-2006 06-07 07-08 95-2006 06-07 07-08 95-2006 06-07 07-08

Caseworker

590

61

72

4.8

4.6

4.7

2.2

0.9

0.7

Supervisor

81

9

9

10.4

9.2

8.1

4.5

0.3

0.1

Other*

39

8

3

9.5

9.8

10.3

3.2

2.3

0

* The Category of Other includes Regional Representative, Program Representative, Program Analyst, Program Specialist, Program Coordinator, Agency Director, Associate Director, Director of Social Services, Casework Manager, and Administrator.

TABLE VII Child Welfare Education for Leadership

1995-2008 Applicant Pool

Counties Represented

Students Admitted

Applicants Eligible But Unfunded

Applicants Ineligible*

Applicant Withdrew

Application Incomplete

TOTAL Applications

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

95-06

06-07

07- 08

63

29

33

710

78

84

27

0

0

249

25

11

65

7

16

55

1

0

1106

111

111

* The category of “Ineligible” includes those not approved by their county or a school, those with less than one year of service, and applicants not employed by public child welfare agencies.

CHILD WELFARE EDUCATION FOR LEADERSHIP (CWEL)

TABLE VIII 1995-2008

Student Progress and Enrollment

Admitted 95-07

Graduated 95-07

Withdrew 95-07

Admitted 07-08

Graduated 07-08

Withdrew 07-08

School FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT FT PT

Enrollment 07-08*

Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at

Bryn Mawr College

58

11

49

10

2

1

5

1

0

0

0

0

10 FT 3 PT

Department of Social Work at California University of

Pennsylvania

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 FT 0 PT*

Department of Social Work, Edinboro University

1

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

5 FT 1 PT

Social Work Program, Kutztown University

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0 FT 1 PT

School of Social Work at Marywood University

70

104

63

68

1

9

8

20

0

0

0

0

15 FT 46 PT

School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania

42

22

40

14

0

4

0

3

0

0

0

0

2 FT 7 PT

School of Social Work at the University of Pittsburgh

150

69

164

17

4

5

14

3

0

0

0

0

34 FT 12 PT

School of Social Administration at Temple University

61

100

65

73

2

11

2

5

0

0

0

0

3 FT 14 PT

Social Work Department at West Chester University

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 FT 1 PT

Center for Social Work Education at Widener

University

35

60

31

37

1

6

7

10

0

0

0

0

11 FT

27 PT* 80 FT 112 PT

TOTALS 419 369 414 217 10 36 40 42 0 0 0 0

192

Appendix J

Supplemental CWEB and CWEL Materials Available On-Line

www.cwerp.pitt.edu

• CWEB and CWEL Applications • CWEB Frequently Asked Questions • CWEL Frequently Asked Questions • CWEB Student Handbook • CWEL Student Handbook • Program Evaluation Instruments

Appendix K

Child Welfare Research Sampler:

Training Outcomes, Recruitment and Retention

Child Welfare Practice and Workforce Development: A RESEARCH SAMPLER

© 2005 Edward W. Sites, Ph.D. Albers, E.C., Reilly, T., & Rittner, B. (1993). Children in foster care: Possible factors affecting permanency planning. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10(4), 329-341. “Workers with a degree in social work [are] more likely to effect a permanent plan within [a] three year period than those without a social work degree... Case managers with training in social work ... are more successful in moving children through the system and into a permanent placement... [P]rofessionally trained social workers may be more effective case managers and their training and orientation make them particularly effective in intervening in families with multiple problems.” Alliance for Children and Families, American Public Human Services Association and the Child Welfare League of America. (2001). The child welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study. Washington, DC: Author. This is a study of child welfare personnel recruitment and retention issues in 43 state agencies and a small number of private agencies. Of the agencies with high staff turnover, 68% believe low salaries are highly problematic, 62% perceive high caseloads as highly problematic, and 68% view imbalance of job demands and compensation as highly problematic. Too much time on travel and paperwork and the difficulty of the work also were viewed as contributing to turnover and retention problems. Successful recruiting and retention strategies included early, aggressive recruiting in schools of social work, improved in-service training, improved supervisory training, and increased educational opportunities. American Humane Association and Walter R. McDonald and Associates, Inc. (2000). Child welfare services workload study: Final report. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association. This study of 13,000 social workers in all 58 counties in California was conducted between June 15, 1999 and December 15, 1999. The 500 page report documents the overwhelming workloads of the child welfare workers studied and the human costs to clients and workers of their working conditions. It notes that while there has always been high turnover of new child protective service workers, the stress of work overloads is now causing the exodus of veteran workers. Excessive workloads are seen as a major factor in retention and recruitment of qualified staff. American Public Human Services Association. (2001). Report from the Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State and county data findings. In conjunction with Alliance for Children and Families and Child Welfare League of America. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.aphsa.org/cwwsurvey.pdf. Forty-three states and 48 counties from seven locally administered states participated in this study. The study employed survey methodology. Findings from the state data indicate that: (1) vacancy rates are low among staff groups; (2) annual staff turnover rates are high for all groups except supervisors; (3) annual preventable turnover rates are high for all staff groups except supervisors; (4) the median percentage of all preventable turnovers in FY 2000 was very high; (5) the impact of vacancies on agencies is compounded by required pre-service training and phased-in caseload policies; (6) the dimensions and factors involved in staff recruitment problems are varied, complex, and widespread; (7) while states have implemented many strategies and approaches in response to recruitment problems, there are no “magic bullets or quick fixes”; (8) preventable staff turnover problems are complex, multi-dimensional, and widespread; (9) states have implemented many strategies and approaches to deal with preventable turnover problems, but their effectiveness has been modest; (10) there is a gap between the states’ rated recruitment and retention problems and their implementation of strategies to address such problems; (11) “softer” strategies (in-service training, educational opportunities) for addressing staff preventable turnover are important; (12) some states are successful and reported that their recruitment and/or preventable turnover situation improved in FY 2000; (13) states have many ideas about actions that should be taken by agencies to recruit and retain qualified child welfare service workers; (14) significant amounts of data are missing from some survey responses. In comparison, county responses indicate that: (1) vacancy rates are relatively low for all staff groups and are lower than state vacancy rates for all staff groups; (2) annual county staff turnover, like states, is quite high for all staff groups except supervisors; (3) annual county preventable turnover rates are very low for all worker groups; (4) the median percentage of all

turnovers that are preventable in the responding counties are between 27% and 47% for all worker groups except supervisors; (5) counties and states responding to the survey view the factors involved in staff recruitment problems in a similar way; (6) like states, responding counties have implemented many strategies and approaches to lessen recruitment problems, but similarly have not found “magic bullets or quick fixes”; (7) counties rated preventable turnovers as less problematic than states did; (8) like states, counties have implemented many strategies and approaches for addressing preventable turnover problems, but their rated effectiveness is higher than states; (9) counties also see “softer” strategies as important for addressing preventable turnover; (10) county child welfare agencies were somewhat more likely to seek additional resources from county boards as a result of the workforce crisis than states did with governors/state legislatures; and (11) the extent of change experienced by counties was somewhat more positive than states. American Public Human Services Association. (2005). Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State Agency Findings. Washington: Author. Available at: http://www.aphsa.org/home/news.asp. This report summarizes the data received from a survey done by the American Public Human Services Association, Fostering Results and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research with funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Thirty-one (31) state-administered and eleven (11) locally administered child welfare programs responded to the survey instruments for a total of forty-two states (82%). The survey examined staffing issues, vacancy and turnover rates, workload, recruitment and retention strategies, and related information. Regarding “education and training,” the report concludes that “University-agency training partnerships and/or stipends for students was the highest rated recruitment strategy implemented by respondents while increased/improved in-service training, increased educational opportunities e.g. MSW, and increased/improved orientation/pre-service training were rated the top three most effective strategies implemented by the respondents to retain case-carrying child welfare workers. …quality supervision was ranked highly as a factor contributing to staff retention, and good supervision ranked as the top organizational and personal factor contributing to staff retention. Training for frontline supervisors is critical due to the impact supervisors have not only on the retention of frontline workers but also on the worker’s performance in the service to children and families.” Anderson, D.G. (1994). Coping strategies and burnout among veteran child protection workers. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina. A study of 151 seasoned, line child protective caseworkers and their supervisors from all areas of South Carolina corroborated the findings of other researchers that “excessive workload, poor administrative support and bureaucratic constraint” contributed to worker stress, burnout and turnover. The study also found that social work education (particularly graduate social work education) reduces worker burnout, a major cause of staff turnover. Annie E. Casey Foundation, (The). (2003). The unsolved challenge of system reform: The condition of the frontline human service workforce. Baltimore: Author. This extensive report prepared by the Annie E. Casey Foundation outlines preliminary findings of job conditions of frontline social services workers and the problem they face. Findings show that the reasons child welfare workers leave their jobs are heavy workload, low status, low pay, and poor supervision. Motivations to stay in their jobs are sense of mission, good fit with job, investment in relationships, and professional standing. The report identifies eight fundamental problems that cripple all human services sectors: not finding sufficient numbers of quality staff, retaining quality staff, lower salaries to frontline workers than those in other jobs at comparable levels, limited opportunity for professional growth and advancement, poor supervision, little guidance and support, rule-bound jobs, education and training that do not match the roles and demands actually encountered on the job. Ashby, C. M. (2004). Child welfare: Improved federal oversight could assist states in overcoming key challenges. Testimony before the subcommittee on human resources, committee on ways and means, house of representatives. Washington, DC: United States Government Accounting Office. This testimony, which is based on findings from three reports, finds that child welfare agencies face a number of challenges related to staffing and data management that impair their ability to protect children from abuse and neglect. Low salaries hinder agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers and retain those already in the profession. Additionally, high caseloads, administrative burdens, limited supervision, and insufficient training reduce the appeal of child welfare work. This report also finds that high-quality supervision and adequate on-the-job training are factors that influence caseworkers to stay in the child welfare profession.

Barak, M.E., Nissly, K.A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? Social Service Review, 75(4), 625-661. The authors conducted a metanalysis of 25 articles concerning the relationship between demographic variables, personal perceptions, organizational conditions and either turnover or intention to leave. Results suggest that burnout, job dissatisfaction, availability of employment alternatives, low organizational and professional commitment, stress, and lack of social support are the strongest predictors of turnover or intention to leave. When such decisions are based on organizational culture, supervisors can implement employee-targeted programs that are aimed at increasing job satisfaction. Beaugar, K.O. (2000). State and county officials struggle to fill job vacancies: ‘What’s more important than a child?’ NASW News, 45(3), 3. According to a 1998 survey, only 25% of social work graduates in the country take positions in public social services and only a portion of those choose child welfare. This is a national problem. Low salaries, excessive caseloads, low status, poor working conditions, and absence of career ladders are some of the factors which discourage graduates from applying for public agency positions. Bednar, S. G. (2003). Elements of satisfying organizational climates in child welfare agencies. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84(1), 7-12. This review examines research on job satisfaction in child welfare systems and on other factors that influence a worker’s decision to leave a job or stay including organizational climate factors. Studies reviewed in this article report that the most satisfying work environment is one in which staff engage in self-actualizing work with clients, are encouraged to achieve, experience feelings of accomplishment, work collaboratively with their colleagues, and enjoy trust and permission to express anger appropriately. Motivational factors such as salary and working conditions can be individualized depending on the needs of employees. Studies that focus on factors affecting decision to stay or leave report that workers who remain in their child welfare positions despite burnout and other negative factors are those who come to the work with a sense of personal and professional mission, who have been well-matched to their positions or who have the flexibility to move to more suitable positions as their interests and needs change, and who enjoy supportive relationships with supervisors who relate to them in a consultative manner. Supervisors, who are able to promote trust; foster good communication; encourage input into decision making, creativity, and innovation; engage staff in goal-setting; clearly define roles; improve cooperation; and maintain open systems that are capable of taking in and responding to new information have a significant and positive impact on organizational climate. Belanger, K. (2002). Examination of racial imbalance for children in foster care: Implementations for training. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 163-176. This study examined the training needs of an agency to address the high number of African American children in out-of-home care in an East Texas county. The study found that African American children were referred to public child welfare at twice the rate of Anglo children, with the ratio increasing during case progression. The study also found a higher proportion of African American children in the community and a higher poverty rate among these children. This study suggests that training should include generalist and advanced generalist social work education in order to assess, prevent, treat and evaluate interventions designed for the safety, permanency and well being of children. This study emphasizes the benefits of university/agency partnerships. Bernotavicz, F. (1997). Retention of child welfare caseworkers. Presented to the Maine Bureau of Child and Family Services by a workgroup appointed by the Maine Department of Human Services Commissioner and chaired by the author, a staff person of the Institute for Public Sector Innovation at the Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service at the University of Southern Maine. This report contains a useful summary of the findings of earlier studies on retention of staff in public child welfare agencies. The factors influencing retention found in previous studies are organized into three categories: personal factors (e.g. worker values, experience, motivation, education, etc.); work factors (e.g. nature of work, client population, severity of cases, paperwork, workload, etc.); and agency factors (e.g. climate, supervision, clarity of policies, opportunities for professional

growth, etc.). Findings in the Maine study are followed by short and long-term recommendations using the three categories (personal, work, and agency). Some of the recommendations are specific to Maine; others would be of interest in any agency. Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc. (1987). Maryland social work services job analysis and personnel qualifications study. Research report. This large-scale, empirical study found that “The overall performance of MSWs was significantly higher than non-MSWs... Education, specifically holding an MSW, appears to be the best predictor of overall performance in social service work... Performance on specific tasks was found to be higher for MSWs than non-MSWs in the task areas of intake, case-work/case management and counseling and therapy... Of the possible educational degrees, supervisors judged only MSWs with no job experience are somewhat prepared to perform most of the social service tasks... Some specific social services tasks should be performed only by MSWs in order to be performed effectively... The Department should retain the current qualification requirement that Social Workers must have an MSW degree.” Brown, J. K., Chavkin, N. F., & Peterson, V. (2002). Tracking process and outcome results of BSW students’ preparation for public child welfare practice: Lesson learned. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 105- 116. This study explored a Texas university/agency partnership program to prepare social work students for public child welfare. The results of the outcome study showed that more than 79% of the BSW stipend students were hired upon completion of the internship. Fifty-six percent of those who were hired stayed beyond their commitment and the length of the employment ranged from one to nine years.

Child Welfare League of America. (1989). Membership Survey. Washington, DC: author; cited in Helfgott, K.P. (1991). Staffing the child welfare agency: Recruitment and retention. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. This study found that among “executives’ ratings of employees’ competence, MSWs were rated most highly, those with other masters degrees next, those with BSWs third, and those with other bachelors degrees last.” Child Welfare League of America. (1990). Salary and retention study of Florida’s child welfare system. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This extensive study identified a number of key issues including the need to (1) restructure the work environment to increase the use of paraprofessionals for routine tasks so professionals could spend their time on effective interventions with clients; (2) create a career ladder for experienced staff who want to continue working with children and families; (3) increase the minimum educational and experience requirements for professional staff while offering competitive salaries; (4) providing adequate safety for workers; and (5) providing the resources needed for workers to make a positive difference with children and families. Realistic workloads, work hours and salaries were the top retention issues for current workers. For former workers, caseloads, realistic work hours and the necessary resources to help families were the top retention issues. “The factors of caseload, competitive salary, career ladder, safety and liability are inter-related, and financial compensation alone will not be sufficient to end the [turnover].” A major recommendation was the need to strengthen worker supervision through training, performance standards, and recruitment of supervisors based upon educational background rather than seniority. Cicero-Reese, B.A., & Black, P.N. (1997). Child welfare workers who remain on the job: Why they don’t quit. A research paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the National Association of Social Workers in Baltimore, MD, October, 1997. This study examined the reasons child welfare workers remain in their positions longer than two years. It was found that two factors were decisive, aside from concern for children and satisfaction in helping children. These factors were social work education and climate of the work environment including supportiveness of supervisors and peers. Eighty-one percent (81%) of those who stayed (71% caseworkers and 29% supervisors) had completed at least one social work degree.

Coleman, D., & Clark, S. (2003). Preparing for child welfare practice: Themes, a cognitive-affective model, and implications from a qualitative study. In Briar-Lawson & Zlotnik (Eds), Charting the impacts of University-child welfare collaboration. (p.67- 81). New York: The Haworth Press. This qualitative study conducted 37 focus groups over four years with approximately 550 Title IV-E MSW students. The most frequent themes centered on direct practice: students emphasized direct practice as the most frequently mentioned strength of the curriculum as well as the most frequently mentioned weakness. Anxiety and apprehension about the emotional challenge of social work emerged as a theme. Dhooper, S.S., Royse, D.D., & Wolfe, L.C. (1990). Does social work education make a difference? Social Work, 35(1), 57-61. Based on five different methods of data collection in the Kentucky Department of Social Services, this study found that “the quality assurance data and the merit examination scores, showed that employees with social work education were better prepared to perform social work jobs than were persons with other educational degrees... employees with social work education also scored higher on the other criteria [such as supervisors’ ratings, commitment to social work values, and educational preparedness.] Thus, the importance of a social work education is validated.” Dickinson, N. S., & Perry, R. E. (2002). Factors influencing the retention of specially educated public child welfare workers. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 89-103. This study examined the factors that affect the retention of specially trained social workers in public child welfare positions. Two hundred thirty-five Title IV-E stipended MSW graduates completed the survey instrument. The findings showed that the level of emotional exhaustion, salary, percentage of work week spent doing court related tasks, and the extent to which respondents receive support from work peers and supervisors were significant factors that influenced graduates who remained in public child welfare employment and those who left or planned to leave public child welfare jobs. Worker burnout was the number one reason for leaving child welfare jobs.

Drake, B., & Yadama, G.N. (1996). A structural equation model of burnout and job exit among child protective services workers. Social Work Research, 20(3), 179-187. This study of a sample of 177 child protective services workers in Missouri found the emotional exhaustion was a major factor in job exit. It was also found “that subjective feelings of personal success [among child protective services workers] may have broader implications [for worker retention] than were previously realized.” Ellett, A. J., Ellett, C. D., Ellis, J., Westbrook, T., & Dews, D. (2004). Employee retention in child welfare. A qualitative study of 385 professionals: Towards a greater understanding of employee retention and turnover in child welfare. (Article submitted to Social Services Review). A statewide qualitative study with 385 professional staff from Georgia was conducted to collect information about personal and organizational factors that contribute to turnover and retention of professional child welfare staff. The findings of the 60 focus group interviews suggest that those who choose to remain employed in child welfare are individuals who: (a) are professionally committed, efficacious in the beliefs about work, and strong on human caring; (b) believe the larger organization cares about them as both employees and individuals; (c) find personal challenge and meaning in the work; and (d) believe the external environment (policy makers, general public, courts) care about them and the children and families they serve.

Ellett, A.J. (2000). Human caring, self-efficacy beliefs, and professional organizational culture correlates of employee retention in child welfare. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama. This multi-state (Arkansas and Louisiana) study of 941 child welfare staff examined personal and organizational factors linked to the retention of professional child welfare staff. Two personal characteristics of workers were found to be strongly related to retention. The first was human caring which is defined as worker tendency to be supportive, nurturing, responsive and sensitive to the needs and feelings of others; ability to form professional relationships easily; capacity to treat others with respect; and the ability to take responsibility for one’s own actions. The second was self efficacy or a belief in one’s capability to accomplish the required tasks. In addition to worker characteristics, agency climate was found to be strongly related to workers’ intent to remain. Climate included such things as administrative support, supervision, organizational

vision and professionalism, and commitment to professional norms and values. The author suggests implications of the study for agency practice. Ellett, C.D., Ellett, A.J., Kelley, B.L., & Noble, D.N. (1996). A statewide study of child welfare personnel needs: Who stays? Who leaves? Who cares? Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Washington, DC. (*) The researchers administered a survey to all professional personnel in Louisiana and completed on-site focus groups and individual interviews with child welfare staff – both those who were employed currently and those who had left their jobs. Data show that job stress, burnout, and turnover is more complex than a simple understanding of job satisfaction and that there is some relationship between satisfaction and length of stay. There was lower satisfaction for those with between four and 12 years of service and those with more than 12 years of service had the highest satisfaction level. Most employees felt that they had adequate competence to complete their jobs. Fox, S.R., Burnham, D., Barbee, A.P., & Yankeelov, P.A. (2000). School to work – social work that is: Maximizing agency/university partnerships in preparing public child welfare workers. Journal of the National Staff Development and Training Association 1(1), 13-20. (*) This Kentucky pilot program combined the experience of seven undergraduate social work programs and public child welfare agency trainers to prepare students for immediate entry into the public sector at an advanced practice level. Students (n=27) who were enrolled in the program scored significantly higher on the family services, competency-based training than comparable BSW students. The participants noted that the program was extremely successful and recommended that all BSW students have exposure to it. Fox, S. R., Miller, V. P., & Barbee, A. P. (2003). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: effective use of training and professional development. In Briar-Lawson & Zlotnik (Eds), Charting the impacts of University-child welfare collaboration. (p.67- 81). New York: The Haworth Press. This article describes an evaluation of the Kentucky Public Child Welfare Certification Program (PCWCP) designed to recruit excellent workers from BSW programs who are prepared to take on complex cases with normal supervision within weeks of employment and to sustain those workers over time. The results of the pilot study show that agency supervisors consider the graduates to be: better prepared to handle complex cases much sooner than other new employees including BSW graduates, less stressed and much more confident, more skilled in interacting with clients, more knowledgeable of agency policy and procedures and, much more positive in their attitudes about the agency and their job.

Gansle, K. A., & Ellett, A. J. (2002). Child welfare knowledge transmission, practitioner retention, and University- community impact: A study of Title IV-E child welfare training. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 69-88. This study compares child welfare knowledge of Louisiana’s MSW and BSW Title IV - E stipend students with non-stipend students using a quasi-experimental design. The study found that on a test of child welfare knowledge, students in MSW and BSW programs scored higher following child welfare training. Gibelman, M., & Schervish, P.H. (1996). Social work and public social services practice: a status report. The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 77(2), 117-124. The authors review trends in the employment of social workers in the public sector since 1961 when 52% of NASW members were employed by public agencies. The sharp decline is attributed to several factors including, “the assumption that on-the-job training could and would compensate for professionally earned social work degrees; the emphasis of unions representing state, county and municipal workers to promote on the basis of agency experience rather than professional education; the undifferentiated use of BSWs and MSWs, resulting in the assumption that a master’s degree is superfluous to service provision; the lowering of standards for hiring due to dwindling resources;...the tendency of agencies to purchase services social workers prefer to deliver; [and] a decline in professionalism and the nonprofessional milieu [in public agencies].” The authors use public child welfare as a case example.

Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401-421. This NIMH funded, longitudinal study of the effects of organizational factors on the quality and outcomes of children’s services found the most important factors were those having to do with the climate and supportiveness of the agency. It was found that agencies with higher levels of job satisfaction, fairness, role clarity, cooperation, and personalization along with lower levels of conflict and emotional exhaustion are more likely to support workers and produce better outcomes for children. Agency approaches which encourage employees use of discretion, flexibility and freedom to respond to the unexpected in nonroutinized ways, also have better client outcomes. Agency efforts to coordinate services, eliminate parallel, redundant, competing services and centralize control, actually decreased quality. “The positive relationships between climate and both service quality and service outcomes highlight the very important role played by organizational climate in the job performance of caseworkers who engage in highly stressful and demanding job task.” (p. 417) Obviously, worker retention and turnover are also closely related to climate. Gregoire, K.A. Child welfare fellow report 1997-1998: Training and research for the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania Children and Youth Agency. Technical Report, 55 pp. Millersville, PA: Millersville University Department of Social Work. Includes report and recommendations of multidisciplinary review team based on intensive review of sample of 91 cases. Found that intense demands of the job, minimal qualifications for workers and low salaries resulted in high staff turnover. Recommended higher salaries, reduced caseloads, expanded staff training (including undergraduate internship program), reduced supervisor to worker ratios, and measures to improve the emotional well-being of workers. Graef, M.I., & Hill, E.L. (2000). Costing child protective services turnover. Child Welfare, 79(5), 517-533. This article describes Nebraska’s process for measuring the costs of CPS worker turnover. “The formulas and process for calculating specific cost elements due to separation, replacement and training are provided. The practical considerations inherent in this type of analysis are highlighted, as well as the use of this type of data to inform agency human resource strategies.” Harris, N. (1995) Social work education and public human services partnerships: A technical assistance document. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education. This report describes the education and training of public agency staff through the development and implementation of school-agency partnerships. The development of school-agency partnerships follows a sequence of events: a precipitating event creates the initial interest in partnership development; key leaders from social work education and public agencies become involved in negotiations; the purpose and vision of the partnership are articulated; needed resources are identified; specific tasks and timelines are delineated; issues are resolved and resources are obtained; and the partnership is implemented. Partnership implementation involves factors such as providing financial incentives for the education of agency staff, developing relevant curricula, developing relevant field practica, and creating training programs for competency development. This report mentions that the best recruitment technique is to make the attainment of a BSW or MSW degree attractive and meaningful to potential graduates.

Harrison, S.G. (1995). Exploration of factors related to intent to leave among child welfare caseworkers. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. This study of 226 public child welfare workers in Franklin County, Ohio, found nine (9) variables which predicted worker retention. Among the most important of these were training, having had an internship in public child welfare as part of their preparation, agency support (including strong supervision), and psychological rewards. Workers who believe their knowledge, skills and professional education were underutilized by the agency were most likely to leave.

Helfgott, K.P. (1991). Staffing the child welfare agency: Recruitment and retention. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. “An extensive review of studies and evaluations in a number of states let to the conclusion that “staff members without adequate education or experience are less likely to satisfy job expectations, more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs, and less likely to remain on the job for a substantial period of time.” Hess, P., Folaron, G., & Jefferson, A. (1992). Effectiveness of family reunification services: An innovative evaluative model. Social Work, 37(4), 304-311. In more than two-thirds of the cases reviewed, large caseworker caseloads and caseworker turnover were contributing factors in preventing family reunification. In nearly 40%, insufficient or inadequate caseworker training or experience were contributing factors. “Multiple service delivery system problems, including high caseload size, staff turnover, and insufficient regulation of reunification practice, interacted with the serious nature of families’ problems to reduce the chances for successful reunification.” Hopkins, K.M., Murdick, N.R., & Rudolph, C.S. (1999). Impact of university/agency partnerships in child welfare on organizations, workers, and work activities. Child Welfare, 78(6), 749-773. This study is of a cohort of public child welfare workers enrolled in or recently graduated from an MSW program offered through a partnership between a university and a public child welfare agency. The literature on professional education for child welfare practice is reviewed. Child welfare workers/students made noticeable changes in knowledge and skills; felt more competent; and acquired a professional identity. The participating agencies appear to have changed less noticeably as a result of the partnership. The data “raise the question of whether agencies that change the skill levels of their workers can keep those workers without themselves undergoing some organizational or administrative change. The data suggest that a sluggish pace of change may pose the risk that longtime committed workers will leave the agency once they have professional training. Thus, agency change may be an important component of upgrading worker education - that is, the worker change/agency change link is important. A commitment to increased education of existing workers may require a simultaneous commitment to agency change.” Jayartne, S., & Chess, W. (1984). Factors associated with job satisfaction and turnover among child welfare workers. In J. Laird & A. Hartman (Eds.), A Handbook of Child Welfare: Context, Knowledge, and Practice (pp. 760-766). New York: Free Press. (*) Rather than examining burnout of child welfare workers, this book chapter reviews job satisfaction. The authors mailed surveys to 1,173 randomly selected social workers who had NASW membership. With a 72.7% response rate, they found that: many respondents were satisfied with their jobs, yet many expressed their desire to look for other employment within one year; many believed their compensation was fair; and that challenge, promotion, and financial rewards emerged as significant predictors of job satisfaction. Jones, J.F., Stevenson, K.M., Leung, P., & Cheung, K-F.M. (1995). Call to Competence: Child Protective Services Training and Evaluation. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association. A review of the problems in public child welfare giving rise to the need for training, the tasks, themes and assumptions of training, and the content and methods of competency-based training. Jones, L. (2002). A follow- up of a Title IV- E program’s graduates’ retention rates in a public child welfare agency. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 39-51. This retrospective study examined the retention rates of a Title IV –E program’s graduates in a public child welfare agency. The sample size was 266. The study found that Title IV- E trained social workers were more likely to have remained employed for a longer period of time than non-IV- E trained employees. Other important predictors were Spanish speaking, having an MSW, and being rehired by the agency.

Jones, L.P., & Okamura, A. (2000). Reprofessionalizing child welfare services: An evaluation of a Title IV-E training program. Research on Social Work Practice, e (5), 607-621. A three-year, quasi-experimental study of 266 workers hired in California between 1994 and 1997. New workers who had earned master’s degrees in social work through the California Social Work Education Center (CALSWEC) were compared with all others hired by the Department of Social Services for positions in public child welfare during the same time. “IV-E-trained workers scored higher on a test of child welfare knowledge, and they expressed more confidence in their ability to perform basic child welfare tasks than did other workers. Eighty-nine percent of IV-E workers were still employed at the study close... Contrary to expectations, IV-E workers were not more satisfied with their jobs than other workers... IV-E workers found making home visits in high crime areas to be less stressful than their counterparts... Title IV-E workers were more likely to remain employed at DSS than the non-IV-E workers. IV-E status was virtually the only variable that predicted length of employment at DSS... The more competent someone felt, the more likely they remained at DSS... Data suggest that bachelor’s level workers are more likely to exit employment than workers with higher levels of education. Master’s level workers had longer periods of employment.” Lewandowski, C. (1998). Retention outcomes of a public child welfare long-term training program. Professional Development: International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 1, 38-46. (*) This descriptive analysis of outcomes of a Title IV-E-funded BSW and MSW education program examines the preparation of graduates for work in child welfare and their retention in a public agency. The program existed for six years and during that time, 191 students were involved. The public welfare agency employed 95% of the graduates. Results show that two years later, 58% of the original 95% remained with the agency. Graduates employed by the agency prior to admission to the training program tended to remain longer than those who became employed after graduation. BSW graduates were retained by the agency at a higher rate than MSW graduates. Although some agency administrators felt that Title IV-E graduates were better prepared for their jobs, other administrators felt that they were equally well prepared. Finally, the author notes that the provision of appropriate education is only part of the solution to the workforce problem. Other issues that need to be considered are: declassification which minimizes the importance of professionalism, administrative support of employees, better financial compensation, better opportunities for advancement, adoption of a clinical focus, flextime focused on client needs, and a client-centered approach to paperwork. Lieberman, A., Russell, M., & Hornby, H. (1988). National survey of child welfare workers. Portland, Maine: National Child Welfare Resource Center for Management and Administration, 48p. (A study of 5,360 public child welfare personnel in 16 states.) “Master’s level social workers perceive themselves as best prepared, and BSWs feel better prepared than their baccalaureate (non-social work) counterparts... Workers with BSWs and MSWs report better preparation for their jobs in a number of conceptual and skill areas than those not similarly trained... Aggressive recruitment of those persons with Master’s Degrees in Social Work must take place... [Furthermore, this study indicates that, once recruited, retention is not as great a problem as it may have been in the past... States need to provide incentives to retain their most experienced workers... Opportunities to pursue an advanced degree as well as in-service training are examples of incentives in the areas of staff development which states need to make more available.” McMahon, J. (Ed.). (1999). Turnover in child welfare. Practice Notes for North Carolina’s Child Welfare Workers, 4(3), 1-3, 8. This review looks at studies reporting on child welfare personnel turnover rates nationally and in several states such as Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts and Virginia and compares them with the North Carolina experience. North Carolina noted high agreement with the findings of Drake and Yamada that “inadequate pay, tough working conditions, lack of recognition for a job well done, chronic stress, emotional exhaustion and overwork all negatively affect worker retention.” Midgley, J., Ellett, C.D., Noble, D., Bennett, N., & Livermore, M. (1994). Preliminary study of professional personnel needs: For the Louisiana State Office of Community Services. Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University. (*) This report describes a study of factors related to employee retention and turnover in Louisiana’s public child welfare agency. The researchers used a mixed methodology and conducted semi structured interviews with 58 staff and mailed surveys to 120 staff members. Results of the focus group interviews are summarized in the following categories: (1) Worker Expectations – job expectations were adequately explained, paperwork was not. (2) Promotional

Opportunities/Remuneration – participants indicated that there was no opportunity for promotion without moving out of direct services, there was a mistrust of performance evaluations and the civil service exam, and there was a need for differential job duties for employees with MSWs. Pay and benefits were acceptable. (3) Public Perception – negative image in public and among professional was a problem; there was a lack of public understanding of responsibilities and limits of authority. (4) Organizational Support – supervisors and colleagues strongly supported employees; employees received inadequate support from larger organization. (5) Work Environment – there was inadequate clerical support, buildings were crowded and in poor condition, equipment was inadequate, and employees had personal safety concerns. (6) Workload – caseloads were variable but generally too high; on-call work intruded into personal lives; workers received inadequate service resources. (7) Legal Liability – there was a lack of organizational support related to civil liability. Results of the mailed survey identified the following sources of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction: (1) Caseworkers: Satisfaction – salary, relationships with supervisor and coworkers, effect on clients. Dissatisfaction – salary, paperwork, not being treated as a professional. (2) Supervisors: Satisfaction – salary, organizational support. Dissatisfaction – salary, “job is impossible to do”, responsibility without authority. (3) Management: Satisfaction – salary, relationships with coworkers, “job is possible to do”. Dissatisfaction – organizational support, communication structure, legalities/technicalities. Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 625-661 This study used metanalytic techniques to examine the factors that were related to intention to quit and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees. Twenty-five articles were reviewed for this purpose. The study found that burnout, job dissatisfaction, availability of employment alternatives, low organizational and professional commitment, stress, and lack of social support were the strongest predictors of turnover or intention to leave. The findings suggest that “in order for employees to remain on the job, they need to feel a sense of satisfaction from the work that they do and a sense of commitment to the organization or the population served by it.”

National Association of Social Workers. (2004). If you are right for the job, it’s the best job in the world: The National Association of Social Workers’ Child Welfare Specialty Practice Section members describe their experiences in child welfare. Washington, DC: Author. This survey conducted by NASW of its 716 members of the Child Welfare Specialty Practice Section finds that the surveyed social workers have more tenure and higher interest in remaining in child welfare than the general population of child welfare workers; have higher salaries; spend a little less time on paperwork; have smaller caseloads; feel safer making home visits alone; are pleased with the frequency and quality of supervision they receive; have adequate training opportunities; and are encouraging toward new social work professionals joining the child welfare field. The respondents reported that the issues confronting children and families were the most challenging aspect of the job than the other workplace issues. The single most satisfying aspect of the work of social workers in child welfare is “successes with children and families.”

National Association of Social Workers. (1989). The Staffing Crisis in Child Welfare. Silver Spring, MD: Author. Reviews events which provided the impetus for the development of Illinois’ child welfare training program in 1989. Two “social workers” were indicted for poor practice in child welfare who had no professional social work education. The incident led to a program of paid tuition for MSWs. Okamura, A., & Jones, L. (1998). Re-professionalizing child welfare services: An evaluation of a IV-E training program. Research in Social Work Practice, 10(5), 607-621. (*) This article describes a study conducted in the San Diego County Department of Social Services, Children’s Services Bureau (CSB). The sample consisted of graduates of a Title IV-E MSW program at San Diego State University who were hired by CSB between 1994 and 1996, and a comparison group hired during the same period who did not attend the Title IV-E program. The results suggest that Title IV-E program graduates scored significantly higher on basic child welfare knowledge and self-perceived child welfare competencies and they tended to remain with the agency longer. Non-Title IV-E workers tended to be more satisfied with their coworkers and to experience less stress associated with court appearances, whereas Title IV-E workers were more satisfied with their level of responsibility, the amount of respect they received from others, and their salary. Title-IV-E workers experienced less stress associated with home visits.

Olsen, L., & Holmes, W.M. (1982). Educating child welfare workers: The effects of professional training on service delivery. Journal of Education for Social Work, 18 (1), 94-102. This large-scale survey of child welfare caseworkers and service delivery found that workers with social work education were more effective in service delivery, with BSWs most effective in the “social broker” role and MSWs most effective in securing substitute care such as adoptive and group homes. Ortega, D. M. & Levy, M. m. (2002). facing the challenge of a changing system: Training child welfare workers in a privatized environment. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 177-187. This article addresses several unique training challenges that the state of Kansas confronts under a managed care model. Some of the issues that affect training needs of child welfare professionals are the timing of training delivery relative to new employment, turnover in contracted agencies, and managing relationships with multiple partners. Pardeck, J.T. (1984). Multiple placement of children in foster family care: An empirical analysis. Social Work, 29(6), 506-509. A report of a national study of, 4,288 children in foster placement through 319 public social service agencies in 38 states. Among factors associated with caseworkers, worker turnover was statistically significantly associated with multiple placements. Pierce, Lois. (2003). Use of Title IV-e funding in BSW programs. In Briar-Lawson & Zlotnik (Eds), Charting the impacts of University-child welfare collaboration. (p. 21-33). New York: The Haworth Press. A survey design was used to find if all BSW programs in 1998-1999 were using Title IV-E funds to provide support for students who would agree to work in public child welfare programs after graduation. Out of 464 schools that were sent a questionnaire, 282 programs returned the questionnaire. The study found that of the schools that responded, 48 received Title-IV funding for BSW students. Program directors were asked if they included child welfare content in the curriculum. About one-fourth of the programs said they had child welfare course as required; fifteen percent had child welfare course as electives; only 4 percent required child welfare courses for all students; 20% had combination of the above; and the rest of the programs (34%) had no child welfare content in their courses. Reagh, R. (1994). Public child welfare professionals - those who stay. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 21(3), 69-78. This is a study of “the life histories and work experiences of... child welfare workers in a mid-western state through data gathered from in-depth written and oral life histories.” It was found that workers who stay “feel a strong sense of personal accomplishment in what they do ...but talked in detail about the difficulty in trying to balance the needs of the client(s) and the requirements of the organization.” The workers report that “they are constantly trying to balance the roles of caseworker and bureaucrat, while the environment around them is in a constant state of chaos.” “...public child welfare administrators must be challenged to create systems that balance ‘paperwork’ with ‘people work’, a balance that would appear to contribute to the retention of seasoned, committed professionals...The [workers] indicated a very strong need to feel valued, rewarded and appreciated in their positions...they felt this could be done in monetary and in more important intangible ways such as creating new programs that use the workers’ specialized knowledge, job rotation, and the provision of specialized learning opportunities.” Rittner, B., & Wodarski, J.S. (1999). Differential uses for BSW and MSW educated social workers in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(3), 217-238. “As child welfare programs have become progressively more subject to public scrutiny, there has developed an understandable need to balance educational requirements against resource availability. The realities of administration and decision making in CPS strongly suggest that differential educational levels should be reflected in the hiring criteria for functionally diverse professional positions.” “Generalist skills taught in BSW programs prepare students for work as hot-line screeners, foster care case managers, and case workers with low-to-moderate risk families, and to recruit, screen and train foster and adoptive parents. Skills taught in MSW programs are needed for conducting initial investigations, working with

