Advances Vol. 4, No. 2


82

An Outcome Evaluation of Competency Based Training
for Child Welfare

M. Elizabeth Vonk
W. Sean Newsome
Denise E. Bronson

Abstract: In response to the continuing need for competent child welfare profession-
als, a largemid-western university’s College of SocialWork collaborated with a pub-
lic childwelfare agency to design and implement a one year,Title IV-E-funded train-
ing opportunity for second-yearMSWstudents. Student outcomes, including knowl-
edge acquisition, attitudes about child welfare, and field of post-graduation
employment, were evaluated using a quasi-experimental pre-post comparison
group design (n=28). Results indicated that there were statistically significant differ-
ences between the two groups concerning attitudes about child welfare practice.
However, although trainees’ level of child welfare knowledge increased more than
that of the comparison group, the difference did not reach statistical significance.
Implications for practice and social work education are discussed.

Keywords: Child welfare, knowledge acquisition, evaluation, outcomes

Recruiting and retaining social workers for child welfare careers has been a
topic of significant concern both for schools of social work and child welfare
institutions (Gleeson, Smith & Dubois, 1993; Hopkins, Mudrick & Rudolph,

1999; Jones, 2002; Larner, Stevenson & Behrman, 1998; Lieberman, Hornby &
Russell, 1988). Social work students are often reluctant to enter public child wel-
fare due to concerns about job stress, negative public perceptions, and working
conditions. Retaining those who do enter the field has also been an issue.
Retention rates in many child welfare agencies have been abysmal, resulting in a
workforce comprisedmostly of young, inexperienced caseworkers handling some
of themost challenging and difficult cases. In addition, the cost of replacing work-
ers is enormous, especially in terms of orientation and training (Daly, Dudley,
Finnegan & Christiansen, 2000). Nonetheless, extensive training is crucial given
the increasing complexity of child welfare work (Gleeson, et al., 1993).

Attracting and retaining a cadre of professionally trained child welfare workers is
complicated by a number of factors both within schools of social work and the

M. Elizabeth Vonk, MSW, Ph.D. is Associate Professor at the School of SocialWork, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602; W. Sean Newsome, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work,
Chicago, IL 60607; and Denise E. Bronson, Ph.D. is Associate Professor, College of SocialWork, Columbus,
OH 43210.
Copyright© 2003 Advances in SocialWorkVol. 4 No. 2 (Fall 2003) 82-93.
Indiana University School of SocialWork.



child welfare work environment. Many social work students are reluctant to enter
public child welfare, even if they have a strong interest in serving children and
families. Public child welfare is often viewed as stressful, low status, and low pay-
ing (Jones, 2002; Pecora, Briar & Zlotnik, 1989). According to numerous sources,
these perceptions are not necessarily false (Curtis &Boyd, 1996; Larner, et al., 1998;
Lieberman, et al., 1988. Public scrutiny of the child welfare system by the media
and the recent death of a childwelfareworker during a home visit inOhio have fur-
ther contributed to social work students avoiding public child welfare service.

Criticisms of social work education as it relates to the field of child welfare have
also been voiced (Gleeson, et al., 1993; Lieberman, et al., 1988; Hopkins, et al.,
1999). Social work education has been criticized for its lack of relevance to the
actual skills and knowledge required for work within an agency. Another criticism
is that social work schools have shown a lack of commitment to recruiting and
educating social workers interested in working within the public sector.
Suggestions for competency-based education and greater collaboration between
educators and public agencies have been made in response to these criticisms
(Rycus & Hughes, 1998).

Problems within child welfare agencies also contribute to difficulties in recruit-
ing and retaining workers. Caseloads are typically high, supervision is often weak,
opportunities for promotion are limited, and policies are often changing and
unclear (Guterman & Jayaratne, 1994; Harrison, 1995; Pecora, et al., 1989; Rycraft,
1994;Vinokur-Kaplan&Hartman, 1986). As a result, worker burnout is not uncom-
mon and supervisors often recognize the problem too late to intervene (Anderson,
1994; Cicero-Reese & Black, 1998; Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Guterman &
Jayaratne, 1994). The result is that most child welfare workers do not have social
work degrees and, in some states, no pre-service training is provided (Larner, et al.,
1998).

