missing link project - aswb...the missing link project was conducted over a three year time period,...
TRANSCRIPT
Missing Link Project ______________________________________________________________________________
Final Report
Prepared for:
The Association of Social Work Boards’ (ASWB)
Foundation for Research and Consumer Education in Social Work Regulation
Betty J. Ruth, MSW, MPH
Mark Gianino, MSW, PhD
Scott Miyake Geron, MSW, PhD
Boston University School of Social Work 264 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215
October 10, 2014
2
Acknowledgements
We wish to gratefully acknowledge the funding we have received from The Association of Social Work
Boards’ (ASWB) Foundation for Research and Consumer Education in Social Work Regulation to support
this study of continuing professional education in social work. In particular, we wish to thank Dwight J.
Hymans, LCSW, ACSW, Deputy Executive Director of ASWB, for his support throughout this project.
Dwight helped us in many ways, both large and small, both visibly and behind the scenes, to complete
the project. We also wish to thank the other staff on the project at Boston University School of Social
Work (BU SSW) for their support. Deborah Sheehan, Director of Professional Education and Erin
Grundman, Administrative Coordinator for Professional Education, have played valuable roles
administratively and substantively. Professor Joseph Merighi, of the University of Minnesota, assisted
with the initial construction of the survey. We wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of BU SSW
MSW/MPH students, Neena Schultz and Ashley Clement, who played essential roles in the completion of
the focus group analysis for the Massachusetts Case Study, and Susie Kim, who worked on the literature
review and the construction of data tables. These three students embody the best and brightest of
social work, and we wish them all the best as they launch their careers. Finally, we wish to recognize
and acknowledge the contributions of the many respondents to the national survey, as well as the many
participants in our Massachusetts focus groups and key informant interviews. Busy professionals all,
these participants gave generously with their time, and without their contribution we would not have
been able to complete the project. The findings presented, of course, are the views of the authors
alone, and do not represent the views of ASWB or anyone else.
Betty J. Ruth, MSW, MPH
Mark Gianino, MSW, PhD
Scott Miyake Geron, MSW, PhD
Boston University School of Social Work
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 5
General Description and Summary of Project Activities ........................................................................... 5
The National Survey on Continuing Professional Education ..................................................................... 7
The Massachusetts Case Study ................................................................................................................. 8
Section A. Findings from the National Survey on ...................................................................................... 11
Continuing Professional Education ............................................................................................................. 11
Organization of Survey ............................................................................................................................ 11
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 11
Sample description ................................................................................................................................. 12
Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................... 15
General Purpose of CE ........................................................................................................................ 15
Content, Quality and Effectiveness of CE ........................................................................................... 18
Comparison of CE Providers ................................................................................................................ 19
Effectiveness of Different Models and Types of CE ............................................................................ 21
Licensure and Legal Issues .................................................................................................................. 24
Role of Schools of Social Work and Social Work Faculty .................................................................... 25
Accessibility Issues .............................................................................................................................. 26
Overall Effectiveness of CE .................................................................................................................. 27
Summary of Major Issues for Each Respondent Group ...................................................................... 28
National Survey Summary ....................................................................................................................... 32
Section B. Findings from the Massachusetts Case Study ........................................................................... 34
Organization of Case Study ..................................................................................................................... 34
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Summary of Findings............................................................................................................................... 35
Theme 1: Participant Motivations for CE Engagement ...................................................................... 35
Theme 2: Consumer Search for CE opportunities .............................................................................. 36
Theme 3: Facilitators and Barriers in Accessing Continuing Social Work Education ......................... 36
4
Theme 4: Participant Assessment of the Quality of the CE Experience ............................................. 37
Theme 5: Participant Assessment of the Effectiveness of CE and Transfer of Skills into Practice .... 42
Theme 6: Participant Assessment of the Strengths of the CE System ............................................... 45
Theme 7: Participant Assessment of the Weaknesses of the CE system .......................................... 47
Theme 8: Participant Suggestions for Improving CE ......................................................................... 48
Massachusetts Case Study Summary ...................................................................................................... 54
Section C. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 56
National Conversation on the State of CE in Social Work ....................................................................... 56
Quality and Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 57
Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................. 59
Social Work Schools and Faculty ............................................................................................................. 60
Regulation and Oversight ........................................................................................................................ 61
Macro Practice ........................................................................................................................................ 62
References .................................................................................................................................................. 64
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Appendix A: Survey Instrument Used for the National Study
of Continuing Professional Education ..................................................................................................... 66
Appendix B: Data Tables from the National Survey
of Continuing Professional Education ..................................................................................................... 81
Appendix C: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 113
5
Missing Link Project Final Report
Introduction
Overview
In 2011, the Association of Social Work Boards’ (ASWB) Foundation for Research and Consumer
Education in Social Work Regulation funded a team of researchers at Boston University School of Social
Work to undertake a study of study of the current quality and effectiveness of the continuing
professional education (CE) system for social work in the United States. Building upon both its historical
commitment to social work practice and current strength in teaching, research, and continuing
education training, BUSSW served as a base for a national and state-focused inquiry into this issue. The
study combined a mixed-methods approach, including a national survey of states and Canadian
provinces, as well as an in-depth study of a single state to understand the strengths, weaknesses and
challenges to providing high quality continuing professional education to social workers.
CE is of concern to a wide number of stakeholders, including social work educators, employers,
regulators, and practitioners. It can be defined as the array of opportunities by which professionals
augment existing knowledge and skills (Strom-Gottfried, 2008). It includes formalized activities of all
types, such as academic courses, lectures, the reading of journal articles, conference attendance,
certificate programs, and other forms of independent study (Whitaker & Arrington, 2008). CE is
understood to be essential for professional competence, career development, and compliance with
licensing rules and other regulations, yet it is poorly understood, essentially unregulated, and largely
unstudied (Congress, 2012). In addition, mechanisms for ensuring quality in CE are lacking and it is
unclear whether participation in CE actually achieves its goal of enhancing social work practice
outcomes. Yet, CE is clearly an important link to ensuring the effectiveness of social work practice,
protecting the public who utilizes social work services, and securing the overall success of the social
work profession. We entitled our study the Missing Link Project, and we hope that our efforts will
contribute to a better understanding of the knowledge gap in this important area of social work
professionalism.
General Description and Summary of Project Activities
The Missing Link Project was conducted over a three year time period, from 2011-2014. The staff
involved were three faculty members, (Scott Miyake Geron, PI; Mark Gianino, Co-PI; Betty J. Ruth, Co-
PI); two staff members, including Deborah Sheehan, Director of Professional Education and Erin
Grundman, Administrative Coordinator for Professional Education; and two MSW/MPH students: Neena
Schultz and Ashley Clement.
A comprehensive literature review of social work CE led us to prioritize research inquiry into the
following issues in both components of our study: 1) quality and effectiveness; 2) regulatory concerns
6
and roles; 3) workforce considerations; 4) changing role of schools of social work; 5) professional
organizations’ role and investment; 6) competence and lifelong learning considerations; and 7)
proliferation of for-profit, online and “booklet” CE. (A summary of the literature review is provided in
the Appendices.) The purpose of the study was to develop a conceptual overview of intersecting issues
related to the quality and effectiveness of the current CE system, to gather baseline data on how various
stakeholders’ saw the issues associated with CE, and to make recommendations for how to improve it.
For the purposes of our research, we identified the various stakeholders as depicted in the following
graphic:
The Missing Link Project Study consisted of two parts: 1) a National Survey on Continuing Professional
Education, which surveyed constituents in North America including licensing board
administrators/board members; social work faculty; NASW/CASW administrators/board members; other
social work professional organizations; and university-based CE providers; and 2) the Massachusetts
Practitioners
Clients and Communities
Regulators
CE Providers
ProfessionalOrganizations
Schools of Social Work
Employers
7
Case Study, an in-depth single-state qualitative study of CE in Massachusetts, consisting of 11 focus
groups. Each of these studies is briefly introduced below.
The National Survey on Continuing Professional Education
The National Survey utilized an electronic survey which was created by the Missing Link team during the
first six months of the project. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix A. The National Survey was
adapted for all five constituency groups and included a series of common closed-ended questions and
open-ended questions tailored to each of the five constituency groups. The five constituency group
samples were compiled using website analysis, existing listservs, and personal outreach. These groups
were comprised of:
University based CE Directors: CENET is the listserv maintained by the Council on Social Work
Education, which includes directors of CE programs across the US
Schools of Social Work Survey: Key Social Work Faculty and Administrators in all BSW/MSW
programs in US and Canada derived from websites
Regulators/Board Administrators: Licensing board members and administrators from the
ASWB listserv
NASW or CASW Administrators/Board Members: Individual members compiled from US and
Canadian NASW/CASW websites
Other Professional Organizations: A broad sample of professional organizations—other than
NASW/CASW – was drawn from the NASW list of social work organizations; these included the
Society for Social Work Leadership in Health Care, the Council on Social Work Education, Society
for Social Work Research and many others.
The surveys were released in a staggered schedule beginning in December 2012; each constituency
group received three invitations to participate. Data collection was completed by September 2013.
Below is a summary of when the survey was sent and the current response rates:
1. University-based CE Directors (n=40). The survey was sent to 122 CE Directors in December
2012, January 2013 and March 2013, with a response rate of 32.7%.
2. Schools of Social Work Survey (n=233). The survey was sent to 1,247 faculty members at MSW
and BSW schools of social work on January 2013, March 2013, and May 2013. The response rate
was 18.6%.
3. CE Regulators/Board Administrators Survey (n=69). This survey was sent jointly with ASWB to
503 CE Regulators or Licensing Board members in December 2012, January 2013, and March
2013. The overall response rate was 13.7%.
4. NASW/CASW Survey (n=114). Surveys were sent to 501 NASW and CASW administrators or
Board members on April 2013, June 2013 and September, 2013. The response rate was 22.7%
5. Other Professional Organizations (n=201). Surveys were sent to 464 members of social work
professional organizations (not including NASW or CASW) in September, October, and
November 2013, with a response rate of 42.1%.
8
The Massachusetts Case Study
The Massachusetts Case Study utilized a qualitative approach to identify the CE experiences,
perspectives and concerns of stakeholders in one state. In particular, the study aimed to hear the voices
of constituents not necessarily represented in the National Survey, including practitioners—especially
macro practitioners who are not necessarily licensed -- and students. The team conducted a series of 11
focus groups with key stakeholders across the state, beginning in January 2012 and ending in June 2013.
A common set of focus group questions regarding CE was developed, and additional questions were
added based on the stakeholders present. Sample questions included: What are your best/worst
experiences with CE? What types of CE do you learn best from? What do you see as major strengths of
current CE system? What challenges/obstacles/problems do you have regarding CE? What should SW do
to improve quality of CE? All groups were approximately 1.5 hours in length and facilitated by two
members of the team experienced in qualitative research. The tapes were professionally transcribed
and thematically analyzed using Atlas.ti.62. The list below includes the groups conducted, their
geographic location, and our approach to including them in the study.
1. Practitioner Groups: Three practitioner groups, consisting of mixed macro and clinical social
workers, were recruited from across Massachusetts using the BUSSW Professional Education
Program listserv, which includes the email addresses of more than 5,000 Massachusetts’ social
workers. A total of 28 practitioners participated.
2. MA Board Administrators Group: Three MA board administrators, all of whom are social
workers, participated. Note: actual board members were legally barred from participating in the
study.
3. Faculty Groups: Three faculty focus groups were held across the state. The sample was
collected by compiling a database of all social work faculty members from Massachusetts’
MSW/BSW programs websites. Faculty members were invited to participate in any of the three
groups. A total of 17 participated.
4. Macro Group: Because “macro” social workers are often unlicensed in Massachusetts, it is
unclear whether they participate in traditional CE. In order to increase the “voice” of this
underrepresented group in social work, we reached out to MA macro/community social
workers, most of whom are unlicensed, to participate in their own group. Macro faculty, the
Associate Dean of Alumni Affairs and External Relations, and the Macro Field Director identified
macro practitioners and provided emails. We recruited from this list and six participated.
5. Key Informant Group: A group for key informants was held; these were participants who had
been identified as having special insight, knowledge, or experience in the profession, including
having served as the NASW state chapter president or in other leadership roles. The MLP team
members, together with the Associate Deans, helped to identify these key informants and
provided emails for them. A total of nine participated.
6. Student Group: A group of second year BUSSW students participated in a student-facilitated
focus group. These students were recruited via the BUSSW student listserv, and eight
participated.
9
7. MA NASW: The state chapter of NASW staff members participated in a group. All staff members
were invited by email and by personal contact, and the group consisted of four participants.
The summary report of our findings is presented in three sections: Section A. Findings from the National
Survey on Continuing Professional Education; Section B. Findings from the Massachusetts Case Study;
and Section C. Study Recommendations.
10
Summary Findings of the Missing Link Project
11
Section A. Findings from the National Survey on
Continuing Professional Education
Organization of Survey
The survey was comprised of 76 common questions organized into 11 general topic areas:
1. Consent for Participate (one question)
2. General Purpose of CE (six questions)
3. Content, Quality and Effectiveness of CE (13 questions)
4. Comparison of CE Providers (nine questions)
5. Effectiveness of CE Models and Types (eight questions)
6. Licensure and Legal Issues (six questions)
7. Role of Social Work Education in CE (seven questions)
8. Accessibility of CE (seven questions)
9. Overall Effectiveness of CE (three questions)
10. Open-Ended Questions (five questions)
11. Background Questions (11 questions).
A few respondent groups were asked to comment on additional topics or asked an additional question.
In general, all of the substantive questions about CE were rated from 1 to 5 using one of three five
choice response options: Unimportant to Important, Poor to Excellent, or Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. In the analysis these items have all been coded so that 1 always represents the least
support/agreement for an item (e.g., Poor, Unimportant or Strongly Disagree) and 5 always represents
the most support/agreement for an item (e.g., Excellent, Very Important, Strongly Agree). We did not
leave a Don’t Know/Not Applicable response choice as an option. Although we did not expect
respondents to be knowledgeable about all facets of CE, we expected most to be able to give reasoned
judgments to items based on their general experience and knowledge in the field. Respondents could
choose to leave any item unanswered if they did not feel confident giving a response.
Analysis
In general, simple frequencies and bivariate analyses were used for the analysis. In order to more easily
show some of the differences in answers and between the respondent groups for a specific item, the
average scores for items were used. All items were coded from 1 to 5 with 5 representing greater
support/agreement for an item, so higher average scores mean that more of the respondents answered
“important” or “very important”, ”agree” or “strongly agree”, or ”very good” or “excellent”.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare mean scores for an item across the
respondent groups. ANOVA provides a test of significance (F test) of the likelihood that any observed
differences between two or more mean scores occurred by chance. Whenever the F test is significant, it
indicates that there are significant differences between the mean scores of at least two of the groups.
12
When an ANOVA model is used to examine the differences among more than two groups, a post-hoc
procedure is needed to compare differences between all pairs of means. In a study that has several
groups, such as this one (we have five respondent groups), the use of additional t-tests to compare all
the differences between means would increase the chances of making Type I errors. (Type I error is the
chance of wrongly accepting differences between means as significant). Post hoc tests have been
constructed to adjust for this problem. In our analyses, we used Fischer’s LSD post-hoc comparison test
to identify which groups are significantly different from which others. While a statistical difference does
not necessarily mean that the finding has practice or policy significance, it does indicate important
differences in perspectives between groups being studied.
A complete set of all data tables described in this section is included in the Appendix B.
Sample description
A total of 657 respondents completed the survey. As shown below, the largest number of respondents
were social work faculty or administrators who worked in BSW or MSW programs in the U.S. or Canada
(N=233) and those who worked in other professional social work organizations, excluding NASW or
CASW (N=201). For each group, there were a considerable number of missing responses to many items.
On average, about 71% of CE content-related items were completed. Reviews of follow-up qualitative
comments suggest that non-responses were due to several factors: a) the lack of an response option for
‘don’t know’ or ‘Not Applicable’; b) respondent unfamiliarity with the topic; b) respondents’ concern
that there was too much variability within a topic (e.g., quality of online CE programs) to make a
summary judgment.
Table 1. Missing Link Survey Respondents, by Respondent Group
Respondents in all groups were currently active in a number of professional social work roles. As shown
below, many respondents in each group are involved with CE in one capacity or another, and there is a
40
233
69114
201
0
50
100
150
200
250
Missing Link Survey Respondents
13
considerable role overlap between some of the respondent groups. The number in parentheses refers
to the number of respondents who serve in those professional capacities.
CE Directors:
BSW faculty (4); BSW Program Director (1); MSW Faculty (7); MSW Program Director (4);
Associate Dean (1); Director, SSW (1); CE Director (21); Licensing Board member (2); Non-
university CE provider (1); Member of social work organization (e.g., NASW) (7); social work
practitioner (9): Direct a CE program (23); Social Work licensee (14); Teach CE courses (11);
Approve courses for CE (10); Work for a CE program (5).
SW Faculty:
BSW faculty (65); BSW Program Director (60); MSW faculty (43); MSW Program Director (18);
Department Chair (33); Associate Dean (5); Dean, SSW (9); Director, SSW (8); CE Director (13);
Licensing Board member (3); Non-university CE provider (2); Administrator, national social work
organization (1); Member of social work organization (e.g., NASW) (80); social work practitioner
(55): Direct a CE program (28); Social Work licensee (97); Teach CE courses (80); Approve
courses for CE (41); Work for a CE program (6); Not involved with CE (27).
CE Regulators/Board members:
BSW faculty (2); BSW Program Director (1); MSW faculty (3); MSW Program Director (1);
Licensing Board member (22); Licensing Board administrator (21); Non-university CE provider
(1); Administrator, national social work organization (2); Member of social work organization
(e.g., NASW) (11); social work practitioner (19): Direct a CE program (2); Social Work licensee
(25); Teach CE courses (8); Approve courses for CE (12); Not involved with CE (26).
NASW/CASW:
BSW faculty (2); BSW Program Director (1); MSW faculty (13); MSW Program Director (5);
Department Chair (33); CE Director (1); Licensing Board member (4); Non-university CE provider
(5); Administrator, national social work organization (10); Member of social work organization
(e.g., NASW) (68); social work practitioner (59): Direct a CE program (10); Social Work licensee
(56); Teach CE courses (29); Approve courses for CE (21); Work for a CE program (1); Not
involved with CE (15).
Other Professional Organizations:
BSW faculty (16); BSW Program Director (4); MSW faculty (21); MSW Program Director (4);
Department Chair (1); Associate Dean (1); Director, SSW (2): Licensing Board member (26);
Licensing Board administrator (8); Non-university CE provider (12); Administrator, national social
work organization (10); Member of social work organization (e.g., NASW) (76); social work
practitioner (81): Direct a CE program (9); Social Work licensee (98); Teach CE courses (45);
Approve courses for CE (32); Work for a CE program (1); Not involved with CE (17).
14
As shown in Tables 2-4 below, respondents in all groups were primarily female (78.1%) and 93% were
social workers (83.7 % had MSWs, 26.1% had BSWs, and 34.2% PhD/DSW’s). Doctorates were
concentrated among social work faculty; 67.1% of social work faculty had an earned doctorate and
68.3% of all earned doctorates were by respondents in the social work faculty group. There were
relatively few respondents of color: Only 8.4% of respondents identified as African-American; 3.9% as
Latino; and 3.6% as Asian or Pacific Islander. Overall, 15.7% of the respondents identified themselves as
people of color. The average age of respondents was 36.3 years of age, with a range from 32.7 years (CE
Regulators and Board Members) to 38.3 years (SW Faculty). A full description of the demographics of
respondents is provided in Appendix B.
Table 2. Gender of Respondents, by Respondent Group and Overall
Table 3. Social Work Status, by Respondent Group and Overall
0102030405060708090
100
Per
cen
t
Gender of Respondents
Female
Male
Transgender
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pe
rce
nt
Responses to: "Are you a Social Worker?"
No
Yes
15
Table 4. Social Work Degrees, by Respondent Group and Overall
Summary of Findings
General Purpose of CE
Among all groups, there was strong endorsement of traditional roles of CE. Overall, a large majority of
respondents in all groups believed that the most important purposes of CE are to: a) “Provide up-to-
date information on a topic of interest”; b) “Inform attendees about best practices”; c) “Teach new
practice skills”; and d) “Ensure that practitioners are competent.” At least 80% of respondents
endorsed these purposes as “important” or “very important”. In the comment box to this section, one
respondent noted that “all are very important”, a view repeated by several others.
To illustrate the extent of agreement on these items, Table 5 below shows the mean scores on the six
items that address the general purpose of CE. Survey respondents were asked to state the level of
importance of each purpose of CE on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing Unimportant and 5
representing Most Important. For each item, higher average scores represent stronger support. These
data show strong levels of agreement for all of the purposes of CE except for the last item – “Assist
licensing boards in disciplining/improving under-performing social workers.”
In a related item (data not shown), respondents expressed strong endorsement of the need for
continual CE training throughout one’s professional life. In response to the statement “Lifelong learning
through CE is necessary to ensure ongoing professional competence”, the average response from survey
participants was 4.49 (out of 5) -- one of the highest average responses to any question in the survey.
In percentage terms, 90.1 percent of respondents stated they "agree" or "strongly agree" with this
statement.
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
Pe
rce
nt
Respondents' Social Work Degrees
BSW
MSW
PhD/DSW
16
Table 5. Perspectives on Purpose of CE, All Respondents
While there was general agreement about the general purposes of CE, there were significant differences
between the groups for some items, indicated in the table with an asterisk (*).
Across the five respondent groups, CE Regulators and Licensing Board Directors expressed the most
reservations about the following purposes of CE: a) “Provide up-to-date information on a topic of
interest”; b) “Teach new practice skills”; and c) “Translate research into practice”, and had the lowest
average scores of all the groups for most of these items. For example, as shown below in Table 3, CE
Regulators and Board Directors had an average score of 4.1154 for the item “Provide up-to-date
information on a topic of interest” compared to average scores for the other groups that ranged from
4.4902 (Other Professional Organizations) to 4.6235 (SW Faculty). Similar differences were found for
the other items for which there were significant differences.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Assist licensing boards in disciplining/improving under-performing social workers
Ensure social workers practitioners arecompetent
Translate research into practice *
Teach new practice skills *
Inform attendees about best practices
Provide up-to-date information on a topic ofinterest *
Perspectives on Purpose of CE
17
Table 6. Average Scores for Item ‘Provide up-to-date information on a topic of interest’
Notably, however, CE Regulators and Licensing Board Members had a higher average score than the
other four groups on one specific item: “Assist licensing boards in disciplining/improving under-
performing social workers.” This is not surprising, given that one of the major responsibilities of state
licensing and regulatory boards is to discipline social workers. Other groups in the sample may not have
been aware of CE being used for this purpose and/or had dissenting views.
Several quotes from respondents illustrate the divergent perspectives on the relationship between CE
and remediation of underperforming social workers:
Using CE for licensing discipline is counter-productive and ineffective. More is needed to
ensure that a disciplined social worker has made improvements and is again ready to practice
competently and safely.
