Report of Educational Outcomes for The School of Social ......clinical practice behaviors that measure the 10 advanced competencies for clinical social work practice. Specifically,

Outcome Report for 2018 1 October, 2018

Report of Educational Outcomes for The School of Social Work - Master of Social Work

Program St. Catherine University and University of St. Thomas

for

MSW Students Entering, Fall 2018

MSW Students Graduating 2018

Submitted to:

Dr.Corrine Carvalho, Interim Dean

Dr Kari Fletcher, MSW Program Director

Copies to MSW Full Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Committee Chairs: Dr.

Dr. Lance Peterson, Research

Dr. Renee Hepperlen, HBSE

Prof. Lisa Richardson, LICSW, Field

Dr. Michael Chovanec, Practice

Dr. Lisa Kiesel, Policy

Prepared by:

Lisa R Kiesel,Ph.D.

David Roseborough, Ph.D.

Lance Peterson, Ph.D.

Lisa Richardson, LICSW

Program Assessment Committee

October, 2018


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Appendices and List of Tables page 3

Introduction page 4

Part I: Entering MSW Students page 4

Findings and Discussion page 4

Basic Demographic and Background Information

Students’ Reasons for Entering and Future Planning

Part II: Graduating MSW Students page 6

Findings and Discussion page 7


Exiting Survey: Graduating Student Ratings on Advanced Clinical

Competencies page 8

Social Justice Measures

Exit Survey: 2018 Graduating Student Curriculum Competency

Paired Comparisons page 10

2018 Field Assessments and Comparisons to Exit Survey

Employment Prospects at Graduation page 12

Exit Survey: Students’ Five-Year Career Plans

Exit Survey page 14

Appendices

Appendix A: Advanced Clinical Competencies and Practice page 14

Behaviors for Social Work Practice

Appendix B: History of Response Rates by Year and page 15

Data Collection Venue

Appendix C: Reports on Continuous Improvement page 16

Appendix D: Summary of Qualitative Feedback page 22

Initial Programmatic Response to Qualitative Data and to Outcome Study page 23


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Background Information: Entering MSW Students page 5

Table 2: Program Format and Track of Entering MSW Students page 6

Table 3: Background Information: Graduating MSW Students page 7

Table 4: Mean Scores on Curriculum Competencies:

Graduating MSW Students

page 8

Table 5: Mean Scores on Social Justice Measures: Exiting MSW

Students

page 9

Table 6: Paired Comparison of Mean Scores on Advanced Clinical page 10

Competencies Before and After Program: Graduating MSW

Students

Table 7: Mean Scores on Curriculum Competencies: Exit Survey, page 11

Field Instructor Assessment, and Students’ Field Self-

Assessment: Graduating 2018

Table 8: Students’ Employment after Graduation page 12

Table 9: Students’ Five-Year Career Plans at Exit page 13

Table 10: Advanced Clinical Competencies and Practice Behaviors page 14

Table 11: History of Response Rates by Program

page 15


INTRODUCTION

This report is based on the Assessment Plan of the MSW Program of the School of Social Work at

St. Catherine University and the University of St. Thomas as implemented for students entering

the program in fall 2018 and for students who exited the program in spring 2018. The data are

based on the MSW Program’s implementation of the 2008 Educational Policy and Assessment

Standards of the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), as articulated by our program

(Appendix A). Outcomes are based on student and field faculty reports of competence of the

clinical practice behaviors that measure the 10 advanced competencies for clinical social work

practice. Specifically, this report summarizes the findings of the Entry Survey, the Exit Survey

and the Final Field Evaluations completed by both field instructors and students.

This is the last Outcome Study for the program using EPAS 2008 standards. Both St. Kate’s and

St. Thomas have since gone on to use EPAS 2015 in our current assessment and future

assessment plans. Future reports will utilize EPAS 2015’s requirements for directly observable

criteria and the current nine versus the earlier ten competencies. Future, independent reports

from each school will reflect this change.

The MSW Program has found over the last six years of evaluation that the vast majority of

students meet all competencies, and do so at a high level. Therefore, the faculty decided to

measure students’ exiting assessments of their accomplishment of these educational competencies

and practice behaviors every other year as is allowable by CSWE Educational Policy and

Assessment Standards. In addition, the faculty decided to add questions to this biennial review

specifically related to curriculum initiatives and areas previously indicated for improvement.

Part I of this report presents the profile of students entering the MSW program in the summer and

fall of 2018. This report includes basic demographic information and program track information.

Part II of the report presents the findings of the Exit survey completed by the 2018 graduating

students and the findings of both Field Instructors’ and students’ assessments of their attainment

of 49 practice behaviors which measure the 10 Competencies for Advanced Clinical Social Work

Practice. The Exit Survey asks students to assess their level of competence on all the practice

behaviors at entry to the program and at the time they are graduating. This pre-post reporting

model allows for a person-specific reporting of perceived difference (pre-post mean ratings for all

respondents are tested for significance). Students are asked about their job prospects and future

career plans. Findings on program activities for continuous improvement are included.

Part I: Entering MSW Students

Method

Descriptive statistics were run for demographic and background information including gender

identification, age, past education, and reasons for entering the program. The program track of

respondents is also presented.

Findings and Discussion

Of the 136 entering students in fall 2018, 49 completed the Entry Survey for an overall response

rate of 36% (Appendix D).



Table 1 includes the basic demographic and background information for students entering the

MSW program in the summer and fall of 2018 who responded to this survey. Since 2011,

enrollment has continued to increase (from 93 in 2011 to 136 in 2018). The number of those

identifying as male entering the program who responded to this survey is the lowest (n = 2)

recorded since 2011. Those identifying as women make up 47 or nearly 96% of this year’s

respondents. No student identified as “other” gendered. These proportions are similar to past

years. The mean age of students entering in 2018 is 29 years. The average age of entering students

has remained fairly consistently between 28 and 31 since our last self-study.

The largest number of students entering in 2018 in this sample report having attended Minnesotan

public universities (42.86%, n = 21), followed by schools outside of Minnesota, (22.45%, n=11),

and other private universities or colleges (18.37%, n =9). Representation from our sponsoring

institutions include St. Kate’s (4.08%, n =2) and St. Thomas (12.24%, n =6). As Table 1 shows,

both schools (UST and St. Kates) show smaller numbers responding than in recent years.

The baccalaureate majors reported by incoming MSW students demonstrated few notable changes

from last year. The percentage of students with BSWs was nearly identical to 2016. The

percentage of students with B.A.s in psychology was again nearly equivalent in terms of

percentages. The “other” category this year was identical to that of “psychology” (n=14; 28.7%).