Despite the obvious difficulties in attracting social workers to child welfare, the
evidence is clear that those with social work degrees are better prepared to serve
families and children in the child welfare system. Several benefits of social work
education for child welfare workers have been reported in the literature
(Lieberman, et al., 1988; Hopkins, et al., 1999; Olsen & Holmes, 1982). Those child
welfareworkerswith formal social work training report feeling better prepared and
more competent in the performance of their jobs than do non-professionally edu-
cated workers. Social work educated workers also have been reported to provide
higher quality services in child welfare. In addition, the social workers report
greater job satisfaction. Finally, social work education seems to increase retention
of child welfare workers.

Many schools of social work, in response to the issues described above, have uti-
lized Title IV-E money to support the training of social workers for work in child
welfare (Rose, 1999). In fact, at least 24% of respondents from a recent survey of
CSWE-approved (or in candidacy) social work programs indicated the use of Title
IV-E money for degree-related education (Zlotnik & Cornelius, 2000). Title IV-E
training money, made available through the Child Welfare and Adoption
Assistance Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) is intended to provide education at the under-
graduate and/or graduate levels for students who plan to work in public child wel-

83Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE



8484 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK

fare agencies. Universities that utilize this money are expected to collaborate
closely with public child welfare agencies; and students who receive funded edu-
cation are expected to work in child welfare for one year upon graduation.

At least four reports have recently addressed the use of Title-IV-E monies by
schools of social work. Jones (2002) presented the results of a Title IV-E program
developed by the California Social Work Education Committee. She found that
thosewith social work training had longer periods of employment in child welfare.
Zlotnik and Cornelius (2000) have described the use of IV-E funding by schools of
social work utilizing survey methodology. Rose (1999) described the Title IV-E
ChildWelfare Training Program at the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee in rela-
tionship to adult-learning issues. In addition, they included qualitative data relat-
ed to the students’ evaluation of the program. Finally, Robin and Hollister (2001)
examined and reported on the career development in, and contributions to, child
welfare practice among 73 graduates of theUniversity ofMinnesota’s ChildWelfare
Scholars Program. They concluded that Title IV-E monies were well spent, result-
ing in committed, social work trained child welfare professionals who were mak-
ing many positive contributions to the field.

This paper briefly describes a Title-IV-E funded, MSW-level child welfare train-
ing program and reports on student outcomes related to knowledge acquisition,
attitudes toward child welfare clients and practice, and satisfaction with the train-
ing program. After a description of the program, the outcome evaluation method
and results are presented. Finally, implications for practice and social work educa-
tion are discussed.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The goal of the child welfare training program was to prepare a group of 14 mas-
ters-level social work students for postgraduate careers in child welfare through a
collaborative effort between The Ohio State University College of Social Work
(CSW) and a large, public county children’s services agency (CCS). Students
entering the second year of the MSW program at The Ohio State University were
eligible to apply for the program. Acceptance into the traineeship required that
students express a desire to work in child welfare after graduation, have an
acceptable grade point average, and possess a willingness to accept a field
practicum at CCS.

The organizing framework and foundation knowledge for this project came
from the Field Guide to Child Welfare (1998) developed by Judy Rycus and Ron
Hughes from the Institute for Human Services (IHS) in Columbus, Ohio. This is a
four volume set ofmaterials that identifies and teaches the core competencies for
child welfare workers. These materials are distributed by the CWLA and are cur-
rently used as part of the Comprehensive Competency-based In-service Training
(CCBIT) system that has been adopted to train all child welfare employees in 24
states and six Canadian provinces. Typically, new workers are required to com-
plete courses on the core competencies during their first year of employment.
The CCBIT system focuses on 52 competencies in four areas that are deemed cru-
cial to current child welfare practice. For example, the core curriculum covers
competencies on (1) the legal aspects of child protection, (2) family-centered



85

child protective services, (3) case planning/casework, and (4) the effects of abuse
and neglect on child development. Specialized competencies have also been
developed on several topics such as adoption/foster care, working with adoles-
cents, sexual abuse, intake/assessment, interventions, substance abuse, and oth-
ers. Despite the comprehensiveness of this system, however, it is still somewhat
limited in addressing transfer of learning issues and does not include the most
recent research in child welfare.

