1 / 23

CalSWEC Biennial Board Report (Presentation) May 2014

CalSWEC Biennial Board Report (Presentation) May 2014. Secondary Analysis Of Child Welfare In-Service Training Data Comparing Title IV-E and non-Title IV-E Graduates. Background. Federal reviews mandated evaluation of Common Core training

avari
Télécharger la présentation

CalSWEC Biennial Board Report (Presentation) May 2014

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CalSWEC Biennial Board Report (Presentation)May 2014 Secondary Analysis Of Child Welfare In-Service Training Data Comparing Title IV-E and non-Title IV-E Graduates

  2. Background Federal reviews mandated evaluation of Common Core training In response, CalSWEC and our partners developed a multi-level evaluation, which includes knowledge testing (pre and post course) as well as Application of Knowledge assessment (embedded in the classroom) for key topics

  3. An Opportunity for Evaluation • Surveying and testing county employees (both IV-E grads and non-IV-E grads) is logistically difficult • Poor response rates • Survey and testing overload in counties • BUT, our existing dataset of all new hires completing the Common Core since 2005/2006 allows us to compare IV-E and non-IV-E in terms of: • Demographics • Baseline Knowledge – pre-test • Knowledge acquisition and application – post-test.

  4. Methods • Unique ID codes allow us to link demographics, pre-tests and post-tests for 3 key areas: • Family Engagement in Case Planning • Child & Youth Development in a Child Welfare Context • Permanency and Placement • Similarly, embedded evaluation results allow us to compare application of knowledge in 2 more areas: • Child Maltreatment Identification 1 (Physical Abuse) • Child Maltreatment Identification 2 (Sexual Abuse)

  5. Methods • Title IVE graduates vs. non IV-E MSWs vs. other educational backgrounds compared for 2-year period, spanning FY 11/12 and FY 12/13. • Rasch Analysis used to ensure that results are consistent as test items may vary over time. • Demographic forms for all newly hired staff analyzed for a longer period, FY 06/07 through FY 12/13 • Able to examine trends in the new workforce, and formulate a profile of a newly hired IV-E grad.

  6. Looking at results: Our hypotheses (and hopes) IV-E Effects: Title IV-E Grads would score better than non-IV-E MSWs at pre-test and post-test MSW Effects: MSWs would score better than non-MSWs at pre-test and post-test Learning: All participants would demonstrate significant gains in knowledge GREEN = Consistent with our hypotheses Red = not consistent

  7. Results Comparison: Case Planning & Case Management

  8. Results Comparison: Child and Youth Development

  9. Results Comparison: Permanency & Placement

  10. Specific Test Results Sample: Knowledge Pre and Posttest (multiple choice test questions) For Permanency & Placement

  11. Sample Results for Curriculum: Permanency & Placement (FY11-12 through 12-13)

  12. Specific Test Results Sample: Skill - Embedded Evaluation (post-only) For Child Maltreatment Identification, Part 1 Read vignette, answer test questions. Four sections of test: Identify whether or not elements of concern are present, Decide whether or not physical abuse occurred***, Identify elements used in decision-making in part B, and Brief narrative describing one’s decision (not scored)

  13. Results Comparison: Child Maltreatment Identification I (Physical Abuse) & II (Sexual Abuse)

  14. Sample Results for Curriculum: CMI, Part 1 (FY11-12 thru 12-13) • Group differences were not statistically significant for CalSWEC MSW IV-E; MSW non IV-E; and other non IV-E. Pass means a minimum of three correct decisions were made.

  15. Demographic Profiles FY06-07 thru FY12-13 Samples: CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainee Profile CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainee Profile Trends CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainees & Trainees with other Educational Backgrounds Comparisons

  16. Profile: A typical CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainee

  17. Trends: CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainee Profile

  18. Comparisons: CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW Trainees & Trainees with other Educational Backgrounds CalSWEC Title IV-E MSW graduates differed significantly from non Title IV-E trainees in the following areas:

  19. Graphs for Selected Variables Title IV-E Graduate Workforce Trends Race/Ethnicity Trends (All Trainees, Statewide) Race/Ethnicity Trends (Title IV-E Trainees, Statewide) Race/Ethnicity By IV-E Participation

  20. Percent of all Newly Hired Workforce that are IVE Grads(FY06-07 thru FY12-13)

  21. Race/Ethnicity Trends (All Newly Hired Trainees, Statewide)(FY06-07 thru FY12-13)

  22. Race/Ethnicity Trends (Title IV-E Trainees, Statewide)(FY06-07 thru FY12-13)

  23. For more information… Refer to Board Report dated February 2014 for more details regarding demographic profiles and analyses of test data on other curricula. The full report (incl. Appendix) can be found online at: http://calswec.berkeley.edu/evaluating-standardized-child-welfare-training-california-common-core Contact SandhyaRao Hermon: sandhya.rao.hermon@berkeley.edu

More Related