While Social Work Boards often add CE's onto a consent decree, it is not the primary
responsibility of the CE provider to fulfill this role.
Although monitoring the "performance" and "disciplining" underperforming workers is
certainly necessary, I do not believe that providing opportunities for CE is the appropriate
conduit for this process. Just because a worker attends training does not mean that this
translates into "good practice" or improved practice. Competent supervision is the only
method of monitoring "performance".
The only reason I marked assisting in discipline so low is because in most cases members who
are being disciplined need to address specific issues that aren't generally covered in CE.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Other Professional Organizations
NASW/CASW
CE Regulators
SW Faculty
CE Directors
Views on whether CE provides up-to-date information on a topic of interest
18
Content, Quality and Effectiveness of CE
Overall, respondents had generally positive, but mixed, views about the content, quality and
effectiveness of CE. For example, a majority, 60.4%, of respondents stated they “agree” or “strongly
agree” with the statement that “generally, CE for social workers is of high quality,” although only 7.0%
“strongly agree” with this statement. The fact that 39.5% of respondents answered “disagree”,
“strongly disagree” or “neither agree/disagree” that CE for social workers is of high quality is an
indication of some respondents’ concern about CE quality. All respondents groups expressed similar
views on this item: there were no significant differences in average scores across the five respondent
groups. Overall, the average score of 3.5 (out of 5) is close to the average scores for each of the
respondent groups.
Table 7 below presents the average scores for this and other survey items that address the quality and
effectiveness of CE across the five respondent groups. Significant differences found between the
groups and are indicated in the chart with an asterisk (*).
These data show that respondents in all groups expressed the strongest agreement for the following
two statements: “Generally, CE content is developed in response to popular trends in the field” and
“Generally, CE content is developed based on instructors' interests.” Respondents’ ratings of these
items averaged 3.9 for both.
Respondents expressed the most skepticism about the following four aspects of CE: “Generally, CE
content is developed based on systematic assessments of professionals' needs” (average response of
2.8); “Generally, CE content is reflective of the diverse practices within the profession (e.g.
macro/community practice; school social work, etc.” (average response 3.0); “Generally, the standards
used to approve CE programs are clear across the profession” and “Generally, the standards used to
approve CE programs are uniform across the profession.”
In general, SW Faculty had the lowest average scores for all of the items pertaining to content, quality
and effectiveness of CE, and the NASW/CASW group had the highest average scores. For example, for
the item “Generally, CE programs focus on best practices and are evidence-based” SW Faculty had the
lowest average score (3.4162), significantly lower than NASW/CASW respondents (3.6667). As another
example, for the item “Generally, CE content is reflective of the diverse practices within the profession
(e.g., macro/community practice; school social work, etc.)” SW Faculty had a significantly lower average
score (2.9012) than CE Directors (3.4828), NASW/CASW respondents (3.3222) and CE Regulators and
Board members (3.3077).
19
Table 7. General Views of the Content, Quality and Effectiveness of CE, All Respondents
Comparison of CE Providers
Survey respondents were asked to compare the quality and effectiveness of different providers of CE on
a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing poor quality and 5 representing high quality. Overall, respondents
had largely consistent and generally positive views about traditional CE providers, particularly schools of
social work, social work professional organizations such as NASW, and conferences. Overall, 65.9% of
respondents rated CE training from schools of social work as “very good” or “excellent”, 59.2% of
respondents rated CE from social work professional organizations such as NASW as “very good” or
“excellent”, and 53.2% of respondents rated receiving CE training from conferences as “very good” or
“excellent.”
0 1 2 3 4 5
Generally, the standards used to approve CE programs areuniform across the profession *
Generally, the standards used to approve CE programs areclear across the profession *
Generally, CE content is reflective of the diverse practiceswithin the profession *
Generally, CE content is based on systematic assessmentsof a professional's needs *
Generally, CE content is based on instructors' interests
Generally, CE content is developed in response to populartrends in the field
Generally, CE content is up-to-date *
Generally, CE helps employers know that social workersare staying current
Generally, CE programs meet the needs of practitioners *
Generally, CE uses engaging, varied, teaching methodsrelevant to adult practitioners *
Generally, CE emphasizes the integration of new skills andcompetencies into practice
Generally, CE progams focus on best practices and areevidence-based*
Generally, CE for social workers is of high quality
General Views of the Content, Quality and Effectivess of CE
20
In contrast, respondents were much more critical of CE from other sources. CE locations or providers
receiving the lowest ratings were: CE obtained through non-online text-based courses (“home
education”); CE offered by non-social work organizations (e.g., other professions or ‘generic’
organizations); for-profit CE companies; employers; CE offered through online or web-based courses; or
CE offered by employers. None of these locations or sources of CE received more than 30% “very good”
or “excellent” ratings.
Online provision of CE is still viewed as problematic by most respondents. Overall, only 18% of
respondents rated online or web-based formats as “very good” sources of CE, and only 2.7% of
respondents rated them as “excellent” sources of CE.
Respondent comments capture the mixed perspective on these items:
I’ve found the large generic CEU presentations to often be more about entertainment than
education. And employer-based CEUs are often biased to the agencies mission or practices.
On line and similar programs lack socialization & social interaction affects.
For profit online providers offer cheap but poor quality sessions. Too many providers only
interested in financial gain and do not care about improving personal practice or the field itself.
There are so many cheap and quick CEs that it diminishes the overall strength of CEs.
Several respondents had difficulty making overall judgments on these items because of the wide
variation on quality and effectiveness within a specific provider of CE. For example, more than one
respondent made comments similar to the following: “…it is hard to generalize about these categories –
as some conferences are better than others or some chapter or university offerings are better than
others.”
Table 8 below shows the mean scores for respondents for the various CE providers, and indicates higher
average scores for CE provided by schools of social work, social work professional organizations such as
NASW and conferences the other sources of CE training. Again, asterisks next to an item designates
significant differences were found between the respondent groups.
In examining significant differences between groups for specific items, some of the differences may be
explained by positive views of one’s affiliation. For example, SW Faculty and CE Directors (largely based
at universities) had the highest average score s for the item “CE provided by schools of social work” and
NASW/CASW respondents had the highest average score for the item “CE offered by professional
organizations such as NASW”. For the remaining items, the NASW/CASW respondent group had the
highest average scores indicating relatively more support for each mode of CE than the other groups,
while CE Directors had the lowest average score for most of the items, indicating relatively more
concern for other sources of CE.
21
Table 8. Views on Quality/Effectiveness of Various CE Providers, All Respondents
Effectiveness of Different Models and Types of CE
Respondents were asked additional questions to gain further insight into respondent views of the
relative effectiveness of various types and models of CE. Overall, respondents strongly endorsed the
role of the instructor in training effectiveness as well as the importance of support from the employee’s
“supervisors, agencies and peer working groups” for implementing what is learned in CE. Overall, 77.4%
agree or strongly agree with the statement “The teaching ability of the instructor is the most important
component of an effective CE program.” Consistent with this finding, many respondents did not believe
that online formats were as effective as classroom formats, or that article-based CE programs were as
effective as in-person training. Overall, only a little more than third of all respondents (36.2%) agree or
strongly agree that online formats are equally effective as classroom formats, and only 23.1% agree or
strongly agree that reading professional articles is as effective in building professional competency as
taking in-person courses.
Survey respondents were also asked about the importance of the workplace to support the transfer of
learning from training to the job. By substantially large margins, respondents strongly endorse the
importance of the worker’s job site to reinforce and support learning. When asked if they agree with
the statement “Support from supervisors, agencies, and peer working groups are needed to help social
0 1 2 3 4 5
CE offered by non-social work entities (e.g., otherprofessions or "generic" organizations) *
CE offered at conferences *
CE offered via non-online "home education" (e.g., readingarticles, books or newsletters) *
CE offered online or in web-based formats *
CE offered by non-profit community-based organizations
CE offered by employers ('in-service' CE) *
CE offered by for-profit CE companies
CE offered by professional organizations such as NASW *
CE offered by schools of social work *
Views on Quality/Effectiveness of Various CE Providers
22
workers put into practice what they learn in CE”, 87.6% of respondents stated they agree or strongly
agree with the statement.
These results are reflected in Table 9 below, which shows the average scores of respondents’ views of
the different modes and methods of CE. The high average scores and the fact that there are no
significant differences between the respondent groups for the items indicate general agreement across
groups regarding relative effectiveness of common CE delivery methods.
Several respondents offered more nuanced assessments of the relative strengths of different CE
formats:
Depending on how the online learning is structured, it may be more effective than in person due
to the requirements for involvement of each participant.
Online and classroom based CE formats can be equally effective. There are so many things that
factor in: learning style, instructor experience, feasibility. Those taking and teaching online
courses should be competent with technology and online communication at a minimum.
What makes CE effective is not whether it is face to face, or on line or home study. Effectiveness
is tied to engaging the CE student and involving them in the learning. This may be done in
multiple formats if done correctly.
Of note, survey respondents expressed considerable skepticism of the ubiquitous “CEU hour” (one hour
of instruction = one CE unit of credit) as an appropriate measure of CE effectiveness. Overall, 30.3% of
respondents agree and only 5.9% of respondents strongly agree that the contact hour is an effective
model for promoting social work competence. There were significant differences in opinion about this
issue between and within respondent groups. Across all respondent groups, social work faculty
expressed the most skepticism about this model. Respondents in the SW Faculty group had an average
score of 2.9, significantly lower than the average scores in all other groups, which ranged from a low
3.1429 (Other Professional Organizations) to high scores of 3.4643 (CE Directors) and 3.6092
(NASW/CASW). Several respondents offered comments on this issue:
I am not aware of research on the Contact Hour model. The research on CE is scarce.
CE is a tool to promote competence but does not ensure competence.
CE unfortunately is not able to assure competence of practitioners.
The increasingly onerous CE requirements have not led to increased competency in my opinion.
23
Table 9. Support for CE Modes and Methods, All Respondents
Groups also differed on whether CE is an effective tool for improving the performance behavior of social
workers found in violation of state practice standards. CE Regulators and Board members expressed
the most support for this view (average score 3.4808), which is significantly higher than all of the other
groups. Conversely, social work faculty had the lowest average score (2.6647), significantly lower than
the NASW/CASW group as well as the CE Directors.
Respondents shared the following comments on the limitations of CE as a regulatory tool for improving
practice behaviors:
What is needed to improve the behavior of those who have violated state or professional
practice standards is a combination of CE and ongoing supervision to ensure the material has
been integrated and is being applied.
How do we assure those who have violated standards and engage in CE have reflectively
integrated new learning to practice?
Unacceptable professional behavior requires more than CE.
0 1 2 3 4 5
CE is an effective tool for improving the behavior of socialworkers who have violated state or professional practice
standards *
Support from supervisors, agencies, and peer workinggroups are needed to help social workers put into
practice what they learn in CE
As it is generally done now, CE does a poor job ofsupporting social workers in implementing what they
have learned in practice
Article-based formats - e.g., reading professional journalarticles - are as effective in building professional
competency as taking in-person courses
The teaching abiliyt of the instructor is the mostimportant component of an effective CE program
Online and classroom-based CE formats are equallyeffective
Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of the"contact hour" model in promoting social work
competence *
Respondents' Support for CE Modes and Methods
24
Licensure and Legal Issues
Table 10 below shows the average scores for all respondents to the six questions on CE licensure and
legal issues. In general, respondents in all groups surveyed endorsed the role of linking CE to licensure,
although there was less agreement that licensure-mandated CE effectively improves the performance of
social workers. Overall, 93.1% of respondents agree or strongly agree that all social workers should be
required to take CE; 79% agree or strongly agree that licensure boards should require specific content
(e.g., ethics) for licensure renewal; and 75.3% agree or strongly agree that faculty who teach practice
courses in schools of social work should be licensed and thereby required to take CE. These findings are
reflected in the higher average scores for these items in Table 10.
Respondents were less in agreement about the general role of licensure to ensure a properly trained
social work workforce; however, few saw many problems with current CE requirements. In response to
the statement “Licensing board-mandated CE is an effective method improving the performance of
social workers whose professional behavior has fallen below acceptable standards”, only 36.6% of
respondents agree or strongly agree with this statement. Overall, only 27.4% of respondents find that
compliance with CE requirements for licensure renewal is a “significant problem for the profession.”
Table 10. Perspectives on CE’s Relationship to Licensure and Regulation, All Respondents
0 1 2 3 4 5
SW faculty who teach practice courses in schools ofsocial work should be licensed and take CE *
Licensing board-manded CE is an effective method forimproving the performance of social workers *
Licensing boards should require certain kinds of CEcontent (e.g., ethics) for license renewal *
I understand the laws that govern CE in my state,province, or jurisdiction *
Compliance with CE requirements for license renewal isa significant problem in the profession *
All licensed social workers should be required to takeCE
Perspectives on CE's Relationship to Licensure and Regulation
25
Role of Schools of Social Work and Social Work Faculty
Respondents in all groups were asked several questions about the role of schools of social work and
social work faculty in CE. In general, groups most closely affiliated with schools of social work – CE
Directors and SW Faculty – voiced the strongest level of support for the importance of social work
faculty and schools in providing and supporting CE. Overall, however, views on social work schools and
educators’ role in CE were mixed. As shown in Table 11 below, the mean scores for these questions are
not as high as the highest scores given for some of the other questions posed in the survey, particularly
those involving the general purpose and importance of CE. None of the items garnered average scores
above 4, with scores for only two items – “Schools of social work should be more involved in CE than
they currently are” and “Social work faculty should be more involved in CE than they currently are” –
approaching that level (3.8804 and 3.7901 respectively).
Looking at the findings for these items as a whole, it is notable to see the contrasts between the items
with the strongest level of support: there is clear sense among respondents that schools of social work
and social work faculty should have a significant role in CE – but also clear recognition that social work
faculty have few incentives to be more involved. Also noteworthy are the relatively low levels of
agreement with these two items: a) “Social work faculty are generally aware of and concerned about
issues related to CE” and b) “Social work faculty view CE as an important part of research dissemination
or translation.” In both cases, there were no significant differences in the average scores between
respondent groups, indicating general agreement on these items.
Four of the seven items in this section showed significant differences among the respondent groups
(indicated by an asterisk (*) in Table 11). For the most part, these differences suggest greater levels
support for these items by social work faculty and CE Directors. For example, for the third item – “Many
CE programs in schools of social work are struggling financially to survive” – CE Directors and SW
Faculty, both in a position to know, had significantly higher scores than the other three respondent
groups.
26
Table 11. Role of Social Work Faculty and Schools in CE, All Respondents
Accessibility Issues
Respondents identified several accessibility issues in obtaining CE. Most notably, cost of CE
programming was widely acknowledged as a serious barrier by many respondents. Overall, 76.9% of
respondents stated they “agree “or “strongly agree” that the cost of CE is a serious issue. Respondents
were also strongly in agreement that employers should provide more support for their social work staff
to attend CE. Almost 90% of respondents (88.7%) indicated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that
social work employers “should provide more funding for CE.” There were no significant differences in
average scores between any of the respondent groups for these items.
For the other items, there was general agreement across the respondent groups that “lack of geographic
access to CE is a serious problem for many social workers”, and also that “more online or home
education options are needed for social workers with limited access to CE training where they live.” For
each of these items, 66.8% and 64.6% of respondents respectively indicated they “agree” or “strongly
agree” that these are serious issues for social workers. There was also wide agreement across groups
that “macro/community practice social workers have difficulty accessing relevant CE.” Overall, 65% of
respondents stated that they “agree” or “strongly agree” that this is a problem for the profession.
Again, there were no significant differences in the average scores across respondent groups to these
items.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Social work faculty have few incentives to be involvedin CE *
Social work faculty view CE as an important part ofresearch dissemination or translation
Social work faculty should be more involved in CEthan they currently are *
Social work faculty are generally aware of andconcerned about issues related to CE
Many CE programs in schools of social work arestruggling financially to survive *
Schools of social work should be more involved in CEthan they currently are *
Generally, schools of social work are committed toproviding CE and see it as part of their mission
Role of Social Work Faculty and Schools in CE
27
There was also general agreement, but much less certainty, that “social workers with disabilities
experience CE access issues.” The average score of 3.3243 for this item across all groups was lower than
for any of the other accessibility items. Overall, only 32.6% of respondents stated that they “agree” or
“strongly agree” with this statement.
The one issue in which there were significant differences between respondent groups concerned
accessibility of remedial CE training for licensing boards. Not surprisingly, respondents from the CE
Regulators group had a significantly higher average score for this item than social work faculty (3.8431
versus 3.3176). In percentage terms, 60.8% of respondents in the CE Regulators group indicated they
“agree” or “strongly agree” that this is a problem, while only 31.8% of social work faculty respondents
indicated agreement or strong agreement with this item. Other respondent groups had average scores
in between these two extremes.
Table 12. Perspectives on CE Accessibility Issues, All Respondents
Overall Effectiveness of CE
Finally, three overall questions were posed to respondents about their overall perspectives about the
issues addressed in the survey:
How concerned are you about the overall issue of CE in the social work profession?
How concerned are you about the quality of CE programming?
How concerned are you about CE effectiveness in promoting social work competence?
Responses to these questions revealed important and significant differences between the groups on
every question.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Social workers with disabilities experience CE accessissues
Licensing boards have difficulty accessing remedialcourses for under-performing licensees *
Maco/community practice social workers have difficultyaccessing relevant CE
Generally, social work employers should provide morefunding for CE
The cost of CE is a serious issue for many social workers
More online or home education CE is needed for socialworkers with limited access to training where they live
Lack of geographic access to CE is a serious issue formany social workers
Perspectives on CE Accessibility Issues
28
For the first item “How concerned are you about the overall issue of CE in the social work profession?”
respondents in the CE Directors group and the CE Regulators group expressed significantly more concern
than respondents in SW Faculty, NASW/CASW or Other Professional Groups. Their average scores for
this item (4.0000 and 3.9804 respectively) were significantly higher than respondents in the SW Faculty
group (3.2456), NASW/CASW group (3.2614) and Other Professional Group (3.3919). These differences
are illustrated by the percentage of responses selected. For example, only 3.4% of the CE Director
group and 7.8% of the CE Regulator group expressed “of little concern” to this issue (none in either
group stated they were “not at all concerned). In contrast, more than 25% of the SW Faculty and
NASW/CASW respondents and 20.3% of the respondents in the Other Professional Group said they were
“not at all concerned” or had “little concern” regarding CE as a whole.
For the other two items, respondents in the CE Regulator group expressed significantly more concern
than respondents in SW Faculty, NASW/CASW or Other Professional Groups.
Table 13. Perspectives on Overall Effectiveness of CE, All Respondents
Summary of Major Issues for Each Respondent Group
As the above discussion shows, there is considerable agreement between the different respondent
groups to many of the items in the survey. The primary reason for this is likely related to the fact that
most of the respondents have similar backgrounds. For example, most respondents are female, have
MSWs, and have taken CE courses (or gone to SW conferences), etc. While there is variation in the
respondent groups, there is also considerable overlap in terms of their knowledge and experience with
social work CE.
In the remaining sections below, we highlight some of the principal differences between the respondent
groups, as well as briefly discuss the summary themes of findings in each group.
0 1 2 3 4 5
How concerned are you about CE effectiveness inpromoting social work competence? *
How concerned are you about the quality of CEprogramming? *
How concerned are you about the overall issue of CEin the social work profession? *
Perspectives on Overall Effectiveness of CE
29
We begin by reviewing the number of high average ratings between the groups. Table 14 below shows
the number of items rated at 4.0 or higher by each respondent group. High average scores for an item
indicate either strong agreement or support for the item, and also show that collectively the
respondents in the group are in general agreement. If respondents in a group disagreed about the
relative importance of an item, or if respondents all were in general agreement that an item was not
very important, the average scores would be much lower. Thus, this table gives a summary of which
groups expressed the most support for the current state of CE, and the least ambivalence or concern
about CE. Table 14 below shows the CE Director’s group had more higher average scores than any other
group -- for 18 of the 76 content items in the survey they had average ratings of 4.0 or higher. The CE
Regulator’s group had the second highest number at 16. Faculty had the lowest number at 11.
Table 14. Number of Survey Responses Greater Than or Equal to 4.0, by Respondent Group
Table 15 below shows the same results, but shows the ratings by survey section. The data show general
agreement between the groups for the general purposes of CE, and also general skepticism about the
content, quality and effectiveness of CE (i.e., there were no high average scores for any of the groups in
this section). The data show that the CE Directors and CE Regulators expressed more support for the
role of schools of social work and social work faculty than the respondents from the social work faculty
group.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
CE Directors SW Faculty CE Regulators NASW/CASW Other Prof Org
Number of Survey Responses Greater Than or Equal to 4.0, by Respondent Group
30
Table 15. Number of Responses Greater Than or Equal 4.0, by Survey Section, for All Respondent
Groups
Below, we highlight some of the major trends we observed in the answers given by the five respondent
groups based on differences in the average ratings provided to specific items. If a respondent group has
the highest average rating for an item, it suggests that group is more enthusiastic or supportive than the
other groups. Thus, looking at differences in average scores between the groups provides insight into
how the groups evaluated CE relative to each other.
CE Regulators and Licensing Board Summary:
As a group, CE Regulators and Licensing Board members expressed more concern about the quality and
effectiveness of CE than other stakeholder groups. Regulators evidenced higher concern for the
currency of CE, including concerns for whether it provided best practices, focused on skills development
or helped practitioners translate research into practice. Not surprisingly, CE Regulators viewed licensure
as important to quality control within the profession. They scored significantly higher on most licensure
related items, such as agreeing with the importance of regulatory issues such as non-compliance with
CE, or the professional implications of lack of faculty licensure. Regulators, more than any other group,
were concerned about CE’s role in ensuring competent practitioners, as well as its potential for
remediating or improving the practice behaviors of under-performing social workers. In addition, CE
Regulators acknowledged access issues as a serious concern, identifying cost, geographic and ability
access as issues.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
GeneralPurpose of
CE
Content,Quality &
Effectiveness
Comparisonof CE
Providers
Effectivenessof CE Models
& Types
Licensure &Legal
Role ofSocial WorkEducation
Accessibilityof CE
OverallEffectiveness
Number of Responses Greater Than or Equal to 4.0, by Survey Section and Total, for All
Respondent Groups
CE Directors SW Faculty CE Regulators NASW/CASW Other Prof Org
31
Social Work Faculty Summary:
In important ways, social work faculty respondents held views that were the opposite to those of the CE
Regulators. They were significantly less likely to support faculty licensing, to view licensing-related CE as
important to quality control in the profession, and acknowledged knowing the least about the regulation
of social work in their states. While SW Faculty respondents were among the most supportive of many
of the intended purposes of CE, they did not express much confidence in CE as a method for improving
underperforming social workers, nor did they see CE as a way of ensuring competence. Faculty were the
most critical group about the current state of CE in social work, providing the lowest average ratings in
many categories of items regarding perception of quality. Of all the groups, respondents in the SW
Faculty group were the most pessimistic about the quality and effectiveness of CE programming,
acknowledging that CE is often based not on the needs of practitioners but on the interests of
instructors. Faculty expressed doubt about the quality of non-university-based CE, and non-traditional
CE such as online or home education. Finally, respondents in the social work faculty group admitted that
there was little incentive for faculty to be involved in CE, while simultaneously endorsing that schools of
social work are committed to providing quality CE and supporting CE programming. Interestingly, social
work faculty also expressed doubt about CE as a method for translating research into practice.