Although the CCBIT system is widely used by states to prepare child welfare
workers, social work programs that train MSW students who plan to enter the
child welfare field have not previously adopted these materials. The use of these
materials by The Ohio State University’s College of Social Work may serve as a
model for other social work programs interested in using the Institute for Human
Services/CWLA materials.

In addition to standard MSW requirements, a four-course series covering the
core competencies (Child and Family Policy, Advanced Child Welfare Practice (I
and II), and an Integrative Seminar on Child Welfare) was required of trainees.
While the Field Guide to Child Welfare (Rycus & Hughes, 1998) provided a com-
petency-based foundation, course content was supplementedwith recent empir-
ical work in child welfare and a critical analysis of current trends in child welfare
services. In addition, the curriculum was integrated with the field practicum
component of theMSWprogram to ensure that students acquired the knowledge
and skills needed to move quickly into child welfare positions upon graduation.
The field practicum experience was supplemented with quarterly meetings
including students, faculty members, and field instructors to discuss issues relat-
ed to the integration of classroom and field learning. Through these efforts,
trainees in the programwere expected to increase their knowledge and skill com-
petencies for provision of child welfare services, begin to think critically about
current practices in child welfare, transfer their learning from the classroom to
applied settings, and obtain employment in child welfare after completing the
MSW program at OSU.

To ensure continued collaboration throughout the traineeship, an advisory
board was convened on a quarterly basis. The advisory board consisted of the
authors of the Field Guide to ChildWelfare (Rycus & Hughes, 1998), county child
welfare administrators, staff members from private child welfare advocacy
groups, and university faculty members. The Board met quarterly to review the
program’s activities and discuss possible modifications to the curriculum or field
experience.

Other components of the program included devising and implementing an
evaluation of the training and disseminating information about the program to
interested parties. The trainees were evaluated in terms of knowledge acquisition,
skill development, attitudes about the child welfare profession, critical thinking
skills, sensitivity to cultural diversity, and post-graduation child welfare employ-
ment. Skill development was evaluated primarily through the field evaluation
process and is not reported here. Likewise, critical thinking skills were evaluated
primarily through graded classroom assignments. Evaluation of the trainees’ sen-
sitivity to cultural diversity is reported elsewhere (Vonk & Curtis, under review).

Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE



86 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK

The remainder of this report focuses on the evaluation of knowledge acquisition,
child welfare attitudes, and child welfare employment one year after graduation.

METHODS

Design and Selection of Students

This study utilized a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test comparison group
design with a one-year follow-up. An additional follow-up interview with the
trainees was conducted in 2002 (three years after the program for the 1999 cohort
and two-years after the program for the 2000 cohort). The two groups used for ini-
tial pre-test-post-test comparison were second year MSW students selected for
the training program (n=14) and a group of second year MSW students not
involved in the training programwho volunteered to complete the outcome eval-
uation instruments (n=14).

All eligible MSW students received solicitation letters describing the child wel-
fare-training program. The solicitation included information about the compo-
nents of the training program and the expectation that trainees wouldwork in the
field of child welfare for one year upon completing the MSW degree. Interested
students were instructed to indicate ways in which the training programwould fit
with their future study and career plans. Students were then selected for the train-
ing group based on application letters reviewed by three faculty members
involved with implementing the training grant. As a result, in each of the two
years, seven second year MSW students were selected to receive competency
based child welfare training.

Comparison group participants also were recruited through letters circulated to
all eligible MSW participants. The recruitment letters contained information
about the time commitment necessary for the study and a monetary incentive
upon completing the questionnaires. In each of the two years, seven second-year
MSW students volunteered for the comparison group that received only the tra-
ditional second-yearMSWcurriculum.Thus, the 14 trainees were compared to 14
non-trainees.

Measures

Measurement of the students’ child welfare knowledge was based on the training
materials developed by the Institute for Human Services (IHS) and the Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA). Knowledge acquisition was measured using
the 81-item questionnaire that was developed for training purposes by the
authors of the Field Guide to Child Welfare (Rycus & Hughes, 1998). Specifically,
the comprehensive 81-item child welfare knowledge questionnaire is divided into
four sections that correspond to the organization of materials in the Field Guide:
(1) “Family-Centered Child Protective Services”; (2)“Case Planning and Family-
Centered Casework in Child Protective Services”; (3) “The Effects of Abuse and
Neglect on Child Development”; and (4) “Separation, Placement, and
Reunification.” A variety of questions were used to gauge student knowledge in
each of the aforementioned areas.

Participant attitudes and beliefs about child welfare practice were assessed
using a 20-item questionnaire developed by the first author. The attitude and



87Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE

belief scale was designed to assess student attitudes and beliefs, both about child
welfare as a career choice and about working with child welfare clients. A five-
point Likert scale was used to assess student attitudes and beliefs (1=strongly dis-
agree and 5=strongly agree). Sample items related to working with child welfare
clients include, “Sometimes the general interests of the family should supersede
the interests of the child” and “Child abuse is basically caused by lack of parent-
ing skills or flawed thinking in the abuser.” Sample items about child welfare as a
field of practice included “It is highly unlikely that I will be working in the field of
child welfare 10 years from now.” and “Sooner or later most child welfare workers
become disillusioned with their jobs.”

Information about the post-graduate field of employment was obtained with a
surveymailed exclusively to trainees one year following graduation from the pro-
gram. Graduates of the training programwere also contacted during the spring of
2002. In addition to questions about current employment, graduates reported
their perceptions of the relevance and satisfaction with the child welfare-training
program using the same Likert scale described previously.

Procedure

All training activities were offered during the second year of the MSW program.
The tests were administered to the trainees and students in the comparison
group at the beginning of training in the fall of 1998 and 1999 and at the end of
training in the spring of 1999 and 2000. Follow-up surveys were mailed to gradu-
ates of the child welfare training one-year following graduation in the spring of
2000 and 2001. Also, post-graduates of the training program were contacted via
the telephone in the spring of 2002.

Data were coded and entered into a database, and analyzed using SPSS 10.0.5.
In order to describe the data obtained from the group of trainees and contrast it
to the comparison group, univariate, bivariate, and multivariate statistics were
calculated. The rationale for using descriptive and inferential statistics was based
on uncovering statistically significant differences between the group of trainees
and the comparison group. In particular, it was hoped that those who participated
in the child welfare-training programwould display greater gains in knowledge of
and attitudes toward child welfare practice.

RESULTS

There were no significant demographic differences between the groups for age
(X2 (2)=9.44, p=.66), gender (X2 (1)=.297, p=.58), race (X2 (2)=2.62, p=.26), or years
of experience in child welfare (X2 (3)=3.39, p=.33). A substantial majority of stu-
dents involved in the study were Caucasian women. The majority of the students
were in their twenties, with an age distribution that ranged from 22 to 58 years.
With respect to years of experience in the childwelfare profession, 23 participants
reported no experience, while five reported having one to three years of experi-
ence.

Overall, descriptive data showed an increase in child welfare knowledge from
pre-test to post-test scores for the trainees and the comparison group using the
child welfare knowledge questionnaire. Specifically, the mean for the child wel-



88 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK88

fare training group increased from 53.42 correct answers at pre-test to 60.46 at
post-test. This is an overall increase from 66% to 75% on the 81-item welfare
knowledge acquisition questionnaire. An increase in the number of correct
answers also occurred in the comparison group from pre-test to post-test. The
comparison group mean increased from 49.87 at pre-test to 55.08 at post-test,
resulting in an overall increase from 62% to 68% on the 81-item questionnaire.
Despite the greater increase in knowledge scores among the trainees, independ-
ent t-tests uncovered no statistical significance from pre-test to post-test for
trainee or comparison groups on the 81-item questionnaire, t (26)=1.08, p=.28;
and t (26)=1.06, p=.29; respectively. In addition, when controlling for the pre-test,
the one-way Anova procedure uncovered no statistically significant difference
between the two groups on child welfare knowledge at post-test, F (1, 26)=1.12;
p=.30. The differences among mean scores did not produce a large enough effect
to be detected within the limits of the statistical power.

Although there was no statistically significant difference for either group from
pre-test to post-test on the knowledge component of the study, independent t-
tests did uncover a statistically significant difference between the trainees and the
comparison group concerning their attitudes towards the field of child welfare
practice. Students in the training group had more positive attitudes about the
profession of child welfare when compared to those students in the comparison
group at post-test. On the other hand, there was no statistically significant differ-

Characteristics n %

Gender
Female 24 85.7
Male 4 14.3

Age (years)
22-30 22 78.6
31-39 4 14.3
40-58 2 7.1

Race
White 21 75.0
African-American 5 17.9
Other 2 7.1

Years Experience
None 23 82.2
One Year 2 7.1
Two Years 2 7.1
Three Years 1 3.6

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Participants

Pre-test Post-test

Knowledge Acquisition Scale n mean SD mean SD

Training Group 14 53.42 8.53 60.46 6.63

Comparison Group 14 49.87 8.82 55.08 17.74

Table 2: Knowledge Acquisition Scale Scores for Second-Year MSW Students Before and
After Training



89

ence between the two groups on their attitudes towards child welfare clients at
post-test.

As expected, it was found that students in the training group were more likely
than their counterparts to actively seek positions in the field of child welfare at
graduation. In fact, all but one of the students in the training group, as compared
to only two of the students in the comparison group, reported the intention to
seek employment in child welfare.

At the one-year post-graduation follow-up, we were able to contact 11 of the 14
trainees, all of whom completed follow-up questionnaires. All but two were
employed in child welfare. At the two- or three-year follow-up, 12 of the 14
trainees were contacted by telephone. All but two of the 12 contacted reported
currently being employed in child welfare. Specifically, all those in the two-year
follow-up cohort were employed in child welfare; whereas, all but two in the
three-year follow-up cohort were employed in child welfare. For analysis purposes,
missing data were replaced by themean of the distribution; an acceptable proce-
dure when the replaced data do not exceed 15% for a particular case and/or vari-
able (George &Mallery, 2001).

One-year follow-up also revealed favorable outcomes regarding the training
participants’ attitudes about the field of child welfare practice and child welfare
clients. In fact, comparisons from post-test to one-year follow-up uncovered that
training participants had sustained a positive attitude in each area over the 12-
month time period. To the point, training group participants reported a minimal
decrease of only 0.74 regarding their attitudes toward child welfare practice and a
minimal decrease of only 0.70 regarding their attitudes toward child welfare
clients. Thus, the trainees maintained moderate to strong agreement with posi-
tive attitudes toward the child welfare profession and clients.

Post-test to one-year follow-up comparisons also revealed favorable outcomes
concerning trainee satisfaction and trainee perception of relevance of the train-
ing they received. Specifically, trainee satisfaction remained very high, with only
a minimal decrease of 0.35. More importantly, the relevance of programmatic
training to child welfare practice also remained very high, with a decrease of only
0.44. Favorable outcomes were also uncovered at the two- or three-year follow-
up. In fact, t-test for paired samples uncovered a statistically significant improve-
ment on mean scores from the one-year follow-up to the two- or three-year fol-
low-up concerning the overall relevance of programmatic training t (13)=2.37;
p<.05, and overall satisfaction of programmatic training t (13)=2.34; p<.05.

Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE

Measure CW Profession CW Clients

Training Group 3.08* 3.14

Comparison Group 1.72 3.07

Results of t-tests: *p<.01.

Table 3: Post-test Means for the Scales Measuring Attitudes About the ChildWelfare
Profession and Attitudes About ChildWelfare Clients by Training Group and
Comparison Group (N=28)



90 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK

At the post-test and follow-up interviews participants were also asked their
opinions about the Field Guide to Child Welfare. The respondents consistently
reported that the books were clearly written, easy to read, relevant, and useful.
The limitations mentioned by the participants focused on the cost of the four-
volume set (about $120) and the difficulties they experienced transferring the
information from the books to “real-life” situations.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study suggest that although child welfare trainees gained
knowledge about child welfare practice, they did not do so at a rate statistically
significantly greater than a group of students in the standard MSW program. The
trainees did, however, show amore positive attitude toward the field of child wel-
fare as a career than did the comparison group. Also, at one year and then again
at either two or three years post-graduation, a high percentage of the former
trainees were employed in child welfare with the intention of staying in the field
for at least five more years. In addition, they reported the perception that most
aspects of the training experience were satisfying and,more importantly, relevant
to their current work.

Before interpreting the results further, important limitations of this study
should be mentioned. First, the small sample size seriously limits the ability to
generalize the results. In addition, bias in the non-random sample selection lim-
its the ability to draw firm conclusions about the effects of the training interven-
tion. Obviously, students in the training group indicated high interest in the field
of child welfare prior to training. Just as importantly, students in the comparison
group were exposed to information about child welfare through other classes in
theMSW program, or in a few cases, by electing to participate in one of the class-
es required of the trainees. Finally, the instruments lack standardization. As such,
the nominal increase in knowledge and the lack of statistical differences between
the groups may be the result of learning stimulated by the administration of the
pre-test, the overlap of knowledge acquired fromotherMSW courses taken by the
comparison group, or insufficient statistical power to detect differences. In spite
of these limitations, the results suggest additional support for training social
workers to work in the field of child welfare.

Post-test One-year Two-year
Score Follow-up Follow-up

Measure M SD M SD M SD

Satisfaction with 2.92 2.01 2.57 1.73 3.50* .65
Training

Relevance of 2.85 1.95 2.41 1.58 3.71* .82
Training

Note: Comparisons between one-year follow-up and two-year follow-up
Results of t-tests: *p<.05

Table 4: Satisfaction and Relevance of Programmatic Training (N=12)



91

Related to concerns about the professional and educational preparation of
social workers for child welfare careers (Gleeson, et al., 1993; Lieberman, et al.,
1988; Hopkins, et al., 1999), these results appear to have provided both a reason
for hope and continued concern. First, related to the perceived need for more
professionally trained social workers in child welfare, these results suggest that
theTitle IV-E funding did support the professional education of 14 social workers,
the majority of whom were employed in the field of child welfare two to three
years after graduation. Similar to the findings of Robin and Hollister (2001), these
results were promising also in terms of the retention of child welfare workers
whose education was funded by Title IV-E money. All of those employed in child
welfare one year post-graduation reported the intention of staying there. The
interpretation of the results in light of the criticism that social work education has
not been relevant to the work of child welfare may also be seen in a positive light.
Most of those trained perceived the “training overall” to bemoderately to very rel-
evant to their work even after two or three years had elapsed.

In spite of these positive findings, the students’ modest gain in knowledge
about child welfare remains a concern, both in terms of curriculum planning and
researchmethodology. Although this study did not address curriculum, per se, we
have given thought to this concern and speculate that curriculum might be
strengthened in several ways. First, trainees might benefit from a curriculum that
could be tailored to the individual’s needs based on pre-training testing of knowl-
edge and skills. Many of the trainees began the program with work experience in
child welfare. As such, they entered the programwith varying levels of knowledge
about child welfare. Learning might be maximized by tailoring learning objec-
tives and related activities for each of the overall program goals according to the
needs of each student. For example, a student with a high baseline of knowledge
and skills in the area of adoptive placement may benefit from a greater focus on
other areas of child welfare such as child protective investigation.

Other curriculum changes might include those that focus on transfer of learn-
ing. For example, use of classroom time could place a greater emphasis on expe-
riential learning activities that require analysis and synthesis of information. In
addition, classroom instructors and field supervisors might collaborate to create
direct ties between field and classroom learning through the use of case-studies
and assignments that require integration of classroom knowledge and field expe-
rience.

Regarding future research on child welfare training effectiveness, while there is
accumulating evidence to support the effectiveness of training social workers for
the demands of child welfare work (Hopkins, et al., 1999; Robin & Hollister, 2001;
Rose, 1999), the studies, including this one, have all been exploratory in nature.
Furthermore, methodologically rigorous research is important in order to help
guide Title-IV-E appropriations and determine whether participants are ade-
quately trained to meet the needs of clients. Samples should be sufficiently large
that small effect sizes might be detected. Multi-site training projects such as one
currently in planning stages in the state of Ohio potentially would provide a large
group of trainees. Amulti-site programwould also provide the possibility of inter-
esting comparisons of the effects of various learning activities related to consis-

Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE



92 ADVANCES IN SOCIALWORK

tent goals among the sites. This would, of course, require careful operationaliza-
tion of the training interventions. Finally, future research must also include the
use of meaningful comparison groups. At the very least, the students in the com-
parison groups should not be exposed to coursework designed specifically for
trainees.

