1
MSW GRADUATE PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
SURVEY OF 2014 GRADUATES
Min Zhan, Ph.D
EunjeeSong, MSW
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
May 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHODOLOGY
3. RESULTS
3.1 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
Introduction
Students Loans
Current Work Experience
Population Served
Current Field of Practice
Methods of practice:
Education Qualification of Employment and Annual Salary
Social Work Licensure
NASW affiliation
Satisfaction with the MSW Program
3.2 SECTION II: CORE COMPETENCIES
Competency I: Identification with the social work profession, its mission, core values and conduct
Competency II: Application of social work ethical principles to guide professional practice
Competency III: Application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgment
Competency IV: Engage in diversity and difference issues in practice
Competency V: Advance human rights and social and economic justice
Competency VI: Engage in research-informed practice-informed research
Competency VII: Apply knowledge of human behavior and social environment
Competency VIII: Engage in policy practice to address social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services
Competency IX: Respond to contexts that shape practice
Competency X: Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
4. General Comments
APPENDICES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This online survey of 2014 MSW graduates is part of an on-going evaluation process of the MSW Program at the UIUC School of Social Work. The purpose of the survey is to assess the graduates’ satisfaction with the MSW program, their professional experiences after graduation, and learning outcomes. Learning outcomes were measured by asking graduates to rate their level of competency on the core practice behaviors addressed in the MSW program. The survey instrument had 31 items in section I on general information and 45 items in section II regarding the ten Core Competencies. A total of 68/151(45%) graduates responded to the survey, and 50 completed the survey, representing a responses rate of 33.1%. The18 incompletes were excluded from the analysis. Among these 50 respondents who completed the survey, 34 provided valid responses on each item without missing values.Consent information was obtained at the beginning of the online survey. The survey report will be disseminated to the faculty in order to review the strengths of the MSW program and identify areas for improvement.
Section I presents general information. Over three quarters of the respondents had taken education loans for their undergraduate and graduate study, andaboutone-fifth (22%) of them had over $25,000 overall student loan debt. Approximately 76% of respondents reported to have taken out student loan for their MSW education, and the majority (68.4%) borrowed over $25,000. More respondents workedin private agencies (53.3%) than those in public agencies (46.7 %). More than half graduates are currently working in urban settings (55.6%).Adults, Children/Youth, Adolescents, Mentally Disabled, Families, Low Income, and Minority were the seven most served population groups at over 50%. In responses of current employment,Behavioral Health (39.1%), consisting of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, was the largest field of practice followed by, Health/Medical Social Work(23.9%), Children Youth and Family Services (15.2%), School Social Work (15.2%), Administration (13%). With regard to methods of practice, 86.4% of respondents reported working in Clinical/Direct Practice and 13.6% in Macro Practice. Seventy-six percent of respondents are currently practicing in their concentration. As far as employment, 95.7% reported obtaining employment in social work within six months. Graduates with full-time employment earned from $22,000 to $75,000 ayear, with anaverage income of $40,529 and a median income of $38,000. Sixty-fivepercent of the respondents reported their current positions required a master’s level of education, whereas the rest (30.4%) required only a bachelor’s degree. Regarding current licensure status, thirty-sixpercentof graduates have obtained their social work license. About one-third of the respondents (36%) reported being a member of NASW. In terms of satisfaction with the MSW program, most respondents (60%) reported “extremely satisfied” or “high degree of satisfaction.” By program of study, Outreach program reported the highest mean score of satisfaction (M=2.38)butAdvanced StandingOn-campusprogram had the highest rate (66.7%) of responding either high degree of satisfaction or extremely satisfied; by concentration, Mental Health reported highest mean score (M=2.50), but ALSC had the highest rate (100%) of responding either high degree of satisfaction or extremely satisfied.