Entered 2011

N = 93

Entered 2012

N = 93

Entered 2013

N = 137

Entered 2014

N = 161

Entered

2016

N = 105

Entered

2018

N = 136

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Male 8 10.1 14 8.1 18 13.2% 15 9.3% 9 8.6% 2 4.08

Female 71 89.9 157 91.3 119 86.8% 144 89.4% 95 90.5% 47 95.92

Transgender 0 0 1 0.6 0 0 1 0.6% 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.6% 1 1% 0 0

Age (Mean) 30.32 29.28 31.18 28.52 28.52 29.29

SCU 4 4.3 10 5.7 9 6.6% 14 8.7% 13 12.4% 2 4.08

UST 7 7.5 7 4.0 8 5.8% 7 4.3% 7 6.7% 6 12.24

Public-MN 29 31.2 59 33.5 52 38.0% 67 41.6% 38 36.2% 21 42.86

Other Private- MN

16 17.2 44 25.0 34 24.8% 33 20.5% 13 12.4% 9 18.37

Outside of MN 26 28.0 52 29.5 32 23.4% 40 24.8% 34 24.8% 11 22.45

BA Major: No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Social Work 38 40.9 62 35.2 64 46.7% 76 47.5% 43 41.0% 20 40.82

Psychology 15 16.1 59 33.5 59 22.6% 42 26.3% 29 27.6% 14 28.57

Sociology 2 2.2 8 4.5 9 6.6% 8 5.0% 2 1.9% 0 0

Human Service 2 2.2 7 4.0 3 2.2% 10 6.3% 6 5.7% 1 2.04

Other 26 28.0 35 19.9 29 21.2% 24 15.0% 25 23.8% 14 28.57

Years of Social Service Experience


Mean Years * 5.26 4.9 4.4 4.0 5.57

Note. * = Was not asked during these administrations

As noted in Table 2, 89.9% (n=44) of respondents indicated that they were in the

weekday/evening program, while 10.2% (n=5) were in the weekend cohort program. The largest

percentage of respondents is in the Regular Standing 2-year program 29.8% (n=14), followed by

the Advanced Standing 1-year program and the Regular Standing 3-year program, each

comprising 14.9%; (n= 7). The biggest change from last report is the increase in the numbers of

AS-3 students from one (2016) to five (10.6%) responding in 2018.

Entered 2011

N = 93

Entered 2012

N = 176

Entered 2013

N = 137

Entered 2014

N = 161 Entered 2016

N = 105

Entered 2018

N=136

Program Format No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Weekday/Evening 54 65.1 139 79.0 103 75.2 125 78.6% 85 81.0% 44 89.8

Weekend Cohort 29 31.2 31 17.6 33 24.1 34 21.4% 20 19.0% 5 10.2

Program Track

R S 2-year 21 22.6 46 26.1 34 24.8 46 28.6% 30 28.6% 14 29.8

RS 3-year 10 10.8 31 17.6 16 11.7 25 15.5% 17 16.2% 7 14.9

RS 4-year 6 6.5 20 11.4 8 5.8 5 3.1% 9 8.6% 2 4.3

RS 4-year Weekend 9 9.7 11 6.3 14 10.2 8 5.0% 6 5.7% 2 4.3

AS 1-year 5 5.4 21 11.9 14 10.2 25 15.5% 17 16.2% 7 14.9

AS 2-year 10 10.8 18 10.2 27 19.7 22 13.7% 14 13.3% 6 12.8

AS 3-year 10 10.8 12 6.8 9 6.6 12 7.5% 1 1.0% 5 10.6

AS 3-year Weekend 12 12.9 13 7.4 14 10.2 18 11.2% 11 10.5% 4 8.5

Note. * = Was not asked during these administrations

Part II: Graduating MSW Students

This section of the report will present the data collection and analysis Methods and Findings for

data provided by students who graduated from the program in spring, 2018. The Exit Survey was

sent electronically to students through their official St. Kate’s - St. Thomas email and

administered through Qualtrics in May 2018. The final clinical field evaluation was administered

through the online Intern Placement Tracking (IPT) system and completed by both the student

and the field instructor as they completed their final evaluations through August, 2018. Both the

Qualtrics and IPT data were transferred to Excel and SPSS for data analysis.

Method

Exiting MSW students were surveyed regarding the degree to which they attained competencies

for advanced clinical social work practice. They were also asked about their perspectives on

school supports, activities, and climate to capture dimensions of the implicit curriculum. Not all

information collected is presented in this report, but will be reflected in the 2019 self-studies

submitted.

Exit Survey Instrument

The 10 advanced clinical competencies, operationalized through 49 articulated Practice Behaviors

represent the substantive reporting of students, through a self-report pre-post rating and in a


comparative reporting based in the field education program. In addition, this instrument gathers

information about the students’ experiences while in the MSW Program and plans for their future

career. Among the items asked are: employment prospects at graduation; satisfaction with various

aspects of their MSW education; participation in school activities; supports received while at the

school; assessment of the School’s cultural responsiveness; plans for their career in five years;

areas of practice in which they hope to work in five years; and open-ended questions regarding

the helpful and challenging aspects of their MSW education. After a review of the 2014 Outcome

Study findings, and based on the process of identifying opportunities for continuous improvement

related to curriculum, a question related to students’ understanding of policy in social work was

included.

Data Collection

Graduating students were sent a link to the exit survey and a reminder in May of 2018. This was

the third year of the online survey administration not in the classroom. Out of 117 students, 49

completed the survey for a response rate of 42 % (See Appendix D). (See Appendix B). Response

rates for field instructors who rate their students based on observations of students in the field,

were significantly higher.

Data Analysis

The heart of this program assessment lies in the findings of the student and field instructor reports

on demonstrated mastery of 10 competencies operationalized through 49 practice behaviors

measured in the Exit Survey and the Final Clinical Field Evaluation. For both the Exit Survey and

for the final clinical field evaluation, descriptive statistics were calculated for each of the

component behaviors, which operationalize the ten Advanced Clinical competencies (Appendix

B). Mean competencies were also calculated for the final field evaluation data using students’ and

field instructors’ ratings for students’ achievement of clinical level practice behaviors within the

context of their practicum site.

Findings and Discussion

This year 117 graduating students were emailed the survey, along with a reminder. Forty-nine (n

= 49) completed it for a response rate of 42% (Appendix B).


Table 3 presents background information for 2018 graduating students who responded to this

survey (n = 49). Of the number who responded to the demographic questions, 85.7% identified as

female, 14.3% identified as male, and none identified as transgender. The mean age of responding

students was 31. The proportion of students reporting membership in NASW was 26.5%.

Table 3. Background Information: Graduating MSW Students

Graduated 2011 N =

81

Graduated 2012

N = 118

Graduated 2013

N = 111

Graduated 2014

N = 98

Graduated 2016

N= 79

Graduated 2018

N= 49

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Gender:

Male 5 6.0 8 6.8 11 9.9 14 14.3 7 8.9 7 14.3


Female 76 89.3 100 84.7 99 89.2 83 84.7 71 89.9 42 85.7

Transgender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 0 0

Other 0 0 1 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Age (Mean) 32.8 30.8 31.2 30.6 32 31.43

NASW Member 32 38.1 20 16.9 28 25.2% 20 20.4 17 21.8 13 26.5

Program (Day/Weekend)

Day/Evening 57 67.9 88 74.6 91 82 68 86.1 44 89.8

Weekend Cohort 23 27.4 21 17.8 19 17.1 10 12.7 5 10.2

Exit Survey: Graduating Student Ratings on Advanced Clinical Competencies

The mean benchmark score set by the MSW program was to have 90% of graduates demonstrate

a mean score 3.75 (on a scale from 1 to 5, with higher values representing greater competence) on

each competency; a benchmark challenge was identified as 75% of graduates with a mean of 4.0

for each competency. Table 4 compares the overall competency means with the benchmark

means. To date the MSW program has focused on the overall competency means for targeted

consideration to make decisions about continuous improvement in the curriculum.

Mean Competency Scores and Benchmarks

Overall Competency Mean Scores

As noted on Table 4, the overall mean ratings for all but one curriculum competency (A2.1.8

Engaging in policy practice); were above 3.75, the benchmark mean score. The majority of items

(eight of fourteen) had mean rating above the challenge benchmark of 4.0; the six that did not

include: (A2.1.5) Advancing human rights and justice, (A2.1.6) Engaging in research-informed

practice and practice-informed research, (A2.1.8) Engaging in policy practice, and (A2.1.10(b),

Assessment, and A2.1.10(d) Evaluation).

Benchmark Competency Mean Scores

Consistent with 2016, four competencies met the benchmark of 90% of respondents with a mean

of at least 3.75: (A2.1.1). Identifying as a professional social worker; (A2.1.2) Applying SW

ethical principles; (A2.1.3) Applying critical thinking; (A2.1.10 (a)) and Engagement. Three

competencies met the challenge benchmark of 75% of respondents with a mean of 4.0: (A2.1.1)

Identifying as a professional social worker; (A2.1.2) Applying SW ethical principles; and

(A2.1.10 (a)) Engagement.

Table 4 Mean Scores on Curriculum Competencies: Graduating MSW Students

Curriculum Competency Graduated 2016

(n = 79) Graduated 2018

(n = 49 )

Mean

No. (%)

above 3.75 **90%

No. (%) above 4.0

***75%

Mean

No. (%) above

3.75 **90%

No. (%) above 4.0

***75%

A2.1.1 Identifying as a professional SW

4.6 78 (98.7) 74 (94.9) 4.72 49 (100) 47 (95.9)

A2.1.2 Applying SW ethical

principles 4.4 72 (91.1) 71 (89.9) 4.57 47 (95.9) 45 (91.8)

A2.1.3 Applying critical thinking 4.38 74 (94.9) 70 (88.6) 4.44 45 (91.8) 44 (89.8)

A2.1.4 Engaging diversity 4.3 68 (86.1) 68 (86.1)* 4.33 44 (89.8) 37 (75.5)


A2.1.5 Advancing human rights and

justice 4.0 50 (63.3) 50 (63.3)* 4.03 35 (71.4) 30 (61.2)

A2.1.6 Engaging research-informed

practice and practice-informed

research

3.9 45 (57.0) 45 (57.0)* 3.97 27 (56.1) 27 (56.1)

A2.1.7 Applying knowledge of HBSE

4.4 69 (87.3) 69 (87.3)* 4.44 43 (88.8) 43 (88.8)

A2.1.8 Engaging in policy practice 3.48 34 (43.0) 34 (43.0)* 3.37 20 (32.7) 16 (32.3)

A2.1.9 Responding to contexts that

shape practice 4.17 56 (70.9) 56 (70.9)* 4.32 36 (73.5) 36 (73.5)

A2.1.10 Engagement, assessment,

intervention, and evaluation

A2.1.10 (a) Engagement 4.4 71 (90.0) 71 (90.0)* 4.52 45 (91.8) 45 (91.8)

A2 1.10 (b) Assessment 4.27 68 (86.1) 59 (74.7) 4.32 38 (77.6) 36 (73.5)

A2.10 (c) Intervention 4.3 70 (88.6) 70 (88.6)* 4.42 42 (85.7) 40 (81.6)

A2 10 (d) Evaluation 3.78 47 (59.5) 47 (59.5)* 3.94 31 (63.3) 31 (63.3)

*Note. For some competencies, no mean scores were recorded between the 3.75 and 4.0 benchmarks, thus the

number of students who scored above 4.0 was also identified in the number of students who scored 3.75+. **

Benchmark and *** Benchmark Challenge.

Social Justice Measures

Four statements that reflect the MSW program’s commitment to Social Justice are addressed in

the context of three relevant competencies: engaging diversity (one item); advancing human

rights (two items), and engaging policy practice (one item). However, the ratings for these four

questions are not included in the creation of the mean score for that competency. The mean scores

for these social justice items are presented separately in Table 5. The summative or grand mean

for these items is 4.01.

Table 5 Mean Scores on Social Justice Measures: Exiting MSW Students

Graduated 2011

N =81

Graduated 2012

N = 110

Graduated 2013

N = 111

Graduated 2014

N = 98

Graduated 2016 N=79

Graduated 2018

N = 117

I practice informed by a social justice

perspective 4.48 4.33 4.53 4.36 4.47 4.33

I understand and can apply frameworks

related to social justice, such as the NASW

Code of Ethics.

4.37 4.27 4.39 4.29 4.29 4.31

I understand and can apply frameworks

related to social justice, such as relevant portions of

Catholic Social Teaching

3.71 3.71 3.64 3.43 3.96 3.67

I am able to analyze policy from a social

justice perspective and to advocate, when

applicable.

3.89 3.58

3.8 3.71 3.75 3.71

Mean of Social Justice Measures 4.11 3.97 4.08 3.95 4.18 4.01


Specifically, students were asked to what degree they meet a variety of social justice practice

measures. As seen in Table 5, students give themselves the highest ratings on “I practice informed

by a social justice perspective” (m = 4.33). On the item, “I understand and can apply frameworks

related to social justice, such as the NASW Code of Ethics,” students’ mean score was 4.31. The

mean score for, “I understand and can apply frameworks related to social justice, such as relevant

portions of Catholic Social Teaching,” was 3.67. The social justice measure of “I am able to

analyze policy from a social justice perspective and to advocate, when applicable,” had a mean

score of 3.71.

Exit Survey: 2018 Graduating Student Curriculum Competency Paired Comparisons

The Exit Survey of the Outcome Study attempts to measure students’ growth in the practice (now

component) behaviors that operationalize the Advanced Clinical Competencies from the entry to

the completion of the MSW program. Students rate their perception of themselves both

retrospectively at entry into the program and currently at the time of their graduation. These self-

reported ratings are supplemented by a comparison with students’ and field instructors’ ratings

of practice behaviors in the context of field placements (See Table 7). Because these utilize

student self-report, they will be phased out and replaced by our new Assessment Plan outlined in

our 2018 Self Study, where we focus on observable measures. As part of this transition, however,

it is worth noting that field instructor ratings (in Table7) are based on direct observations of their

students over time.

