Beyond the Training Room: Shared Responsibility in Developing Workforce Capacity

1. Beyond the Training Room: Shared Responsibility in Developing Workforce Capacity NAPCWA Spring Meeting March 14, 2008 Cathy Utz, Bureau Director, Office of Children Youth and Families, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare Jon Rubin, Interim Director, Pennsylvania Child Welfare Training Program, University of Pittsburgh Kathy Jones Kelley, OE Consultant, APHSA

2. Session Overview • The PA Child Welfare system at a glance • History of Partnership for Shared Responsibility – from 1992 to present • Continuous Improvement Approach to Building a Competent Workforce • From a Focus on “Traditional” Classroom Training to Organizational Effectiveness • Decisions, Observations, and Events that had Impact, Challenges Along the Way and Solutions Implemented • Future Actions

3. PA Child Welfare System • State supervised; county administered • 67 counties • 2 major urban areas • Large number of rural counties • Majority of services delivered through private provided network/contracted services

4. Training Program:History of Shared Responsibility • County agency administrators identified need for training (1990) • Partnered with state to explore options for building a statewide training system • Common vision of quality training for all 67 county agencies • Selected competency-based training model

5. Training Program: History of Shared Responsibility • State, County and University Partnership formed in 1992 • Steering Committee of partners and key stakeholders guide development • Practitioners staff the Training Program • Practitioners develop curriculum and products • Practitioners deliver training, TOL and TA

6. Training Program: History of Shared Responsibility • Training Program Executive Director always at the “table” for policy and practice decisions – examples: Risk Assessment, Kinship, Visitation, ACT 151, ASFA, PA Practice Standards, CFSR and PIP • Training Program staff on all state level committee’s and work groups

7. Training Program: History of Shared Responsibility • Training Program staff and OCYF policy staff meet routinely QUAC’s to develop/revise curriculum • State policy office staff and county practitioners on QUAC • State policy office staff review curriculum

8. Training Program: History of Shared Responsibility • Training Program staff develop training guides and TOT for policy office • Training Program Executive Director on PCYA agenda • Regional training delivery system that was county based

9. Training Program: History of Shared Responsibility • Focus on improving practice; training was not about meeting a regulatory requirement • OE department added to Training Program to support practice improvement beyond the classroom • QA department added to Training Program to aligned with OCYF quality improvement effort

10. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Guided by common vision, mission and values • Continued to ask ourselves “what is going well to support our vision, mission, and values?” and “what do we need to do differently?” • Continued to ask outside experts to evaluate our effectiveness and guide our development • Strategic plan to support growth and development • Partnership with Shared Leadership • Commitment to continuously improve practice for children, youth, and families

11. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Original Decisions – classroom training with a focus on new worker CORE training, curriculum would be competency-based, ITNA to assess worker competency and training required, county-based regional delivery system and trainers would be practitioners • Challenges – relevance of CORE curriculum selected to PA practice, preparing practitioners to be trainers and supervisor resistance to supporting application of training content to the job • Solutions – QUAC process to revise/develop CORE curriculum, supervisors participate on QUAC’s, new supervisor CORE training, OTRM for new worker CORE training, and individual training needs assessment of supervisors and DOT

12. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Decisions – expand training to include specialized training for workers and supervisors, curriculum based on competencies and, curriculum developed and delivered guided by ITNA • Challenges – developing curriculum applicable to job (not to theoretical) and how to get new content to supervisors first to support transfer of learning (TOL) • Solutions – QUAC’s, Pilots, supervisor overlays and supervisor conferences

13. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Observations – not getting the “right” staff in the door and well trained and competent workforce was being recruited by external private provider agencies • Challenge – recruitment and retention • Solution – established CWEL in 1995 and CWEB in 2001; allowed private provider agencies to attend training

14. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Event - new administration at OCYF • Challenge – proving to new administration effectiveness of Training Program • Solution - AHA evaluation in 2000

15. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Events - AHA evaluation results 2000 and PA Child Welfare Practice Standards completed 2000 • Challenge – to develop the outcome focused-skills based curriculum and advance the TOL and evaluation work to the higher levels Training Program staff were striving towards, structural changes would need to occur to support the Program staff • Solutions – revise all curriculum to be based on competencies and PA Practice Standards, incorporation of Interactional Helping Skills into all curriculum, development of skills based curriculum, and relocate Program to University of Pittsburgh to support growth

16. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Decisions – add staff for curriculum development, transfer of learning and evaluation; consulted with AHA, CWLA and TOL experts • Challenges – curriculum revisions a major undertaking • Solutions – agreement on a 5 year revision plan (revisions would start with CORE training, then into specialized curriculum)

17. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Events– CFSR and PIP in 2002; “Center for Excellence” added to Training Program in 2003 • Challenges – “Center for Excellence” created the recognition that traditional training and TOL would not support the practice improvement PA wanted without providing assistance to agencies in developing organizational effectiveness (OE), added OE staff resulted in growing “to fast to soon” • Solutions - application of APHSA OE models to restructure Training Program, developed change plan to support desired goals and growth, provided OE support to county agencies and development of Organizational Needs Assessment (ONA)

18. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Events- new administration at state called for resource reallocation resulting in a 30% reduction of funding for the Training Program in 2004 • Challenges – how to support continuous improvement of curriculum development and OE efforts when facing reduction in funding • Solutions – elimination of county-based regional training centers, centralizing administrative delivery functions, eliminated contracts with national experts, eliminated computer skills training, eliminated TOL staff for core training, reduced number of training days resulting in private providers and foster parents not having equal access to training, formed regional teams

19. Training Program: Continuous Improvement Approach • Event - redesign county based training delivery model to centralized delivery model, creating regional teams, and continuing the development and delivery of skills based training, OE and TOL support on selected practice improvement initiatives and ONA results • Challenges – identification of training to deliver and practices to support with limited funds • Solutions Decisions – 2nd OE assessment of Training Program, development change plans to support desired outcomes, QA committee at state level and addition of QA department within the Training Program

20. Training Program: Current Situation • Charting the Course (skills based core) • Curriculum and OE efforts guided by practice standards • OE efforts in county agencies to support practice improvement; examples FGDM, SOC, IL, visitation, engagement skills • TOL to support practice improvement; examples visitation, engaging fathers, safety assessment

21. Training Program: Current Situation • ONA findings • Regional Teams • Data collection and evaluation • Connection between OCYF regional offices and OE staff • Quality Improvement committee and Quality Assurance Reviews in county agencies

22. Training Program: Looking Ahead • Reframing of OCYF regional office staff roles from licensing to TA • Build county based content experts as resources for mission critical services – examples Risk Assessment, Safety Assessment, Visitation • Evaluation and Research efforts • Working with Schools of Social work to add additional child welfare content requirements in CWEB • Continue looking at Training Program from a continuous improvement mindset

23. Training Program: Looking Ahead • Updating PA Practice Standards • Current training delivery model, balancing resources between traditional classroom training and OE/TOL • Review of practices supported by OE • CFSR in July 2008…..

24. Contact Information • Web-site • www.pacwcbt.pitt.edu • E-mail address • Cathy Utz cutz@state.pa.us • Jon Rubin jer59@pitt.edu • Kathy Jones Kelley kkelley@aphsa.org