Section II analyzes core competencies measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The benchmark for each practice behavior was set at a score of 4 points or higher reported by at least 80% of the respondents. Highly-rated competencies in which all practice behaviors met the 80% benchmark included “Identification with Social Work Profession”(competency I); “Application of Social Work Ethical Principles”(competency II); “Engage in diversity and difference issues in practice”(Competency IV);“Advance human rights and social and economic justice”(Competency V);“Apply knowledge of human behavior and social environment” (competency VII); “Respond to contexts that shape practice”(competency IX); and “Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities” (competency X).
Three competencies did not meet the benchmark. “Application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgment” (competency III); “Engage in research-informed practice-informed research” (competency VI); and“Engage in policy practice to address social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services”(competency VIII).
Respondents provided detailed feedback on their experiences with the field practicum. They appreciated the supportive supervisions from placement supervisors and the School of Social Work. They valued the opportunity to learn the hands-on experiences and to work with diverse population from the practicum. However, they shared challenges about overwhelming workload at placements and indicated that the coursework did not appropriately prepare them for the field practicum.
1. INTRODUCTION
This online survey for 2014 MSW graduates was part of an on-going evaluation process of the MSW Program at the UIUC School of Social Work. The online survey asked graduates to assess their level of competency in practice behaviors in the ten Core Competency areas. The School of Social Work, in compliance with the guidelines established by the Council of Social Work Education, developed the competency practice behaviors. The purpose of the survey was to assess the graduates’ perspectives about the type and level of competency on the practice behaviors they were able to develop while they were in the MSW program. The ten core competencies that this study evaluated include the following:
- Identification with the social work profession, its mission, core values and conduct;
- Application of Social Work ethical principles to guide professional practice;
- Application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgment;
- Engagement in diversity and difference issues in practice;
- Advance human rights and social and economic justice;
- Engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research;
- Apply knowledge of human behavior and social environment;
- Engage in policy practice to address social and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work;
- Respond to contexts that shape practice; and
- Engage, assess, intervene, and evaluate with individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
In addition to the above core competencies, this survey also collected data on general information on the respondents’ post-graduation status including student loan debt, work status, population served, field of practice, methods of practice, time taken to obtain employment in the field of social work, and social work licensure. Results of these annual surveys were analyzed and used to review the MSW program.
The content and structure of this year’s survey report was similar to the previous one by keeping the three main sections. Section I covered General Information about graduates, their personal situation after graduation including professional experience, annual salary, student loan debt, social work licensure, and general comments. Section II covered the core competencies taught in the MSW program. Section III collected respondents’ narratives regarding their experience field practicum. Detailed analysis of core competencies by concentration is presented in the appendices.
2. METHODOLOGY
Participants
The survey participants were 2014 MSW graduates from the School of Social Work at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As in the past, contact information of the survey participants was obtained both from the Academic Programs Office and Advancement Office of the school. The Coordinator for Social Work Advancement facilitated access to these data through signed internal confidentiality forms. Subjects were contacted through the Academic Programs Office and were asked to voluntarily participate in the online survey via email.
Research Procedures
Similar to last year, this year’s survey was created on Qualtrics, an online survey tool through purchase. Each participant was assigned an individual web link to access the survey, as this would facilitate sending reminders to participants in order to get a higher response rate. In late October 2014, an initial email with the individual link was send to all graduates of 2014 with valid email addresses. The invitations clearly stated that participation in the survey was voluntary and that there was no foreseeable personal, career, or emotional risk for participation in the study. Three follow-up emails were subsequently sent to those who had not yet responded at an interval of approximately two weeks. The online survey was closed on December 23rd, 2014.
Data Collection
The online survey was designed in a way to maximize the protection of confidentiality. Detailed personal identifying information was not collected. The responsible Project Investigator (RPI) was the only one with legal access to the survey data. The second investigator as a research assistant had a privilege access to the survey and data granted by the RPI. The responses were held in strict confidence. The contact information of these graduates wasused to initiate contact for the purpose of survey invitation only. The researchers signed confidentiality forms to adhere to the confidentiality and privacy obligations required in the use of the Alumni database.