Table 6. Paired Comparison of Mean Scores on Advanced Clinical

Competencies Before and After Program: Graduating MSW Students

Curriculum Competency Graduated 2014

n =

98 (before)

Graduated 2014

n =

98 (after)

Graduated 2016

n =

79 (before)

Graduated 2016

n =

79 (after)

Graduated 2018

n =

49 (before)

Graduated 2018

n =

49 (after)

A2.1.1 Identifying as a professional

SW 2.69 4.62** 2.58 4.6** 3.33 4.72**


principles 2.62 4.40** 2.5 4.4** 3.12 4.57**

A2.1.3 Applying critical thinking 2.36 4.34** 2.36 4.38** 3.15 4.44**

A2.1.4 Engaging diversity 2.61 4.35** 2.7 4.3** 3.16 4.33**

A2.1.5 Advancing human rights and justice

2.00 3.86** 2.09 4.0** 3.07 4.03**

A2.1.6 Engaging research-informed

practice and practice informed

research

1.69 4.01** 1.64 3.9** 2.64 3.97**

A2.1.7 Applying knowledge of

HBSE 2.17 4.44** 2.21 4.4** 3.00 4.44**

A2.1.8 Engaging in policy practice 1.59 3.02** 1.71 3.48** 2.69 3.37**

A2.1.9 Responding to contexts that

shape practice 2.20 4.16** 2.16 4.17** 3.07 4.32**


A2.1.10 Engagement, assessment,

intervention, and evaluation

A2.1.10 (a) Engagement 2.34 4.46** 2.33 4.4** 3.10 4.52**

A2 1.10 (b) Assessment 1.96 4.32** 1.88 4.27** 3.08 4.32**

A2.1.10.(c) Intervention 2.19 4.38** 2.03 4.3** 3.04 4.42**

A2.1.10 (d) Evaluation 1.45 3.76** 1.49 3.78** 2.73 3.94**

As noted on Table 6, when students rated themselves at graduation, they reported significant

growth as evidenced by statistically significant t-test results for all 10 competencies. We noted

this year that students, on average, rated themselves more favorably at pretest than previous

cohorts did.

In the final four competencies that target dimensions of practice, students reported, on average,

significant growth. All comparisons in the final four competencies targeting dimensions of

practice (i.e. engagement, assessment, interventions, and evaluation) resulted in a statistically

significant difference between the beginning and end of the program at p < .01.

2016 Field Survey Assessments and Comparisons to Exit

Table 7 shows three assessments of Curriculum Competencies: Students’ assessment on the Exit

Survey, Field Instructors’ final field evaluation, and Students’ final field self-assessment.

Table 7. Mean Scores on Curriculum Competencies: Exit Survey, Field Instructor

Assessment, and Students’ Field Self-Assessment: Graduating 2018, N =112 Curriculum Competency Exit Survey

(n = 49) Field Instructor

Assessment (n= 112)

Field Student Self- Assessment

(n= 112)

A2.1.1 Identifying as a

professional SW 4.72 4.59

4.47


principles 4.57 4.38

4.23

A.2.1.3 Applying critical

thinking 4.44 4.27

4.18

A2.1.4 Engaging diversity 4.33 4.31

4.17

A2 1.5 Advancing human

rights and justice 4.03 3.92

3.75

A2.1.6 Engaging research

informed practice and practice-

informed research

3.97 3.95

3.85

A2.1.7 Applying knowledge of

HBSE 4.44 4.11

4.02


A2.1.8 Engaging in policy

practice 3.37 3.59

3.47

A2.1.9 Responding to contexts

that shape practice 4.32 3.90

4.07

A2 1.10 Engagement,

assessment, intervention, and

evaluation

A2.1.10 (a) Engagement 4.52 4.38 4.22

A2.1.10 (b) Assessment 4.32 4.19 4.05

A2 .1.10 (c) Intervention 4.42 4.27 4.14

A2.1.10 (d) Evaluation 3.94 3.92 3.81

Field Instructors tended to rate their students favorably, and in each category captured for 2018,

rate their students with higher mean scores than students self-rated. Field instructors rated their

students with a mean competency score at the benchmark of 3.75 on all ten competencies. On the

challenge benchmark they rated their students at or better than the 4.0 mean score required on

eight of thirteen items.

Students, within the context of field, tended to evaluate themselves below the mean challenge

benchmark of 4.0 on four competencies: A2.1.5 Advancing Human Rights and Justice, A2.1.6

Engaging in Research-Informed Practice and Practice-Informed Research, A2.1.8 Engaging in

Policy Practice (m = 3.47), and A2.1.10 Evaluation (m=3.81). In general, and in keeping with past

years, students’ assessment of their competency in the field tends to be both positive and

incrementally less than the assessments of their field instructors. Field instructors rated their

MSW students as particularly strong in: identifying as professional social worker and in applying

social work’s ethical principles.

A comparison between curriculum (what is learned in the classroom) and field (what is applied in

practice) demonstrates few variations in assessments of competencies among the three domains.

The ratings do show a pattern. Overall, students rate themselves slightly higher in the classroom

than they rate themselves in the field, except for Engaging in Policy Practice and Practice

Evaluation. Field Instructors assess students higher across all competencies than the students

assess themselves in the field.

Employment Prospects at Graduation

Table 8 shows that more than 53% of respondents stated that they currently had a professional

position or a job offer in social work (n = 26, or 53.1%). Of the total survey respondents, 16.3%

had a position in social work that they intended to keep, and notably, nearly one-third (28.6%)

had or had been offered a position at their field site. 8.2% had or had been offered a position in

social work other than at their field placement, and 12.2% indicated some other kind of

arrangement. Of the remaining respondents, 34.7 % stated they were currently seeking a position

in social work (this is the smallest number and percentage since 2014). Otherwise, these

percentages are largely comparable to those last reported in 2016.

Of those students who had a job or a professional offer, 28.6% (n=14) reported that the focus of

the position was in psychotherapy or counseling. Case management was the focus of this position

for 22.4% (n=11) of professional positions and 22.4% (n=11) reported that there was some other

focus. Finally two (4.1% of) respondents said the focus of their position was in management or

administration and one stated advocacy and policy development as a prominent focus.


Table 8. Students’ Employment after Graduation

2014 2016 2018

(n) (%) (n) (%) (n) (%)

Job Situation at Graduation n=98 n=79 n = 49

I have a position in social work I intend to keep 12 12.2 9 11.4 8 16.3

Have or have been offered a paid position at field

placement 16 16.3 17 21.5 14 28.6

Have or have been offered a social work position

not at field placement 13 13.3 11 13.9 4 8.2

Currently seeking a position in social work 48 49.0 34 43 17 34.7

Other 7 7.1 7 9.1 6 12.2 Focus of Current Job or Position Offered*

Therapy/Counseling 28 68.3 31 39.2 14 28.6 Case Management 22 53.7 22 27.8 11 22.4 Practice and Program Evaluation 1 2.4 2 2.5 0 0 Supervision 1 2.4 2 2.5 1 2.0 Management/Administration 3 7.3 1 1.3 2 4.1 Advocacy/Policy Development 2 4.9 5 6.3 1 2.0 Other 12 29.3 9 11.4 11 22.4

Note: * = More than one possible answer was allowed: Up to three for the focus of work and five for services they will

provide.

Exit Survey: Students’ Five-Year Career Plans

Students were asked about the plans for their career in five years and about the areas of practice in

which they hope to work and could select as many options as applicable. Overall, a clinical focus

remains prominent, in that table 9 shows that the vast majority of students (87.8%) plan to be

providing psychotherapy or counseling as one aspect of their professional role in five years. A

total of 36.7% (n=18) plan to provide case management. A total of 55.1% (n=27) perceived they

would be engaged in supervision. Management or administration involvement was identified by

22.4% (n=11) of graduating respondents and 8.2 % (n=4) believe they will be engaged in practice

and program evaluation. 24.5% (n=12) plan to be involved in advocacy and policy development.

Table 9. Students’ Five-Year Career Plans at Exit

2014

n= 98 20

n = 16

1 79 2018

n= 49

n % n % n %

Psychotherapy/Counseling 93 94.9 63 79 43 87.8

Supervision 54 55.1 37 46.8 27 55.1

Case Management 44 44.9 35 44.3 18 36.7

Advocacy/Policy Development 30 30.6 24 30.4 12 24.5

Management/Administration 23 23.5 21 26.6 11 22.4

Practice and Program Evaluation 16 16.3 17 21.5 4 8.2


Other 4 4.1 8 10.1 4 8.2

Note. Students could select as many options as were relevant, so percentages add up to more than 100%.

While clinical practice is by far the most common response, students also predict that their future

professional practice will be multidimensional and involve many roles and skills in their future

careers. In addition to their clinical practice, graduates see themselves involved in a variety of

leadership positions and related activities.

Appendix A

Table 10. Advanced Clinical Competencies and Practice Behaviors

Competency 1. Identify as a professional social worker and conduct oneself accordingly • Readily identify as social work professionals • Demonstrate professional use of self with client • Understand and identify professional strengths, limitations and challenges • Develop manage, and maintain therapeutic relationships with clients within the person-in-environment and strengths

perspectives • Understand the need for and use clinical social work supervision and consultation

Competency 2. Apply social work ethical principles to guide professional practice • Apply ethical decision-making skills to issues specific to clinical social work • Employ strategies of ethical reasoning to address the use of technology in clinical practice and its effect on client rights Identify and use knowledge of relationship dynamics, including power differentials • Recognize and manage personal biases as they affect the therapeutic relationship in the service of the clients’ well-being

Competency 3. Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments • Engage in reflective practice • Identify and articulate clients’ strengths and vulnerabilities • Evaluate, select, and implement appropriate multidimensional assessment, diagnostic, intervention, and practice

evaluation tools • Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of multiple theoretical perspectives and differentially apply them to client

situations • Communicate professional judgments to other social workers and to professionals from other disciplines, in both verbal

and written format Competency 4. Engage diversity and difference in practice

• Research and apply knowledge of diverse populations to enhance client wellbeing • Work effectively with diverse populations • Identify and use practitioner/client differences from a strengths perspective

Competency 5. Advance human rights and social and economic justice • Use knowledge of the effects of oppression, discrimination, and historical trauma on client and client systems to guide

treatment planning and intervention • Advocate at multiple levels for policy change that improves the overall mental health of clients and communities

Competency 6. Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research • Use the evidence-based practice process in clinical assessment and intervention with clients • Participate in the generation of new clinical knowledge, through research and practice • Use research methodology to evaluate clinical practice effectiveness and/or outcomes

Competency 7. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment • Synthesize and differentially apply theories of human behavior and the social environment to guide clinical practice • Use bio-psycho-social-spiritual theories and multiaxial diagnostic classification systems in formulation of comprehensive

assessments • Recognize the impact of health and medication on diagnosis and treatment


Competency 8. Engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work

services • Communicate to stakeholders the implication of policies and policy change in the lives of clients • Use evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence to analyze, formulate and advocate for policies and programs

that advance social and economic well-being • Advocate with and inform administrators and legislators to influence policies that impact clients and services

Competency 9. Respond to contexts that shape practice

• Assess the quality of clients’ interactions within their social contexts • Develop intervention plans to accomplish systemic change • Work collaboratively with others to effect systemic change that is sustainable

Competency 10. Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities: A. Engagement

Develop a culturally responsive therapeutic relationship • Attend to the interpersonal dynamics and contextual factors that both strengthen and potentially threaten the therapeutic

alliance • Establish a relationally based process that encourages clients to be equal participants to the extent possible in the assessment

and establishment of treatment goals and expected outcomes. B. Assessment • Use multidimensional bio-psycho-social-spiritual assessment tools • Assess clients’ readiness for change

• Assess client coping strategies to reinforce and improve adaptation to life situations, circumstances, and events

Select and modify appropriate intervention strategies based on continuous clinical assessment Use differential and

multiaxial diagnoses C. Intervention • Critically evaluate, select, and apply best practices and evidence-based interventions • Demonstrate the use of appropriate clinical techniques for a range or presenting concerns identified in the assessment,

including crisis intervention strategies as needed • Collaborate with other professionals to coordinate treatment interventions • Consult with other professionals, as needed, to facilitate the assessment, diagnosis and treatment processes D. Evaluation • Contribute to the theoretical knowledge base of the social work professional through practice-based research • Use clinical evaluation of the process and/or outcomes to develop best practice interventions for a range of bio-psychosocial-

spiritual conditions

Appendix B

History of Response Rates by Year and Data Collection Venue

Table 11 presents the history of response rates for the data collection process from 2013 through

2018. In light of lower response rates since returning to online survey distribution, the programs

will respectively consider returning to the in-class administration of the MSW Outcome Study.

Table 11: History of Response Rates by Profile

2013 2014 2016 2018

Emailed

to Ret’d % Emailed



to Ret’d %

Entering 139 137 98.6% 169 161 95.3% 136 105 77.2% 136 49 36.0%

Graduating 133 111 83.5% 138 98 71.1% 133 79 59.3% 117 49 41.8% Note: in 2016 and 2018, exit surveys were not completed in class; surveys were only emailed.


Appendix C

Reports on Continuous Improvement from Curriculum Committees

Report on Continuous Improvement

As part of the response to findings for the 2018 Outcome Study Curriculum chairs reported on the

work and action steps they have facilitated in response to the 2018 findings.

Faculty Review of Outcome Data and Associated Curricular Changes

The chair of the MSW Assessment Committee and outcome study coordinator disseminates a draft of

the outcome study report which includes the data collected from the entry and exit surveys completed

through Qualtrics and the exit data collected from students and field instructors through IPT. The draft

report is reviewed by the MSW Program Director and, after consultation with the chair of the MSW

Assessment Committee and outcome study coordinator, the report is disseminated to MSW curriculum

committee chairs and the MSW program faculty. Curriculum committees are charged with reviewing

outcome ratings based on practice behaviors and competencies that relate most particularly to the

courses under their purview. Members of the five curriculum committees (Field, Human Behavior and

the Social Environment, Practice, Policy, Research) review the findings in light of their particular

curriculum area and make recommendations related to affirming or making changes in the implicit and

explicit curriculum.

Curriculum committee members confer about the ratings reported both at entry and exit and identify

possible interventions for addressing ratings that a) are particularly high and b) those that might not

meet the benchmark. Areas of focus for analysis: mean ratings for each competency, ‘pre-post’

ratings; student and field instructor ratings; and field scores compared with survey data; findings

related to social justice items and those reporting elements of the implicit curriculum. Findings from

tests of difference conducted between pre-post scores on the exit survey and between the student and

field instructor scores are reviewed. The review includes attention to the mean ratings for each practice

behavior and each competency. Particularly if the mean rating of a competency is below the 3.75

benchmark, an item analysis is warranted.

Decisions are made about any curricular changes that might include ongoing re-enforcement of course

materials, activities and assignments as well as interventions related to possible changes to address

deficiencies. The findings of the curriculum committees are reported to the chair of the assessment

committee who collates them for a report to the MSW faculty. Discussions of the whole facilitate

collaborative work among the program areas both to identify the changes in the whole MSW faculty

committee and to monitor their implementation across the curriculum.

These findings are reported back to the chair of the MSW Assessment Committee and outcome study

coordinator for inclusion in the outcome study final report. Examples from this year’s process are

presented in AS 4.0.3 and the full curriculum committee review report is included in the 2011 MSW

Outcome Study Report, Appendix F, AS 4.0.5.


The new assessment plan is sensitive and useful in identifying areas that can be improved to increase

student competence. The five MSW curriculum committees (field, human behavior and the social

environment, practice, policy & research) reviewed the results obtained by our Outcome Study and

Field Evaluations during the 2018-2019 academic year and identified areas in the curriculum to

respond to areas where we had not met our established benchmarks. The following is an overview of

those changes, listed by curriculum area.

All curriculum committees reviewed the mean scores on all advanced competencies as well as for the

associated component (formerly practice) behaviors, giving particular attention to those especially

relevant to their curricular area. Areas that each committee addressed (i.e. where a competency or

practice behavior score fell below 4.0) are itemized here. The committee responses and action plans

are presented in the following section.

Field

• 2.1.8 (policy practice)

Human Behavior and the Social Environment


• 2.1.10d (evaluating interventions)

Practice

• 2.1.5 (working at multiple levels for policy change)

• 2.1.6 (using research methodology in evaluating practice)


Policy

• 2.1.6. (advancing Human Rights and Social Justice)

Research

• 2.1.6 (Research informed practice and practice-informed research)

• 2.1.10d (Practice sub-competency specific to evaluating interventions)

All curriculum committees reviewed the 2018 outcome study results in relation to their respective

competencies and practice behaviors. The master’s program in the School of Social Work has

identified 4.0 (on a 5 point Likert scale) as the benchmark challenge; if competency means fall below

4.0, they receive particular attention in the review process. Any scores below this benchmark

challenge are noted and discussed. Curriculum committees review the scores for their respective

objectives across three groups: entering students, graduating students, and field supervisors. The

following are the responses from each curriculum committee delineating their process and the focus of

that process.

Field Seminar & Practicum

MSW field response to current (2018) Outcome Study

As the MSW field curriculum committee revised the field courses in response to the 2015 EPAS,

for a fall 2018 launch, we continued to take a holistic approach to student learning in field. We

conceptualized field education around four essential areas: professional behavior, ethics, and

context; diversity and justice; research and policy; and practice methods. All of the students’

assignments (reflective papers, case studies, agency analysis, etc.) are organized within this four


essential area framework. Similarly, all the field placement forms (initial education contract; end

of semester evaluation) are organized around this framework as well. Many assignments cross

over between these four competency areas. For instance, in the agency analysis, students are

asked how agency policies are evaluated and how the social work perspective informs that

assessment. Students are also expected to identify a current issue that is affecting the agency’s

clients and create a plan for how to advocate for change within the agency. In the case study,

students are expected to identify what barriers they anticipate for the client or from the agency,

and what strategies does the student need, as a social worker, to overcome those barriers. Our

intention, through curricular design, is to continue to reinforce the inseparability of micro, mezzo,

and macro social work practice competence. In other words, our four essential area framework

reinforces the integration of the nine Social Work Competencies. This has been and will continue

to be our response to foster student skill across all dimensions of practice.

On an instructor level, field faculty liaisons take time in field seminar check ins with students and

during agency visits to explicitly link micro to macro practice, further reinforcing integration. For

example, instructors share their perspectives on the relevance of social justice, policy, and

stakeholder involvement across all settings. Faculty are closely involved in the development of

each student’s education contract, which reflects all nine Competencies and provides an

opportunity to explicitly articulate learning activities that will address each area of competence.

Instructors also follow up with agencies after the first semester evaluation if there are indications

that an agency/field instructor is struggling to conceptualize learning in any of the nine

Competency areas.

Based on the analysis of the 2018 Outcome Study and the newly deployed language of the 2015

EPAS, we will consider whether adding the specific wording of ““individual, family, group,

organization, and community levels” to specific assignments would further reinforce students’

integration of all levels of practice.

As we introduce the new, 2015 EPAS Competency language to our field instructors this year, we

have set aside time in each Field Instructor Training to look closely at several of the

competencies, with a special focus on those areas which are trending lower in our outcome study.

Field Instructors have the opportunity to problem-solve with the BSW and MSW Field Director in

these sessions, as well as to get the input of peers from a wide variety of practice settings. We

find that this peer support helps to demystify and unpack some of the language of the

competencies and component behaviors, and better prepare field instructors for articulating and

evaluating learning across all nine Social Work Competencies.

Finally, while student self-rating will no longer be a part of our Assessment plan and program

Outcome Study going forward, self-ratings remain an integral part of the end of semester student field

evaluation. As noted in the findings from the 2018 Outcome Study, students tend to underrate

themselves in their field placements. Perhaps not as prevalently, some students may overrate

themselves as well. We feel that the student-field instructor dyad provides an essential opportunity

for building self-awareness about competence and scope of practice. We want to ensure that the

student’s self-perception is ‘on the table’, so to speak, and that they have the opportunity for feedback

on this very thing – their self-assessment, as part of the process of developing, demonstrating, and

evaluating competence.

Human Behavior and the Social Environment

Curricular items this year included updating the HBSE Course Description and HBSE Course

Objectives using Quality Matters best practices. In response to goals for this curricular area for

the 2018 – 2019 academic year, sections for GRSW 540 will now use a macro-theory

activity/assignment where students will watch the documentary Place Matters and apply a macro-

theory of their choice to the situation presented in the video. GRSW 540 faculty also mapped


Course Objectives and individual readings to the updated Course Objectives and to EPAS 2015

component behaviors.

Similarly, this curricular area added a new reading to the course: Fischer-Borne, et al.’s 2015

article on cultural humility in response to student feedback that arose both in classroom review

toward the end of the semester and in qualitative IDEA feedback that identified a lack of

contemporary readings specific to cross-cultural social work. This reading and related discussion

were added to meet this need. We also added a reading from Walsh (2009): a portion of a chapter

focusing on contemporary organizational theory. We did this with the recognition that the

Hutchinson text lacks detailed descriptions of contemporary organizational theory. This was

added with the goal of bridging that gap.

