1
PCWCP
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS
Kevin W. Borders, MSSW, PhD
Anita P. Barbee, MSSW, PhD
Tara L. Korfhage, M.Ed.
December, 2007
Summary of Major Findings (p. 1)
PCWCP Retention
(pp. 2)
Six Month Data Analysis
(pp. 2-10)
Two Year Data Analysis
(pp. 10-13)
Other data and qualitative responses (pp. 13-15)
Overall program satisfaction and feelings of preparedness by PCWCP graduates remain high,
while retention rates exceed the national average.
Retention for the PCWCP program is extremely good through the second year of employment.
Over the past 10 years the percent of graduates remain with the Cabinet after 2 years of employment
ranges between 86% and 88%.
31% of respondent are pursuing or have completed a Masters degree (97% in social work).
Workers from rural areas feel more prepared than those from urban areas. The areas that
accounted for the difference was relationship skills and court skills. Rural graduates felt more
competent than urban graduates in both areas.
Data continues to indicate a need for additional training in legal documents and court
proceedings. This need is indicated by both PCWCP graduates and supervisors.
o Respondents in both urban and rural placements ranked highest the skills of: (1) Remaining
respectful during the referral process. (2) Identifying dynamics and indicators of abuse and
neglect. And, (3) working with superiors.
o Supervisors ranked highest graduates’ skills of: (1) Attitude towards social work (2)
remaining respectful during the referral process. And, (3) demonstrating knowledge of time
frames for investigation.
o Respondents in both urban and rural placements ranked lowest the skills of: (1)
Demonstrating knowledge of the law and the use of legal documents. (2) Demonstrating an
ability to close a case. And, (3) demonstrating knowledge of the particular strategies to use
when investigating a child sex abuse case.
o Supervisors ranked lowest graduate ability to (1) Dealing with resistant clients, (2)
demonstrating knowledge of the law and the use of legal documents. And, (3) demonstrating
knowledge of particular strategies to use when investigating a child sex abuse case.
o Both workers and supervisors rated the program positively and there continues to be no
significant change in satisfaction of the PCWCP program over time (comparison of
cohorts).
o There continues to be a significant decline in feelings of job preparedness upon graduation
between 6 month and 2 year surveys. The researchers speculate that this may be due to a
gradual recognition of the complexities of the job over time.
Job stress, job satisfaction, thinking of changing to another type of work, number of days
absent from work and quality of relationships with co-workers and supervisors are strong
predictors of commitment to the cabinet for 1,3 and 5 years
Qualitative results noted the need for better field experiences during their BSW program to better
prepare them for the job, more focus on time and stress management and self care as well as
more understanding of all parts of the job including work with juveniles, foster care, adoption.
2
PCWCP PROGRAM RETENTION
According to our data, as of August 2007 there have been 481 graduates of the PCWCP program.
Three hundred and sixty of those graduates have been out 2 years or more. Of those graduates, 91
are no longer working for the Cabinet.
o The retention rate for PCWCP graduates 2 years from the hire date is 86%. Over the 10
years of the program, the retention rate at 2 years has ranged from 86-88%. Thus, this
effect is quite robust across all of the years of the program.
o The retention rate across 9 years of calculable data is 75%. An analysis of 8 years of
data calculated in May of 2006 found that the major drop came at the 4 year mark.
PCWCP SIX MONTH DATA ANALYSIS
As of November, 2007, there have been 433 graduates of the PCWCP program who have been
placed in employment and out long enough for the 6-month post-employment interview.
There were 84 supervisors who completed the supervisor survey, and 199 workers who completed
the six month survey for a 46% return rate.
WORKER PERCEIVED PREPAREDNESS
The PCWCP graduates at six months rated themselves highly on job preparedness, which was
measured by a mean score across all of the items related to specific job duties. Their overall mean
score was 97.31 (range 25-125) or 3.89 on a 5 point scale. This was based on their scores on 25 job
duties rated on a 5-point scale. This mean is larger than the mean last report in May, 2006 (M =
93.27), indicating an improvement in program preparation of graduates over the last few years. See
Table 1 for means of each sub-scale.