The Consent Process
Cover letters and e-mail invitations were sent to all 2014 MSW graduates. The communications described the purpose of the survey to the participants and addressed issues related to confidentiality and consent to voluntary participation in the survey. Consent information was obtained at the beginning of the online survey. The introduction section of the online survey informed the participants that participation was completely voluntary.
Dissemination of Results
The primary objective of the project was to gain information that would be used to evaluate the MSW program. The survey report will be disseminated to the faculty outlining the major strengths of the program as well as areas for improvement. The Executive Summary will be posted on the School of Social Work’s web page with a link to the survey. In addition, aggregate information may be used for research purposes and presented in professional conferences and publications.
The Survey Instrument
The survey webpage started with an introduction to the survey, consent information, participants’ rights, and estimated time to complete the survey. Section I on General Information of the participants had 26 items that collected their professional experiences after graduation, including employment, salary, student loan, and social work licensure. A mixture of multiple-choice, checklist, and open-ended questions were used to solicit information from the participants.
Section II on Competencies included 45 items that addressed the 10 Core Competencies of the MSW program. Each core competency was further disaggregated into specific practice behaviors. The practice behaviors were assessed on a 5-point Likert measure of: 1 – Not Competent, 2 – Minimally Competent, 3 – Partially Competent, 4 – Competent, and 5 – Highly Competent.
Section III presents the summarized qualitative comments from responses to open-ended questions, which asked the participants their views regarding the following three issues:
- Overall experiences from their MSW program
- Barriers or challenges from their MSW field practicum
- Positive experiences from their MSW field practicum
3. RESULTS
3.1 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION
Introduction
Data analysis of the 2014 MSW graduates online survey involved 50 valid survey submissions out of 151graduates, with 33.1% response rate. There were 68 graduates responded to the survey, but 18 did not complete it and were excluded from the analysis. Among the 50completes, 34 provided valid responses on every item without missing. The majority of the participants (48%) graduated in December, followed by May graduates (36.0%), and August graduates (16%). An overwhelming majority of the respondents were female (92%), which reflected the gender distribution of the MSW program. Graduates from diverse racial/ethnic groups participated in the survey. The majority of respondents were non-Hispanic White (74%), followed by African American (8%) and other (6%). One respondent self identified as two as bi-racial/multiracial, two as Hispanic/Latino, one as Asian Americanand one as international. Responses reflected graduates from all three types of MSW programs: Traditional On-campus Track (60%), Advanced Standing On-campus (24%), and Outreach Program (16%).
Students Loans
Approximately 76% of the respondents indicated that they had borrowed government subsidized or private loan while attending UIUC School of Social Work. Respondents who reported had borrowed loans were asked the amount of loan they borrowed. Among those with student loans, the majority (68.4%) borrowed $25,000 or over. Table 1 presents the amount of loans borrowed by respondents while attending UIUC School of Social Work.
Table 1: Amount of education loans borrowed while attending UIUC School of Social Work
Amount / Frequency / Percent / Cumulative Percent≤ $5,000 / 3 / 6.0 / 7.9
$5,001 - $10,000 / 3 / 6.0 / 15.8
$10,001 - $ 15,000 / 1 / 2.0 / 18.4
$15,001 - $25,000 / 5 / 10.0 / 31.6
$25,001 - $35,000 / 10 / 20.0 / 57.9
$35,001 - $50,000 / 3 / 6.0 / 65.8
Over $50,000 / 13 / 26.0 / 100.0
Total / 38
Did not take loan / 12
Respondents were also asked the total amount of education loans for their undergraduate and graduate study. Three quarters of the respondents had borrowed education loans, and the majority (60%) had total education loans over $25,000. Table 2 presents the total amount of education loans borrowed by respondents.