• GRSW 540: Human Behavior & The Social Environment

Change in Master Syllabus & Course Content: In reviewing the 2018 MSW Outcome Study,

we were pleased to see ratings above our 4.0 benchmark for competencies specific to HBSE

and to understanding and engaging diversity. We also review the category of “assessment” in

that this course gives attention to assessment by way of introducing theoretical perspectives

and ways they help a clinician to conceptualize at micro, mezzo, and macro levels. We give

attention to policy practice for the same reason: macro practice involves attention to

organizations and to policy. In light of policy having a lower (below benchmark) mean score,

we added a reading from Walsh (2009) focusing on organizational theory (see above).

• GRSW 645: Psychopathology & Human Behavior

Change in Master Syllabus & Course Content: The HBSE Curricular area committee worked

this year on updating our course objectives to reflect bothEPAS 2015 competencies and

component behaivors. We similarly reduced our number of objectives and used Bloom’s

taxonomy as a way to bring more active language to them. We wanted fewer objectives

pedagogically so that students could track them and find them memorable and meaningful. We

also mapped our GRSW 645 and GRSW 540 course objectives to our course assignments and

chose representative assignments to standardize across sections in order to serve as embedded

measures as part of our larger assessment plan (which is attached as an appendix to this

section).

Practice

Faculty have continued to have ongoing discussions examining student feedback on our program

Outcome study since the last CSWE review. These discussions were in both content (curricular)

committee and in full faculty meetings. Areas of focus included increasing the link between practice

content and student field experiences, research-informed practice and practice-informed research

practice, and the link between clinical practice and social policy. There was also an effort to

standardize practice assignments across faculty to better measure student learning pertaining to social

work competencies (See table). A major effort was established to build a stronger link between clinical

practice and policy for students through the CSWE Mapping for Social Justice Initiative that was

implemented 2016-17 and has since been incorporated into the program. This curricular area noted

from the current MSW Outcome Study that students are rated by their field instructors (and tend to rate

themselves) highly in relation to skills related to engagement, but less highly in relation to skills related

to assessment and evaluation. We have, in concert with this, standardized an assignment in GRSW 603

related to assessment and have brought more related material into psychopathology. We have similarly

paired our curricular areas with HBSE (in which the psychopathology course is situated) and have

worked on ways to cross-fertilize and to improve our treatment of this topic. For instance, we have

more intentionally introduced questions such as “how do you think about this client diagnostically”


when discussing psychotherapy sessions viewed digitally or on video in our practice courses (GRSW

603 and 604). We have similarly bolstered our attention to evaluation as a topic, having added e-

chapters by Duncan (2010) from his book “On becoming a better therapist” and by sharing and offering

real-life practice examples using empirical assessment measures such as the OQ 45.2 and Duncan’s

Session Rating Scale (SRS) and Outcome Rating Scale (ORS).

History and Policy

In GRSW 500 History and Philosophy of Social Work, students continue to engage in critical

analysis of events, culture and discourse, and policies established of earlier eras in an effort to

understand these ongoing historic forces and to increase their ability to address them in practice.

Instructors strive for these emerging social workers to see that these forces of history are not

really in the past but continue to impact the present, and to understand our ethical responsibility to

address these oppressive forces.

In these ongoing efforts, the program has responded to student feedback to reduce obstacles to this

learning and to accentuate gains. Two examples of this evidenced in the Critical Historical Book

Review and the assigned reading to aid understanding of more recent welfare history of the

1980’s and ‘90’s. The Book Review assignment has now reduced assignment expectations in

order to focus upon the unique reflection of these historical texts, as well as to allow greater time

and attention for students to give to their own archival history research and analysis of their

original findings. A change in readings was chosen in response to student reactivity to a

perception of bias in the Day and Shiel text. In order support student’s to critically analyze the

economic and political influences upon social welfare in the late 20th century, an alternate reading

from Edin’s $2 a Day, has replaced the text chapter.

GRSW 625 Social Policy and Program Development has been a consistent focus of the faculty

during this period of accreditation due to ongoing concern and telling student data that this

competency has been a challenge to achieve in our program. As noted in the outcome study

report, specific qualitative questions were asked for multiple years to gain a sense of the student

experience of how and what they are learning about social policy, and this feedback has helped

guide changes in both the explicit and implicit curriculum. The largest shift has been to move

toward more direct and active effort to aid student understanding of policy advocacy as a practice

relevant within their clinical preparation. Within the explicit curriculum this change has been

supported by a change in text to Hoefer’s Advocacy Practice for Social Justice, and to reshape

course assignments to follow the skills and perspective of this text. Additionally, the course now

includes more of focus upon advocacy skill building with use of the Social Change Wheel,

individual advocacy action planning, learning written and verbal communication strategies

through creation of Policy advocacy briefs, requiring the submission of Letters to the Editor,

student led discussion of local social issues, and practicing elevator speeches, and throughout the

semester making linkages between policy issues and student field / work practice. As an example

of this integration between policy and practice, Kaufman’s Broken Three Times which follows a

family involved in child welfare for the duration of their involvement has become a Book Club

Discussion to respond to the policy–research-practice connections and challenges to social justice

evidenced within. We have increasingly sought to build the belief amongst students that all

social workers are social justice workers.


Supervision & Program Management

GRSW 650 Clinical Supervision and Program Management three primary areas have been

targeted, culturally responsive supervision, countertransference, and professional development

and licensure. Although both have been a part of the curriculum, depth and breadth have been to

added to underscore the importance of each. Beginning with culturally responsive supervision, in

addition to how each of the required texts address this topic, Weinbach and Taylor’s The Social

Worker as Manager Ch. 8, Managing and Foster Diversity, Kaiser’s Supervisory Relationships

Ch. 4 Shared Meaning and Ch. 5 Trust, and Shullman’s Interactional Supervision Ch. 3 Diversity

and Supervision in the Beginning Phases, *scholarly articles and case vignettes have been added

the course as a means to further define and provide practice examples. The need to more

thoroughly and courageously address diversity has been on going feedback in the student survey.

Examining the research provides compelling rationale in regard to the role white privilege plays

within the supervisory relationship.

Further exploration of countertransference and effective use of self has been expanded by

including addition readings and class exercises. Finally, professional development and licensure

are further reviewed based on the MN 2011 legislative licensure requirements and the Path to

Licensure program. Social supervision requirements increased to 200 hours for clinical practice

(more than doubled) and MN Board certified supervisors are required to have 30 hours of clinical

supervision and program management training, which is met by the GRSW 650 Clinical

Supervision and Program Management.

*Hall, J & Spencer, R. (2017) Illuminating the phenomenological challenges of cross-

cultural supervision, Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87:2-3, 238-253

Hair, H. J., & O’Donoghue, K. (2009). Culturally relevant, socially just social work supervision:

Becoming visible through a social constructionist lens. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural

Diversity in Social Work, 18(1), 70-88.

Hird, J.S., Tao, K.W., & Gloria, A.M. (2006). Examining supervisors’ multicultural competence in

racially similar and different supervision dyads. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(2), 107-122.

Lusk, M., Terrazas, S., & Salcido, R. (2017) Critical cultural competence in social work

Supervision. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance,

41:5, 464-476

Wong, L., Wong P., and Ishiyama, I. (2013). What helps and what hinders in cross-cultural

clinical supervision: A critical incident study. The Counseling Psychologist 41(1) 66-85

One particular interest this past year was the methodology for teaching students effective

documentation skills for clinical work. A specific text is utilized in GRSW 650: Clinical Supervision

and Program Management, Luepker, E. T. (2003). Record keeping in psychotherapy and counseling:

Protecting confidentiality and the professional relationship. As this text includes content that is used

for the practice courses and in that these skills are also reinforced in the Methods course, a trial to

utilize this same text across both courses was piloted. A review and proposal to both practice areas to

adopt and share this text across multiple courses will be made in the upcoming academic year. An area

of concern was identified by the outcome study when the integration of policy advocacy in the clinical

setting fell below the benchmark scores set at 4.0.

Research

The research curriculum consists of the foundational research course, Methods of Social Work

Research (GRSW 580) and the advanced course, Social Work Practice Research (GRSW 681).

Several changes have transpired in the research curriculum over the past seven years. Of those

changes, two particularly important ones stand out as relevant to the most recent (2018) MSW


Outcome Study. First, GRSW 580 has been reconceptualized as a course to help students become

better consumers of research. While a writing component remains an important part of the course,

more emphasis has been placed on teaching students to connect textbook research concepts to

actual peer-reviewed studies they are reading. Two MSW faculty received a university teaching

enhancement grant to create a flipped classroom model for this course, in an effort to help

students have more hands-on activities engaging with research concepts in the classroom.

Additionally, students are taught to understand what constitutes a strong versus weaker evidence

base for a given topic in research (i.e. attention is given to the concept of “levels of evidence.”

Both of these are with the aims of helping students to make more explicit connections between

their practice and research and to give more attention to an area that has fallen below the 4.0

benchmark: “Research-Informed Practice and Practice-Informed Research.”

The advanced research course, GRSW 681, has largely remained a course devoted to helping

students create their own research projects. One signature assignment in this course is a

qualitative research project, in which students interview a professional in a field related to social

work. Students must carry out the entire research process, including developing a literature

review, method, results, and discussion section. To more intentionally help students connect to the

clinical focus of our unique MSW program, we have recently added a single-system research

assignment. In this assignment, students are provided a vignette for which they create an

intervention, along with a single-system design of analyzing it. These have similarly been chosen

as examples of applied forms of research that are particularly relevant to practice (research-

informed practice).

Appendix D: Summary of Qualitative Feedback

In the exit survey, students are given the invitation to offer qualitative feedback to the MSW

program with the goal of improving the program in future years and in the spirit of using research

as a source of an ongoing feedback loop and “research-informed practice.” Students are asked

four broad questions: (1) In what ways has your understanding of policy in social work changed

throughout the MSW program (this is asked in that policy is an area our program has targeted to

improve, in light of a history of mean ratings below our desired benchmark noted since 2014), (2)

to what extent are policy and practice linked in the classroom and in field, (3) more broadly, what

was positive about your experience in the MSW program, and (4) what, if any, challenges

presented themselves? Initial labels of “emerging themes” as identified by faculty reviewing the

original data are included below. These were reviewed at our MSW full-faculty meeting and by

the respective curricular areas.

In what ways has your understanding of policy in social work changed throughout the MSW

program?

Emergent themes:

For most, a sense of “starting from scratch” (one person reported this content “reaffirming)

An increased awareness, understanding and level of engagement (“no longer a foreign

concept”)

An increased appreciation of its impact and sense of commitment to it

Accessible, interesting, appreciated the white paper exercise, in particular


In what ways did the MSW Program (i.e., classroom, field practicum, other program activities)

integrate clinical and policy content?

Emergent themes:

For most, the centrality of field and Mapping Social Justice

Room at the Table & Day at Capitol as relevant, meaningful supports

A sense of integration: “good overlap between classroom and field,” and “plenty of

discussions”

Negative case analysis (attention to exceptions): “very little,” and still feeling “under-

prepared”

What was valuable to you in/positive about your MSW program experience?

Emergent Themes:

The importance of faculty in a good experience (a sense of faculty who are engaged in the

classroom and who know and care about students and their interests). When this is perceived as

absent, it correlated with criticism

Relationships with: particular faculty (“relationships with each instructor”)

The importance of peer support. This was esp. evident among cohort students

What, if any, challenges to your learning did you encounter while in the MSW program that we

as a program should consider?

Emergent themes:

The need for elective offerings to be current and accurate

More mixed experiences with adjuncts (not always negative). A request for the wise use of and

vetting of adjunct faculty

An awareness of this as a great time of change, attention to faculty retirements, turn-over”

Some ambivalence as to the place of 682 in the curriculum, speaking to its loss

A desire for faculty expertise (need for attention to substance use disorders was raised as one

example). Criticisms followed when this was perceived as lacking.

A desire for a plurality of voices to be heard and taken seriously (one example was voiced by a

graduate identifying as conservative)

Initial Programmatic Response to Student Feedback and to MSW Outcome Study Findings

The MSW faculty met for a full-faculty curricular review meeting on January 10, at the completion of

the fall semester in order to review our findings as a large and as smaller (curricular area committee)

groups. The smaller curricular groups’ responses to the Outcome Study are itemized in detail above,

beginning on page 18 of this report.

While we reviewed the quantitative data as a full (MSW program) faculty in January, we decided this

year to focus on qualitative data, reflected in responses to these four more open-ended questions above.

We discussed as a faculty ways in which responses to our first two questions related to policy show


evidence of our successfully infusing content about and encouraging students to see policy practice as a

legitimate component of their clinical practice. We noted both the centrality of field in the ways in

which students identified dimensions of our implicit curriculum (for instance, Day at the Capitol)

serving as important components of making these links between policy and their practice. A number of

graduating students spoke to a “seamless” integration between the classroom and policy.

We also noted more generally the centrality of relationships with faculty in students’ reporting a

positive experience in the program. We noted this being the case for both full-time faculty and for

adjuncts. As part of this, we similarly observed what we labeled as a “desire for expertise”

particularly when students spoke to their experience with a minority of adjunct faculty. This

reinforced for the MSW faculty the importance of maintaining and even strengthening our

existing mentoring program and summer orientations for adjuncts. We discussed other potential

ways to strengthen our relationships with our adjunct faculty.

Based on qualitative feedback we received in relation to the website needing to reflect accurately

what courses are currently offered, David Roseborough followed up with the program manager to

be sure our website is current in terms of its reference to electives. It appears to be with the

exception of two courses that are listed that the program will continue to list in that we are intend

to offer both again in 2020.

Finally, we see the disaffiliation of the two programs (St.Kate’s and St. Thomas) as offering a

potential for full-time faculty to teach more “core courses” and to continue to utilize and

appreciate the contributions of adjunct faculty who so often bring significant practice experience.

We noted that several students identified adjunct faculty as people with whom they had formed

strong professional connections. We also discussed ways in which the disaffiliation offers the

chance for each school and program to be especially thoughtful about our ratio of faculty in these

three respective roles: tenured/tenure-track, clinical, and adjunct.



Documents

Report of Educational Outcomes for The School of Social ......clinical practice behaviors that measure the 10 advanced competencies for clinical social work practice. Specifically,