Table 1: 2007 Worker Job Preparedness Rating (2006 means are in parenthesis)
Sub-Scale
Number Range
Overall Mean
Overall Mean /
of Items
# of Items
Attitude &
8
16-40
32.04 (31.64)
4.01 (3.96)
Relationship Skills
I&I / Assessment
13
27-65
51.85 (49.49)
3.98 (3.81)
Case Planning
1
1-5
3.47 (3.44)
3.47 (3.44)
Court Proceedings
2
2-10
6.48 (6.41)
3.24 (3.25)
Case Closure
1
1-5
3.34 (3.37)
3.34 (3.37)
Confidence in court proceedings still ranks lowest among PCWCP graduates (3.24) as it did in
2006 (3.25).
Tasks that PCWCP graduates felt most prepared to accomplish are listed in Table 2 and are
ranked highest to lowest. Rankings for the top two are the same as in 2006.
3
Table 2: Tasks Workers Felt Most Prepared to Perform
Task
Rank Range
1-5
Remaining Respectful during the referral 1
process
2
2-5
Identifying dynamics and indicators of
abuse and neglect
3
2-5
Working with superiors
Mean
4.51
4.48
4.33
Tasks that PCWCP graduates felt least prepared to accomplish are listed in Table 3 and are
ranked from lowest to highest. These have remained the same from 2006 and demonstrate an
ongoing request for PCWCP graduates to have more training in court and procedural
documentation.
Table 3: Tasks Workers Felt Least Prepared to Perform
Task
Rank
Range
1
1-5
Demonstrate knowledge of the law
and the use of legal documents
2
1-5
Demonstrating ability to close a case
3
1-5
Demonstrating knowledge of the
particular strategies to use when
investigating a child sex abuse case
Mean
3.00
3.34
3.38
URBAN AND RURAL WORKER PERCEIVED PREPAREDNESS
Unlike 2006, in 2007 there was a significant difference between PCWCP graduates’ overall
preparedness scores and whether they were located in an urban or rural area (see Figure 1). In
2006 there was a strong trend (p = .09) indicating some minor difference between ratings of
worker preparedness by rural and urban workers. In 2007 the differences were more
pronounced (p =.014). Rural workers rated preparedness the highest at 99.04 (SD= 13.40, Range
56-125), while urban workers rated preparedness at 93.06 (SD= 18.77, Range 54-125).
Figure 1: Differences in Overall Ratings of Preparedness by Urban and Rural Workers
Preparededness Ratings by Urban & Rural Workers
99.04*
100
98
94.76
96
94
93.06*
90.82
92
2006
90
2007
88
86
Urban Workers
Rural Workers
*(P=.014)
4
Both urban and rural PCWCP graduates felt equally prepared except for Attitude and
Relationship Skills, and Court Proceedings (Table 4 Below). Those in rural placements reported
feeling significantly more prepared with Attitude and Relationship Skills, (Mean=32.84,
N=116) than did those graduates in urban placements (Mean = 30.50, N=60, p= .002). Similar
results were found for Court Proceedings: Rural (Mean = 3.36, N =122), Urban (Mean = 3.00, N
= 66, p = .025)
Table 4: 2007 Urban and Rural Worker Perceived Preparedness Subscale Ratings
Overall Mean /
Urban/Rural N
Mean
# Items SD
P value
Attitude &
Relationship Skills
Rural
Urban
I&I / Assessment
Rural
Urban
Case Planning
Rural
Urban
Court Proceedings
Rural
Urban
Case Closure
Rural
Urban
*Statistically Significant
116
60
104
53
116
67
122
66
119
67
32.84
30.50
52.68
50.30
3.48
3.46
6.71
6.00
3.43
3.18
4.11
3.82
4.05
3.87
3.48
3.46
3.36
3.00
3.43
3.18
4.791
4.276
7.091
8.350
1.042
1.259
1.969
2.226
1.086
1.154
0.002*
0.063
0.91
0.025*
0.143
SUPERVISOR PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS
Supervisors rated workers highly on job preparedness, with an average of 103.97, n= 84,
(100.86 in 2006). This score was based on a 26-item 5-point scale of job duties (the extra item
asks about the worker’s attitude toward social work). The maximum possible score was 130.