Table 2: Total amount of education loans borrowed for undergraduate and graduate study
Amount / Frequency / Percent / Cumulative Percent≤ $5,000 / 1 / 2.0 / 22.0
$5,001 - $10,000 / 2 / 4.0 / 24.0
$10,001 - $ 15,000 / 1 / 2.0 / 28.0
$15,001 - $25,000 / 5 / 10.0 / 30.0
$25,001 - $35,000 / 3 / 6.0 / 40.0
$35,001 - $50,000 / 8 / 16.0 / 46.0
Over $50,000 / 19 / 38.0 / 62.0
Total / 39 / 100.0
Did not take loan / 11
Current Work Experience
The majority of respondents (84%) reported they were currently employed full-time (i.e., ≥35 hours per week), and 4 respondents reported part-time employment (8%). Four respondents reported (8%) current unemployed but looking for a job.Four out of the four respondents with part-time employed provided information on their working hours. They reported part-time working hours ranging from 26 to 36 hours.
Respondents with full-time or part-time employment were asked if their current employment was in the field of social work or social services. All respondents (100%) indicated that they were indeed employed in social work or social service settings.
Over half of the respondentswho are employed in the field of social work or social services reported working in urban setting. Under half of graduates worked in public (46.7%), followed by private, not-for-profit agency (40.0%), and private, for profit (13.3%). Most graduates (45.7%) secured employment prior to their graduation. Table 3 presents characteristics of respondents’ current work settings.
Table 3: Employment, and settings of current work place
Frequency / PercentCURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS / Employed, full-time / 42 / 84.0
Employed, part-time / 4 / 8.0
Unemployed, looking for job / 4 / 8.0
Unemployed, not looking for job / 0 / 0
Enrolled in a graduate program / 0 / 0
Total / 50
FIELD OF EMPLOYMENT / Social work/social service / 46 / 100
Other field / 0 / 0
Total / 46[1]
TYPE OF AGENCY / Public / 21 / 46.7
Private, not-for-profit / 18 / 40.0
Private, for Profit / 6 / 13.3
Total / 45[2]
AGENCY SETTING / Urban / 25 / 55.6
Rural / 8 / 17.8
Suburban / 12 / 26.7
Total / 45[3]
AREAS OF AGENCY / Chicago area / 10 / 22.2
Northern Illinois / 1 / 2.2
Central Illinois / 26 / 57.8
Southern Illinois / 1 / 2.2
Out of State / 7 / 15.6
Total / 45[4]
TIME TO EMPLOYMENT / Prior to graduation / 21 / 45.7
Less than 3 months / 15 / 32.6
3-6 months / 8 / 17.4
Longer than 6 months / 2 / 4.3
Total / 46[5]
Population Served
Participants were asked to indicate all types of population they were currently working with. Low Income,Adults, Children/Youth, Adolescents,Families, and Minority were the most served population groups. Details of the population served are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Population Served (Multiple answers)
Population served / Frequency / PercentAdults / 34 / 77.2
Children/Youth / 28 / 63.6
Adolescents / 25 / 56.8
Mentally Disabled / 28 / 63.6
Physically Disabled / 22 / 50.0
Families / 27 / 61.3
Elderly / 17 / 38.6
Low Income / 32 / 72.7
Minority / 27 / 61.3
other / 10 / 22.7
Total / 44[6]
Current Field of Practice
As shown in Table 5, most respondents worked in Behavioral Health (39.1%), followed by Health/Medical Social Work (23.9%), Children Youth and Family Services (15.2%),School Social Work (15.2 %),Administration (13.0%) and Gerontology/Aging/Hospice (4.3%).
Table 5: Field of Practice (Multiple answers)
Field of Practice / Frequency / PercentChildren Youth and Family Services / 7 / 15.2
Behavioral Health (Mental Health and/or Substance Abuse) / 18 / 39.1
School Social Work / 7 / 15.2
Health/ Medical Social Work / 11 / 23.9
Gerontology/Aging/Hospice / 2 / 4.3
Administration/Policy/Advocacy/Community Organization / 6 / 13.0
Other / 4 / 8.6
Total / 46[7]
Methods of practice:
Thirty-eight out of 44respondents[8]engaged in clinical/direct practice, whereas six respondents engaged in macro/administration/policy practice. The majority (76.1%) of respondents reported that they were currently practicing in the concentration area they were trained for while in the MSW program.