Southwestern Social Science Association 92 nd Annual Conference San Diego, California April 6, 2012

1. Southwestern Social Science Association 92nd Annual Conference San Diego, CaliforniaApril 6, 2012 The University of Oklahoma Anne and Henry Zarrow School of Social Work Knee Center for Strong Families Presents: Social Workers’ Family Values: Results of a Survey Kenneth R. Wedel Ph.D., Coordinator & James Rosenthal Ph.D., Professor at Anne and Henry Zarrow School of Social Work

2. Outline of Presentation • The Knee Center for Strong Families • The Importance of Values • The Conflictual Nature of Values • Values Defined • Social Work on Values • Family Values Defined (Review of Literature) • Our Survey on Family Values • Results • Discussion and Wrap-up

3. The Knee Center for Strong Families • Founded in 2009 through a bequest of Ruth Irelan and Junior Koenig Knee • Ruth Knee was an alumnus of the University of Oklahoma School of Social Work and a pioneer in the advancement of professional social work practice and interdisciplinary engagement in social policy development • The Knee Center was established to devote its work to building theory, knowledge, practice, and education for the development of strong families in their diverse forms

4. The Knee Center Mission “The Knee Center for Strong Families is dedicated to strengthening families in Oklahoma through research, service, policy, and practice.” Ruth Irelan Knee

5. Overview of the Knee Center The Knee Center is dedicated to sponsoring academic and community-oriented programs in the fields of social work, public health (including mental health), and fine arts in the following three core areas: • Visiting lectureships, workshops, seminars, meetings of scholars, conferences, symposia, and forums • Planning grants or “seed money” to develop programs that might have continuous funding from other sources • Underwrite research on the planning and development of educational programs to enhance family life in Oklahoma

6. Goals of the Knee Center • Contribute new knowledge in quality of life for Oklahoma families • Foster collaboration for outreach activities directed toward solving social problems for families • Increase current research capacity (including evaluation research) of the center’s faculty, investigators, and students through the creation of research teams • Increase the amount of externally funded training and research grants conducted by the center by increasing the number of investigator-initiated training and research grant submissions; and developing multidisciplinary research teams to conceptualize, plan, develop, and conduct service and research initiatives

7. Features of the Knee Center • Collaborative civic engagement in areas in which strong family development is an integral part of practice, including: • child welfare • law • family services • mental health • substance abuse recovery • health care/promotion • Curriculum innovation supporting the preparation of a new generation of social workers and helping professionals • Building awareness among key constituencies and stakeholders of how policy can support strong family development. • Development of new intervention models to advance strong family development within Oklahoma and beyond • Formation of strong partnerships with state and local organizations and groups to advance knowledge and practice of strong family development

8. Values • Relate to what is important in our lives • Abstract • Beliefs tied to emotion, not objective ideas. • Everybody possesses values • Vary in degrees of importance • Ordered by importance relative to one another • System of ordered values makes us who we are -Rokeach, 1979

9. The Importance of Values • Values connect individuals to society: • Help ease the conflict between individuals and collective interests. • Enable individuals to work together to realize collectively desirable goals.

10. The Importance of Values (continued) • Values: • Serve as standards or criteria in terms of actions, policies, people, and events • Have an effect on aspects of choice, decisions regarding courses of action and outcomes, goals, attitudes, and behavior • Mold our beliefs and perceptions

11. The Conflictual Nature of Values • The nature of values is often fraught with conflict: • Presumed to contain a right vs. wrong, good vs. bad component • Result in judgments of affirmation or condemnation -Trotzer, 1981

12. Values Defined • The concept of values is considered broad & encompasses numerous definitions: • Kluckholn and Stodtbeck (1961) – “Values answer basic existential questions, helping to provide meaning in people’s lives.” • Building Family Values (2000)-“Values are a reflection of who we are, of our culture, and of our own unique heritage.”

13. Values Defined (continued) • Rokeach (1979)- “Values are core conceptions of the desirable within every individual and society. They serve as standards or criteria to guide not only action, but judgment, choice, attitude, exhortation, rationalization, and one might add, attribution of causality.” • Rokeach (1973)-“They (values) lead us to take particular positions on social issues and they predispose us to favor one ideology over another.”

14. Shaping Family Values • All families possess values • Generational transfer • Vary with the diversity of families • Factors shaping family values: • Age • Cohort, life-stage, physical • Gender • Experiences and life circumstances • Social, political, and economic environment • Cultural background

15. Changing Family Values • Families and family values have changed in American culture over the years: • Thornton (1989)– Study examined changing values and norms in regards to family life over a period of 30 years. • Revealed changes in norms regarding marriage, childbearing, and the roles of men and women. • Similarity between family values and broader social trends.

16. Family Values From a Political Perspective • Family Values Rhetoric: • The concept of family values is conflictual. • Has subsequently been used as controversial political ammunition. • Cahn and Carbone (2010)- Red Families v. Blue Families. • Cloud (2010)-performed an extensive analysis of the political use of the term family values. • 1992 Presidential Elections.

17. A Nation Divided: Red vs. Blue States 2008 Electoral Map = Republican States = Democratic States

18. Families on the Front Lines “Families are on the front lines of the culture wars. Controversies over abortion, same-sex marriage, teen pregnancy, single parenthood, and divorce have all changed our images of the American family. Some Americans seek a return to the ‘mom, dad, and apple pie’ families of the 1950s, while others embrace all of our families, including single mothers, gay and lesbian parents, and cohabitating couples. These conflicting perspectives on life’s basic choices affect us all-at the national level, in state courts and legislatures, in drafting local ordinances, and in our own families.” -Cahn and Carbone (2010)- Red Families v. Blue Families.

19. Social Work on Values NASW Code of Ethics : • Identifies core values on which social work’s mission is based. • States: • “They (social workers) should be aware of the any conflicts between personal and professional values and deal with them responsibly.” • Should be aware of impact on ethical practice with clients

20. Survey Study on Family ValuesImportance • Little is known about family values espoused by social workers and how these values might impact their practice with families. • Lack of research and literature surround family values of social workers.

21. Survey Study on Family ValuesPurpose • In 2011, The Knee Center conducted an online survey of National Association of Social Workers (NASW) – Oklahoma Chapter members to obtain information about family values and their priorities for professional practice.

22. Survey Study on Family ValuesPurpose • Study represents an initial look at family values of social workers • Important to examine how congruent they may be with those of the individuals and families for whom they provide services or administer policy practice. • Focuses on one aspect of the profession’s core values that addresses the importance of human relationships • Purposeful efforts to promote, restore, maintain and enhance the well-being of families.

23. Survey on Family Values : MethodsParticipants and Sampling Procedure • Research Survey Design • Acquired a list of current 1,243 2010-2011 NASW-OK members from the NASW-OK office • Invitation to participate in study and link to online questionnaire were e-mailed to a total of 973 members for whom e-mail contact info was provided. • 3 separate mailings conducted • 22 e-mail addresses were nonfunctional • Among the 951 members with valid e-mail addresses, 283 returned their questionnaires • Response rate of 29%. • Online survey administered using the Qualtrics software

24. Survey on Family Values : MethodsSurvey Design and Variables • First section of survey: • Queried respondents with a 44, 9-point semantic differential scale items • Examined attitudes on different aspects of family values • These items were anchored on each side with an “opposite” value statement conveying opposing value preferences.

25. Survey on Family Values : MethodsSurvey Design and Variables • Example: • Below are statements associated with domains of family life.  Please read each pair of statements and indicate your degree of  preference for one statement over the other by clicking the appropriate circle.  Clicking a circle closer in proximity to one statement would signify your preference for that statement.

26. Survey on Family Values : MethodsSurvey Design and Variables • The second section of the questionnaire gathered data on a number of respondent characteristics: • Age • Gender • Degree level • Years of practice • Whether or not practice directly with families • Practice Setting • Marital status (whether or not previously or currently married) • Whether or not have children

27. Sample Population:Ages of Respondents

28. Sample Population:Gender of Respondents

29. Sample Population:Degree Level of Respondents

30. Sample Population:Years Practiced in Profession

31. Sample Population: Respondents Providing Direct Family Services

32. Sample Population: Practice Setting

33. Sample Population:Respondents Who Have Children

34. Sample Population:Respondents Who Are Currently Married or Who Have Been Previously Married

35. Survey on Family Values : MethodsAnalyses • A principal components analysis was conducted based on the 44 family values items. • Used the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy • Assessed whether individual variables were appropriate for inclusion in our principal components analysis • Conducted several initial principal components analyses • KMO measures for each included variable each time • Systematically eliminated variables whose KMO measures were under .50 until no such items remained • This left 33 items for analysis

36. Survey on Family Values : Methods Analyses: Principal Components Analysis • Resulted in 6 common variables • Support secular values (believe religion is not sole value source) • Support flexible family forms • Progressive values about sexuality • Pro-outside of family supports • Pro-Gun control/Intrusion of family • Support public programs • A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted based using these 6 factors • Factors were named and factor scores for each respondent were generated. • One-way ANOVAs were conducted to examine relationships between respondent characteristics and factor scores

37. Results:

38. Results:27. Religious values should always be taught in schools vs. Religious values should always be taught outside of schools Number of Respondents Religious values taught in schools----Religious values taught outside of schools Mean=6.5

39. Results:32. The Bible (or other religious texts) is the only adequate source for the teaching of values vs. There are many different sectors for the teaching of values Number of Respondents The Bible (or other religious texts) for teaching values----Many different sectors for teaching values Mean=7.5

40. Results:18. Lifelong cohabitation should never be allowed outside of marriage vs. Lifelong cohabitation should be allowed outside of marriage Number of Respondents No lifelong cohabitation outside of marriage----Lifelong cohabitation outside of marriage Mean=6.9

41. Results:9. Marriage should only be allowed with strict lifelong conditions (covenant marriage) vs. Marriage should only be allowed without strict lifelong conditions (non-covenant marriage) Number of Respondents Marriage with strict lifelong conditions----Marriage without strict lifelong conditions Mean=5.1

42. Results:17. There should be no active role of religion in child-rearing vs. There should always be an active role of religion in child-rearing Number of Respondents No active role of religion in child-rearing----Active role of religion in child-rearing Mean=6.2

43. Results:

44. Results:19. Single parent families provide sufficient opportunities for children vs. Single parent families do not provide sufficient opportunities for children Number of Respondents Single parent families provide sufficient opportunities----Single parent families do not provide sufficient opportunities Mean=4.1

45. Results:25. Individuals should only have children within wedlock vs. Individuals should be free to have children outside of wedlock Number of Respondents Should only have children only within wedlock----Free to have children outside of wedlock Mean=5.5

46. Results:41. Pro-choice vs. Pro-life Number of Respondents Pro-choice----Pro-life Mean=3.5

47. Results:

48. Results: 33. Family planning is preferred vs. Family planning is not preferred Number of respondents Family planning is preferred ---- Family planning is not preferred Mean= 1.9

49. Results:31. Sex education should be allowed within schools and other venues vs. Sex education should be allowed only within the family Number of Respondents Sex education within schools and other venues ----Sex education only within the family Mean=2.2

50. Results: