Upload
guy-pruitt
View
52
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare. Training for results An instructional model for developing basic safety intervention skill in new child welfare staff. Julie R. Brown Director, Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for Professional Development (MCWPPD) Helen Bader School of Social Welfare - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Presentation Author, 2006
Training for resultsAn instructional model for developing basic safety
intervention skill in new child welfare staff
Julie R. BrownDirector, Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for
Professional Development (MCWPPD)Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for Professional Development (MCWPPD)
• Serves 500+ staff of Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW) and 800+ licensed foster families
– Largest university-based partnership in WI
• BMCW is state agency in otherwise county-based state
– Public/private partnership
– CPS=public
– Ongoing services=contracted private agencies
2
Safety Intervention Training Academy
Designed to prepare new staff to fulfill fundamental role in assuring child safety…
in accordance with WI state standards (ACTION for Child Protection Model)…
at a basic level of proficiency.
3
Why a new approach?• Response to weaknesses of “survey”
model – Overview of many important topics; limited skill
building
– Limited focus on learning (vs. “covering” content)
– Risks clouding job purpose in litany of concepts, tasks, activities
– Low information retention
– Leap to on-the-job application too great 4
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Vision for Academy model
Skill-based
Instructional strategies chosen,
evaluated and revised to promote
demonstrable skill
Professional/Ethical
Roots practice in professional standards
Protected environment for skill practice and feedback before working with real
families
Strategic
Focus on safety intervention
centers initial job definition and
grounds subsequent
learning
Rigorous
Clear standards for competency at
each level
Consistent evaluation
tools/processes
Basic competency required to move from one level to
the next
Relationally informed
Built on collaboration,
models collaboration
Builds relationships with supervisors and
peers
Promotes cultural competency
5
Academy structure
Formal Instruction
Classroom application
Field application
Skill evaluation
• Statewide requirements• Local case planning model
• Drills/preparation• Practice with actors• Peer and instructor feedback
• Structured activity• Field instructor feedback
• Proficiency of phase content• Readiness for next
phase/casework
6
Learning Phases: Layers of increasingly complex application
Assume case load with close supervision
Apply in field casework with trained field mentor/supervisor
Apply concepts classroom exercises
Learn safety intervention
concepts
7
Key roles and relationships
• UW-MCWPPD staff
• Collaborate with agency leadership
• Design, plan, manage, instruct
• Develop Training Supervisors as performance coaches
• Agency partners– Training supervisors
• Lead field application, coaching, mentoring
– Agency leadership
• Collaborate, advise on process
• Give feedback on results
8
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Skill Evaluation• End-of-phase evaluations
– test skills taught and practiced –nothing new at evaluation!
• Evaluation panels score performance– Consistent evaluation rubrics
– UW-M, Training Supervisor and agency leadership representative
– Pass/no pass (70% cut off)
•
9
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Skill evaluation as learning strategy
• Designed to mirror performance required on-the-job
• Provide performance feedback critical to building confidence
• For example…response to “no pass” – Participant self-assessment guided by panel
– Customized re-teaching/re-evaluation plan
10
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Presentation Author, 2006
Outcome and process measures
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Outcome measures
• Competence in safety intervention
• End-of-phase evaluations
• 6-month and 12-month post-graduation re-evaluations
• Ongoing feedback from participants and leadership
• Emotional adjustment/lack of burnout
– Maslach Burnout Inventory (3-, 6- and 12-month administrations)
12
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Process measures
13
• Ongoing monitoring and refinement of instructional processes
• Participant feedback– “Formal” collections at 6- and 12-months post-
graduation; Informal collections ongoing
• Ongoing collaboration with leadership
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
Participant profiles• 289 Graduates to date
• 60%2 or fewer years of experience
• 88% femaleGender
• 56%--27 years old or younger• 24%--27 to 33 years old
Age
• 24% BSW• 24% MSW• 43% BA/BS in allied field
Education
14
Presentation Author, 2006
Significant and suggestive results
15
Passing rate at each phase--significant
16
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare
One-sample binomial test; sign<.05
Significant differences in mean scores between evaluation periods
Phases and significancelevels
Phase 2
Phase 3 Phase 4 6 months 12 months
Phase 2 .002 .000 .029
Phase 3 .000
Phase 4 .038 .018
6 months
12 months
17
Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank TestSign level <.05
Hypothesis• Drop off between Phase 4 and 6 month follow-up
suggests weak, sporadic or inconsistent reinforcement on-the-job
– Led to renewed emphasis on developing supervisory skill
• Initial grasp of safety intervention concepts significant to subsequent application
• Initial application to “real” case significant to subsequent application on-the-job
18
No significant relationships between scores at any phase and…
Any profile variable (age, education, experience, cohort, etc.)
Job function
Employing agency
Training supervisor
Number of supervisors
Leaving employment within first 12 months
19
Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) • Used to identify emotional adaptation to the job
– Potential for burnout precursor to turnover (McMurtry, et al.)
• Subscales measure…
– Emotional exhaustion (EE)
– Depersonalization (DP)
– Personal Accomplishment (PA)
• 3-, 6- and 12 month administrations
20
MBI results: Initial comparisons to national social service scores
Administration and Subscale
UW-MCWPPD sample medians
National medians
3-month EE 12.00* (n=229) 21.350
6-month EE 25.00* (n=91)
12-month EE 20.50 (n=20)
3-month DP 4.00* (n=225) 7.460
6-month DP 8.00 (n=92)
12-month DP 6.00 (n=19)
3-month PA 37.00* (n=228) 32.750
6-month PA 36.00* (n=92)
12-month PA 37.00* (n=20)
21One-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test; sign<.05
Caveats
• Diminishing sample sizes over administrations significantly tempers conclusions
• Sample sizes reflect– Staff turnover– Logistical complications—now mostly
solved
22
Further questions…• Adjustment to full case load may account for
sharp increases in EE and DP between 3 and 6 months
– Is leveling off/decrease at 12 months a significant change?
• Significant differences between local findings and national norms
– Workforce related? Training related? Organizational culture related?
• Stable PA scores – Work demands “externalized” such that
confidence and self-efficacy are maintained?23
6- and 12-month participant feedback
• Assessing danger threats/applying danger threshold
• Assessing parental protective capacity• Engaging families
Most success applying on-
the-job
• Applying danger threshold• PCFA (Case planning)• Creating safety plans• Differentiating risk from safety• Engaging families
Most difficulty applying
24
More 6- and 12-month feedback
• Application/practice with actors• Group discussion/application to case
examples• Learning safety concepts• Evaluation panels
Most helpful teaching techniques/classes?
• Regular case reviews with practice advice
• Continuing to challenge and teach us• More coordination among UW-M,
agencies and court on “safety” vs. incident-based approach
Support needed now from UW instructors
or agency supervisors?
25
Continuous improvement processes
Outcome/process assessment—1st in 2014
Biannual norming sessions
Quarterly planning retreats
Biweekly “check in” meetings
26
Other lessons learned….
• Relationships with agency leadership are critical for launching and sustaining model– Trust and transparency help manage
mutual vulnerability– Role clarity helps to…and is always a
work in progress!• Integration of field practice requires
specific structure and oversight27
28
Contact Information:
• Julie R. Brown
• jrbrown @uwm.edu
• (414) 964-7412
Helen Bader School of Social Welfare