These findings are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: 2007 Supervisor Job Preparedness Ratings (2006 means are in parenthesis)
Number of Range
Overall Mean Overall Mean /
Sub-Scale
Items
# of Items
Attitude &
9
21-45 36.61 (35.85)
4.07 (3.98)
Relationship Skills
I&I/Assessment
13
28-65 51.76 (50.15)
3.98 (3.88)
Case Planning
1
2-5
3.96 (3.83)
3.96 (3.83)
Court
2
3-10
7.51 (7.25)
3.75 (3.63)
Case Closure
1
1-5
3.90 (3.78)
3.90 (3.78)
Tasks that PCWCP supervisors felt graduates were most prepared to accomplish are listed in
Table 6 and are ranked highest to lowest. There was agreement between supervisors and
graduates on one of the top skills learned.
5
Table 6: Tasks Supervisors Felt Workers Were Most Prepared to Perform
Task
Rank
Range
Mean
1
3-5
4.35
Attitude towards SW
2-5
4.33
Remaining respectful during the 2
referral process
3
2-5
4.23
Demonstrating knowledge of
time frames for investigation
Tasks that PCWCP supervisors felt graduates were least prepared to accomplish are listed in
Table 7 and are ranked from lowest to highest. Supervisors and graduates agreed upon the third
task which is taught extensively in the third Academy training course after employment.
Table 7: Tasks Supervisors Felt Workers Were Least Prepared to Perform
Task
Rank
Range
Mean
1
1-5
3.65
Dealing with resistant clients
2
1-5
3.63
Demonstrate knowledge of the law
and the use of legal documents
3
2-5
3.61
Demonstrating knowledge of the
particular strategies to use when
investigating a child sex abuse case
SUPERVISOR PERCEIVED PREPAREDNESS FOR URBAN AND RURAL WORKERS
There were no significant differences in ratings of supervisor preparedness between urban and
rural areas (Figure 2, below). The mean supervisor rating of preparedness for urban was 101.3
(SD=14.87, Range 66-130), while the mean score for rural was 110.09 (SD=12.7, Range 88130).
Figure 2: Supervisor Overall Ratings of Worker Preparedness by Urban and Rural
110.09
120
101.3
93.59
91.59
100
80
2006
60
2007
40
20
0
Urban Workers
Rural Workers
6
Rural and urban supervisors scored their workers differently on each of the subscales, with the
Attitude & Relationship Skills Subscale, and the Case Planning subscale showing statistical
significance.
Table 8: 2007 Supervisor Worker Preparedness Subscale Ratings by Urban & Rural
Overall Mean /
Urban/Rural N
Mean
# Items SD
P value
Attitude &
Relationship Skills
Rural
Urban
I&I / Assessment
Rural
Urban
Case Planning
Rural
Urban
Court Proceedings
Rural
Urban
Case Closure
Rural
Urban
*Statistically Significant
51
18
36
16
46
20
55
21
39
20
35.75
38.89
50.72
53.69
3.76
4.35
7.35
7.86
3.74
3.97
4.32
3.90
4.28
3.76
4.35
3.68
3.93
3.74
4.15
5.49
4.28
7.87
7.25
.85
.81
1.57
1.20
.94
.75
.031*
.21
.011*
.18
.098
SUPERVISOR/WORKER PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Supervisors and workers answered a series of questions (based on a 5-point scale) asking them
to recommend PCWCP. Overall, they rated the program highly and recommended that it
continue. See Table 8 for their mean responses. 2006 numbers are listed below in italics.
Table 8: Program Recommendation Items Mean Responses (Range: 1-5)
Question
Supervisor’s
Number of
Worker’s
Mean Response
Respondents Mean Response
(Standard
(Standard
Deviation)
Deviation)
To what extent to you
4.67 (.671)
81
4.36 (.932)
recommend the program
continue?