CE Directors Summary:
University-based CE Directors had the most positive views about CE content, quality and effectiveness.
In other areas, these respondents’ views were similar to social work faculty respondents for the items
that compared different types and modes of CE, that examined the role of social work faculty/schools of
social work in CE, and that explored accessibility issues in CE, but differed in some important respects as
well. For instance, CE Directors tended to view CE, particularly at schools of social work, as high quality,
meeting the current needs of practitioners and reflective of the diverse practices within the profession.
But they also acknowledged that CE was developed in response to popular trends, that school of social
work-based programs were struggling, and had little confidence that CE was a venue for research
dissemination or translation. Notably and different from respondents in the social work faculty group,
CE Directors did not see Faculty as having awareness of or concern for CE issues. They were similar in
responses to social work faculty on issues related to access, but differed from faculty in their support for
online and alternative methods.
NASW/CASW Summary:
Similar to CE Directors, respondents from the NASW/CASW group expressed the most support for the
current quality and effectiveness of CE, providing some of the highest average scores for these items.
They viewed CE as evidence-based, reflective of diverse practices within the profession, and based on
clear standards across the profession. Unlike faculty respondents, who were skeptical about alternative
delivery methods, NASW/CASW respondents provided strong support for all types of CE, including home
education, online education, and for-profit CE. Of all the groups, NASW/CASW respondents supported
the use of the current “Contact Hour Model” of CE, and generally supported the idea that CE could serve
as an effective tool for improving the behavior of social workers who have violated state or professional
32
practice standards. NASW/CASW respondents were less likely than others to endorse a strong role for
social work faculty or schools of social work in CE, although there was support for the view that social
work faculty should be involved in CE. Unfortunately, we are not able to separate the views of NASW
and CASW respondents as most respondents were from the U.S.
Other Professional Organizations Summary:
Responses from this group are hard to characterize, in part because of the heterogeneity of the group.
Respondents for the Other Professional Organization group were drawn from a broad sample of social
work organizations—other than NASW/CASW—that included diverse entities such as the Society for
Social Work Leadership in Health Care, the Council on Social Work Education, and Society for Social
Work Research, among others. In general, this group was similar to social work faculty in expressing
doubt about the current state of CE in social work. In the section of the survey that asked about the
content, quality and effectiveness of CE in social work, respondents from this group had the low average
scores on many of the items, such as the lack of systematic needs assessment or the lack of uniform
standards for CE across the profession. The Other Professional Organizations Group gave among the
lowest levels of support to licensure-related CE concerns. This group showed support for most types of
CE providers and methods, similar to the NASW/CASW group. In one particular area, conference
attendance, this group had the highest score of support, perhaps not surprising since so many
professional organizations offer conferences that provide CE.
National Survey Summary
The national survey, on the whole, revealed broad support for, but moderate belief in the purpose,
quality, and effectiveness of the current CE system. However, some important differences between
stakeholder groups emerged. There was general support and agreement about the important role of CE
in the profession to teach new practice skills and to ensure lifelong learning, but there was less
agreement about CE’s role in remediating the behavior of underperforming social workers or its use by
regulators to ensure competence. Not surprisingly, CE Regulators were more concerned about CE’s role
in public protection and practitioner competence, while those less familiar with the regulatory arena
evidenced less support and understanding for this aspect of CE. Also not surprisingly, those who
provided CE, and who benefit from the income associated with CE, tended to articulate greater
support for and belief in the current system and its quality. Most providers tended to view what they did
as superior, while expressing concern for the quality of other modalities, methods or providers. Despite
the proliferation of online, web-based, for profit CE, there was considerable concern about the quality
and effectiveness of these modalities.
Faculty, on the whole, were more skeptical of claims to quality and the general state of CE in the
profession, agreeing that schools of social work should be more involved in CE, but acknowledging that
the incentives for doing so were minimal. Notably, faculty, along with others, did not see CE as a
research dissemination opportunity. Faculty were among the most critical of the One Hour CE Model,
noting that CE has been understudied in social work. Access to CE, including economic, geographical and
33
ability access, were acknowledged to be significant issues for the profession. The lack of macro practice
CE was also affirmed.
In conclusion, the national survey provides important insight into the differing perspectives on CE within
the stakeholder groups, and sheds light on the individual, as well as the shared concerns, of the diverse
players in the CE arena. These insights, together with the suggestions made by respondents, will inform
our recommendations section.
34
Section B. Findings from the Massachusetts Case Study
Organization of Case Study
As indicated previously, the Massachusetts Case Study utilized a qualitative approach to identify the CE
experiences, perspectives and concerns of stakeholders in one state. In particular, the study aimed to
hear the voices of constituents not necessarily represented the National Survey, including
practitioners—especially macro practitioners who are not necessarily licensed-- and students. Focus
group methodology was chosen for this study, due to its effectiveness in eliciting both individual and
group perspectives.
A series of 11 focus groups were conducted across the state beginning in January 2012 and ending in
June 2013 with key stakeholder groups. Sample questions included: What are your best/worst
experiences with CE? What types of CE do you learn best from? What do you see as major strengths of
current CE system? What challenges/obstacles/problems? What should SW do to improve quality of CE?
All groups were 1.5 hours in length and facilitated by two members of the team. Below we list the
groups included, and our approach to including them in the study.
1. Practitioner Groups: Three practitioner groups, consisting of mixed macro and clinical social
workers, were recruited from across Massachusetts using the BUSSW Professional Education
Program listserv, which includes the email addresses of more than 5,000 Massachusetts’ social
workers. A total of 28 practitioners participated.
2. MA Board Administrators Group: Three MA board administrators, all of whom are social
workers, participated. Note: board members themselves were legally barred from being a part
of the research.
3. Faculty Groups: Three focus groups were held in various parts of the state to reach social work
faculty. A database of all social work faculty members from MSW/BSW programs was compiled
using all Massachusetts’ schools websites. Faculty were invited to participate in any of the three
groups. A total of 17 participated.
4. Macro Group: Because “macro” social workers are often unlicensed in Massachusetts, they do
not often participate in traditional CPE. In order to increase the “voice” of this underrepresented
group in social work, we reached out to MA macro/community social workers, most of whom
are unlicensed, to participate in their own group. Macro faculty, the Associate Dean of Alumni
Affairs and External Relations, and the Macro Field Director were able to identify macro
practitioners and provide emails. We recruited from this list and six participated.
5. Key Informant Group: A group for key informants was held; these were participants who had
been identified as having special insight, knowledge, leadership or experience in the profession.
A total of nine participated.
6. Student Group: A group of BUSSW students participated in a student-facilitated focus group.
These students were recruited via the BUSSW student listserv, and eight participated.
35
7. MA NASW: The state chapter of NASW staff members participated in a group. All staff were
invited by email and by personal contact, and the group included four participants.
Analysis
The tapes were professionally transcribed and the word transcripts stored on the password -protected
Boston University server. Two research assistants assisted the two Co-PIs in thematic analysis of the
data using Atlas.ti.62. The thematic analytic process included three steps: first, the transcripts were
read through and reviewed for general themes. The second step line by line coding of the full data set in
order to discern the specific themes (Charmaz, 1999; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Finally, after
summarizing the codes from the full data set, the team collapsed and grouped several themes into
larger thematic categories. The narrative below, together with the quotes, highlights the thematic map
that emerged from the analysis.
Summary of Findings
Eight significant themes emerged from the analysis, including (1) diverse motivations for CE
engagement; (2) consumer experiences of their search for CE opportunities; (3) facilitators and barriers
in accessing continuing social work education; (4) participant assessment of the quality of the CE
experience; 5) participant assessment of the effectiveness of CE through translation of knowledge and
skills into practice; (6) participant assessment of strengths and; (7) weaknesses of the CE system and; (8)
participant suggestions for CE improvement.
Theme 1: Participant Motivations for CE Engagement
Across participants groups, there was general agreement that motivating factors for consumer
participation in CE are the following: first, social workers primarily participate in CE to maintain
licensure. Second, participants from practitioner groups spoke of a strong desire to improve knowledge
and practice skills related to current work and some indicated that their participation in CE was
employer directed or mandated. Finally, a number of participants from our practitioner groups indicated
they were motivated by a search for personal and professional enrichment, often seeking new
knowledge from outside of their current role or areas of focus. One quote that illustrates the diverse
motivations that animate participation in CE comes from one NASW focus group participant:
“…you’ve got the people who get the CEs because they’ve got to get them to get their license
renewed, and then you’ve got the people who are clearly interested in learning and advancing
their skill level and getting something out of it and I think the key is how do you make our
colleagues, every one of them feel like professional educational is a worthwhile venture to
continue to grow and change and not just meet a requirement that the state is imposing upon
you.” NASW staff
One divergent and startling reflection was conveyed by a practitioner who described her experience of
the disconnect between CE and her own motivations to participate in lifelong learning:
36
“…I’ve never associated getting a CEU with learning…learning I do on my own, so I’ve always
seen them as separate things.” Practitioner
Theme 2: Consumer Search for CE opportunities
There were a number of striking observations made by participants with regard to their experiences of
searching for CE opportunities. For example, informants noted that trying to locate appropriate CE
learning opportunities is a highly individualistic process that greatly depends on the motivation of the
practitioner. There is no standard way to access information or search for CE and participants
consistently spoke about being bombarded by marketing flyers and online invitations to CE, all of which
they had few ways to assess in terms of the quality. According to one practitioner informant:
“…you get all these flyers, now it’s two for one, or buy two, get one free or whatever and I’m like
what does that even mean? What’s the quality here?” Practitioner
Many participants spoke of tending to go with a known “brand” or making assumptions about quality
based on the name recognition of the presenter, or the presumed credibility of the sponsoring
institution. According to one practitioner:
“I would say I pay a lot of attention to who is giving the presentation. I have a little bit of luxury
in being able to pick some of the things that I go to, and somebody’s credentials and their
background really matters to me; how steeped they are in what they’re talking about and I’ve
been to some very special, very exciting things with people who’ve really been working for a long
time, or very hard or in a very fresh way on something, and I like that.” Practitioner
Several commented on the need for the initiation of an online review site like “Yelp” that offers
consumer assessments of CE presenters. Some participants observed that CE consumers search largely
for learning opportunities that highlight methodologies considered current and “hot topics.” According
to one faculty participant:
“I’ve been told when I’ve wanted to give presentations that people are (only) really interested in
cognitive behavioral therapy…they’re not going to come to something if it’s about the
intersection of gender and race, or sexual orientation and race, and that strikes me as interesting
given our profession and given what we say we do.” SW Faculty
Theme 3: Facilitators and Barriers in Accessing Continuing Social Work Education
Even after identifying appropriate CE programs, practitioners spoke about significant challenges or
barriers to their participation. The most commonly noted barrier to participation was cost, and with
numerous informants indicating that as agencies reduce funding for continuing education, social
workers are required to pay more out of pocket. Speaking to this frustration one informant noted:
“In my organization they have (so few) professional development funds that you have to put in
this lengthy application about why you want to go, how it’s going to connect to your job, and
make you better at your job. And I don’t want to write an essay about this just to get the $100
37
thing paid for because I’m already busy enough. So sometimes those things fall off the plate
because I would have to put in extra work to make it happen or pay for it myself out of my own
pocket.” Practitioner
Complaints regarding cost were amplified by practitioner participants engaged in private clinical
practice, “…when you’re self-employed, private practice, you gotta pay for everything yourself. Not
easy.” Many participants described having to make tradeoffs between quality and cost – noting often
that the cheapest CEs are perceived as being of the lowest quality. Other considerations among
participants in accessing CE were issues related to the time off from work that was required, which was
often uncompensated:
“I look for availability... If I can’t really go during the week, I can go on evenings, I can go on
Saturdays…And I often can’t take 8 hours during the week. I can’t really afford to be away for a
whole day, so sometimes the ones that are maybe 4 hours over several weeks, that just seems
like it’s more accessible for me.” Practitioner
One observation made by varied constituents had to do with barriers to quality CE owing to a tepid
agency commitment to their professional development in tandem with diminishing resources to fund
CE. A cogent expression of this theme was offered by one board regulator as follows:
“I think the days of agencies paying for the employees to take CE and providing CE for their
employees are pretty few and far between. I’m sure a lot of that has to do with the fiscal times
that not only licensees are seeing but that the agencies are feeling and so there is this push for
productivity and to make money and that the agencies have kind of lost the value of continuing
education and we see somewhat the same issue with supervision, the requirement of supervision
for the less than independent license people. It’s always been so interesting to me that here are
these agencies that are employing these licensees and requiring that these people have a license
to work at their agency because you're going to get more money when they get reimbursed
because this person is licensed, but then yet they’re not willing to provide them with what they
need to maintain that license, be it supervision or CE and it’s really always been very annoying
and sad to me that that’s sort of the state of things in most settings where our licensees are
employed.” Board Regulator
Finally, other factors involved in participant choices in CE involved accessibility (or the lack thereof) to
public transportation, convenience of location and ability status.
Theme 4: Participant Assessment of the Quality of the CE Experience
There was broad concern expressed about the quality of CE across all participant groups. As succinctly
expressed by one senior professor, “I’ve been worried over many years about the state of continuing
education because it just seems so variable, and I puzzle about it as a provider and also as a recipient.”
One NASW participant expressed a sentiment echoed by many informants that the main ingredients for
a quality CE presentation involved “quality presenters and a topic people are interested in!”
38
Informants had much to say about the current state of affairs regarding the quality of CE programming.
Informants from across our constituency groups offered rich and in-depth perspectives from their varied
vantage points as board regulators, providers of CE, students, faculty and consumers. Participants
offered assessments of the quality of CE that included both positive and negative comments with regard
to specific facilitators and barriers to worthwhile CE experiences. Booklets that offer CEU’s to social
workers for reading printed lectures were widely criticized, with one key informant observing, “… using
those blue books. They gotta go because that’s not doing anything to benefit us as a profession really
because if that’s how you’re getting your CEs, then I’m not going to go to you for therapy quite
honestly.”
Board regulators offered a unique perspective on the quality of CE based on their consumer protection
role:
“We need to be sure that these stakeholders know and understand up front the board has
concerns regarding the quality, and we come at it from different points of view, but consumer
protection is our goal.” Board Regulator
Board participants additionally expressed a conundrum they face in their disciplinary role. They reported
that when complaints are lodged against social workers who come before them, they may mandate CE
attendance by these workers of an in Ethics course, for example. Licensees are told that they have to
attend these courses but board participants noted that there are few CE offerings, if at all, in Ethics near
where they live, or they can only locate courses online. Participants further noted with frustration that
licensees who could have benefitted from courses in recordkeeping find few if any offerings on this topic
either:
“And thinking about the types of complaints that we see we would have hoped that a licensee in
any of these various situations that come before us as a complaint had attended, and could have
learned something that would have assisted them in avoiding the complaints. I mean we see lots
of complaints for recordkeeping and ethics, and they’re just not the sexy CE courses that people
want to take. They’re not the interesting ones, and so they’re rarely offered and it’s really too
bad.” Board Regulator
Finally, board informants lamented the paucity of quality, evidence- based practice models and shared a
skeptical perspective on CE Providers’ focus on “… the ‘sexier’ programs that are going to attract more
licensees and may not be evidence based practice models. They may be just the basket weaving 101s of
2012, but these entities are going to find a way to get them approved and offered because they know
that those are going to be the ones that are going to get licensees in and they’re going to make money
off of them.”
It is striking that among the NASW participants, one of the major CE providers actually verbalized very
similar concerns to those expressed by the board participants regarding the variable quality of CE
offerings. One contributing factor to declining quality of CE was described by an NASW staff member as
follows:
39
“I think the CE industry is going downhill because there’s more and more cheap easy CEs and less
oversight of quality, less oversight of the presenters, so there are unqualified presenters and
unqualified programs being presented, where social workers can get CEs and that is a real threat
to our industry, meaning the social work industry, and it’s a real threat to social workers because
it calls into question are we really keeping up our skills if a large portion of us are getting
substandard CEs from substandard providers, and it’s pervasive. It’s not just among the for profit
CE providers, but it’s among NASW chapters. It’s among NASW national, it’s ASWB, it’s
pervasive.” NASW Staff
NASW informants noted that they face challenges on the “business side” as a non- profit and, as such,
cannot pay presenters enough, but at the same time,
“…if we paid them more, we would be priced out of, we’re already at the top, or close to the top
of what the market will bear and if we were to pay more, we’d have to charge more and we’d
price ourselves out of competition. So those are the issues that we’re looking at too, as
providers.” NASW Staff
This informant goes on to note that tradeoffs regarding cost are, “a big issue I think in the whole CE field,
which is down, dirty, cheap, the Walmart’s of CEs!”
The theme of insufficient policing of quality of CE providers was echoed by NASW informants as well as
by board participants. According to one NASW staff,
“There isn’t enough policing of CE providers. So you’re going to get this broad okay to be a
provider and then you can put CEs on almost anything, it seems to me. And there’s no kind of
control for quality, no control for particularly the home study CEs.” NASW Staff
As consumers of CE, practitioners offered passionate and in-depth perspectives about factors that
contribute to, or inhibit, quality CE experiences. Several themes regarding quality of CE were revealed
through participant interviews. There was broad agreement for a) the importance of dynamic,
interactive and engaging presenters; b) the increasing role of technology to aid or inhibit learning and, c)
a “famous” name does not necessarily correlate with a quality learning experience.
There was nearly unanimous agreement among practitioner and student groups that quality of the CE
experience correlated with hands- on, dynamic content delivery methods. A selection of informant
comments reflecting this theme is presented in this section. One indicator of quality is offered by one
practitioner:
“If I walk out of a training and I feel like it’s high quality, it’s usually more about the delivery
method. How the training was given, like you were talking about not droning on for a couple
hours. Did I feel like the presenter connected with me and the audience in some way? Were there
different kinds of styles, not just lecture method, but also this or that, just kind of mixing it up a
little bit, and that really for me as a learner or student or whatever really important. It
sometimes even it could have been learning about how to make a sandwich, but if it was
40
delivered in a funny way, or done whatever, that’s huge for me, and more effective, I guess, too.”
Practitioner
Diverse, engaging content delivery methods were identified as an important factor in quality as reflected
in this comment:
“It was one of the best conferences because the speaker was engaging, she used some
PowerPoint but not all the time, we had activities that we did. We got to know other people in
the room besides our own group, and she had us take time in the middle of it to figure out how
we were going to apply this once we got back. One of the things she did at the end was she had
us write a letter to ourselves that she then mailed to us later. I got mine back saying what you
promised yourself you were going to do after this seminar, and I’m like oh, yeah. [laughter] but it
was really excellent and we all left there-even though none of us really wanted to go.”
Practitioner
Students also participate in CE through agency trainings or sponsorship by their agencies to participate
in regional conferences. Student participants voiced the importance of their social work education in
socializing them to lifelong learning. Moreover they echoed sentiments similar to their social work
colleagues about the ingredients of a quality program hinging on good audience engagement and
takeaway skills. Here one participant compared the experience of a quality training to that of a good
class:
“Definitely if you have a person who is good at interacting with the audience, using a visual
presentation and having handouts is important, but getting the audience really integrated in the
work, asking questions perhaps, using some examples. It’s kind of like when you go to class and
you know which good teachers are worth it, and so it’s the same with the presentation that’s like
3 hours long or a whole-day workshop.” Student
A perspective offered by several practitioner participants suggests that learning is enhanced when
presenters discuss cases that did not go well, illustrating lessons learned from such “mistakes.”
“And their presentation was quite brave; they took apart all the mistakes that they have made in
their work and the way they presented it. They come from very different institutions, they
initially presented it as each of them agreeing to have the other take apart the mistakes that
they had made, and these were on video-taped interviews, but then also to have the group take
apart the mistakes. It was really refreshing. It wasn’t about us taking apart our practice. It was
learning from people who actually are very clearly masters, but an enormous amount of humor. I
think there were 30 people in the room, and probably 28 of them were really engaged.”
Practitioner
One NASW staff participant noted that his experience as a CE consumer of a successful program is based
on acquiring one thing that he can take away from the workshop and apply:
41
“You know as a consumer, what I look for when I go to, or listen or read a CE program, I want a
kernel, I want to go away with at least one new thing that I can practice, that I can think about,
it doesn’t have to be, and that’s one of the reasons that I can also go to a workshop or
something that I’ve been to other similar ones. I just hope and it’s a success for me, if there’s one
or two important pieces that I can take out of that and somehow use, whether it’s practice or in
my life, or in my thinking or makes me, stimulates me to think of something new that I hadn’t
thought of before in a way I hadn’t thought of it before.” NASW Staff
Alternatively, as consumers of CE, many informants from our practitioner groups had a great deal to say
about CE experiences that did not deliver quality in their estimation; most offered that a quality
experience was as much related to presentation style as it was to the content itself. The greatest
criticism was aimed at those presenters who seemed disengaged from the audience and who read off
slides. For example the comment below reflects the importance of audience involvement and how the
lack of this is a turnoff:
“I think that the worst was a series of speakers and I just remember one of the last speakers
basically stating, I’m going to be up here as long as I want. So it was really the quality of the
speaker, and then at the end, he said okay, I don’t have time for questions, and then sat back
down, and for me I really felt that I did not get a lot out of that presentation, which was a
shame, because the rest of the presenters were phenomenal and it really took away from the
entire experience to have this one presenter with that demeanor.” Practitioner
The comment below reflects the frustration and disappointment expressed by many practitioners when
they experienced the presenter as disengaged from the audience:
“I think my worst was a 6-hour CPT training in which the presenter read off the slides. I swore I
would never go to something like this again, and the only thing that kept me there was that I
needed to walk away with certificate. To get it paid for by my employer, otherwise, I would have
walked away. It was just awful. I mean word for word, he just stood up and he didn’t even look
at us.” Practitioner
Informants across groups both praised and lamented the role of technology in CE. Specifically,
informants shared their ambivalence regarding online learning -- both appreciating the convenience of
varied content delivery formats such as webinars and podcasts, while at the same time missing the
interactive component form attending in-person CE. Some participants expressed frustration in
attending presentations whose quality was much diminished by poor technology or breakdowns of
equipment, as this informant observed:
“This is a small but nitty gritty thing when technology doesn’t work, where you’re always feeling
for the presenter, but you’re also sitting there saying, okay, now we’re going to spend the next
20 minutes trying to figure out the problem and having been a presenter where that happened
here, and the whole PowerPoint thing didn’t happen and I actually had to do the whole 6 hours
without the PowerPoint.” Practitioner
42
As indicated earlier, many informants told us that they selected CE on the basis of name recognition.
However at times they expressed that the quality of the experience did not live up to the reputation of
the presenter. One informant put it succinctly this way,
“Well not to be too candid, but it’s so interesting because I don’t always find that the experts in a
specific field and the quality of the presentation …match.”
According to another:
“You know sometimes it doesn’t mean that somebody who’s famous is going to be a good
teacher and then you sit for 8 hours and what did he just say for 8 hours? This very famous big
shot in the field comes and you pay a whole lot of money but he is not necessarily a good
teacher.” Practitioner
Finally, practitioner participants and those from other focus groups who attended CE as consumers
spoke to the importance of the skills and knowledge gained as a pivotal ingredient of quality CE.
Moreover, many identified the presence of social work content as important as well. Several informants
also related that the experience of quality was linked to the level of learning in the program; many CE
programs failed to fit practitioners due to the lack of advanced content. Other participants spoke of the
need for in-person CE as a means of networking, a way to revitalize their enthusiasm for the work that
they perform, and a method of burnout prevention.
Theme 5: Participant Assessment of the Effectiveness of CE and Transfer of Skills into
Practice
Informants across all participant groups spoke at length about the effectiveness of CE. If participants
conceptualized quality as the experience of a CE program — good presentation, accurate information,
taught in a thoughtful engaging way — then effectiveness was about what they took away with them
that they could apply to their practices. This perspective is succinctly summarized by one practitioner
informant as follows, “I like the skill-based training. I think that’s important. I find that people really like
to come and get something concrete that they can apply directly to their practice.”
Effectiveness of CE, according to our informants, involved their assessment that they learned content
sufficiently well enough take it back to their practice and transfer these skills to real life. Here,
workplace factors proved to be of considerable importance to participants’ view on CE effectiveness.
Predictably, participants endorsed the perspective that effectiveness of learning is enhanced when their
employers support integration of new skills and knowledge. This is demonstrated, according to
participants, when their agencies provide sufficient time and meaningful support to implement new
learning into the practice setting. Respondents reported that there was considerable variability in the
commitment of employers to integration and transfer of newly learned skills to practice. Finally,
informants across most groups noted that effectiveness needed to be linked to outcomes measurement
not just at the conclusion of the training, but over time in their application of new skills at work. This
integration of CE content into practice was of considerable importance to participants. The view of one
practitioner was echoed by many informants:
43
“Talking about how you’re going to integrate it, to me that’s really the whole point of continuing
education - learning content and then figuring out how to actually use it when you’re sitting with
a real live human being who is suffering. Like to me, that’s the only point in doing it.”
Practitioner
Alternatively, several informants reported frustration when a training experience offered them little to
enhance their practice. This was especially true for respondents who were mandated to attend a CE
training and found little to take back to their setting. The comment below reflects this theme:
“Sometimes you have to go to trainings that you have no choice in, and those days are very
painful because you feel like okay, I got my whatever 6 CEUs, but there’s nothing I can take from
this back, except I got a day to just sit and not work…and because I’m a supervisor I’m always on
call, so half the time I have to get up in the middle of a class anyway and answer a question or
whatever if there’s any urgent situation.” Practitioner
Participants noted that although the workplace can have a dramatic impact on the integration of new
skills into the setting, there was broad concern among faculty, key informants and practitioners that the
level of agency support in adapting CE, especially for complicated topics, may not be effective.
According to one key informant:
“I did a two-day trauma training and I think trauma work is so complicated and if you don’t do it
right, it is problematic, and I felt like well it’s a great training. I learned some valuable things. But
I don’t know how then to implement it where I work…if you’re bringing something in that’s really
a specialized treatment and your agency doesn’t incorporate that type of work, I think it’s really
a challenge to find a way to apply it.” Key informant
Several informants noted that although new learning may not be immediately transferable, agency
administration can assist staff to help practitioners adapt new skills to particular client populations. For
example, according to one practitioner, supervisory involvement in helping practitioners to implement
new skills would enhance CE effectiveness:
“Translating what you hear, what you see in a conference and bringing it back to work, so if you
could track that, throughout time and that your supervisor, program director, or other clinicians
could track in some way, shape, or form, and in a year, bring it back and ask how often did you
use this skill? How effective was this skill? What did you learn from this skill? And what could you
do differently?” Practitioner
Unfortunately most participants endorsed the view that this level of support was a rare occurrence in
their agencies, and most often the transfer of newly learned skills was up to individual. Moreover, the
fast paced, complex and crisis-driven environments in which many informants are employed offer little
time for reflection and integration:
“I think it’s a pretty common feeling that you go to a training, and it’s a one-day training and
you’re excited about that new technique for the clinical practice, or the new way of keeping
44
records or the new way of doing something, and you go back to your agency …you say ‘oh I’m
going to tell everybody about this new (training)…’-oh, I’ve got messages, yeah, hold, and by the
time you’re done baling out from your emails the emergencies, the crises, ‘what was that thing I
went to yesterday?’ And you say to your boss or your colleague or your partner, ‘gee I want to
talk about!’….’I can’t talk to you about that now, I’ve got a hotline call coming in, maybe you can
talk about an in-service sometime.’ And so it goes.” Practitioner
Faculty spoke to the workplace environment as well, lamenting the loss of attention to training when
productivity reigns as the current primary value. While the promotion of robust learning environments
at work and productivity do not have to be antithetical, this is the experience of many participants.
Changes in the field as a whole have affected CE. This is poignantly reflected in the two comments
below:
“One of the big things that I see in the past I’d say 5, 10 years is …agencies who started off as
wonderful community-based standalone clinics who provided supervision, training, everything,
have slowly merged into other agencies and have merged into other agencies and are becoming
big, corporate and when they get into that corporate mind frame, they see less and less need for
training to continue to happen and for supervision to happen on a regular basis.” SW Faculty
“The practice field is getting so demanding at work, people are focused on efficiency and
productivity, and there’s not the attention to training going on in agencies, at least in my
experience, so leaves then the possibility that if something more isn’t done with continuing
education, we’re going to lose ground in professional development.” SW Faculty
Board respondents, in particular, expressed alarm regarding the diminishing utilization of learning and
program evaluation tools in live programming or online. According to board informants, CE consumers
who may be only passively engaged in a live training are at least required to complete an evaluation of
the program. According to one board informant:
“In most live courses, you’re not going to take a post test, so one argument that a lot of licensees
who are pro-online, pro-home study are going to make is the fact that I could sleep through a
day-long conference and still get my 6 CEUs as long as I have my bum in the chair for those six
hours, I’m going to get my CEUs, and so we don’t know, there is no measure and our regulations
don’t require an evaluation of the content of the program at the end of it. We require an
evaluation of the program but it’s not a requirement that it be like a post test. It’s more become
sort of a survey of how’d you like us, sort of thing. So you know it is interesting in that yes
certainly there are many online and home study things that someone can just simply go to the
end and let me scan back through and try and answer these questions.” Board Regulator
Finally, several informants offered the opinion that the current CE model simply does not work.
Knowledge and skills accrue over time with opportunities for reinforcement and practice, but most CE is
not set up to do follow-up. According to one faculty informant,
45
“ We know (from) adult education is that it’s the follow up …that works over time and most
continuing education isn’t set up that way at all, so we already know it’s that it’s not going to
necessarily lead to knowledge or even for that matter, enhanced practice skills.” SW Faculty
Theme 6: Participant Assessment of the Strengths of the CE System
Across all focus groups, participants spoke of the strengths of CE, not just the problems, and made
important observations about what works. Stakeholders identified numerous strengths including: a) the
diversity of CE, offered at a wide variety of costs, topics and varied delivery models; b) the
acknowledgement that requiring CE serves as built-in mechanism for increasing practitioner knowledge
and skills; c) the recognition that CE functions as a means of burnout prevention; and d) the sense that it
reduces feelings of isolation, promotes connection and creates opportunities for networking.
According to one macro informant, the emergence of more macro programming speaks to the theme of
increasing the breadth of CE offerings:
“What I do think is working well is that the topic areas are so varied. I’m a macro social worker,
and I think it’s important to have CE programs that take that into account, that macro social
workers need CEs too and we’re not a specialty area. I can go to the school’s social work
conference but I’m going to get a CE for a specialty area that’s not really mine. So I think it’s
encouraging to see that there’s more macro-focused CE programs in general.” Macro
Practitioner
There was nearly unanimous agreement among participants that the many types of CE delivery are a
sign of strength in the CE system. This view is cogently represented in the comment by this practitioner:
One of the strengths of way that CEs are offered is that there are a lot of different ways you can
get it. You can attend an in-person class, you can do a webinar, you can read the NASW focus
and send in the thing and get one or one and a half CEs, lots of different modalities. And I think
that’s good to also get them in a variety of ways and not just rely on only doing webinars or only
doing the read and send things…I see that as a real strength, especially for those of us who are
kind of out in the boon docks and can’t always get into Boston.” Practitioner
Informants flagged CE’s diversity of offerings and the opportunity CE provides to connect with others as
some of the most important strengths of the existing system. From the perspective of a faculty
participant, CE socializes students and new graduates to the profession and connects them to a lifelong
learning community of colleagues:
When you meet new graduate students in the first year of the Master’s program, they don’t have
the professional language to talk about their work, so you do the talking and wonder why
they’re not talking. Well, they haven’t practiced enough, and then gradually in the second year,
they begin to talk and oh my gosh, things are looking good. But then they graduate, and then
they stop talking again. So continuing education does give you an opportunity to socialize
46
professionally to talk about what you’re doing…and I think (that) is really, really important.” SW
Faculty
And from the student perspective:
“My internship last year did a seminar on partnerships between social work and law
enforcement on the issue of human trafficking, and I found that to be really cool to see how we
work with other people in the real world and to also be able to make those partnerships there.
It’s like you should know each other. You should know this police officer deputy sitting next to
you. And then the other areas of social work where you will need to know the medical providers
or things like that, so it kind of like, the crossover of different fields, where we wouldn’t initially
maybe get the opportunity to meet the law enforcement and be like we’re on the same team
here.” Student
Participants from across all groups affirmed that the CE system works generally well in its capacity to
teach and augment practitioner knowledge and skills. One faculty member noted that there exists
considerable untapped potential in using CE as a translational process. From her perspective:
“….as a researcher, I know that there are new ideas out there all the time. And even in the
medical world, it takes approximately 15 to 17 years to get that out in the community and that’s
not acceptable. So I think that another thing that continuing education can do is help us to
become more effective in whatever it is that we’re doing and I don’t think that social workers
necessarily have all the resources they need in order to facilitate that.” Faculty
As was indicated earlier in this section, practitioners are motivated to participate in CE to not only
enhance knowledge and skills but to rejuvenate themselves. One practitioner informant reflected this
perspective by noting that CE can inspire him in his work. He observed that in his professional role at
times one can begin to “slack off, and I need to crank it back up. This is my professional role and I’ve just
been sailing along smooth and now I’ve got the fire lit again.” Consistent with this view, other
participants noted that the CE system works to combat burnout in the work:
“I think if you are taking classes that interest you, taking continuing education that interests you,
that’s a way of sort of reenergizing yourself so you don’t get as burned out on it, but I do think
people reach that certain point in their career whether it’s at 10 years, whether it’s at 20 years,
where you know, they feel like I don’t need any supervision because I just don’t. “ Practitioner
Finally, a view endorsed by many practitioner participants was that the CE system works well as a
vehicle for building and sustaining a learning community among social workers. Informants noted that
the system works best for them when they have an opportunity to connect with other social workers at
trainings and conferences. This contributed to ambivalence about the trend towards online learning.
Clearly, the convenience of online learning for quick CEU’s is appreciated, while at the same time,
increased dependency on online CE might lead to greater isolation. The overall benefits of in-person CE
is exemplified here:
47
“Continuing education does build a community. There’s a community of practitioners that you
get connected with, so when you start going to them, you might run into other people you know
and friends that you know and that you see usually. There’s always going to be room for that.”
Key informant
Theme 7: Participant Assessment of the Weaknesses of the CE system
Although challenges within the CE system have been described earlier in this report, this section
summarizes these salient themes identified by focus group informants, and addresses a few additional
ones beyond quality and effectiveness of CE. With respect to quality control issues there was agreement
across diverse focus group participants that it is difficult for practitioners to assess quality beforehand.
Respondents also noted significant disparities in their ability to access CE programs, both in terms of
cost — which was seen as out of reach for many — and geographically, given most CE is concentrated
in urban centers. Informants spoke of quality “tradeoffs” regarding the quality of a CE program versus
cost, time and access and identified sometimes feeling torn between inexpensive booklet-based CE
versus more expensive in-person courses. Finally, across groups there was considerable skepticism that
learning specific and complex evidence-based interventions could be taught in a day.
There was extensive and energetic discussion among participants regarding important missing content
in the CE system. Informants spoke to the lack of any coordinated needs assessment in the field of social
work which might lead to leading to the presentation of “popular” topics over more needed content.
Among Board and NASW informants there was agreement that CE is market driven and that CE
providers are dependent upon earning income from what’s profitable. Thus, important missing content
areas were noted across all groups: social justice issue and practice; social work profession-specific
content; workplace safety; and macro offerings were identified. Although many practitioners
appreciated that they were free to participate in the CE programs of their choosing, there was virtually
universal endorsement among informants that certain content, such as ethics, or cultural
responsiveness, were too important not to mandate. Most respondents supported topic-specific
requirements from licensing boards.
Predictably, Board informants spoke most forcefully from a consumer protection lens about the
negative impact deriving from knowledge gaps, particularly in ethics for licensees. But even among
practitioner groups, there was strong endorsement of the importance of ethics content and the
recognition that this might need to be required. This key informant offered a view reflected by many
others in this comment:
“Well you know I think one thing, if we are working within pretty much the system we have, I
think it does make sense at some stage to have certain required content areas, ethics, safety,
since you have to get CEs anyway, you might as well have it be something practical and that will
save agencies time and money from having to create it.” Key informant
Concerning the mandating of ethics content, one faculty respondent succinctly offered: “I wish that it
was actually required.”
48
Participants noted that there were significant barriers to translation of CE knowledge and skills into the
workplace. For example, the burden is on the professional to implement new skills and lack of time and
agency support presents considerable obstacles to the translation of new knowledge and skills. An
interesting finding highlighted what appears to be part of a practice-academy divide. Some faculty
spoke to the challenges of preparing students for a constantly changing workforce, as articulated by this
informant:
“I feel like what is expected of us in the job market is different than what we get taught here. We
are preparing people for generalist practice when they leave here. But that’s not what the world
is expecting from us. They’re expecting highly skilled, highly trained, people who have got at
least, if we go to the common factors research, someone has got at least one theoretical model
fairly mastered under their belt and that’s what I hear from field instructors, when I was a
faculty advisor. I would hear this from all sorts of sources that there’s a disconnect between
what the workforce needs and what social work schools are doing.” Faculty
Observed another faculty member regarding this divide:
“We’ve really stayed in our silos, and continuing education is a really great example of what
reinforcing those siloes and needing to figure out ways that the continuing education
opportunities are really cross discipline, intra disciplinary, and transdisciplinary as well.” Faculty
Not all participants felt that schools of social work were necessarily disconnected from workforce needs,
and some endorsed the idea that schools of social work offer continuing education programs that are
up-to-date, accessible and relevant. According to one informant:
“Thought it seems like the social work schools are offering basically clinically oriented trainings,
lately I’ve been getting invited to a lot of webinars and have done some and I can see that that’s
an effort to make them more accessible to people so that’s interesting—and in the last few
years, I just feel like I never heard that word [webinar] 2 years ago and now I’m invited probably
every other week to. . .” Key Informant
Theme 8: Participant Suggestions for Improving CE
Across all focus groups there was considerable enthusiasm among respondents and depth to the
discussion about ways of improving the CE system. Given the complexity and range of observations, this
final section presents results according to the participant perceptions about the roles that key
stakeholders might have in improving the CE system as follows: (a) the role of CE providers, (b) the role
of board regulators, (c) the role of schools of social work, (d) the role of employers; (e) the role of
professional organizations, and (f) the role of social works themselves.
Improving CE: The Role of CE Providers
Participants offered a number of recommendations for improving the quality of training provided by CE
Providers. There was universal agreement that CE quality — good speakers, high quality presentations,
attention to skills development and learning in the session — is essential. Many participants stated that
49
CE effectiveness can best be assessed through a commitment to evaluation over time. This would
include not only an assessment of what people learned in the session but whether they are able to
implement this learning in their agencies. There was certainly ambivalence about the CE hour model as a
measure of consumer learning, as one CE provider observed:
“I think the model should be you try to create a time-based high quality program. So you have, so
an hour of learning means something, and then you can do it by hours. If an hour means
something, whether it’s a reading hour, a listening hour, or a participation hour, it can be
wonderful learning. I’m positive that there are professors and instructors out there who know
that one quality hour does not equal other quality hours.” NASW
Alternatively, another participant strongly questions the value of the CE hour model and suggests an
innovative and much more flexible use of a CEU as a measure of learning:
“One of the problems with the way things are set up now is that a CEU hour for an hour of time is
a poor way of doing it because it doesn’t really get at the quality or effectiveness of the training.
And if there was a way to assess quality or effectiveness, it would be as a way to determine how
many CEs you got, it would be a much easier way for you to figure out how to spend your time,
so if you need to spend time going to a CEU mill to get quick & dirty CEUs, maybe you get less
CEUs for that because it was less of a valuable learning experience. So you might still need to do
it but you might spend more time on it than you would otherwise. Or if you go to a really super
session that’s 3 hours long but it’s incredibly valuable learning experience why not get 10 CEUs?”
Practitioner
There was considerable agreement across groups of the need for CE providers to ensure more
consistent vetting of course instructors. According to a faculty informant, one idea for improving quality
of CE is by “organizing a system of professional mentoring or coaching, that if you could arrange for
yourself and do it more formally so that have, say by six hours from the coach, it be worth CEUs. So I
think it would be more satisfying to me to do that, to pick my own learning source and engage them in a
dialog about my practice. I think it would be worth a lot.” The view of standardizing quality among CE
presenters was strongly endorsed across all focus group participants. As offered by one CE provider
informant:
“I would like policing and standardization across from the point of approvers of CEs. So who
approves it, and then setting a standard that’s across the board.” NASW
Several participants observed that CE providers bear responsibility for ensuring quality by testing and
rigorously training instructors. According to one faculty participant, “I mean peers clearly serve some
function, but there’s a lot of enabling that goes on, and I like the idea of having periodic retests for
licensing or some other way of weeding out people who are not helpful and in some cases harmful to
vulnerable populations.”
Several participants affirmed the need for greater transparency for consumers of CE regarding quality.
This view is reflected by one student participant who suggested taking a lesson from other fields such as
50
“public health which has online evaluations, so when we’re looking for classes, you can see people’s
evaluations from the previous years so when you do a CE, you can say oh this person has a one to five,
I’m not going to go there. I’m not wasting my time or energy and people in the past have vouched for
them.” Others spoke of a sort of “Yelp” online resource for CE consumers to evaluate program offerings
prior to parting with their money.
Although there was broad agreement that CE effectiveness is best achieved by a commitment to
program evaluation by participants, many reflected that the current system of evaluating trainings
gleans little meaningful information. Several recommended that participants receive CE’s only after they
detailed specific areas of learning on the evaluation form. According to one practitioner:
“I’ve gotten so many evaluations that are just like - do you feel like your knowledge was
improved, like 1 through 4, what was your knowledge before this? 1 through 4. And I mean I’ll
check that off, but that does not mean anything about what I’ve actually learned, and I know it’s
a pain to write it down, but ask me to write something about what I’ve learned. Ask me to
actually give you some real feedback that’s specific to that training, because the 1 through 4
doesn’t mean a thing.” Practitioner
Some informants recommended that CE programs set aside a designated period of time for discussion.
One respondent noted that “one whole hour has to be devoted to discussion and the facilitator can
engage in the discussion and that people don’t leave right after the presentation’s over with, with people
are rushing out to get their certificates before the discussion. They really have to require they can’t get it
‘til they’ve sat in on the discussion and the questions as well.”
Several participants proposed that CE providers implement innovative delivery models to enhance skills
development and translation to practice that reflect adult learning models -such as episodic CE sessions
on a topic spread out over time, with time to practice skills in between. Also, it was made abundantly
clear by practitioner participants that the content of much of CE is too basic that that CE providers need
to ensure different levels of practice (intermediate, beginner, etc.). There was agreement among groups
that CE providers create programs based on systematic needs assessment:
“I think that we need to, moving forward, continue to poll social workers. And I don’t think we do
it, about what they see is coming up, what are the next, what are the things they’re interested-
we do ask at the end of every live program - we do in our evaluation ask what other programs
would you be interested in? We also do ask that, but only the people who are interested in
writing something fill that out. I mean so it’s a self-selected people who are doing that. So
number one, finding out what the hot issues are and what the interesting things are is one
issue.”
There was strong validation of the need for affordable and accessible CE programming as a means of
ensuring continued vitality and viability of social work CE. One practitioner participant put it this way:
“I think I would make it so that CEs were accessible and financially affordable, quality CEs were
financially affordable to everyone. I know that we don’t want the financial burden, but I don’t
51
know how many money wasn’t a factor in the accessibility. I just mean for a social worker
student or a young fresh one that just started out that makes $28,000 a year. They’re going to
go and get the $3.99 CEs. They eat Ramen Noodles, I mean that’s what’s going to happen.”
Participant
One faculty respondent recommended that CE courses need to relocate from hotels and university
venues, suggesting that CE providers, “need to stop expecting people to come to us and we need to be
more willing to go to them, so I think where we located CEU events, we worked with agencies, we could
maybe offer them in agency context or negotiate with groups to provide them and that would be a way
of having more of an impact and also creating a learning community within an existing network.”
Finally, one surprising theme that surfaced across practitioner groups was the value of supervision for
lifelong learning and recommendations that some portion of CE’s over a licensing period could be
devoted to supervision:
“I like the idea of having some kind of options in terms of what counts as CE eligible, such as a
peer supervision group or just kind of broadening those categories a little bit more because just
having courses and the units is too restricting. So to open that up and I know that you can get
some CEs like if you teach or if you go to school or something get a degree, something that could
count, but I think other things like the peer thing and the supervision is really, really important.”
Key Informant
Improving CE: The Role of Regulators
Board participants in the focus groups emphasized the importance for accountability of licensing boards’
roles in promoting CE accountability among those authorized to provide it. For example:
“I think in a perfect world, the board would have the resources to hold the approved providers
their feet to the fire a little bit more and have more, have, hold them accountable for the CEs
that they’re providing…I think certainly our hope would be a future reg change would be more
quality based in how the board would be measuring the quality of a program, and whether it’s,
and speaking hypothetically here, but requiring evidence-based practice to be shown, that
there’s research that there’s X number of years of research before a program is put on or peer
reviewed research or you know whatever the case may be but I think that that’s what our regs
lack right now.” Regulator
There was strong sentiment among board informants that if CE-related regulations were clearer and
more quality-based, it would enable boards to hold CE providers more accountable. According to one
board informant:
“As it stands right now, for us to audit these entities, again, it would be hard for them to fail. The
regs are pretty basic and so it’s not really setting the bar very high right now, and so I think that
if we were to just maybe be able to beef up the regulations a bit, that it would enable us, with
our very limited resources to hold them a bit more accountable.” Regulator
52
Comments from board informants suggested support for changing the culture of CE from one of
“compliance” with required CE hours, to a commitment to “lifelong learning” and “public protection.”
This goal would be achieved through collaboration with professional organizations and universities to
assess regulatory effectiveness and promotion of CE in “less popular” but key areas such as record-
keeping, confidentiality protection, etc. On this subject, there was fairly strong endorsement across
groups that certain CE content should be required for re-licensure. Changing regulations to mandate
social work content was an idea endorsed by large numbers of participants across diverse focus groups.
Most often the content area of ethics was referenced, but the need for required content in other areas
was also noted. This view is reflected by one informant as follows:
“I don’t want to use the word ‘mandate’ but have some- to have a certain percentage in ethics
and I would like to add something in social justice, something that did incorporate the macro, the
looking at the bigger picture that’s not so clinically focused, but at least if it was incorporated, if
you had to be incorporated, so if you didn’t lose the social work.” Practitioner
A strong endorsement for requiring specific ethics content was reflected in this comment from a board
regulator, “I think we would all agree that a requirement of at least 3 CEs in ethics would be huge and
would be certainly something that we would recommend that the board truly consider in any move to a
regulation change.” Another board participant recommended a sort of rotation of required topic areas
over multiple licensing renewal cycles:
“And you know I think maybe it would be beneficial if we had a couple different topics that every
renewal cycle somebody could pick one, so it’s not just kind of redundant-Boundaries,
recordkeeping.” Regulator
Improving CE: Schools of Social Work
Faculty participants noted that beyond offering CE programs, there was an opportunity to reclaim CE as
a focal area for schools of social work and they endorsed the need to support CE programs as part of
higher education’s service to profession. Schools of social work are ideally situated to develop new
models of CE that would better meet the needs of practicing professionals. One faculty participant
suggested that schools could facilitate conversations among diverse constituencies to drive a research-
to-practice agenda that values stakeholder voices:
“What I see happening in our program is that continuing education is very faculty-driven, and it’s
really based on faculty perceptions about what practitioners need. And I tend to be more of a
bottom up kind of person myself. And I would like to see us do more partnerships with agencies
and communities to have all of the stakeholders’ voices be heard in planning on continuing
education so that we’re giving people what they need and maybe some of what we think they
need, but that their needs are really driving what we’re providing rather than vice versa.“
Faculty
53
Professors felt that to bolster their commitment to CE, they needed to nurture a learning community
among themselves. This view was reflected in a comment by one faculty participant who felt that there
could be creative ways to sustain a learning community among his faculty colleagues:
“The lag in doing research and then get it published and getting it out there is a long time. So I
mean people do write papers to each other, say you get a small group of colleagues and you
exchange papers that you wrote last night. I like that. I haven’t done it actually, but once in a
while, somebody will send you a paper they wrote. And it’s a great way to combine a research
approach or a scientific approach to something you’re doing in practice, so I guess it makes me
think of small groups that you would attach yourself to over time and you’d go to maybe the
Cape with them once and maybe decide to go someplace else another time, but I think the small
group is a good venue for continuing education.”
Regarding the disconnect between the academy and practice noted earlier in this study, one participant
urged greater attention to diversification of CE offerings by university-based CE programs:
“I think sometimes there’s a disconnection in what is in the field, CBT or is what is presented but
not necessarily what the people in the field are working with... Sometimes also it’s at the end
when it’s close to the time that the license is coming up, all these things [laughter] come up and
presented and selected, and so there is not much diversity in what is offered. I find myself looking
at what different institutions are giving and it’s very similar, so and I’m like wow, there is so
much more that could be offered, and it’s not.”
Improving CE: The Role of Employers
Many of our subjects spoke to how difficult it was to get time off and necessary funding from their
employers to attend CE. In addition to supporting employees in attending CE, agencies can strengthen
the implementation of new knowledge and practice skills by consciously considering how to help
practitioners utilize what they learn. Among participants, there was strong endorsement of the idea that
agencies needed to do more to both support social workers’ attendance at CE programs and to educate
supervisors about how to facilitate the translation of new learning and skills into practice:
“Translating what you hear, what you see in a conference and bringing it back to work, so if you
could track that, throughout time in terms of a higher system of supervisor, program director in
my case, to clinician and being able to track that in some way, shape, or form, and in a year,
bring it back and say how often did you use this skill? How effective was this skill? What did you
learn from this skill? And what could you do differently?” Practitioner
Where possible, informants recommended that agencies address time and cost barriers to staff
participation in CE, and help staff practitioners locate quality, affordable CE opportunities (e.g. “Yelp” for
CE). Moreover, subjects expressed the sentiment that agencies communicate the organizational value of
participation in CE as a form of lifelong learning.
54
A macro participant described a model of employer-based workforce development that provided
positive educational benefits:
“The Fellow Program here. It was really fabulous and it profiled 15 fellows or 20 fellows. They
provide these fellows with a ton of coaching, and they all go to another country and pick 8 or 6
or some number every 3 years and they all go to another country and there’s an intense
experience in a developing country, and they get toured around all these incredibly community
development, community organizing type organizations all of which are right in our cup of tea
and then they come back, and they stay together as a group and they provide intensive support
to each other around their next step as leaders in the field, in their particular field. And some of
them were competitors and they’re forced to become collaborators, and the names of people
that they’ve picked are like again, all of the nonprofit leaders in Boston that I have always
aspired to. Then it showed what happened to them over the course of the next few years and
how they use their networks to advance the agenda of their particular organization. And it was
like this great way of supporting a group of people with a shared vision and a shared purpose,
even though their fields were very different.” Macro Practitioner
Improving CE: Role of Professional Organizations
Professional organizations serve as important advocates for the social work profession, and some offer
extensive CE programs. However, conflicts of interest appear regularly: professional organizations must
balance the imperative to bring in CE income with the need to promote high quality, effective CE
offerings. Social work employers have limited funds to support workforce development, and CE
programs face competition from lower quality and lower-priced CE. The CE marketplace, adrift in
offerings, leaves professionals confused. One recommendation from a practitioner participant
suggested the establishment of a process for vetting the quality of CE across the proliferating entities.
This recommendation suggested a sort of centralized, “presenter rating system… it would be helpful to
have some sort of presenter rating system. Like I can go on and I can do this with my car, before I buy a
car, I can do a comparison shop.”
Massachusetts Case Study Summary
The Missing Link Project’s Massachusetts Case Study provides insight and perspective on the grounded
experiences of stakeholder groups in one state regarding social work CE. The study, which drew
participants from across the state in 11 different focus groups, gives a rich and grounded description of
the concerns, experiences and obstacles experienced by stakeholders as they seek to provide, regulate
or obtain CE. The voices of practitioners, both clinical and macro, and students as well, were particularly
illuminating, especially because these views were not captured in the surveys. While strengths were
noted in the current CE system — including breadth of offerings and diversity of topics — participant
informants had many concerns, that ranged from access, cost and missing areas of CE, quality control
concerns, lack of support for CE by employers and the need for enhanced and effective transfer of
knowledge and skills when back on the job. The loneliness and individual burden of social workers as
they sought to identify, purchase, and learn from CE was particularly poignant, as was their
55
disappointment when, not infrequently, expensive CE did not meet their needs. Other groups, such as
faculty, board administrators, and professional organization staff, also expressed their views and
concerns. Certain concerns were common across groups: cost, access, quality, effectiveness and skills
transfer were universal concerns, while individual stakeholder groups had, understandably, challenges
specific to their charges or interests. Macro practitioners, for instance, experienced a profound lack of
relevant programming and felt largely invisible to the entire CE system. The suggestions and
recommendations made by focus group members were as varied as the participants. Many were
noteworthy and insightful, and are included in the recommendation section below.
56
Section C. Recommendations
The findings from both the national survey and the qualitative study underscore that broadly, all
constituents understand the central importance of CE to the social work profession and to the public.
Clearly, the concerns about the CE system are multi-faceted and stakeholders offered a variety of
specific suggestions for how to improve CE. While findings from both the surveys and the qualitative
study indicate that all stakeholder groups are concerned about CE quality and effectiveness, most are
not in dialogue with each other about how to improve this important area of social work
professionalism. Like the old story about three blind men in a room with an elephant, each of whom
describes an ear, a tail and a trunk without having a full grasp of the elephant, the respondents in our
study, while informed by their own perspectives, had little understanding of the views or mandates of
other stakeholders. This section includes our synthesis of the best ideas for how to increase dialogue
and promote action to improve this essential component of the social work profession. To that end, we
begin our recommendations with a call for a National Conversation on the State of Continuing Education
in Social work.
National Conversation on the State of CE in Social Work
We strongly recommend that ASWB engage other key stakeholders concerned with the quality of social
work practice to begin a national conversation about the state of CE in social work. Both the national
survey and the qualitative case study document widespread concerns with CPE quality and
effectiveness. To address these concerns, each relevant constituent group — regulators, CE providers,
social work faculty, leaders in the profession, and, most importantly, practitioners — need to be in
dialogue with one another to brainstorm and action plan for quality and effectiveness improvement. To
that end, our specific recommendations to begin this national dialogue include:
ASWB, working with other leading social work organizations, should establish a
campaign that features CE as the Professional Issue of the Year.
Together with NASW, CSWE and other leadership organizations as co-sponsors, ASWB
should host a “State of the State of CE” conference. This conference should be organized
both as an action conference and as a place to present relevant research and models that may
improve CE in social work. The call for papers should include research that addresses major
issues in CE, such as conflicts of interest, lack of systematic needs assessment, comparative CE
models across professions, the tensions between online and other CE types, the potential for CE
as a mechanism to translate research to practice, and major gaps such as the absence of macro
CE. At the end of the conference, small group to large group facilitation can result in an action
plan with specific goals to improve CE across the domains and organizations of social work.
ASWB should also coordinate an agreement from one or more major social work
journals, to dedicate one issue or supplement to CE issues. This effort can also be part of
the Professional Issue of the Year campaign.
57
ASWB should develop a social media campaign dedicated to CE as the Professional
Issue of the Year, with the specific goals of engaging practitioners in a conversation
about CE, and promoting awareness of CE’s importance in burnout prevention, ethics,
and the continuation of lifelong learning in the profession.
ASWB should make improvement and innovation of CE one of its major strategic
planning goals for the next five years. In recognition that one organization will need to
“own” CE as an issue, ASWB, because of its leadership role in social work CE, should be that
organization.
Quality and Effectiveness
The concerns, issues and views on quality and effectiveness were, in many ways, the key findings that
emerged from this study. In both the surveys and in the case study, respondents noted the unevenness
of CE quality, and the difficulty transferring knowledge and skills from CE into practice. There was strong
support for “thinking outside the box” for ways to improve CE. Focus group participants, in particular,
urged that that CE be reconceptualized; for example, participants spoke of wanting more competency-
based CE that focused on practice outcomes, not on the “CE hour” model. Our recommendations for
improving the quality and effectiveness of CE are as follows:
ASWB needs to actively support research to develop a validated rating system for
assessing the quality and effectiveness of CE. The goal is to raise the bar on quality
standards for CE to better ensure that social workers remain current and obtain the CE that they
most need. The CE rating system should, at a minimum, assess the quality of the content, the
training experience, and the effectiveness of the training. Among the questions to be answered
are: What is the quality of the content? Is it current? Is it evidence-based? Does it adequately
address the diversity of populations served? Is the session interactive, participatory, skill-
based? Is it engaging? Does it address the needs of adult learners and different learning styles?
Is the speaker/facilitator knowledgeable? Has the presenter been properly vetted? Are there
handouts, exercises or PowerPoint presentations with an emphasis on “take away” skills?
Finally, what is the effectiveness of the training? How well does the training support the
transfer of knowledge into practice?
ASWB should support the development of an online “CE Quality Ranking” or “Rate My
CE Provider” system such as exists for businesses, doctors and professors on Yelp.
While most CE programs include participant evaluations, these are rarely available online. A free
public online ranking system could include participant ratings of quality dimension such as
presenter skill, cost, relevance of training to practice, and currency. Because our findings
consistently identify the instructor as a key factor in the experience of CE quality, an easy to use,
online practitioner evaluation system would provide practitioners with the perspectives of
others, as well as a voice for assessing quality of CE.
58
ASWB should support the development of a system for designating levels of CE
training (beginning, intermediate, and advanced). Practitioners in the focus groups stated
they are routinely frustrated by the lack of levels in CE, and noted the tendency for most CE to
be offered at the beginner level. The designation of a CE program’s level should be done at the
point of approval, according to established standards. ASWB and NASW should work together to
establish these standards and implement them immediately.
ASWB should support the development of alternatives to the “CE hour” model. It is
essential that social work move rapidly to develop a system of allocating credit for CE that is tied
to quality and effectiveness. Currently, the ubiquitous “CE hour” model allocates CE credit
based primarily on length of training, not its quality or effectiveness. As this study has shown,
most stakeholders believe the current mechanisms for assessing quality are insufficient. For
instance, in the current system, reading an hour of material from a “CEU mill” garners an equal
number of CE credits as a one hour session from a national expert who employs the latest
evidence-based research and actively engages participants in building skills. In-person CE or a
high quality online CE program may cost more than a pamphlet, but their effectiveness in
professional development may far outstrip cheaper competition. However, without serious
research inquiry into CE best practices, the proliferation of potentially inferior CE will continue
unabated.
ASWB should mobilize other leading social work organizations to support research on
the evaluation of CE effectiveness. CE Providers need to assess, not just the perception of
program quality, but the participants’ ability to implement what has been learned. The true
measure of effectiveness is the ability to transfer and implement that learning in the practice
environment. Because transfer and implementation occur over time, support is needed to
expand the evaluation of CE beyond the measurement of participants’ self-assessment of
knowledge and skill gains at the time of the program. To achieve this level of evaluation, the
involvement and support of employers and national social work organizations are needed. An
important component of effectiveness evaluation will be to assess the relative effectiveness of
the various CE modalities currently available (in-person, online, home education, for profit and
non-social work CE). To truly assess the competence of practicing social workers, however,
workplace behavioral assessments may be the most helpful tool, and should be considered by
regulators as a possibility. Some instruments, such as the Objective Structured Clinical
Examinations (OSCE), have been adapted for social work and hold promise for evaluation of
social work competencies on the job.
An independent watchdog organization is needed that establishes, validates and
maintains the integrity of social work CE. The organization charged with this role should be
sufficiently independent from involvement in the provision of CE, and the profit streams
associated with it, to avoid a direct conflict of interest. If the same organization undertakes
both functions, there should be a clear firewall between the two functions. Currently, many
social work professional organizations charged with authorizing CE are significantly dependent
59
upon income from popular, but not necessarily high quality or effective, CE programming. As
part of the process to identify the organization to assume this watchdog function, the role of
national NASW, state NASWs, and ASWB needs to be examined and issues of CE conflict of
interest in terms of quality control need to be squarely faced.
Accessibility
Broad concerns about CE accessibility were evident in the findings from both the surveys and the case
study. Accessibility can mean geographic access or financial access; it can refer to meeting the CE needs
of social workers with disabilities or varied learning styles; it can signify the absence of programming in
entire areas of practice, such as macro social work. One of the most distressing findings from our study
was the degree to which practitioners struggled to access CE in the face of numerous obstacles,
including cost, time off, uneven quality, difficulty translating CE learning into effective practice, and lack
of support from their employers. These impediments were, in some cases, so onerous, that one
participant actually admitted that she no longer viewed continuing education as learning: “…I’ve never
associated getting a CE with learning…learning I do on my own, so I’ve always seen them as separate
things.” Access issues for CE need to be better understood by employers because CE enables
connection, refreshes workers, and strengthens skills. Like vacation, it decreases burnout. Agencies must
begin to view CE as investment in long-term workforce stabilization. Addressing CE access issues will
require multifaceted responses across the profession. As first steps in this important process, we
recommend the following:
Using the national NASW email listserv, NASW and ASWB should conduct a national
needs assessment of the barriers and obstacles inhibiting access to CE. This national
picture would enable professional organizations to determine the types of access issues
affecting social workers. In particular, this sample could identify geographic need, disability-
related access issues, financial access concerns, and major gaps in the provision of underserved
content, such as macro practice.
ASWB and other leadership organizations should push for the creation of a sliding fee
scale for all CE programs sponsored by NASW, schools of social work and
NASW/ASWB approved entities. While sliding scales are difficult to implement and hard to
enforce, their use would make CE more financially accessible and would serve as an important
ethical call to the profession. Recommendations on how to make CE financially accessible should
be drafted and shared nationally.
ASWB, CSWE, and NADD should work jointly to promote CE involvement in schools of
social work, including supporting the integration of CE in research grants as a standard
profession for findings dissemination. In addition to promoting the translation of research
to practice, grant-sponsored CE will reduce the costs of CE and increase the availability and
support for agency-based training.
60
ASWB, together with other leadership organizations, should initiate a campaign to
advocate among employer and agencies for the restoration of CE funding. Agencies and
employers who support CE, e.g., by funding time off for social workers to attend CE, should be
given recognition and highlighted as part of the Professional Issue of the Year campaign.
Social Work Schools and Faculty
Our study reflects the mixed relationship schools of social work have with social work CE; some are very
invested and committed to CE; others less so. Over the past twenty years, some schools of social work
have moved away from providing CE. Research suggests that many schools of social work- based CE
programs are in trouble financially. Schools can recommit to CE, particularly if they understand that CE is
the “sweet spot” of research translation, that CE provides the school with a “public face” in the
community, and that expert teachers can enhance CE quality and effectiveness. In our study, faculty
members and school of social work-based CE Directors acknowledged that faculty members had few
incentives to participate in the CE system, and that schools of social are not sufficiently involved with or
supportive of CE. Many observed that this was yet another reflection of the ongoing academic/practice
community divide. To strengthen the critical role of schools of social work in CE, we offer the following
recommendations:
ASWB should work with other leading social work organizations to encourage schools
of social work to recommit to establishing and funding CE programs. Such programs can
serve multiple roles for schools of social work. They can link expert teachers to the community
of practitioners, enhancing the opportunity for academic/community partnerships. They can
provide schools a way to engage alumni and support existing agencies, and their presence
reinforces for students the importance of lifelong learning. CE programs also can serve as a
laboratory to study the transfer of faculty-related research to practice. Done well, CE programs
are fully integrated into the school’s mission, and offer some of the best examples of well-run
and fully evaluable programs offered in the profession.
ASWB should highlight and promote innovative agency and field-based CE programs,
as well as model efforts by schools of social work to integrate and support CE in the
field. For example, ASWB should encourage and promote communities of learning within
schools of social work and the agencies they work with; e.g., where faculty members model CE
attendance and engagement in lifelong learning, work together with field supervisors to learn,
and model for students lifelong learning and academic/community cooperation. Again, positive
press about innovative programs should be highlighted as part of the Professional Issue of the
Year campaign.
Working with schools of social work and other social work organizations, ASWB
should promote lifelong learning within the BSW/MSW curricula. CE should be
introduced early in a social work student’s program. Graduating students should be fully
informed of the CE requirements in their state and know how and where to access relevant CE.
61
BSW and MSW programs should include curriculum that teaches about professional
development, lifelong learning, and the importance of embracing evidence- and theory-
informed practice throughout their careers.
ASWB, GADE and NADD should work together to identify points of linkage and
support between CE and doctoral education. CE is woefully understudied, and among the
growing ranks of doctoral students are the future scholars who could do the scholarship and
research needed to advance this issue for the profession. These points of linkage and
mechanisms of support should be explored and disseminated.
Regulation and Oversight
Board regulators have a key role in strengthening CE. Their role as public protectors, and the power that
comes with that, provide a unique opportunity to improve CE. In our national surveys, regulators were
among the strongest critics of the existing CE system, expressing concern for its purpose, quality and
effectiveness. For this key stakeholder group to make an impact on the social work CE system, they
need better research, more tools, and a deeper ongoing working relationship with other stakeholders.
Based on these findings, we offer the following recommendations to improve the role of regulation and
oversight in CE programing in social work:
ASWB and its constituent regulators should take the lead in launching the National
Conversation on the State of CE in Social Work. As described above, the purpose of this
effort is to increase dialogue between relevant stakeholders about the quality and effectiveness
of social work CE. ASWB is in a unique leadership role in social work CE and can serve as the
convener for this conversation.
ASWB should promote the enactment of regulations that specify quality and
effectiveness standards in CE. Once established, ASWB and state regulators should conduct
regular audits of CE programs for quality and effectiveness standards, both within and outside
the social work provider CE community.
ASWB should lead the effort to help inform, educate and advise regulatory boards
about CE quality and effectiveness issues. ASWB can help regulatory boards undertake an
important self-education process related to CE, which would help to strengthen its dialogue with
other stakeholders, who may or may not fully understand the positive potential and role of
regulation. Regulators can be part of an important educational process for the whole profession
on the role of regulation and, in particular, help the profession understand the centrality of CE
and understand what happens when social workers underperform and fall below the standards
of practice. Regulators, some of whom may not be social workers, may need to become better
informed about the profession and become more sophisticated about issues related to CE
quality and effectiveness.
62
Working with leading social work organizations, ASWB should develop guidelines for
the use of CE by Licensing Boards. In this study, regulators charged with helping social
workers who are not meeting professional standards requested better information to answer
questions about how and if CE is effective in improving social worker competence. Working with
schools of social work, NASW, and other CE Providers, ASWB should support the development of
CE “core courses” needed to discipline and retrain social workers whose practice falls below
professional standards in predictable areas. High quality, effective remedial CE is needed in
content areas such as boundary maintenance and dual relationships, recordkeeping, technology
management, confidentiality, and ethics.
Together with social work researchers, ASWB should identify and promote a national
conversation and dialogue on how much CE is needed by practicing social workers. In
addition, ASWB should take the lead in determining if the enactment of “ethics” requirements
as part of CE. While many of our stakeholders believed it to be important, a conversation about
requiring ethics education as part of CE is urgently needed.
Macro Practice
Macro practice, also known as community practice, includes numerous content areas that relate to
community organizing, program planning and implementation, administration, supervision, policy
analysis and nonprofit management. Some background on the relationship of macro social work to
licensure is necessary to fully appreciate the concerns of practitioners and other stakeholders from this
study, and also the recommendations below. Nationally, graduates from macro social work programs
have, at best, an uncertain relationship with social work licensure. In Massachusetts, macro social
workers are eligible for licensure at the Licensed Certified Social Work level, and some do pursue it,
although, beyond public protection, licensure’s benefits for macro practitioners are less tangible. Macro
practitioners rarely seek the Licensed Independent Clinical Social Work license in this state, and
Massachusetts does not have advanced generalist licensure. It is unlawful to practice social work
without a license in Massachusetts and as a consequence, macro practitioners frequently choose to
refrain from calling themselves social workers rather than break the law. Without licensure, macro
practitioners are not held to CE requirements and, in the market driven environment of CE, their
learning needs are rarely recognized. In our focus group, macro practitioners spoke of the dearth of CE
offerings; the frustration of needing to go outside the field to continue one’s learning; and the absence
of a social work perspective in the CE they did find. Macro practitioners were vocal in their observations
that “macro skills are for everyone, including clinicians” who would also benefit from macro-focused CE
as they moved into macro responsibilities on the job. Macro practitioners represent roughly 10% of the
profession; their learning needs have gone largely unaddressed and this content area — relevant to all
social workers — has been largely ignored. In order to establish this as an issue for the field, we
recommend that:
ASWB and the above stakeholders should conduct exploratory research to better
understand the continuing education needs of macro social workers. Our study has
63
highlighted in depth the concerns of macro practitioners in one state. Similar research is needed
in other states to understand the full range of concerns of macro social workers. Guidelines and
benchmarks for type and amount of macro CE should be established, based on the this research.
ASWB other macro-related organizations should highlight the importance of macro CE
for all social workers. Since the majority of practitioners will ultimately take on macro roles in
the workplace, macro CE should not be viewed as a niche area, but rather an essential area of
social work CE. The campaign, one component of the Professional Issue of the Year campaign,
should underscore the importance and relevance of macro skills development.
64
References
NOTE: An expanded literature review and reference list is provided in Appendix C.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London: Sage.
Congress, E. (2012) Continuing education: Lifelong learning for social work practitioners and
educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 48(3), 397-401.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Strom-Gottfried, K. (2008) Continuing Education. In: Mizrahi, T., & Davis, L. (Eds). Encyclopedia of Social
Work (20th ed). New York: National Association of Social Workers, Oxford University Press.
Whitaker, T., and Arrington, P. (2008). Professional development. NASW Membership Workforce Study.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
65
Appendices
Appendix A: Copy of Survey Instrument Used in the National Survey of Continuing
Professional Education
Appendix B: Data Tables for the National Survey of Continuing Professional
Education
Appendix C: Literature Review
66
Appendix A: Survey Instrument Used for
the National Study of Continuing Professional Education
Social Work Faculty Survey Instrument
81
Appendix B: Data Tables from the
National Survey of Continuing Professional Education
Basic demographic information of respondents is provided below, followed by data tables for the each
section of the survey. One way analysis of various (ANOVA) was used to examine differences in mean
average rating scores for survey items. Items with significant differences in average rating scores are
indicated by asterisk (*). The Fischer LSD post-hoc comparison test was used to identify groups with
significantly higher or lower rating scores than other respondent groups for a particular item. For
these items, the highest and lowest average rating scores will be significantly different from each
other. Other significant differences for an item are not shown in the tables, but are discussed in the
body of the report. More information on the analyses conducted can be provided on request.
Age of Respondents
N Mean Std. Deviation
CE Directors 22 33.3636 12.52634
SW Faculty 150 38.3200 9.41605
Regulators/Board 46 32.6739 12.82542
NASW/CASW 83 33.1446 13.17253
Other Prof Org 137 37.5547 11.14208
Total 438 36.2580 11.46758
Social Work Status
Are you a social worker? Total
No Yes
CE Directors 4 20 24
16.7% 83.3% 100.0%
SW Faculty 4 160 164
2.4% 97.6% 100.0%
Regulators/Board 12 36 48
25.0% 75.0% 100.0%
NASW/CASW 2 85 87
2.3% 97.7% 100.0%
Other Prof Org 11 135 146
7.5% 92.5% 100.0%
Total 33 436 469
7.0% 93.0% 100.0%
82
Gender What is your gender? Total
Female Male Transgender
CE Directors SW Faculty Regulators/Board NASW/CASW Other Professional Organizations Total
23 2 1 26
88.5% 7.7% 3.8% 100.0%
122 38 2 162
75.3% 23.5% 1.2% 100.0%
38 11 0 49
77.6% 22.4% 0.0% 100.0%
65 21 1 87
74.7% 24.1% 1.1% 100.0%
115 26 0 141
81.6% 18.4% 0.0% 100.0%
363 98 4 465
78.1% 21.1% 0.9% 100.0%
Social Work Degrees Held by Respondents
Number and Percent of Respondents in Each
Group with Social Work Degrees
Total BSW MSW
DSW/
Doctorate
CE NET 7
30.0%
48
29.3%
12
25.0%
19
21.8%
37 25.3%
123
26.1%
21 6 26
80.8% 23.1% 100.0%
SW Faculty 141 110 164
86.0% 67.1% 100.0%
Regulators/Board 32 3 48
66.6% 2.1% 100.0%
NASW/CASW 82 4 87
94.3% 4.6% 100.0%
Other Prof Org 118 38 146
80.8% 26.0% 100.0%
Total 394 161 471
83.7% 34.2% 100.0%
Selected Race/Ethnicity of Respondents Selected Race/Ethnicity of Respondents
Total
African-American/
Black
Latino
Asian/ Pacific
Islander
Native American/ Alaskan native White
CE Directors SW Faculty Regulators/Board NASW/CASW Other Professional Organizations Total
2 2 1 1 20 26
7.7% 7.7% 3.8% 3.8% 76,9% 100.0%
12 7 6 5 134 162
7.4% 4.3% 3.7% 3.0% 82.7% 100.0%
8 1 2 1 40 49
16.3% 2.0% 4.0% 2.0% 81.6% 100.0%
7 4 2 1 77 87
8.0% 4.6% 2.3% 1.1 88.5% 100.0%
10 3 6 2 121 141
7.0% 2.1% 4.3% 1.4% 85.8% 100.0%
39 17 17 10 392 465
8.4% 3.7% 3.7% 2.2% 84.3% 100.0%
Note: Row percentages may not add to 100% as respondents could self-identify in multiple race/ethnic groups.
83
General Purpose of CE (six questions)
Provide up-to-date information on a topic of interest *
Total
Average
Rating Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 0 0 1 11 19 31
0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 35.5% 61.3% 100.0% 4.5806
SW Faculty 0 2 6 46 116 170
0.0% 1.2% 3.5% 27.1% 68.2% 100.0% 4.6235
Regulators/Board 1 1 7 25 18 52
1.9% 1.9% 13.5% 48.1% 34.6% 100.0% 4.1154
NASW/CASW 0 0 7 21 62 90
0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 23.3% 68.9% 100.0% 4.6111
Other Prof Org 1 3 10 45 94 153
0.7% 2.0% 6.5% 29.4% 61.4% 100.0% 4.4902
Total 2 6 31 148 309 496
0.4% 1.2% 6.2% 29.8% 62.3% 100.0% 4.5242
* F (4,491)=5.930, p=.000
Inform attendees about best practices.
Total
Average
Rating
Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 0 0 0 7 24 31
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.6% 77.4% 100.0% 4.7742
SW Faculty 1 1 4 39 127 172
0.6% 0.6% 2.3% 22.7% 73.8% 100.0% 4.6860
Regulators/Board 0 0 4 18 30 52
0.0% 0.0% 7.7% 34.6% 57.7% 100.0% 4.5000
NASW/CASW 0 0 4 22 64 90
0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 24.4% 71.1% 100.0% 4.6667
Other Prof Org 0 1 12 31 109 153
0.0% 0.7% 7.8% 20.3% 71.2% 100.0% 4.6209
Total 1 2 24 117 354 498
0.2% 0.4% 4.8% 23.5% 71.1% 100.0% 4.6486
F (4,493)=1.360, p=.247
84
Teach new practice skills *
Total
Average
Rating Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 0 0 1 10 20 31
0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 32.3% 64.5% 100.0% 4.6129
SW Faculty 0 1 10 51 106 168
0.0% 0.6% 6.0% 30.4% 63.1% 100.0% 4.5595
Regulators/Board 0 0 6 30 16 52
0.0% 0.0% 11.5% 57.7% 30.8% 100.0% 4.1923
NASW/CASW 0 2 5 29 53 89
0.0% 2.2% 5.6% 32.6% 59.6% 100.0% 4.4944
Other Prof Org 0 0 6 42 104 152
0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 27.6% 68.4% 100.0% 4.6447
Total 0 3 28 162 299 492
0.0% 0.6% 5.7% 32.9% 60.8% 100.0% 4.5386
* F (4,487)=5.421, p=.000
Translate research into practice *
Total
Average
Rating Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 0 1 1 19 9 30
0.0% 3.3% 3.3% 63.3% 30.0% 100.0% 4.2000
SW Faculty 2 5 19 72 72 170
1.2% 2.9% 11.2% 42.4% 42.4% 100.0% 4.2176
Regulators/Board 0 3 8 29 9 49
0.0% 6.1% 16.3% 59.2% 18.4% 100.0% 3.8980
NASW/CASW 0 6 10 40 33 89
0.0% 6.7% 11.2% 44.9% 37.1% 100.0% 4.1236
Other Prof Org 0 6 20 46 80 152
0.0% 3.9% 13.2% 30.3% 52.6% 100.0% 4.3158
Total 2 21 58 206 203 490
0.4% 4.3% 11.8% 42.0% 41.4% 100.0% 4.1980
* F (4,485)=2.549, p=.039
85
Ensure social work practitioners are competent
Total
Average
Rating Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 0 0 1 8 21 30
0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 26.7% 70.0% 100.0% 4.6667
SW Faculty 1 7 13 39 108 168
0.6% 4.2% 7.7% 23.2% 64.3% 100.0% 4.4643
Regulators/Board 0 1 3 8 40 52
0.0% 1.9% 5.8% 15.4% 76.9% 100.0% 4.6731
NASW/CASW 1 0 8 15 66 90
1.1% 0.0% 8.9% 16.7% 73.3% 100.0% 4.6111
Other Prof Org 2 4 13 20 113 152
1.3% 2.6% 8.6% 13.2% 74.3% 100.0% 4.5658
Total 4 12 38 90 348 492
0.8% 2.4% 7.7% 18.3% 70.7% 100.0% 4.5569
F(4,487)=1.076, p=.368
Assist licensing boards in disciplining/improving under-
performing social workers
Total
Average
Rating Unimportant
Of Little
Importance
Moderately
Important Important
Most
Important
CE Directors 3 6 13 5 3 30
10.0% 20.0% 43.3% 16.7% 10.0% 100.0% 2.9667
SW Faculty 25 40 38 49 19 171
14.6% 23.4% 22.2% 28.7% 11.1% 100.0% 2.9825
Regulators/Board 3 9 10 17 11 50
6.0% 18.0% 20.0% 34.0% 22.0% 100.0% 3.4800
NASW/CASW 10 11 26 26 16 89
11.2% 12.4% 29.2% 29.2% 18.0% 100.0% 3.3034
Other Prof Org 27 32 25 39 30 153
17.6% 20.9% 16.3% 25.5% 19.6% 100.0% 3.0850
Total 68 98 112 136 79 493
13.8% 19.9% 22.7% 27.6% 16.0% 100.0% 3.1217
F (4,488)=2.071, p=.083
86
Content, Quality and Effectiveness of CE (13 items)
F (4,493)=1.942, p=.102
Generally, CE programs focus on best practices and are
evidence-informed *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 2 9 16 2 29
0.0% 6.9% 31.0% 55.2% 6.9% 100.0% 3.6207
SW Faculty 3 31 54 78 7 173
1.7% 17.9% 31.2% 45.1% 4.0% 100.0% 3.3179
Regulators/Board 0 6 19 25 2 52
0.0% 11.5% 36.5% 48.1% 3.8% 100.0% 3.4423
NASW/CASW 0 11 16 55 8 90
0.0% 12.2% 17.8% 61.1% 8.9% 100.0% 3.6667
Other Prof Org 1 24 44 74 11 154
0.6% 15.6% 28.6% 48.1% 7.1% 100.0% 3.4545
Total 4 74 142 248 30 498
0.8% 14.9% 28.5% 49.8% 6.0% 100.0% 3.4538
* F (4,493)=2.869, p=.023
Generally, CE for social workers is of high quality
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 2 7 18 2 29
0.0% 6.9% 24.1% 62.1% 6.9% 100.0% 3.6897
SW Faculty 4 27 47 83 12 173
2.3% 15.6% 27.2% 48.0% 6.9% 100.0% 3.4162
Regulators/Board 1 2 17 30 2 52
1.9% 3.8% 32.7% 57.7% 3.8% 100.0% 3.5769
NASW/CASW 0 9 16 59 6 90
0.0% 10.0% 17.8% 65.6% 6.7% 100.0% 3.6889
Other Prof Org 0 21 44 76 13 154
0.0% 13.6% 28.6% 49.4% 8.4% 100.0% 3.5260
Total 5 61 131 266 35 498
1.0% 12.2% 26.3% 53.4% 7.0% 100.0% 3.5321
87
Generally, CE emphasizes the integration of new skills and
competencies into practice
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 4 8 12 5 29
0.0% 13.8% 27.6% 41.4% 17.2% 100.0% 3.6207
SW Faculty 3 19 38 100 12 172
1.7% 11.0% 22.1% 58.1% 7.0% 100.0% 3.5756
Regulators/Board 0 3 14 33 2 52
0.0% 5.8% 26.9% 63.5% 3.8% 100.0% 3.6538
NASW/CASW 0 5 22 53 9 89
0.0% 5.6% 24.7% 59.6% 10.1% 100.0% 3.7416
Other Prof Org 1 21 46 72 14 154
0.6% 13.6% 29.9% 46.8% 9.1% 100.0% 3.5000
Total 4 52 128 270 42 496
0.8% 10.5% 25.8% 54.4% 8.5% 100.0% 3.5927
F(4,491)=1.333, p=.257
* F(4,493)=2.436, p=.046
Generally, CE uses engaging, varied, teaching methods
relevant to adult practitioners *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 11 11 4 29
0.0% 10.3% 37.9% 37.9% 13.8% 100.0% 3.5517
SW Faculty 3 36 61 67 6 173
1.7% 20.8% 35.3% 38.7% 3.5% 100.0% 3.2139
Regulators/Board 1 4 21 23 3 52
1.9% 7.7% 40.4% 44.2% 5.8% 100.0% 3.4423
NASW/CASW 0 13 26 46 5 90
0.0% 14.4% 28.9% 51.1% 5.6% 100.0% 3.4778
Other Prof Org 3 28 59 55 9 154
1.9% 18.2% 38.3% 35.7% 5.8% 100.0% 3.2532
Total 7 84 178 202 27 498
1.4% 16.9% 35.7% 40.6% 5.4% 100.0% 3.3173
88
Generally, CE programs meet the needs of
practitioners *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 2 22 2 29
0.0% 10.3% 6.9% 75.9% 6.9% 100.0% 3.7931
SW Faculty 3 24 58 81 7 173
1.7% 13.9% 33.5% 46.8% 4.0% 100.0% 3.3757
Regulators/Board 0 2 17 32 0 51
0.0% 3.9% 33.3% 62.7% 0.0% 100.0% 3.5882
NASW/CASW 0 6 26 51 6 89
0.0% 6.7% 29.2% 57.3% 6.7% 100.0% 3.6404
Other Prof Org 4 20 49 71 7 151
2.6% 13.2% 32.5% 47.0% 4.6% 100.0% 3.3775
Total 7 55 152 257 22 493
1.4% 11.2% 30.8% 52.1% 4.5% 100.0% 3.4706
* F(4,488)=3.607, p=.007
Generally, CE helps employers know that social
workers are staying current
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 7 6 12 2 28
3.6% 25.0% 21.4% 42.9% 7.1% 100.0% 3.2500
SW Faculty 1 47 37 73 14 172
0.6% 27.3% 21.5% 42.4% 8.1% 100.0% 3.3023
Regulators/Board 1 9 17 21 4 52
1.9% 17.3% 32.7% 40.4% 7.7% 100.0% 3.3462
NASW/CASW 3 10 27 42 8 90
3.3% 11.1% 30.0% 46.7% 8.9% 100.0% 3.4667
Other Prof Org 9 33 38 58 15 153
5.9% 21.6% 24.8% 37.9% 9.8% 100.0% 3.2418
Total 15 106 125 206 43 495
3.0% 21.4% 25.3% 41.6% 8.7% 100.0% 3.3152
F(4,490)=.769, p=.546
89
Generally, CE content is up-to-date *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 6 21 2 29
0.0% 0.0% 20.7% 72.4% 6.9% 100.0% 3.8621
SW Faculty 1 16 50 91 13 171
0.6% 9.4% 29.2% 53.2% 7.6% 100.0% 3.5789
Regulators/Board 0 2 15 33 2 52
0.0% 3.8% 28.8% 63.5% 3.8% 100.0% 3.6731
NASW/CASW 0 4 18 57 11 90
0.0% 4.4% 20.0% 63.3% 12.2% 100.0% 3.8333
Other Prof Org 3 14 45 75 17 154
1.9% 9.1% 29.2% 48.7% 11.0% 100.0% 3.5779
Total 4 36 134 277 45 496
0.8% 7.3% 27.0% 55.8% 9.1% 100.0% 3.6512
* F(4,491)=2.525, p=.040
Generally, CE content is developed in response to popular
trends in the field
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 7 14 8 29
0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 48.3% 27.6% 100.0% 4.0345
SW Faculty 2 5 28 107 27 169
1.2% 3.0% 16.6% 63.3% 16.0% 100.0% 3.8994
Regulators/Board 0 2 13 30 7 52
0.0% 3.8% 25.0% 57.7% 13.5% 100.0% 3.8077
NASW/CASW 0 4 18 49 18 89
0.0% 4.5% 20.2% 55.1% 20.2% 100.0% 3.9101
Other Prof Org 1 7 35 87 23 153
0.7% 4.6% 22.9% 56.9% 15.0% 100.0% 3.8105
Total 3 18 101 287 83 492
0.6% 3.7% 20.5% 58.3% 16.9% 100.0% 3.8720
F(4,487)=.810, p=.519
90
Generally, CE content is developed based on instructors'
interests
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 0 5 17 6 29
3.4% 0.0% 17.2% 58.6% 20.7% 100.0% 3.9310
SW Faculty 1 6 30 97 34 168
0.6% 3.6% 17.9% 57.7% 20.2% 100.0% 3.9345
Regulators/Board 0 2 19 22 9 52
0.0% 3.8% 36.5% 42.3% 17.3% 100.0% 3.7308
NASW/CASW 0 4 17 51 18 90
0.0% 4.4% 18.9% 56.7% 20.0% 100.0% 3.9222
Other Prof Org 0 6 41 84 23 154
0.0% 3.9% 26.6% 54.5% 14.9% 100.0% 3.8052
Total 2 18 112 271 90 493
0.4% 3.7% 22.7% 55.0% 18.3% 100.0% 3.8702
F(4,488)=1.176, p=.321
Generally, CE content is developed based on systematic
assessments of professionals' needs *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 2 8 8 8 2 28
7.1% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 7.1% 100.0% 3.0000
SW Faculty 17 71 55 27 3 173
9.8% 41.0% 31.8% 15.6% 1.7% 100.0% 2.5838
Regulators/Board 1 16 17 17 1 52
1.9% 30.8% 32.7% 32.7% 1.9% 100.0% 3.0192
NASW/CASW 3 23 35 24 5 90
3.3% 25.6% 38.9% 26.7% 5.6% 100.0% 3.0556
Other Prof Org 12 57 47 31 4 151
7.9% 37.7% 31.1% 20.5% 2.6% 100.0% 2.7219
Total 35 175 162 107 15 494
7.1% 35.4% 32.8% 21.7% 3.0% 100.0% 2.7814
* F(4,489)=5.093, p=.000
91
Generally, CE content is reflective of the diverse practices
within the profession (e.g. macro/community practice;
school social work, etc.) *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 8 2 16 3 29
0.0% 27.6% 6.9% 55.2% 10.3% 100.0% 3.4828
SW Faculty 13 58 42 51 8 172
7.6% 33.7% 24.4% 29.7% 4.7% 100.0% 2.9012
Regulators/Board 2 9 15 23 3 52
3.8% 17.3% 28.8% 44.2% 5.8% 100.0% 3.3077
NASW/CASW 6 15 18 46 5 90
6.7% 16.7% 20.0% 51.1% 5.6% 100.0% 3.3222
Other Prof Org 7 50 36 53 7 153
4.6% 32.7% 23.5% 34.6% 4.6% 100.0% 3.0196
Total 28 140 113 189 26 496
5.6% 28.2% 22.8% 38.1% 5.2% 100.0% 3.0907
* F(4,491)=4.391, p=.002
Generally, the standards used to approve CE programs
are clear across the profession *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
S
u
r
v
e
y
G
r
o
u
p
CE Directors 4 12 4 7 2 29
13.8% 41.4% 13.8% 24.1% 6.9% 100.0% 2.6897
SW Faculty 28 64 46 27 5 170
16.5% 37.6% 27.1% 15.9% 2.9% 100.0% 2.5118
Regulators/Board 7 12 16 13 3 51
13.7% 23.5% 31.4% 25.5% 5.9% 100.0% 2.8627
NASW/CASW 7 22 28 28 4 89
7.9% 24.7% 31.5% 31.5% 4.5% 100.0% 3.0000
Other Prof Org
25 50 46 26 6 153
16.3% 32.7% 30.1% 17.0% 3.9% 100.0% 2.5948
Total 71 160 140 101 20 492
14.4% 32.5% 28.5% 20.5% 4.1% 100.0% 2.6728
* F(4,487)=3.663, p=.006
92
Generally, the standards used to approve CE programs
are uniform across the profession *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagre
e Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 3 13 4 7 2 29
10.3% 44.8% 13.8% 24.1% 6.9% 100.0% 2.7241
SW Faculty 31 64 49 22 6 172
18.0% 37.2% 28.5% 12.8% 3.5% 100.0% 2.4651
Regulators/Boar
d
7 11 20 13 1 52
13.5% 21.2% 38.5% 25.0% 1.9% 100.0% 2.8077
NASW/CASW 8 23 33 22 2 88
9.1% 26.1% 37.5% 25.0% 2.3% 100.0% 2.8523
Other Prof Org 24 61 45 19 3 152
15.8% 40.1% 29.6% 12.5% 2.0% 100.0% 2.4474
Total 73 172 151 83 14 493
14.8% 34.9% 30.6% 16.8% 2.8% 100.0% 2.5801
* F(4,488)=3.593, p=.007
Comparison of CE Providers (nine questions)
CE offered by schools of social work *
Total
Average
Rating Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 0 0 2 15 11 28
0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 53.6% 39.3% 100.0% 4.3214
SW Faculty 2 4 41 85 39 171
1.2% 2.3% 24.0% 49.7% 22.8% 100.0% 3.9064
Regulators/Board 3 2 15 21 10 51
5.9% 3.9% 29.4% 41.2% 19.6% 100.0% 3.6471
NASW/CASW 1 9 35 28 14 87
1.1% 10.3% 40.2% 32.2% 16.1% 100.0% 3.5172
Other Prof Org 0 13 39 65 33 150
0.0% 8.7% 26.0% 43.3% 22.0% 100.0% 3.7967
Total 6 28 132 214 107 487
1.2% 5.7% 27.1% 43.9% 22.0% 100.0% 3.7967
* F(4,482)=5.816, p=.000
93
CE offered by professional organizations such as
NASW *
Total Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 0 5 5 13 5 28
0.0% 17.9% 17.9% 46.4% 17.9% 100.0% 3.6429
SW Faculty 4 19 53 69 26 171
2.3% 11.1% 31.0% 40.4% 15.2% 100.0% 3.5497
Regulators/Board 0 9 15 17 9 50
0.0% 18.0% 30.0% 34.0% 18.0% 100.0% 3.5200
NASW/CASW 1 1 24 33 31 90
1.1% 1.1% 26.7% 36.7% 34.4% 100.0% 4.0222
Other Prof Org 2 14 48 56 31 151
1.3% 9.3% 31.8% 37.1% 20.5% 100.0% 3.6623
Total 7 48 145 188 102 490
1.4% 9.8% 29.6% 38.4% 20.8% 100.0% 3.6735
* F(4,485)=4.122, p=.003
CE offered by for-profit CE companies
Total Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 4 8 8 7 1 28
14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 25.0% 3.6% 100.0% 2.7500
SW Faculty 9 47 65 37 3 161
5.6% 29.2% 40.4% 23.0% 1.9% 100.0% 2.8634
Regulators/Board 1 15 24 7 2 49
2.0% 30.6% 49.0% 14.3% 4.1% 100.0% 2.8776
NASW/CASW 4 19 40 19 4 86
4.7% 22.1% 46.5% 22.1% 4.7% 100.0% 3.0000
Other Prof Org 10 50 45 40 6 151
6.6% 33.1% 29.8% 26.5% 4.0% 100.0% 2.8808
Total 28 139 182 110 16 475
5.9% 29.3% 38.3% 23.2% 3.4% 100.0% 2.8884
F(4,470)=.485, p=.747
94
CE offered by employers ('in-service' CE) *
Total
Average
Rating Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 3 10 11 4 0 28
10.7% 35.7% 39.3% 14.3% 0.0% 100.0% 2.5714
SW Faculty 6 60 78 20 2 166
3.6% 36.1% 47.0% 12.0% 1.2% 100.0% 2.7108
Regulators/Board 1 15 18 15 0 49
2.0% 30.6% 36.7% 30.6% 0.0% 100.0% 2.9592
NASW/CASW 1 24 37 22 2 86
1.2% 27.9% 43.0% 25.6% 2.3% 100.0% 3.0000
Other Prof Org 6 43 72 23 6 150
4.0% 28.7% 48.0% 15.3% 4.0% 100.0% 2.8667
Total 17 152 216 84 10 479
3.5% 31.7% 45.1% 17.5% 2.1% 100.0% 2.8288
* F(4,474)=2.844, p=.024
CE offered by non-profit community-based
organizations
Total Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 1 8 13 6 0 28
3.6% 28.6% 46.4% 21.4% 0.0% 100.0% 2.8571
SW Faculty 3 32 88 32 5 160
1.9% 20.0% 55.0% 20.0% 3.1% 100.0% 3.0250
Regulators/Board 0 14 24 11 1 50
0.0% 28.0% 48.0% 22.0% 2.0% 100.0% 2.9800
NASW/CASW 1 10 53 17 5 86
1.2% 11.6% 61.6% 19.8% 5.8% 100.0% 3.1744
Other Prof Org 2 29 79 33 5 148
1.4% 19.6% 53.4% 22.3% 3.4% 100.0% 3.0676
Total 7 93 257 99 16 472
1.5% 19.7% 54.4% 21.0% 3.4% 100.0% 3.0508
F(4,467)=1.152, p=.331
95
CE offered online or in web-based formats *
Total Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 3 10 9 6 0 28
10.7% 35.7% 32.1% 21.4% 0.0% 100.0% 2.6429
SW Faculty 13 60 63 27 4 167
7.8% 35.9% 37.7% 16.2% 2.4% 100.0% 2.6946
Regulators/Board 3 17 20 8 1 49
6.1% 34.7% 40.8% 16.3% 2.0% 100.0% 2.7347
NASW/CASW 0 20 44 18 4 86
0.0% 23.3% 51.2% 20.9% 4.7% 100.0% 3.0698
Other Prof Org 6 52 62 28 4 152
3.9% 34.2% 40.8% 18.4% 2.6% 100.0% 2.8158
Total 25 159 198 87 13 482
5.2% 33.0% 41.1% 18.0% 2.7% 100.0% 2.8008
* F(4,477)=2.919, p=.021
CE offered via non-online "home education" (reading
articles, books or newsletters) *
Total
Average
Rating Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 11 7 7 3 0 28
39.3% 25.0% 25.0% 10.7% 0.0% 100.0% 2.0714
SW Faculty 25 86 39 12 1 163
15.3% 52.8% 23.9% 7.4% 0.6% 100.0% 2.2515
Regulators/Board 5 22 16 6 0 49
10.2% 44.9% 32.7% 12.2% 0.0% 100.0% 2.4694
NASW/CASW 11 31 30 10 3 85
12.9% 36.5% 35.3% 11.8% 3.5% 100.0% 2.5647
Other Prof Org 13 74 41 21 0 149
8.7% 49.7% 27.5% 14.1% 0.0% 100.0% 2.4698
Total 65 220 133 52 4 474
13.7% 46.4% 28.1% 11.0% 0.8% 100.0% 2.3882
* F(4,469)=3.191, p=.013
96
CE offered at conferences *
Total
Average
Rating Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 0 5 8 13 2 28
0.0% 17.9% 28.6% 46.4% 7.1% 100.0% 3.4286
SW Faculty 4 18 64 60 24 170
2.4% 10.6% 37.6% 35.3% 14.1% 100.0% 3.4824
Regulators/Board 0 5 24 16 5 50
0.0% 10.0% 48.0% 32.0% 10.0% 100.0% 3.4200
NASW/CASW 2 1 25 41 19 88
2.3% 1.1% 28.4% 46.6% 21.6% 100.0% 3.8409
Other Prof Org 1 17 55 52 28 153
0.7% 11.1% 35.9% 34.0% 18.3% 100.0% 3.5817
Total 7 46 176 182 78 489
1.4% 9.4% 36.0% 37.2% 16.0% 100.0% 3.5685
* F(4,484)=2.861, p=.023
CE offered by non-social entities (e.g., other professions,
or "generic" organizations) *
Total Poor Fair Good
Very
Good Excellent
CE Directors 4 10 8 4 0 26
15.4% 38.5% 30.8% 15.4% 0.0% 100.0% 2.4615
SW Faculty 22 69 56 14 1 162
13.6% 42.6% 34.6% 8.6% 0.6% 100.0% 2.4012
Regulators/Board 4 26 16 3 1 50
8.0% 52.0% 32.0% 6.0% 2.0% 100.0% 2.4200
NASW/CASW 5 30 35 11 4 85
5.9% 35.3% 41.2% 12.9% 4.7% 100.0% 2.7529
Other Prof Org 11 65 51 17 5 149
7.4% 43.6% 34.2% 11.4% 3.4% 100.0% 2.5973
Total 46 200 166 49 11 472
9.7% 42.4% 35.2% 10.4% 2.3% 100.0% 2.5318
* F(4,467)=2.657, p=.032
97
Effectiveness of CE Models and Types (eight questions)
Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of the
"CONTACTHOUR" model in promoting social work competence (i.e.
"one hours of instruction=one CE unit or credit) *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree/
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 4 9 9 5 28
3.6% 14.3% 32.1% 32.1% 17.9% 100.0% 3.4643
SW Faculty 9 37 91 28 5 170
5.3% 21.8% 53.5% 16.5% 2.9% 100.0% 2.9000
Regulators/
Board
1 6 17 25 3 52
1.9% 11.5% 32.7% 48.1% 5.8% 100.0% 3.4423
NASW/CASW 0 6 30 43 8 87
0.0% 6.9% 34.5% 49.4% 9.2% 100.0% 3.6092
Other Prof Org 5 28 69 44 8 154
3.2% 18.2% 44.8% 28.6% 5.2% 100.0% 3.1429
Total 16 81 216 149 29 491
3.3% 16.5% 44.0% 30.3% 5.9% 100.0% 3.1914
* F(4,486)=12.040, p=.000
Online and classroom-based CE formats are equally
effective
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 2 9 5 9 3 28
7.1% 32.1% 17.9% 32.1% 10.7% 100.0% 3.0714
SW Faculty 14 47 52 51 7 171
8.2% 27.5% 30.4% 29.8% 4.1% 100.0% 2.9415
Regulators/Board 2 16 14 17 2 51
3.9% 31.4% 27.5% 33.3% 3.9% 100.0% 3.0196
NASW/CASW 5 32 25 24 2 88
5.7% 36.4% 28.4% 27.3% 2.3% 100.0% 2.8409
Other Prof Org 8 46 37 56 7 154
5.2% 29.9% 24.0% 36.4% 4.5% 100.0% 3.0519
Total 31 150 133 157 21 492
6.3% 30.5% 27.0% 31.9% 4.3% 100.0% 2.9736
F(4,487)=.725, p=.575
98
The teaching ability of the instructor is the most important
component of an effective CE program
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 3 15 10 28
0.0% 0.0% 10.7% 53.6% 35.7% 100.0% 4.2500
SW Faculty 3 8 27 93 40 171
1.8% 4.7% 15.8% 54.4% 23.4% 100.0% 3.9298
Regulators/Board 1 3 11 21 16 52
1.9% 5.8% 21.2% 40.4% 30.8% 100.0% 3.9231
NASW/CASW 0 1 15 40 32 88
0.0% 1.1% 17.0% 45.5% 36.4% 100.0% 4.1705
Other Prof Org 0 16 23 71 41 151
0.0% 10.6% 15.2% 47.0% 27.2% 100.0% 3.9073
Total 4 28 79 240 139 490
0.8% 5.7% 16.1% 49.0% 28.4% 100.0% 3.9837
F(4,485)=2.236, p=.064
Article-based formats - e.g. reading professional journal
articles--are as effective in building professional
competency as taking in-person courses
Total
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 4 11 8 4 1 28
14.3% 39.3% 28.6% 14.3% 3.6% 100.0% 2.5357
SW Faculty 14 72 49 33 3 171
8.2% 42.1% 28.7% 19.3% 1.8% 100.0% 2.6433
Regulators/Board 1 18 20 11 2 52
1.9% 34.6% 38.5% 21.2% 3.8% 100.0% 2.9038
NASW/CASW 4 38 27 16 4 89
4.5% 42.7% 30.3% 18.0% 4.5% 100.0% 2.7528
Other Prof Org 6 54 53 40 0 153
3.9% 35.3% 34.6% 26.1% 0.0% 100.0% 2.8301
Total 29 193 157 104 10 493
5.9% 39.1% 31.8% 21.1% 2.0% 100.0% 2.7424
F(4,488)=1.593, p=.175
99
As it is generally done now, CE does a poor job of
supporting social workers in implementing what they have
learned in practice
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 5 15 6 2 28
0.0% 17.9% 53.6% 21.4% 7.1% 100.0% 3.1786
SW Faculty 3 33 58 65 11 170
1.8% 19.4% 34.1% 38.2% 6.5% 100.0% 3.2824
Regulators/Board 0 7 23 17 5 52
0.0% 13.5% 44.2% 32.7% 9.6% 100.0% 3.3846
NASW/CASW 0 21 38 27 4 90
0.0% 23.3% 42.2% 30.0% 4.4% 100.0% 3.1556
Other Prof Org 3 28 60 46 16 153
2.0% 18.3% 39.2% 30.1% 10.5% 100.0% 3.2876
Total 6 94 194 161 38 493
1.2% 19.1% 39.4% 32.7% 7.7% 100.0% 3.2657
F(4,488)=.669, p=.614
Support from supervisors, agencies, and peer working
groups are needed to help social workers put into practice
what they learn in CE
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 2 11 15 28
0.0% 0.0% 7.1% 39.3% 53.6% 100.0% 4.4643
SW Faculty 2 6 14 95 55 172
1.2% 3.5% 8.1% 55.2% 32.0% 100.0% 4.1337
Regulators/Board 0 3 3 27 19 52
0.0% 5.8% 5.8% 51.9% 36.5% 100.0% 4.1923
NASW/CASW 0 3 11 47 28 89
0.0% 3.4% 12.4% 52.8% 31.5% 100.0% 4.1236
Other Prof Org 0 4 13 78 58 153
0.0% 2.6% 8.5% 51.0% 37.9% 100.0% 4.2418
Total 2 16 43 258 175 494
0.4% 3.2% 8.7% 52.2% 35.4% 100.0% 4.1903
F(4,489)=1.516, p=.196
100
CE is an effective tool for improving the behavior of social
workers who have violated state or professional practice
standards *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 3 8 9 6 2 28
10.7% 28.6% 32.1% 21.4% 7.1% 100.0% 2.8571
SW Faculty 20 52 68 25 5 170
11.8% 30.6% 40.0% 14.7% 2.9% 100.0% 2.6647
Regulators/Board 0 10 13 23 6 52
0.0% 19.2% 25.0% 44.2% 11.5% 100.0% 3.4808
NASW/CASW 10 11 44 20 4 89
11.2% 12.4% 49.4% 22.5% 4.5% 100.0% 2.9663
Other Prof Org 17 35 68 27 5 152
11.2% 23.0% 44.7% 17.8% 3.3% 100.0% 2.7895
Total 50 116 202 101 22 491
10.2% 23.6% 41.1% 20.6% 4.5% 100.0% 2.8554
* F(4,490)=2.105, p=.000
Lifelong learning through CE is necessary to ensure
ongoing professional competence
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 0 10 18 28
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 35.7% 64.3% 100.0% 4.6429
SW Faculty 0 2 14 48 108 172
0.0% 1.2% 8.1% 27.9% 62.8% 100.0% 4.5233
Regulators/Board 1 0 7 16 28 52
1.9% 0.0% 13.5% 30.8% 53.8% 100.0% 4.3462
NASW/CASW 0 0 6 22 61 89
0.0% 0.0% 6.7% 24.7% 68.5% 100.0% 4.6180
Other Prof Org 0 5 9 57 83 154
0.0% 3.2% 5.8% 37.0% 53.9% 100.0% 4.4156
Total 1 7 36 153 298 495
0.2% 1.4% 7.3% 30.9% 60.2% 100.0% 4.4949
F(4,490)=2.105, p=.079
101
Licensure and Legal Issues (six items)
All licensed social workers should be required to take CE.
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither Agree/
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 0 7 22 29
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 75.9% 100.0% 4.7586
SW Faculty 2 3 7 49 112 173
1.2% 1.7% 4.0% 28.3% 64.7% 100.0% 4.5376
Regulators/Board 0 2 5 7 38 52
0.0% 3.8% 9.6% 13.5% 73.1% 100.0% 4.5577
NASW/CASW 0 0 3 19 67 89
0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 21.3% 75.3% 100.0% 4.7191
Other Prof Org 1 8 3 46 93 151
0.7% 5.3% 2.0% 30.5% 61.6% 100.0% 4.4702
Total 3 13 18 128 332 494
0.6% 2.6% 3.6% 25.9% 67.2% 100.0% 4.5648
F(4,489)=2.150, p=.074
Compliance with CE requirements for license renewal is a
significant problem in the profession *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 2 5 12 4 5 28
7.1% 17.9% 42.9% 14.3% 17.9% 100.0% 3.1786
SW Faculty 11 39 89 25 7 171
6.4% 22.8% 52.0% 14.6% 4.1% 100.0% 2.8713
Regulators/Board 0 13 14 12 13 52
0.0% 25.0% 26.9% 23.1% 25.0% 100.0% 3.4808
NASW/CASW 3 16 41 23 4 87
3.4% 18.4% 47.1% 26.4% 4.6% 100.0% 3.1034
Other Prof Org 9 32 70 29 12 152
5.9% 21.1% 46.1% 19.1% 7.9% 100.0% 3.0197
Total 25 105 226 93 41 490
5.1% 21.4% 46.1% 19.0% 8.4% 100.0% 3.0408
* F(4,485)=4.334, p=.002
102
I understand the laws that govern CE in my state,
province, or jurisdiction *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 2 1 10 16 29
0.0% 6.9% 3.4% 34.5% 55.2% 100.0% 4.3793
SW Faculty 2 15 9 68 79 173
1.2% 8.7% 5.2% 39.3% 45.7% 100.0% 4.1965
Regulators/Board 0 0 2 8 42 52
0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 15.4% 80.8% 100.0% 4.7692
NASW/CASW 1 2 6 35 45 89
1.1% 2.2% 6.7% 39.3% 50.6% 100.0% 4.3596
Other Prof Org 0 4 12 63 72 151
0.0% 2.6% 7.9% 41.7% 47.7% 100.0% 4.3444
Total 3 23 30 184 254 494
0.6% 4.7% 6.1% 37.2% 51.4% 100.0% 4.3421
* F(4,489)=4.869, p=.001
Licensing boards should require certain kinds of CE
content (e.g., ethics) for license renewal *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 1 8 17 29
0.0% 10.3% 3.4% 27.6% 58.6% 100.0% 4.3448
SW Faculty 5 12 22 79 54 172
2.9% 7.0% 12.8% 45.9% 31.4% 100.0% 3.9593
Regulators/Board 0 2 9 7 34 52
0.0% 3.8% 17.3% 13.5% 65.4% 100.0% 4.4038
NASW/CASW 0 6 8 34 40 88
0.0% 6.8% 9.1% 38.6% 45.5% 100.0% 4.2273
Other Prof Org 5 15 16 66 50 152
3.3% 9.9% 10.5% 43.4% 32.9% 100.0% 3.9276
Total 10 38 56 194 195 493
2.0% 7.7% 11.4% 39.4% 39.6% 100.0% 4.0669
* F(4,488)=3.938, p=.004
103
Licensing board-mandated CE is an effective method improving
the performance of social workers.whose professional behavior
has fallen below acceptable standards *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 3 3 10 8 4 28
10.7% 10.7% 35.7% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% 3.2500
SW Faculty 18 43 65 34 12 172
10.5% 25.0% 37.8% 19.8% 7.0% 100.0% 2.8779
Regulators/Board 0 2 19 16 15 52
0.0% 3.8% 36.5% 30.8% 28.8% 100.0% 3.8462
NASW/CASW 2 13 37 25 10 87
2.3% 14.9% 42.5% 28.7% 11.5% 100.0% 3.3218
Other Prof Org 12 33 50 38 17 150
8.0% 22.0% 33.3% 25.3% 11.3% 100.0% 3.1000
Total 35 94 181 121 58 489
7.2% 19.2% 37.0% 24.7% 11.9% 100.0% 3.1493
* F(4,484)=9.310, p=.000
SW faculty who teach practice courses in schools of social
work should be licensed and take CE *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 4 8 14 29
0.0% 10.3% 13.8% 27.6% 48.3% 100.0% 4.1379
SW Faculty 13 27 24 49 60 173
7.5% 15.6% 13.9% 28.3% 34.7% 100.0% 3.6705
Regulators/Board 0 2 6 3 41 52
0.0% 3.8% 11.5% 5.8% 78.8% 100.0% 4.5962
NASW/CASW 1 6 13 16 53 89
1.1% 6.7% 14.6% 18.0% 59.6% 100.0% 4.2809
Other Prof Org 4 7 12 47 82 152
2.6% 4.6% 7.9% 30.9% 53.9% 100.0% 4.2395
Total 18 45 59 123 250 495
3.6% 9.1% 11.9% 24.8% 50.5% 100.0% 4.0949
* F(4,490)=10.963, p=.000
104
Role of Social Work in CE (seven items)
Generally, schools of social work are committed to
providing CE and see it as part of their mission
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 4 5 12 6 28
3.6% 14.3% 17.9% 42.9% 21.4% 100.0% 3.6429
SW Faculty 4 35 40 74 17 170
2.4% 20.6% 23.5% 43.5% 10.0% 100.0% 3.3824
Regulators/Board 2 9 14 18 8 51
3.9% 17.6% 27.5% 35.3% 15.7% 100.0% 3.4118
NASW/CASW 0 22 32 26 7 87
0.0% 25.3% 36.8% 29.9% 8.0% 100.0% 3.2069
Other Prof Org 5 29 49 50 16 149
3.4% 19.5% 32.9% 33.6% 10.7% 100.0% 3.2886
Total 12 99 140 180 54 485
2.5% 20.4% 28.9% 37.1% 11.1% 100.0% 3.3402
F(4,480)=1.263, p=2.84
Schools of social work should be more involved in CE than
they currently are *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 7 12 10 29
0.0% 0.0% 24.1% 41.4% 34.5% 100.0% 4.1034
SW Faculty 3 4 38 81 43 169
1.8% 2.4% 22.5% 47.9% 25.4% 100.0% 3.9290
Regulators/Board 0 0 15 14 22 51
0.0% 0.0% 29.4% 27.5% 43.1% 100.0% 4.1373
NASW/CASW 1 4 30 32 20 87
1.1% 4.6% 34.5% 36.8% 23.0% 100.0% 3.7586
Other Prof Org 2 7 46 63 31 149
1.3% 4.7% 30.9% 42.3% 20.8% 100.0% 3.7651
Total 6 15 136 202 126 485
1.2% 3.1% 28.0% 41.6% 26.0% 100.0% 3.8804
* F(4,480)=2.821, p=.025
105
Many CE programs in schools of social work are struggling
financially to survive *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 1 4 14 10 29
0.0% 3.4% 13.8% 48.3% 34.5% 100.0% 4.1379
SW Faculty 3 9 70 51 37 170
1.8% 5.3% 41.2% 30.0% 21.8% 100.0% 3.6471
Regulators/Board 0 3 33 10 4 50
0.0% 6.0% 66.0% 20.0% 8.0% 100.0% 3.3000
NASW/CASW 0 4 60 16 6 86
0.0% 4.7% 69.8% 18.6% 7.0% 100.0% 3.2791
Other Prof Org 2 2 111 29 4 148
1.4% 1.4% 75.0% 19.6% 2.7% 100.0% 3.2095
Total 5 19 278 120 61 483
1.0% 3.9% 57.6% 24.8% 12.6% 100.0% 3.4410
* F(4,478)=14.037, p=.000
Social work faculty are generally aware of and concerned
about issues related to CE
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 3 9 6 6 3 27
11.1% 33.3% 22.2% 22.2% 11.1% 100.0% 2.8889
SW Faculty 6 52 38 58 16 170
3.5% 30.6% 22.4% 34.1% 9.4% 100.0% 3.1529
Regulators/Board 1 8 25 14 3 51
2.0% 15.7% 49.0% 27.5% 5.9% 100.0% 3.1961
NASW/CASW 1 16 45 21 5 88
1.1% 18.2% 51.1% 23.9% 5.7% 100.0% 3.1477
Other Prof Org 8 36 57 39 8 148
5.4% 24.3% 38.5% 26.4% 5.4% 100.0% 3.0203
Total 19 121 171 138 35 484
3.9% 25.0% 35.3% 28.5% 7.2% 100.0% 3.1012
F(4,479)=.844, p=.498
106
Social work faculty should be more involved in CE than
they currently are *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 0 5 13 11 29
0.0% 0.0% 17.2% 44.8% 37.9% 100.0% 4.2069
SW Faculty 3 11 41 77 37 169
1.8% 6.5% 24.3% 45.6% 21.9% 100.0% 3.7929
Regulators/Board 0 0 14 23 14 51
0.0% 0.0% 27.5% 45.1% 27.5% 100.0% 4.0000
NASW/CASW 1 5 27 39 16 88
1.1% 5.7% 30.7% 44.3% 18.2% 100.0% 3.7273
Other Prof Org 1 9 51 65 23 149
0.7% 6.0% 34.2% 43.6% 15.4% 100.0% 3.6711
Total 5 25 138 217 101 486
1.0% 5.1% 28.4% 44.7% 20.8% 100.0% 3.7901
* F(4,481)=3.320, p=.011
Social work faculty view CE as an important part of
research dissemination or translation
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 14 4 8 1 28
3.6% 50.0% 14.3% 28.6% 3.6% 100.0% 2.7857
SW Faculty 11 57 49 38 14 169
6.5% 33.7% 29.0% 22.5% 8.3% 100.0% 2.9231
Regulators/Board 1 6 33 8 3 51
2.0% 11.8% 64.7% 15.7% 5.9% 100.0% 3.1176
NASW/CASW 0 15 49 19 3 86
0.0% 17.4% 57.0% 22.1% 3.5% 100.0% 3.1163
Other Prof Org 5 31 72 34 7 149
3.4% 20.8% 48.3% 22.8% 4.7% 100.0% 3.0470
Total 18 123 207 107 28 483
3.7% 25.5% 42.9% 22.2% 5.8% 100.0% 3.0083
F(4,478)=1.299, p=.270
107
Social work faculty have few incentives to be involved in
CE *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 6 13 6 28
0.0% 10.7% 21.4% 46.4% 21.4% 100.0% 3.7857
SW Faculty 3 13 28 77 49 170
1.8% 7.6% 16.5% 45.3% 28.8% 100.0% 3.9176
Regulators/Board 1 0 23 16 10 50
2.0% 0.0% 46.0% 32.0% 20.0% 100.0% 3.6800
NASW/CASW 1 8 43 27 8 87
1.1% 9.2% 49.4% 31.0% 9.2% 100.0% 3.3793
Other Prof Org 1 8 67 55 18 149
0.7% 5.4% 45.0% 36.9% 12.1% 100.0% 3.5436
Total 6 32 167 188 91 484
1.2% 6.6% 34.5% 38.8% 18.8% 100.0% 3.6736
* F(4, 479)=6.683, p=.000
Accessibility Issues (seven questions):
Lack of geographic access to CE is a serious issue for
many social workers
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 5 15 5 28
0.0% 10.7% 17.9% 53.6% 17.9% 100.0% 3.7857
SW Faculty 3 19 36 82 31 171
1.8% 11.1% 21.1% 48.0% 18.1% 100.0% 3.6959
Regulators/Board 0 7 8 22 14 51
0.0% 13.7% 15.7% 43.1% 27.5% 100.0% 3.8431
NASW/CASW 2 11 12 37 26 88
2.3% 12.5% 13.6% 42.0% 29.5% 100.0% 3.8409
Other Prof Org 2 22 31 59 33 147
1.4% 15.0% 21.1% 40.1% 22.4% 100.0% 3.6735
Total 7 62 92 215 109 485
1.4% 12.8% 19.0% 44.3% 22.5% 100.0% 3.7361
F(4,480)=.624, p=.646
108
More online or home education CE is needed for social
workers with limited access to training where they live
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 3 3 15 6 28
3.6% 10.7% 10.7% 53.6% 21.4% 100.0% 3.7857
SW Faculty 5 13 46 83 24 171
2.9% 7.6% 26.9% 48.5% 14.0% 100.0% 3.6316
Regulators/Board 3 9 7 20 12 51
5.9% 17.6% 13.7% 39.2% 23.5% 100.0% 3.5686
NASW/CASW 1 8 20 44 14 87
1.1% 9.2% 23.0% 50.6% 16.1% 100.0% 3.7126
Other Prof Org 2 13 37 69 26 147
1.4% 8.8% 25.2% 46.9% 17.7% 100.0% 3.7075
Total 12 46 113 231 82 484
2.5% 9.5% 23.3% 47.7% 16.9% 100.0% 3.6715
F(4,479)=.419, p=.795
The cost of CE is a serious issue for many social
workers.
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 2 6 11 9 28
0.0% 7.1% 21.4% 39.3% 32.1% 100.0% 3.9643
SW Faculty 2 12 22 83 53 172
1.2% 7.0% 12.8% 48.3% 30.8% 100.0% 4.0058
Regulators/Board 0 3 7 27 14 51
0.0% 5.9% 13.7% 52.9% 27.5% 100.0% 4.0196
NASW/CASW 2 6 13 40 27 88
2.3% 6.8% 14.8% 45.5% 30.7% 100.0% 3.9545
Other Prof Org 0 12 25 67 43 147
0.0% 8.2% 17.0% 45.6% 29.3% 100.0% 3.9592
Total 4 35 73 228 146 486
0.8% 7.2% 15.0% 46.9% 30.0% 100.0% 3.9815
F(4,481)=.098, p=.983
109
Generally, social work employers should provide more
funding for CE
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 1 0 1 10 16 28
3.6% 0.0% 3.6% 35.7% 57.1% 100.0% 4.4286
SW Faculty 0 2 15 80 75 172
0.0% 1.2% 8.7% 46.5% 43.6% 100.0% 4.3256
Regulators/Board 0 1 7 21 22 51
0.0% 2.0% 13.7% 41.2% 43.1% 100.0% 4.2549
NASW/CASW 0 1 12 37 38 88
0.0% 1.1% 13.6% 42.0% 43.2% 100.0% 4.2727
Other Prof Org 1 4 10 62 70 147
0.7% 2.7% 6.8% 42.2% 47.6% 100.0% 4.3333
Total 2 8 45 210 221 486
0.4% 1.6% 9.3% 43.2% 45.5% 100.0% 4.3169
F(4,481)=.347, p=.845
Macro/community practice social workers have difficulty
accessing relevant CE
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 2 5 15 6 28
0.0% 7.1% 17.9% 53.6% 21.4% 100.0% 3.8929
SW Faculty 0 7 39 74 51 171
0.0% 4.1% 22.8% 43.3% 29.8% 100.0% 3.9883
Regulators/Board 1 2 22 13 11 49
2.0% 4.1% 44.9% 26.5% 22.4% 100.0% 3.6327
NASW/CASW 0 4 26 37 19 86
0.0% 4.7% 30.2% 43.0% 22.1% 100.0% 3.8256
Other Prof Org 0 5 55 52 33 145
0.0% 3.4% 37.9% 35.9% 22.8% 100.0% 3.7793
Total 1 20 147 191 120 479
0.2% 4.2% 30.7% 39.9% 25.1% 100.0% 3.8539
F(4,474)=2.237, p=.064
110
Licensing boards have difficulty accessing remedial
courses for under-performing licensees *
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
CE Directors 0 3 13 6 6 28
0.0% 10.7% 46.4% 21.4% 21.4% 100.0% 3.5357
SW Faculty 1 10 105 42 12 170
0.6% 5.9% 61.8% 24.7% 7.1% 100.0% 3.3176
Regulators/Board 0 2 18 17 14 51
0.0% 3.9% 35.3% 33.3% 27.5% 100.0% 3.8431
NASW/CASW 0 2 52 23 8 85
0.0% 2.4% 61.2% 27.1% 9.4% 100.0% 3.4353
Other Prof Org 0 8 82 37 18 145
0.0% 5.5% 56.6% 25.5% 12.4% 100.0% 3.4483
Total 1 25 270 125 58 479
0.2% 5.2% 56.4% 26.1% 12.1% 100.0% 3.4468
* F(4,474)=4.701, p=.001
Social workers with disabilities experience CE access
issues
Total
Average
Rating
Strongly
Disagree Disagree
Neither
Agree/Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree
(
CE Directors 0 3 13 8 4 28
0.0% 10.7% 46.4% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% 3.4643
SW Faculty 1 12 99 44 15 171
0.6% 7.0% 57.9% 25.7% 8.8% 100.0% 3.3509
Regulators/Board 0 5 26 12 8 51
0.0% 9.8% 51.0% 23.5% 15.7% 100.0% 3.4510
NASW/CASW 1 4 51 24 6 86
1.2% 4.7% 59.3% 27.9% 7.0% 100.0% 3.3488
Other Prof Org 1 15 93 25 11 145
0.7% 10.3% 64.1% 17.2% 7.6% 100.0% 3.2069
Total 3 39 282 113 44 481
0.6% 8.1% 58.6% 23.5% 9.1% 100.0% 3.3243
F(4,476)=1.473, p=.209
111
Overall Concern About CE (three questions):
How concerned are you about the overall issue of CE in the
social work profession? *
Total
Average
Rating
Not At All
Concerned
Of Little
Concern
Moderately
Concerned Concerned
Extremely
Concerned
CE Directors 0 1 6 14 8 29
0.0% 3.4% 20.7% 48.3% 27.6% 100.0% 4.0000
SW Faculty 14 29 47 63 18 171
8.2% 17.0% 27.5% 36.8% 10.5% 100.0% 3.2456
Regulators/Board 0 4 10 20 17 51
0.0% 7.8% 19.6% 39.2% 33.3% 100.0% 3.9804
NASW/CASW 7 15 24 32 10 88
8.0% 17.0% 27.3% 36.4% 11.4% 100.0% 3.2614
Other Prof Org 12 18 40 56 22 148
8.1% 12.2% 27.0% 37.8% 14.9% 100.0% 3.3919
Total 33 67 127 185 75 487
6.8% 13.8% 26.1% 38.0% 15.4% 100.0% 3.4148
* F(4,482)=7.076, p=.000
How concerned are you about the quality of CE
programming? *
Total
Average
Rating
Extremely
Concerned Concerned
Moderately
Concerned
Of Little
Concern
Not At All
Concerned
CE Directors 0 4 6 9 10 29
0.0% 13.8% 20.7% 31.0% 34.5% 100.0% 3.8621
SW Faculty 10 21 46 70 24 171
5.8% 12.3% 26.9% 40.9% 14.0% 100.0% 3.4503
Regulators/Board 0 3 8 16 24 51
0.0% 5.9% 15.7% 31.4% 47.1% 100.0% 4.1961
NASW/CASW 6 15 16 31 20 88
6.8% 17.0% 18.2% 35.2% 22.7% 100.0% 3.5000
Other Prof Org 8 23 23 58 36 148
5.4% 15.5% 15.5% 39.2% 24.3% 100.0% 3.6149
Total 24 66 99 184 114 487
4.9% 13.6% 20.3% 37.8% 23.4% 100.0% 3.6119
* F(4,482)=5.021, p=.001
112
How concerned are you about CE effectiveness in
promoting social work competence? *
Total
Average
Rating
Extremely
Concerned Concerned
Moderately
Concerned
Of Little
Concern
Not At All
Concerned
CE Directors 0 4 5 9 11 29
0.0% 13.8% 17.2% 31.0% 37.9% 100.0% 3.9310
SW Faculty 9 15 42 67 37 170
5.3% 8.8% 24.7% 39.4% 21.8% 100.0% 3.6353
Regulators/Board 0 2 5 18 25 50
0.0% 4.0% 10.0% 36.0% 50.0% 100.0% 4.3200
NASW/CASW 6 13 15 31 23 88
6.8% 14.8% 17.0% 35.2% 26.1% 100.0% 3.5909
Other Prof Org 11 14 33 51 40 149
7.4% 9.4% 22.1% 34.2% 26.8% 100.0% 3.6376
Total 26 48 100 176 136 486
5.3% 9.9% 20.6% 36.2% 28.0% 100.0% 3.7160
* F(4,481)=4.607, p=.001
113
Appendix C: Literature Review
The long range of all social work education, include continuing professional education, is to improve
practice outcomes for social work clients and communities (Tian, Atkinson, Portnoy & Gold, 2007). The
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) defines continuing education as “consistent participation
in educational opportunities beyond the basic, entry-level professional degree” (NASW, 2002).
Social work continuing profession education(CE) includes a wide array of formal educational activities
aimed at strengthening a practitioner’s knowledge and skills; CE is essential for professional
competence, career development, and compliance with licensing rules and other regulations, yet it is
poorly understood, and largely unstudied (Smith, Cohen-Callow, Dia, Bliss, Gantt, Cornelius &
Harrington, 2006; Strom-Gottfried, 2009). Researchers have noted, in particular, that mechanisms for
ensuring quality in CE are lacking and it is unclear whether participation in CE actually achieves its goal
of enhancing practice (Daley, 2001; Strom-Gottfried, 2009).
The concerns about CE are growing for a variety of reasons, most notably, workplace demands. The
social work profession has grown; with more than 500,000 professional social workers, it is now the
dominant mental health profession in the country (Weissman et. al., 2006). Along with this growth have
come important new pressures to demonstrate the profession’s currency and competency in emerging
knowledge and skills, particularly in domains such as the use of empirically supported interventions and
best practices (Kirk & Reid, 2002; Davenport & Wodarski, 1989; Parrish & Rubin, 2011).
Social workers, like most workers in the US, will have longer careers post-education than they did in the
past; they will change jobs more frequently and need ongoing training in new technologies and practice
skills (Ruth & Geron, 2009). With society facing unprecedented demographic, service delivery and
technological changes, there is increased demand for social workers and as a consequence, greater
emphasis on CE (Whitaker & Arrington, 2008; Whitaker, Weismiller, Clark & Wilson, 2006). For example,
the rapid aging of society is the biggest demographic revolution in our lifetime; all social workers are
being affected by this change, and all should be acquiring gerontological practice skills (Geron, Andrews
& Kuhn, 2005). Yet, while social work programs have substantially increased training in gerontological
practice in recent years, the graduation rates of social workers trained in gerontology is nowhere close
to meeting the demand in the field (Sisco, Volland & Gorin, 2006). In order to respond to this and other
trends, practicing social workers will need to learn about new practice developments in the workplace,
through CE.
Unfortunately, social work educators on the whole have not responded to the emerging concerns
regarding CE. CE has been something of the “ignored stepchild” of social work education, viewed as
adjacent to or not entirely relevant to the mission of social work education. The reasons for this are
unclear and may have to do with the growing divide between academia and the social work practice
environment. Social work faculty—particularly at top tier schools-- are increasingly focused on research;
many new faculty members have had fewer than two years of post MSW experience prior to embarking
on careers as social work educators (Johnson & Munch, 2010). Many faculty members are unlicensed
and thereby disconnected from both regulation and CE, and some older faculty still view licensure with a
114
degree of ideological ambivalence (Marson, 2006; Thyer, 2007). Cochran and Landuyt, (2010), in their
annual study of school of social work-based CE programs, note that there is little coordination or
connection between continuing education programs nationally and it appears that many programs limp
along with few staff and little funding from their host institutions.
Yet there are signs that the academic community may be starting to think differently about the
importance of CE. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), the accrediting body for BSW and MSW
programs, released new Educational Policies in 2008 that specify students must learn that professional
development does not end with the granting of the degree; the new standard emphasizes educating
students to understand that professionalism is maintained via “career-long learning” (Council on Social
Work Education (2008). This is an important and welcome message to faculty and students.
In addition, as the evidence-based practice movement strengthens, there are increased concerns about
the length of time it takes for research findings to be translated into practice; a growing body of
research suggests that practicing social workers do not read research, evaluate their own practice, or
utilize empirically supported interventions (Parrish & Rubin, 2011). CE has emerged as an important tool
in decreasing the research/practice gap and is garnering increased attention from the academy and
researchers (Rubin & Parrish, 2007).
A second major factor is the growing role and interest of social work regulators, who require evidence of
CE participation for license renewal in virtually all states; regulators have an important stake in knowing
if, how and under what circumstances CE, in its current manifestation, is effective in enhancing practice.
Given the surrounding controversy and challenges, social work regulation, licensure and CE have
received surprisingly little attention from researchers (Bibus & Boutte-Queen, 2011). From a regulatory
point of view, the burden for obtaining and assessing the effectiveness of CE lies with the practitioner;
still, the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) recognizes the quality control issues and attempts to
educate practitioners on how to evaluate quality programs (ASWB, 2011). It is generally acknowledged
that quality standards for the training of practicing social workers are lacking (Mansouri & Lockyer,
2007). Moreover, there is some evidence that the types of activities boards routinely approve, such as
conferences and workshops, do not necessarily result in practice behavior changes or improved work
performance (Howard, McMillen & Pollio, 2003). However, the current untested model of “contact
hours” or “CEUs” is the standard in the field, even though the meaningfulness or relevance of most CE
remains unknown (Daley, 2001).
An additional complication is that NASW, ASWB, and schools of social work are all engaged in a complex
relationship with CE. Each of these entities is involved with various aspects of marketing, authorization,
regulation, and sales, often competing with one another to provide CE. These inherent potential
conflicts, widely shared by other health and social care professions, have grown up around the current
CE system that awards CEs based on mere contact length, not on program quality or practitioner
competency. One result is that practitioners have incentives to seek the cheapest and easiest training
available to meet the “contact hours” requirement, which is often not the best or most challenging
training. This, in turn, has fed the proliferation of “CEU mills” by entrepreneurs who offer cheap CEs for
115
reading articles, or for participating in day-long seminars, often taught by non-social workers (Ruth &
Geron, 2009). A system is thus maintained that may not result in the best outcomes.
In conclusion, there is a clear need to better evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the current system
of social work CE. The profession -- practitioners, educators and regulators -- need to understand how
and why we do what we do, and to consider alternatives that might get us closer to our goals of
enhancing the competencies of practitioners and protecting the public. Other professions, who struggle
with many of the same issues, have studied this issue in some depth; in medicine, CE evaluation has
moved beyond contact hours to include studies of knowledge acquisition, clinical performance, and
patient outcomes (Mansouri & Lockyear, 2007). Though not as advanced as the medical CME studies, a
small body of growing research has emerged (Williams, 2002). For example, the widely used objective
structured clinical examinations (OSCEs), where practitioners demonstrate clinical competency in “live”
evaluations, have been recently adapted for use in MSW programs; these could lend themselves to
competency based licensure examination or CE (Ross, Carroll, Knight, Chamberlain, Fothergill-
Bourbonnais, and Linton, 1988; Bogo, 2011). It is time for the social work profession — practitioners,
educators, regulators and CE providers — to work together to address this multifaceted issue.
References
Association of Social Work Boards (2011). Continuing education advice for social workers. Social Work
Continuing Education.
Bibus, A. & Boutte-Queen, (2011).Regulating social work : A primer on licensing practice, Chicago:
Lyceum.
Bogo, M. (2011). Achieving Competence in Social Work: Through Field Work. University of Toronto Press
Incorporated, Canada.
Cochran, G. & Landuyt, N. (2010). A Survey of Continuing Education Programs Conducted. Professional
Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 13, 2, 55.
Council on Social Work Education (2008). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards. Retrieved
from: http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=13780 on 7/20/11.
Daley, B. (2001). Learning and Professional Practice: A Study of Four Professions. Adult Education
Quarterly, 52(1), 39-54.
Davenport, J., & Wodarski, J.S. (1989). Social work continuing education: An historical description. Arete,
14(1), 32-45.
Geron, S. M., Andrews, C. & Kuhn, K (Fall, 2005). Infusing Aging Skills into the Social Work Practice
Community: A New Look at Strategies for Continuing Professional Education. Institute for
Geriatric Social Work.
116
Howard, M. O., Allen-Meares, P., & Ruffalo, M. C. (2007). Teaching evidence-based practice: Strategies
and pedagogical recommendations for schools of social work. Research on Social Work Practice,
17, 561-568.
Howard, M. O., McMillan, C. J.,& Pollio, D. E. (2003). Teaching evidence-based practice: Toward a new
paradigm for social work education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234-259.
Johnson, Y. M. and S. Munch (2010). "Faculty with practice experience: The new dinosaurs in the social
work academy?" Journal of Social Work Education 46(1): 57-66.
Kirk, S.A. & Reid, W.J. (2002). Science and Social Work: A Critical Appraisal. Columbia University Press.
NY Chichester, West Sussex.
Mansouri, M. & Lockyer, J. (2007). A Meta-Analysis of Continuing Medical Education Effectiveness.
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 27(1): 6–15, 2007
Marson, S. (2006). Licensing of Social Work Faculty: An Issue of Ethics? Journal of Social Work Values and
Ethics, 3 (2).
Parrish, D.E. & Rubin, A. (2011). An effective model for continuing education training in evidence-based
practice. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 1, 77-87.
Ross, M., Carroll, G., Knight, J., Chamberlain, M., Fothergill-Bourbonnais, F., and Linton, J. (1988) Using
the OSCE to measure clinical skills performance in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13, 45-
56.
Rubin, A. and Parrish, D. (2007). Challenges to the Future of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work
Education [Special Section: Promoting and Sustaining Evidence-Based Practice], in: Journal of
Social Work Education, 43, 405-428.
Ruth, BJ & Geron, S.M. The missing link: Social work’s need to strengthen continuing professional
education. Council on Social Work Education, Annual Program Meeting, San Antonio, TX
November, 2009.
Sisco, S., Volland, P., & Gorin, S. (2005). Social work leadership and aging: Meeting the demographic
imperative. Health and Social Work, 30(4), 344-347.
Smith, C. A., Cohen-Callow, A., Dia, D. A., Bliss, D. L., Gantt, A., Cornelius, L. J., & Harrington, D. (Fall
2006). Staying Current in a Changing Profession: Evaluating Perceived Change Resulting from
Continued Professional Education. Joumal of Social Work Education, Vol. 42, No. 3.
Strom-Gottfried, K. (2008) Continuing Education. In: Mizrahi, T., & Davis, L. (Eds).
Thyer, B.A. (2007) Social Work Education and Clinical Learning: Towards Evidence-Based Practice?
Clinical Social Work Journal, 35, 1, 25-32.
117
Tian, J., Atkinson, N., ; Portnoy, B., & Gold, R.S. (2007). A systematic review of evaluation in formal
continuing medical education. The Journal of continuing education in the health professions.
27(1):16-27.
Weissman, M.M., Verdeli, H., Gameroff, M.J., Bledsoe, S.E., Betts, K., Mufson, L., Fitterling, H.,
Wickramaratne, P. (2006). National Survey of Psychotherapy Training in Psychiatry, Psychology,
and Social Work. Archive of General Psychiatry. 6, 9258-934.
Whitaker, T., and Arrington, P. (2008). Professional Development. NASW Membership Workforce Study.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Whitaker, T., Weismiller, T., Clark, E., & Wilson, M. (2006). Assuring the sufficiency of a frontline
workforce: A national study of licensed social workers. Special report: Social work services in
behavioral health care settings. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
Williams, C. (2002). Learning on-line: A review of recent literature in a rapidly expanding field. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(3), 263-27