A service of the Children’s Bureau, member of the T/TA Network
Peer Training Network
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement
Responses to Washington State’s Request for Information on Training Content Advisory Committees and Groups
07/10/2012
Request:
Greetings Peer Training Network Members!
Your colleagues in Washington State have requested information regarding training content advisory committees/groups.
Theresa writes:
Washington Statewould like to know what other child welfare training systems around the countryhave in place as your training content advisory committee/group. What is their charge and how do they operate?It would be useful to have a description of your committee/group, charter or other materials that created your committee/ group.
Responses may be e-mailed to my attention. I will the forward them on to the appropriate individuals. Thank you for your time and attention.
Responses:
1. Kelley Gruber, Ohio -
Hi, this is Kelley Gruber with IHS, the state coordinator for the Ohio Child Welfare Training Program (OCWTP). Some of our state contract deliverables are to write curriculum. These standardized trainings do not go through a group review, but are piloted, revised based on participant feedback, then reviewed and approved by the state.
The OCWTP also has a menu of several hundred non-standardized trainings that have been reviewed through a group process working through our Trainer Development Work Team. The work team is led by IHS staff and has representatives from the 8 Regional Training Centers (RTCs) - which are housed in county children services agencies.
This is the current process:
When RTCs want to offer a new training, they approach a trainer with identified competencies. The trainer develops an outline around the competencies and submits it to the RTC. The RTC does a first review, completing a checklist(see attached), then submits it to the work team for review. When done well, the RTC staff person and trainer will have had multiple conversations/exchanges about the content.
We have time set aside at each of our monthly meetings for reviewing new trainings. The work team either approves the training as is or makes recommendations that the presenting RTC member then takes back to the trainer. The revised training is then submitted to IHS staff for a final check, review for social work/counselor CEU credit, and entry into our learning management system, E-Track.
We started reviewing workshops in a standardized way in ’09 in preparation for the launching of E-Track. It has been a process to develop this process and it is continually evolving as we increase our quality control measures. This process has allowed us to see where our trainers are struggling so that we can target interventions to help them develop their skills. For example, we noted trainers did not always understand how to address diversity issues in their workshops. So, we developed several materials including an individual assessment process, an online course, a Guided Application and Practice (GAP) training, and a Guide to incorporating issues of Diversity into Training. This process has also helped us assess trainer expertise in a standardized way and control for “trainer slippage” into areas they really aren’t qualified to train. See attached guide to assessing trainer expertise.
You can get more info from our website: http://ocwtp.net/For%20Trainers.html
2. Melissa Connelly, California, California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) –
I'm writing in response to your request for information about how others involve content advisory groups in the development of child welfare in-service training. I manage the content advisory group for the common core training for new child welfare social workers andsupervisors in California. Our group (the Content Development Oversight Group or CDOG) is a subcommittee of the larger Statewide Training and Education Committee (STEC). STECsets the standards for training in CA by providing macro level direction and feedback. CDOG determines content throughreview and revision of learning objectives and standardized curricula. Weare comprised of representatives from regional training agencies and county staff developmentdepartments. We meet in persononce or twice a year toestablish our work plan for the year and then meet monthly via webinar to complete tasks. We also meet with and collaborate with the Macro Evaluation Committee that evaluates the effectiveness of our curricula. Our members also complete individual reviews of materials and provide feedback.
You can getmore information aboutthe role of the Statewide Training and Education Committee here: http://calswec.berkeley.edu/statewide-education-and-training-committee-stec
The CDOGmission and functions are outlined in this document: http://calswec.berkeley.edu/files/uploads/pdf/CalSWEC/CDOG_Mission_Function_2010.pdf.
You may also be interested in looking at our meeting summaries. They are posted on our website at http://calswec.berkeley.edu/content-development-group-cdog
4. Laura Schneider, Michigan -
Michigan does not have a charter for this group, but here is a short write-up to include for Washington’s request. Thanks.
Michigan’s child welfare training curriculum council is comprised of internal and external stakeholders (including courts, hospitals, Office of the Children’s Ombudsman, Governor’s Task Force, Children’s Trust Fund, first line supervisors and more). The council was created for the purpose of reviewing existing curricula, making recommendations for changes and identifying new curriculum. With the creation of program specific sub-committees, the goal is to improve outcomes for children and families by providing professional development opportunities for public and private Adoption, Foster Care, Child Protection Services and first line Supervisors. We are growing our membership to include a sub-committee on Juvenile Justice programs.
The Council convenes bi-annually with sub-committees meeting as necessary to meet goals outlined within the individual committees.