high risk families, terminating parental rights, placing children with adoptive parents, and by administrative and supervisory staff.” Robin, S. C., & Hollister, C. D. (2002). Career paths and contributions of four cohorts of IV – E funded MSW child welfare graduates. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 53-67. This study of 73 MSW graduates from 1993-1996 and 32 survey respondents assesses the extent to which IV-E MSW graduates remain engaged in child welfare following completion of their employment obligations to the IV-E program. The study found that “the vast majority of graduates funded by IV-E dollars became employed in and stayed in child welfare services, and that these social work-educated social workers are actively involved in shaping the practice, policies and administration of child welfare services.” Rosenthal, J.A., McDowell, E.C., & White, T.L. (1998). Retention of Child Welfare Workers in Oklahoma. Technical report copyrighted and distributed by the School of Social Work, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. The personnel records of 867 child welfare workers hired between 1990 and 1996 were reviewed. Analysis found turnover rates averaged about 20% per year, and did not vary with years of service. Retention was significantly longer for older workers, minority workers, workers with higher job classifications, workers with some master’s degrees and participation in Title IV-E training. Russell, M. (1987). 1987 National Study of Public Child Welfare Job Requirements. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, National Resource Center for Management and Administration. This study of child welfare workers looked at the minimum educational requirements in states for the relationship between educational requirements, job functions, and staff turnover and vacancy rates. The findings suggest that turnover is consistently higher in states that do not require any kind of degree for child welfare positions and is consistently lower in states that require an MSW. Rycraft, J.R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75-80. A study of the reasons caseworkers may choose to continue their employment in public child welfare agencies. Four factors were identified: (1) Belief that the agency genuinely committed to the protection of children; (2) degree of suitability and flexibility of job assignment; (3) Quality of supervision; and (4) investment of agency in administrative policies that support professional activities. Samantrai, K. (1992). Factors in the decision to leave: Retaining social workers with MSWs in public child welfare. Social Work, 37(5), 454-458. Two groups of social workers participated in this study to investigate the factors that influenced decisions to end employment in public child welfare. Participants held MSWs and were employed in a child welfare department of a large urban northern California county for at least one year. Among those who stayed at their jobs (N = 20), four factors influenced their decision: (1) preference for child welfare work; (2) decent wages and benefits; (3) other advantages such as job sharing opportunities; and (4) job security. Those who left their jobs (N = 7), cited the above factors as reasons they liked the nature of their work. However, two factors emerged as reasons to leave: (1) no viable alternative within the department became available to them when they burned out in their area; and (2) their relationship with their immediate supervisor. The article suggests that action should be taken by the public agencies and by schools of social work that may contribute to longer staff retention. Samantarai, Krishna. (1990). MSWs in public child welfare: Why do they stay, and why do they leave? NASW California NEWS. A pilot study of 27 MSWs in one large urban Northern California county addressed the question—why do MSWs stay in public child welfare, and why do they leave? Data was collected through a semi-structured interview with each participant. The study found that the factors that influenced MSWs who stayed in the job were the nature of work, decent wages and benefits, organizational conditions such as offering reduced time and job-sharing options, and job security. The study also found that two factors that influenced social workers’ choice to leave public child welfare were relationship with the supervisor

and organizational flexibility. The study suggests that primary locus of action for retention needs to be in the work environment.

Scannapieco, Maria., & Connell-Corrick, Kelli. (2003). Do collaborations with social work make a difference for the field of child welfare? practice, retention and curriculum. In Briar-Lawson & Zlotnik (Eds), Charting the Impacts of University-Child Welfare Collaboration. (p.35-51). New York: The Haworth Press. This article provides three areas of evaluation of a partnership between a school of social work and a state department of child protective services. The first study determines the impact and success of the Title IV-E program from both the students’ and the larger community’s perspective. The findings of surveys administered to both MSW Title IV-E students and to supervisors and administrators of Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (TDPRS) showed that approximately 50% of students agreed that their Masters education had improved their skills and relationship with their employers, community, and the profession. Administrator survey results showed 47% agreed that MSW’s have a better ability to use various interventions with clients than do bachelor-level employees. The second study determined the retention of Title IV-E participants in the agency. The study found that the reasons to remain employed at CPS were commitment to work, flexible schedule and increase in professionalism. Salary was reported as the most frequent reason for leaving CPS. The third study determines the current level of child welfare content in MSW curricula. The study found that 60% of respondents stated that an adequate emphasis was currently being placed on child welfare content, and 49% of respondents felt that there should be more emphasis on child welfare content in the future. The findings of the three studies suggest that Title IV-E funding is essential to the specialized training and education needed by child welfare workers.

Silver, P.T., Poulin, J.E., & Manning, R.C. (1997). Surviving the bureaucracy: The predictors of job satisfaction for the public agency supervisor. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 1-20. This study of 70 public child welfare supervisors with 10.1 mean years of service was conducted in five southeastern Pennsylvania counties. These supervisors were found to be less satisfied with their jobs than respondents in other studies of public and private child welfare agencies. The respondents had high levels of burnout and exhaustion; exhibited greater levels of job dissatisfaction the longer they held their positions; were significantly more dissatisfied if they were minorities than their non-minority counterparts; and tended to collaborate with their colleagues less and less the longer they had been supervisors despite the fact that the more supervisors collaborated, the more job satisfaction they expressed. Smith, E. M., & Laner, R. (1990). Implications of Prior Experience and Training for Recruiting and Hiring CPS Staff. Arizona Department of Economic Security, Administration for Children, Youth and Families. A staff development study was conducted by the National Resource Center for Child Welfare-Management and Administration to explore what education and experience best prepare workers for their responsibility and what are the educational and experiential attributes that are predictive of professional commitment to CPS responsibility. The Arizona Department of Economic Security, Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) participated in this study. Of 300 questionnaires that were mailed, 178 were returned in this cross-sectional survey of child welfare case managers and supervisors. The findings show that those with the MSW are more satisfied, are better able to cope with the stresses of the job, and are more committed to the agency either through remaining in their current position or in aspiring to a promotion within the agency. MSWs were also found to have lower burn-out rates than BSWs or other MAs. Southern Regional Quality Improvement Center. (2002). Summary of Results of Needs Assessment. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky. Ten states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia) in the rural south were selected for this study. The study implemented focus groups and conducted a content analysis of data collected from state documents. Several topics were raised in the focus groups, including: supervision/casework supervision, organizational culture, strengthening assessment of families, and retention issues. Similarly, the content analysis revealed the following categories of need: assessment, service provision, information systems, retention, and supervision. The report suggests a supervisory approach that may correct existing problems in these states.

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. (2001). DASH: Delivering Accountable Services from Home: Regional 6 Teleworking Pilot Final Evaluation. Austin, TX: Author. (*) This article describes an attempt by a public agency in Texas to address the high turnover rate of CPS caseworkers. The theory behind the pilot project was to have workers develop their own work schedules from their homes, allowing them the flexibility needed for meeting clients. The study found that: job satisfaction improved; there was a significant increase in compliance with quality standards; turnover decreased, and supervisory relationships were strengthened. However, there was no improvement in productivity and timeliness. United States Government Accounting Office. (1995). Child Welfare: Complex Needs Strain Capacity to Provide Services. Washington, D.C.: The United States Government Accounting Office. “Next to funding, states report that staffing is the most serious issue facing their child welfare systems.” Retention and staff turnover problems are attributed “to several factors, including hiring freezes, low pay, and poor working conditions. These factors, in turn, led to staff shortages, high caseloads, and high burnout and turnover rates among caseworkers.” United States General Accounting Office. (2003). Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff (GAO-03-357). Washington, DC: Author. This extensive report prepared by the GAO identifies the challenges child welfare agencies face in recruiting and retaining child welfare workers. Nearly 600 exit interview documents completed by staff who severed their employment from 17 state, 40 county, and 19 private child welfare agencies and interviews with child welfare experts and officials were primarily analyzed to get the results. The findings show that low salaries, in particular, hinder agencies’ ability to attract potential child welfare workers and to retain those already in the field. Other factors affecting retention are disparities in the salaries between public and private child welfare workers, high caseloads, administrative burdens, limited supervision, and insufficient training.

Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1987). Where did they go? A national follow-up of child welfare trainees. Child Welfare, 66(5), 411-421. This study was designed to determine whether undergraduate and graduate social work students who receive federal child welfare traineeships subsequently found employment in child welfare. Results suggest that the recipients (1979-1980) met the goals of the awards. The majority of the trainees entered the field of child welfare and nearly half worked in public agencies. They reported being satisfied with their careers and their attitudes and career patterns demonstrated a commitment to child welfare. Wehrmann, K. C., Shin, H., & Poertner, J. (2002). Transfer of training: An evaluation study. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare: Improving Outcomes Through University – Public Agency Partnerships, 15(3/4) 23- 37. This study of 129 child welfare workers at the six-month follow-up found that the opportunity to perform new tasks and post-training peer support were important factors explaining training transfer. The results of this study suggest that greater involvement by trainees in the training process may positively influence child welfare workers learning of new skills and their ability to transfer them back to the practice setting. Whelley, J., & Mericle, H. (1994). Practicum education: A practice partnership for family preservation. In Empowering families: Papers from the seventh annual conference on family-based services. Riverdale, IL: National Association for Family-Based Services. This study was part of a training initiative designed to place MSW students in a public child welfare agency for their internships and recruit them to agency practice following graduation. It was found that some of the major factors MSWs leave public child welfare practice are a sense of being alone with major responsibility, high caseloads, excessive time spent in “paperwork,” and the lack of a supportive supervisor. Workers often moved to programs offering similar services, but which were characterized by support and openness to change.

Winefield, H., & Barlow, J. (1995). Client and worker satisfaction in a child protection agency. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19 (8), 897-905. By focusing on the relationship between clients and staff at a child protection agency, this study employed interviews and standard questionnaires to discover the nature and strength of the helping relationship. Twenty-four current clients and 21 staff were assessed. Findings show that the clients expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the staff and their services. Staff reported that they were satisfied with their jobs and showed minimal evidence of worker burnout. (*) Indicates that the abstract was provided by: Child Welfare League of America. (2002). Annotated bibliography: Child welfare workforce. Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://www.cwla.org/programs/r2p/bibliowf.pdf Revised: 07/06/05

Appendix L

Child Welfare Education and Research Programs Faculty and Staff

Helen Cahalane, Ph.D. Principal Investigator 85% 1/20/97 to 6/30/07 Cynthia Bradley-Pugh, Ph.D. CWEB Academic

Coordinator 100% 8/21/06 to 6/30/07

Caroline C. Donohue, MSW CWEL Field and Placement Coordinator

100% 7/1/95 to 6/30/07

Jennifer Holliman, BS Administrative Assistant 70% 11/1/06 to 6/30/07 Michael Schrecengost, MPPM, CMA

Business and Personnel Manager

100% 3/3/03 to 6/30/07

Michelle Smith, BS Data/Systems Manager and Student Records Coordinator

100% 8/18/03 to 6/30/07

Christine Stanesic, BS Administrative Assistant 100% 9/16/02 to 6/30/07 Elizabeth Winter, Ph.D. CWEL Academic

Coordinator 100% 6/1/06 to 6/30/07

Documents

2006-2007 Annual ReportWork2 Effectiveness/LeadershipAcademy/2006...2006-2007 annual report school of social work university of pittsburgh . child welfare education and research programs