7^th Annual Title IV-E Child Welfare Roundtable

The 7th Annual Texas Title IV-E Roundtable, sponsored by Southwest Texas State University Center for Children and Families and the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, was held June 5-6, 2003 at T Bar M Conference Center in New Braunfels, Texas. This year we had representatives from twenty-four child welfare agencies, twenty-two universities, and seven states.

Dr. Billy Covington, Associate VP of Research and Director of Federal Relations from the SWT Office of Sponsored Programs welcomed the group Thursday morning. Dr. Dorinda Noble, the new Director of SWT School of Social Work introduced the speakers, Alan Dettlaff, from Texas Christian University and Dr. Joan Rycraft, of University of Texas Arlington. Their presentation was titled “Enhancing Field Supervision in Child Welfare”. Universities, who are looking for a new way to enhance field supervision, are encouraged to contact them for further information. Following the presentation there was a brief update on “What's New” presented by the federal representatives, Joe Woodard and Pat Newlin, and then from the state representatives, Tamela Griffin and Norton Tish.

After lunch, the attendees spent the remainder of the conference in focus groups. They were able to join two of the four groups: Field, Curriculum, Evaluation, and Employment and Retention. On Friday, Audrey Deckinga from TDPRS and Karen Brown from SWT, facilitated a discussion of recommendations for next year. The overall recommendations of the group and the summaries of the focus groups follow.

Dr. Karen Brown and Dr. Nancy Chavkin, Co-directors of the Center for Children and Families would like to thank everyone who attended. Next year, the Roundtable will be held on June 10-11, 2004 at the T Bar M Conference Center. We look forward to seeing you there. If you have a specific suggestion for a speaker, want to convene a panel, or give a brief presentation, please contact Nancy Chavkin at NC02@txstate.edu. If you would like to be included in a focus group, please email the co-chairs for next year's groups; their emails are at the end of this summary. Most importantly, mark your calendars now to attend the 8th Annual Title IV-E Roundtable.

I. Students working to avoid job offer (some stipend recipients try to find ways to avoid getting a job.)

§ Contract needs to be more direct and upfront and clearly state the expectations of the university and CPS (i.e., only offer stipend if student can relocate anywhere), hold students accountable, and allow flexibility on the contract for a student who has extenuating circumstances.

§ Emphasize the ethics of adequate performance by having students sign a statement about being professional and adhering to the profession's values and ethics (honesty, integrity, etc.)

§ Use evaluation process more effectively by using corrective action plans to deal with specific behaviors and using the grading process to reflect the student's performance.

§ Acknowledge that the real focus is to educate the student as a social worker.

II. Coordination between Human Resources and the University on criminal background checks, new employee orientation and screening. Timing is an issue and we recommend that many of the processes begin in field.

§ Provide students with the opportunity to disclose potential criminal problems early in the application process. Possibly begin the application process a semester earlier to allow sufficient time to process criminal checks.

§ Recommend students have a chance to defend the report and correct it if there are any discrepancies.

§ Consider allowing students to sign IV-E contracts pending return of the criminal check.

§ Run criminal checks twice - at the beginning and at the end of the field process.

§ ‘Hits' on criminal history do not automatically mean the student is unsuitable for social work.

III. Collect field models from various Universities – surveys were returned from nine MSW programs and twelve BSW programs.

IV. Need to focus on the learning needs of those students who have CPS work experience and are returning to school. Their learning needs are different than less experienced students. (Adult learning models compared to other learning models.)

§ Possibly allow students to test out of certain coursework (e.g. If completed in past seven years).

§ Acknowledge that they have worked and possibly do something different with these students. Allow the experienced students to share their experiences with those who have not worked for CPS, give different assignments, allow them to lead discussion groups, teach modules in macro courses, etc.

V. “Passing field” – If an intern is not acceptable for employment is she/he automatically ineligible to pass field? If not, under what circumstances would he/she be ineligible?

§ Depends on whether there are severe mental health or other issues that preclude the student from practicing social work in a satisfactory manner.

§ Institutions need to deal with the behavior.

§ CPS may not be a fit for the student, but the student may be able to work in some other placement.

§ If the agency will not hire, but students have done all assignments (writing good, etc.) then they may pass field.

§ If demonstrate basic skills (engagement, assessment) most likely will leave in placement and pass from BSW.

§ Some students may have a need to repeat field.

§ Best to decide these issues on a case-by-case basis and thoroughly assess the situation.

§ Bad grades in field – sometimes does not stand up on grade appeal.

Those who attended this focus group were given a report created by the Curriculum committee. It contains detailed information on eight Texas universities concerning the issue of how well prepared the BSW/MSW students in the IV-E stipend program are for employment in Child Protective Services. The report includes: educational approaches, student strengths and weaknesses, issues for future discussions and syllabi from three universities.

Several issues mentioned in the report were brought up in the discussions. The first group talked about issues related to infusion and integration and the second group dealt with strengths and weaknesses and wanting additional information.Several of the issues brought up between both groups were writing skills, other skills appropriate for universities and PRS, improving the transition from student to professional employee, and agency survival skills.

The recommendations were:

Evaluation Focus Group

The group then discussed what the next steps are:

Employment and Retention Focus Group

§ An application process for the students.

The committee plans to continue to focus on the issue of retention. Their next steps include committee membership and leadership.

Evaluation:

Field Committee:

Curriculum: