Julie R. Brown Director, Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for Professional Development (MCWPPD)

1. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Training for resultsAn instructional model for developing basic safety intervention skill in new child welfare staff Julie R. Brown Director, Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for Professional Development (MCWPPD) Helen Bader School of Social Welfare University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2. Milwaukee Child Welfare Partnership for Professional Development (MCWPPD) • Serves 500+ staff of Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare (BMCW) and 800+ licensed foster families • Largest university-based partnership in WI • BMCW is state agency in otherwise county-based state • Public/private partnership • CPS=public • Ongoing services=contracted private agencies

3. Safety Intervention Training Academy

4. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Why a new approach? • Response to weaknesses of “survey” model • Overview of many important topics; limited skill building • Limited focus on learning (vs. “covering” content) • Risks clouding job purpose in litany of concepts, tasks, activities • Low information retention • Leap to on-the-job application too great

5. Vision for Academy model

6. Academy structure

7. Learning Phases: Layers of increasingly complex application

8. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Key roles and relationships • UW-MCWPPD staff • Collaborate with agency leadership • Design, plan, manage, instruct • Develop Training Supervisors as performance coaches • Agency partners • Training supervisors • Lead field application, coaching, mentoring • Agency leadership • Collaborate, advise on process • Give feedback on results

9. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Skill Evaluation • End-of-phase evaluations • test skills taught and practiced –nothing new at evaluation! • Evaluation panels score performance • Consistent evaluation rubrics • UW-M, Training Supervisor and agency leadership representative • Pass/no pass (70% cut off)

10. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Skill evaluation as learning strategy • Designed to mirror performance required on-the-job • Provide performance feedback critical to building confidence • For example…response to “no pass” • Participant self-assessment guided by panel • Customized re-teaching/re-evaluation plan

11. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Outcome and process measures

12. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Outcome measures • Competence in safety intervention • End-of-phase evaluations • 6-month and 12-month post-graduation re-evaluations • Ongoing feedback from participants and leadership • Emotional adjustment/lack of burnout • Maslach Burnout Inventory (3-, 6- and 12-month administrations)

13. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Process measures • Ongoing monitoring and refinement of instructional processes • Participant feedback • “Formal” collections at 6- and 12-months post-graduation; Informal collections ongoing • Ongoing collaboration with leadership

14. Participant profiles Graduates to date • 289 2 or fewer years of experience • 60% Gender • 88% female Age • 56%--27 years old or younger • 24%--27 to 33 years old • 24% BSW • 24% MSW • 43% BA/BS in allied field Education

15. Significant and suggestive results

16. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Passing rate at each phase--significant One-sample binomial test; sign<.05

17. Significant differences in mean scores between evaluation periods Related-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Sign level <.05

18. Hypothesis • Drop off between Phase 4 and 6 month follow-up suggests weak, sporadic or inconsistent reinforcement on-the-job • Led to renewed emphasis on developing supervisory skill • Initial grasp of safety intervention concepts significant to subsequent application • Initial application to “real” case significant to subsequent application on-the-job

19. No significant relationships between scores at any phase and…

20. Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) • Used to identify emotional adaptation to the job • Potential for burnout precursor to turnover (McMurtry, et al.) • Subscales measure… • Emotional exhaustion (EE) • Depersonalization (DP) • Personal Accomplishment (PA) • 3-, 6- and 12 month administrations

21. MBI results: Initial comparisons to national social service scores One-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test; sign<.05

22. Caveats • Diminishing sample sizes over administrations significantly tempers conclusions • Sample sizes reflect • Staff turnover • Logistical complications—now mostly solved

23. Further questions… • Adjustment to full case load may account for sharp increases in EE and DP between 3 and 6 months • Is leveling off/decrease at 12 months a significant change? • Significant differences between local findings and national norms • Workforce related? Training related? Organizational culture related? • Stable PA scores • Work demands “externalized” such that confidence and self-efficacy are maintained?

24. 6- and 12-month participant feedback

25. More 6- and 12-month feedback

26. Continuous improvement processes

27. Other lessons learned…. • Relationships with agency leadership are critical for launching and sustaining model • Trust and transparency help manage mutual vulnerability • Role clarity helps to…and is always a work in progress! • Integration of field practice requires specific structure and oversight

28. Helen Bader School of Social Welfare Contact Information: • Julie R. Brown • jrbrown @uwm.edu • (414) 964-7412