4.67 (.676)
69
4.39 (.892)
How likely will you be to
4.73 (.656)
80
4.23 (1.04)
recommend the program to
other students?
4.69 (.697)
70
4.26 (1.03)
To what extent do you
4.69 (.645)
81
4.58 (.714)
recommend supervisors to
hire graduates of the
4.66 (.679)
70
4.59 (.710)
program?
Overall how well did the
Not asked of
N/A
4.08 (.975)
program prepare you for
supervisors
work?
4.08 (.904)
Number of
Respondents
193
166
197
170
197
170
195
168
7
SUPERVISOR/WORKER RECOMMENDATIONS by URBAN & RURAL REGIONS
In 2007, there was no significant difference in worker recommendations between urban and
rural areas (based on a 5-point scale).
Table 9 Worker Recommendations by Urban \Rural Areas (Range 1-5)
Question
Rural
Number of
Urban
Number of
Worker’s Respondents Worker’s Respondents
Mean
Mean
Response
Response
To what extent to you
4.38
121
4.34
68
recommend the program
continue?
How likely will you be to
4.28
125
4.14
68
recommend the program
to other students?
To what extent do you
4.57
125
4.60
68
recommend supervisors to
hire graduates of the
program?
Overall how well did the
4.14
124
3.95
67
program prepare you for
work?
Table 10 Supervisor Recommendations by Urban \Rural Areas (Range 1-5)
Question
Rural
Number of
Urban
Number of
Supervisor’s
Respondents Supervisor’s
Respondents
Mean
Mean
Response
Response
To what extent to you
4.66
56
4.70
23
recommend the program
continue?
How likely will you be to
4.68
56
4.86
22
recommend the program
to other students?
To what extent do you
4.65
57
4.82
22
recommend supervisors to
hire graduates of the
program?
The 2006 analysis noted that there was a strong trend in difference between scores of urban and
rural supervisors as to whether the program overall prepared workers for the demands of the job.
N (128) = 2.82, p=.09. In 2007, the trend is not present. What is notable, however, is that Urban
Supervisors had higher mean scores on the recommendation questions than Rural Supervisors.
8
WORKER RECOMMENDATION OF PCWCP PROGRAM OVER TIME (BY YEAR)
There is no significant difference in worker recommendation that the program continue by year
(See Figure 3).
Figure 3 Worker Recommendation of PCWCP Program by Year
1998
5.00
4.50
1999
2000
4.53
4.80
2001
2002
2003
4.75
4.36
2004
4.41
4.11 4.10
4.00
3.50
3.00
Mean 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Year
2005
4.42
4.45
2006
9
SUPERVISOR RECOMMENDATION OF PCWCP PROGRAM OVER TIME (BY YEAR)
There is no significant difference in supervisor recommendation that the program continue by
year (See Figure 4).
Figure 4 Supervisor Recommendation about PCWCP Program by Year
1998
1999
4.78
5.00
2000
4.86
2001
2002
2003
2005
2006
5.00
4.78 4.67
4.50
4.57
3.86
4.00
3.50
3.00
Mean 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Year
4.75
10
WORKER RATINGS OF PREPAREDNESS OVER TIME (BY YEAR)
There is no significant difference in worker ratings of overall preparedness between years (See
Figure 5).
Figure 5 Worker Ratings of Overall Preparedness by Year
1998
1999
110.00
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
102.81 104.25 101.22
94.17 95.44 98.05 95.23
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
Mean
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Year
2005
2006
100.25
90.78
11
SUPERVISOR RATINGS OF PREPAREDNESS OVER TIME (BY YEAR)
There is no significant difference in supervisor ratings of overall preparedness between years (See
Figure 6).
Figure 6 Supervisor Ratings of Overall Preparedness by Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2005
116.17
115.50
120.00
110.00
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
Mean 60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
105.50
2006
100.91
101.00
107.33
94.00 95.00
Year
PCWCP 2 YEAR DATA ANALYSIS
PARTICPANTS
As of the date of this report, there were 131 workers who completed the two year survey out of
a possible 360 for a 36% response rate.
31% of all PCWCP graduates who responded are presently pursuing or have completed a Masters
degree. Of those who have completed or are presently pursuing a graduate degree, 97% of the degrees
are in Social Work and 3% are in Public Administration. The average time between being hired by
the Cabinet and beginning a Master degree is 1.2 years.
12
PCWCP RATINGS OVER TIME
Table 11: Program Recommendation Items (Range: 1-5)
Question
Worker’s
Number of
Mean Response Respondents
At 6 months
(Standard
Deviation)
To what extend to you
4.36 (.932)
192
recommend the program
continue?
How likely will you be
4.22 (1.04)
196
to recommend the
program to other
students?
To what extent do you
4.58 (.714)
196
recommend supervisors
to hire graduates of the
program?
Overall how well did the 4.07 (.975)
194
program prepare you for
work?
Worker’s Mean
Response at 2
years
(Standard
Deviation)
4.39 (.905)
101
4.21 (.993)
101
4.55 (.755)
101
3.88 (.888)
100
Number of
Respondents
Overall, PCWCP graduates at both time 1 (6 months post employment) and time 2 (2 years post
employment) felt that the program prepared students well. Table 12 presents these results.
Table 12: PCWCP Graduate Level of Preparedness
Number of Items Range
Overall Mean
Overall
Mean /#
items
3
7-15
14.08
4.69
Supervisors
4
8-20
17.28
4.32
Graduates at 6
months
8-20
17.02
4.25
Graduates at 2 years 4
Paired t-tests were run to determine if there were any differences in the ratings of PCWCP between
the 6 month and the 2 year study.
As in 2006 there were significant differences in how PCWCP graduates from the 6-month to
the 2 year mark scored for the question “Overall, how well do you think the PCWCP
program prepared you for the position.” There was a decrease of the mean score from 4.21
to 3.85, t (3.61), p < .01. This may be due to the worker recognition of the complexity of the
job over time.
13
Unlike for years 2005 and 2006, only the question “How likely will you be to recommend to
other students to participate in the PCWCP program?” was statistically significant (p <.031).
The mean score for graduates at 6-months was 4.43, while at 2-years the mean score was
4.20 (t=2.19).
There was no significant difference between cohorts on two year ratings of the PCWCP
program.
Other variables gathered at Year 2
Certain variables are routinely measures at the 2 year mark.
The mean for overall job satisfaction is 3.60 (SD =1.25, N = 199), the mean number of
absent days over last 3 months was 2.16 (SD = 2.48, N = 199), with a range of 0-14.
When asked if the PCWCP graduates would choose the same work if they could start
working life over? Fifty percent responded yes, 17% responded no and 32% were unsure.
When asked if they ever think of changing to another type of work? Sixty eight percent
responded yes, 25% responded no and 7% responded that they were unsure.
When asked the likelihood of still working for CHFS in 1 year, 28% were somewhat likely
to believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next year and 47% were very likely to
believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next year for a total of 75% intending to stay
on the job.
When asked the likelihood of still working for CHFS in 3 years, 27% were somewhat likely
to believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next three years and 25% were very likely
to believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next three years for a total of 52%
intending to stay on the job.
This is quite a drop from the intent to stay another year. This finding reflects the actual drop
off rate of employment which reduces significantly at the 4 year mark.
Finally, when asked the likelihood of still working for CHFS in 5 years, 26% were
somewhat likely to believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next five years and 19%
were very likely to believe they would still be at the Cabinet in the next five years for a total
of 45% intending to stay on the job that long.
Other variables were measured including life stress, job stress, perceived supervisory support,
perceived co-worker support, and the big five personality traits of extraversion, conscientiousness,
agreeableness, emotional stability and openness to experience.
In order to understand more clearly what predicts intent to stay on the job and other relationships,
correlations between variables were conducted.