While this study found that a small cohort of Title-IV-E funded child welfare
trainees made modest gains in knowledge, maintained favorable attitudes about
the child welfare profession, and for the most part, remained employed in child
welfare for up to three years following training, it is clear that further evaluation
is needed. As others have observed (Gleeson, et al., 1993), the complexity of prob-
lems encountered by child welfare workers requires increasing levels of knowl-
edge and skills. Future child welfare professionalsmust be armedwith the knowl-
edge and skills needed to meet the demands of their jobs. Competency-based
child welfare training curriculums and educational collaborations must be
strengthened and rigorously tested to determine whether those who participate
in training are better able to deliver child welfare services.

References

Anderson D. (1994). Coping strategies and burnout among veteran child protection workers. Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of South Carolina.

Cicero-Reese, B., & Black, P. (1998). Research suggests why child welfare workers stay on the job.
Partnerships for ChildWelfare, 5(5), 8-9.

Curtis, P., & Boyd, J. (1996). 1995 salary study.Washington, D.C.: ChildWelfare League of America.

Daly, D., Dudley, D., Finnegan, D., & Christiansen, J. (2000). Staffing child welfare services in the new mil-
lennium. San Diego, CA: Network for Excellence.

George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS forWindows: A simple guide and reference. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gleeson, J.P., Smith, J.H., & Dubois, A.C. (1993). Developing child welfare practitioners: Avoiding the sin-
gle-solution seduction. Administration in SocialWork, 17(3), 21-37.

Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coor-
dination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401-
421.

Guterman, N., & Jayaratne, S. (1994). “Responsibility at-risk:” Perceptions of stress, control and profes-
sional effectiveness in childwelfare direct practitioners. Journal of Social Service Research, 20(1/2), 99-120.

Harrison, S. (1995). Exploration of factors related to intent to leave among child welfare caseworkers.
Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Hopkins, K.M., Mudrick, N.R., & Rudolph, C.S. (1999). Impact of university/agency partnerships in child
welfare on organizations, workers, and work activities. ChildWelfare, 78, 749-773.

Jones, L. (2002, February). Retaining Title IV-E graduates in child welfare: A follow-up study. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual ProgramMeeting of the Council on SocialWork Education, Nashville, TN.

Larner, M., Stevenson, C., & Behrman, R. (1998). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Analysis and
recommendations. The Future of Children, 8(1), 4-22.

Lieberman, A.A., Hornby, H., & Russell, M. (1988). Analyzing the educational backgrounds andwork expe-
riences of child welfare personnel: A national study. SocialWork, 33, 485-489.

Olsen, L., & Holmes, W. (1982). Educating child welfare workers: The effects of professional training on
service delivery. Journal of Education for SocialWork, 18, 94-102.

Pecora, P., Briar, K., & Zlotnik, J. (1989). Addressing the program and personnel crisis in child welfare. Silver
Springs, MD: NASW.



93

Robin, S.C., & Hollister, C.D. (2001). Career paths and contributions of four cohorts of IV-E funded MSW
child welfare graduates. Journal of Health and Social Policy.

Rose, S.J. (1999). Educating adult learners for child welfare practice: TheWisconsin experience with Title
IV-E. Journal of Teaching in SocialWork, 18(1/2), 169-183.

Rycraft, B. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of pubic child welfare workers.
SocialWork, 39, 75-80.

Rycus, J.S., & Hughes, R.C. (1998). Field guide to child welfare.Washington, D.C.: CWLA Press.

Vinokur-Kaplan, D., & Hartman, A. (1986). A national profile of child welfare workers and supervisors.
ChildWelfare, 65, 323-335.

Vonk,M.E., &Curtis, C.C. (under review). Pilot test of a learning experience designed to engage social work
students in the development of racial awareness.

Zlotnik, J.L., & Cornelius, L.J., (2000). Preparing social work students for child welfare careers: The use of
Title IV-E training funds in social work education. The Journal of Baccalaureate SocialWork, 5(2), 1-13.

Author’s Note:

Address correspondence to: M. Elizabeth Vonk, MSW, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social Work,
University of Georgia, Tucker Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA. E-mail: bvonk@uga.edu

Vonk et al./AN OUTCOME EVALUATION OF COMPETENCY BASED TRAINING FOR CHILDWELFARE