14
Relationship between Job Stress (as measured by the Cohen Stress Scale) and Other Variables
There was a significant positive relationship between job stress and life stress, r (130) =
.447, p < .0001. and a negative relationship between job stress and life satisfaction, r (130) =
-.246, p < .005, the more job stress workers experience, the more life stress they experience
and the less life satisfaction they experience.
There was a significant negative correlation between job stress and job satisfaction, r (129)
= -.439, p < .0001. The more stress they experienced the less job satisfaction they felt.
There was a significant negative correlation between job stress and remaining in the job for
one years, r (131) = -.179, p <.04.
There was a significant negative correlation between job stress and remaining in the job for
three years, r (131) = -.291, p <.001.
There was a significant negative correlation between work stress and remaining in the job
for five years, r (131) = -.318, p < .0001. The more stress they experienced the less likely
they intended to stay with the agency for one, three or five years more.
COMMITMENT TO THE CABINET
Likelihood of remaining with the Cabinet for 1 year or more was correlated with:
o Job satisfaction, r(129) = .358, p < .0001
o Number of days absent during the past 3 months, r(129) = -.259, p < .003
o Think of changing to another type of work, r(131) = .25, p < .004
o Job stress, r(131)=-.179, p <.04
o Support from co-workers in the form of attachment, r(126)=.28, p<.002
o Support from supervisors in the form of reasonable worth, r(126)= .199, p<.03
Likelihood of remaining with the Cabinet for 3 years or more was correlated with:
o Job satisfaction, r(128) = .466, p < .0001
o Number of days absent during the past 3 months, r(128) = -.343, p < .0001
o Job stress, r(131)=-.291, p<.01
o Support from supervisors in the form of attachment, r(77) = .239, p < .04 and
reasonable worth, r(125)= .288, p<.001
Likelihood of remaining with the Cabinet for 5 years or more was correlated with:
o Job satisfaction, r(129) = .41, p < .0001
o Number of days absent during the past 3 months, r(129) = -.267, p < .002
o Job stress, r(131)=-.318, p<.001
o Attachment of supervisor, r(78) = .278, p < .01
o Social Support from supervisor in form of attachment, r(78) = .278, p < .01, social
interaction, r(77) = .281, p < .01, reasonable worth, r(77) = .272, p < .02, reliance,
r(77) = .21, p < .06 and guidance, r(77) = .329, p < .003.
Thus, workers who were more satisfied with their job, less absent from work, less stressed and
who received more co-worker and supervisory social support were more likely to intend to stay
on the job for the next year, three years and five years. Supervisory support across all domains
was particularly important for intending to stay for 5 years.
15
There was a significant positive relationship between commitment to the Cabinet (likelihood
of remaining for 1, 3 and 5 years) and recommending that other students participate in
PCWCP: 1 year: r(83) = .281, p < .01; 3 years: r (82) = .323, p <.003; 5 years: r (83) = .360,
p <.001.
Social Support
There was a significant negative correlation between social support in the form of
attachment with co-workers and job satisfaction, r (124) = -.182, p < .04. More attached to
co-workers, less satisfied with the job.
There were significant correlations between social support with supervisor in terms of
attachment, r(58) = .277, p < .04, social interaction, r(57) = .292, p < .03, reasonable worth,
r(57) = .327, p < .01 and guidance, r(58) = .285, p < .03 and recommending the program to
others,.
QUALITATIVE RESPONSES
Themes for improvement of the PCWCP program:
1) More on court and legal issues (substantiated by the quantitative data)
2) Better use of field practicum time
a. More actual experience writing a CQA and Case Plan
b. More actual experience working on TWIST
c. More time on each aspect of the job, not just one part (i.e., intake, investigations,
ongoing).
3) Focus on time and stress management, self care to prevent burnout, and preparation for this
VERY stressful job
4) More understanding of all parts of the job including working with juveniles, APS, Foster
Care, Adoption, R&C
After the program:
1) Would like a certificate that indicates the PCWCP certification
2) Need improvements in the hiring process
3) Need more support from supervisors and management
4) Would like to help screen future students because selection is so important