RU-SSW MISSION STATEMENT Our mission is to develop and disseminate knowledge through social work research, education, and training that promotes social and economic justice and strengthens individual, family, and community well-being in this diverse and increasingly global environment of New Jersey and beyond.
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
SECTION TITLE
4
A Note from Dean Cathryn C. Potter
6
Initiative 1: Inclusion, Intersectionality, Diversity, Equity and Advancement (IIDEA)
9
Initiative 2: A Curriculum for the Future of Social Work
13
Initiative 3: Supporting the 21st-Century Student
16
Initiative 4: Research for a Just Future
18
Initiative 5: Innovative Community Engagement
20
Initiative 6: Organizational Foundations for Success
22
Appendix 1: Strategic Planning Process Summary
24
Appendix 2: Strategic Planning Environmental Scan Report
A NOTE FROM DEAN CATHRYN C. POTTER During its 65th year and ranked 17th among over 250 schools of social work by U.S. News and World Report, the Rutgers University School of Social Work (RUSSW) is embarking on an exciting strategic plan. We invite our community partners and alumni to join with us as we build our leadership in key strategic areas, to educate the next generation of social workers for our world and to build the knowledge that supports social change. We envision a future for our country and our world that is grounded in justice. We commit to leading for justice, through a focus on innovation, excellence, collaboration and community. Deeply grounded in Inclusion, Intersectionality, Diversity, Equity and Advancement (IIDEA), our plan focuses on core elements of our mission as a leading school of social work. We will prepare and support the nation’s best students for leadership in diverse communities, and for innovative social work practice that addresses our most pressing social problems. We will expand our research and research partnerships to focus on indispensable social issues. We will build a reputation for innovation in community engagement, and the organizational culture and supports to sustain our work. The plan outlines critical goals and objectives for our community. I hope you will take some time to consider how you might engage with us, and to think innovatively about the ways we can expand our collective reach. In March of 2020, we were poised to launch the Strategic Plan, during Social Work Month at a celebration to show off our new School spaces in downtown New Brunswick. Then COVID-19 sent us into uncharted territory, as we moved to remote work and education, reimagined many aspects of our work and community, and responded daily to the new demands of two pandemics, that of COVID-19 and that of
the nation’s grappling with the long, international pandemic of systemic racism. It might have been that our strategic planning work became irrelevant, but that is not the case. Our goals ring true in our current environment, from inclusion, intersectionality, diversity, equity and advancement, to the foci on technology in social work, criminal and juvenile justice reform, and health disparities, to supporting the 21st-century Student, and heightening our community engagement. We see this as meeting the first test of the relevance of our strategic framework. As we have worked together these past six months, this framework has guided our community and our actions. It will continue to do so for the coming years. Our strategic planning team has my enduring thanks for leading the School through a rigorous, data-rich process. Almost two years ago, we embarked to identify a set of strategic initiatives that would guide the work of the School over the next five years. The effort was led by two of our associate deans, Sharon Fortin, Associate Dean for Administration and Finance, and Dr. Judy Postmus, Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development. We began with an environmental scan process that engaged many constituencies, including our students and alumni, field instructors and community leaders, faculty and staff, along with consideration of national trends and comparisons to top schools of social work. The environmental scan was comprehensive and provided rich data for consideration by our Strategic Planning Committee (the Dean’s Advisory Committee and key staff leaders), the Strategic Planning Steering Committee, and by our faculty and staff. Please see the appendix for a full description of the strategic planning process. Join us as we move our School, our profession and our community “Toward a More Just Future.”
Cathryn C. Potter Dean and Distinguished Professor Rutgers School of Social Work
INCLUSION, INTERSECTIONALITY, DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND ADVANCEMENT (IIDEA) RU-SSW embraces inclusion, intersectionality, diversity, equity and advancement as core principles for our curriculum, our community engagement, our research portfolios and our faculty, student and staff community. Goal 1: Develop a shared definition of IIDEA. A. Creating an IIDEA standing committee in the RU-SSW by-laws.
1. Chaired by the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, 2. Including elected and appointed members of the faculty, staff and students, 3. Whose Chair serves as diversity champion for the larger Rutgers-New Brunswick and University-wide diversity and inclusion efforts. B. Charging the IIDEA Committee with the creation and implementation of a constantlyevolving diversity and inclusion action plan for the School, including items such as:
1. Working with faculty to create a statement on diversity and inclusion that is codified into RU-SSW by-laws and policies,
2. In partnership with the Office of Academic Affairs and the Curriculum and Executive Committees, developing a conceptual/theoretical framework that undergirds the School's initiatives that further inclusion, intersectionality, diversity, equity, and advancement,
3. In partnership with multiple RU-SSW entities, leading the development and implementation oversight of a comprehensive evolving, multi-year plan that advances IIDEA within the School and its community partners,
4. Identifying areas where inclusion, intersectionality, diversity, equity, and advancement need to be addressed and making recommendations to the Dean, administration, and faculty to address the identified areas,
5. Coordinating with search committees to deliver/support Rutgers-New Brunswick diversity-related faculty and staff hiring protocols,
6. Coordinating with all committees, program directors and administrators to support the infusion of IIDEA objectives into yearly work plans, including curriculum consideration discussed below,
7. Coordinating with the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to add IIDEAspecific questions to existing student and alumni surveys,
8. Developing an ongoing IIDEA survey/assessment process for faculty, staff and students, including specifying timing and methods, and mechanisms for reporting negative IIDEA-related experiences,
9. Identifying other key priorities determined by the IIDEA committee.
Goal 2: Create mechanisms to infuse strong IIDEA practices across the curriculum and our community life. A. Specifically moving forward recommendations from a) the 2018-2019 Diversity & Inclusion Task Force, which focused on the student experience, and b) the subsequent faculty discussion of key priorities, including:
1. Creating a standing committee (see above), 2. Supporting the Office of Academic Affairs and the Curriculum Committees to create and deliver skill-based training for all faculty (TT, NTT, PTL) in inclusive pedagogies, for both formal and co-curricular learning experiences. See curriculum recommendations below,
3. Developing skill-based instruction for all students re: micro-aggressions, ensuring focus on field settings. See curriculum recommendations below,
4. Supporting the Field Education team to improve field-related IIDEA training for field instructors and mechanisms for identifying and responding to field-based, negative IIDEA experiences,
5. Conducting a full review of the SIRS course evaluation process and bring recommendations for designing additional questions for student evaluations, and practice language for syllabi related to student and instructor bias. B. Ensuring that staff policies and protocols are aligned with the committee’s recommendations to create a school climate that is supportive of all.
1. Convening a Staff Advisory Council to bring recommendations to the Dean and Associate Dean for Administration and Finance, whose chair serves on the Dean’s Advisory Committee,
2. Making resources available to support training and activities that contribute to IIDEA practices in the workplace.
Goal 3: Ensure recruitment and retention of faculty and staff that advance IIDEA goals. A. Building and enacting a robust full-time faculty hiring model to meet IIDEA goals, including:
1. Continuing to help build larger university mechanisms to support IIDEA hiring. 2. Strengthening our internal IIDEA hiring mechanisms, 3. Working strategically toward the goal of a faculty composition that matches our student composition, and that of our state. B. Ensuring that our Part-time Lecturer (PTL) faculty mirror the diversity of our student body.
1. Strengthening our hiring processes to ensure strong IIDEA practices, 2. Developing a system to monitor and report progress in these practices. C. Ensuring that our staff hiring and promotion practices correspond to our IIDEA goals.
1. Strengthening our HR processes to advance IIDEA hiring with an eye to, ensuring that our staff composition correspond to the demographics of our state,
2. Monitoring and reporting progress in our IIDEA hiring and promotion outcomes.
Who: All, Dean and Associate Deans, IIDEA Committee, Staff Advisory Council, Academic Affairs Team, and Ph.D. and DSW Executive Committees.
A CURRICULUM FOR THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL WORK The BASW, MSW, Ph.D. and DSW curricula will prepare graduates for leadership and innovation in community organizations to redress social, racial, economic, and environmental disparities. Goal 1: Prepare students for exemplary work with diverse populations and to lead in diverse and inclusive settings. A. Reviewing and strengthening RU-SSW curricula to bolster student knowledge and skills in:
1. Engaging students in the anti-oppressive and anti-racist social work practices required to address social, racial, economic and environmental disparities,
2. Inclusive excellence in leadership and organizational practice, 3. Addressing the intersection of IIDEA principles with environmental justice. B. Selecting useful, well supported, pedagogical models and train faculty, PTLs and doctoral students on inclusive pedagogical practices. C. Developing robust co-curricular opportunities focused on IIDEA. D. Ensuring communication and partnership with the IIDEA Committee.
Goal 2: Prepare students to lead and drive innovation in the non-profit, public, private and academic sectors. A. Reviewing and strengthening RU-SSW curricula to ensure students will develop:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Knowledge, structure and process of modern organizations of all kinds, Management and leadership skills for all students in all courses of study, Financial literacy, business skills and critical thinking/writing skills, Social, economic and environmental justice expertise, Advocacy skills across the curriculum, including clinical courses.
B. Exploring creation of MSW/MBA joint degree focused on social innovation and/or social entrepreneurship.
C. Seeking opportunities for interprofessional student engagement in social innovation initiatives. D. Creating a post-graduate leadership/management certificate(s) in leadership, management, social entrepreneurship/innovation, and other relevant topics through the Center for Leadership and Management.
Goal 3: Prepare students to lead and practice in a technology-driven environment. A. Creating an ad-hoc Technology Task Force to provide support and recommendations to the entire RU-SSW community, including support for curriculum innovations discussed below. B. Reviewing and strengthening RU-SSW curricula to ensure students will:
1. Develop knowledge and skills in: i. Technology-driven data analytics, including agency assessment practices, research-informed practice, data visualization, and data-driven decision making. ii. Technology-assisted practice, such as use of tele-therapy, tele-medicine apps, etc. iii. The use of technology for social action and organizing. iv. Professional communications and maintaining a professional online presence using websites, social media and other technologies.
2. Understanding the ethical implications, professional codes of conduct, potential limitations and legal implications of technology assistance,
3. Developing skills and considering impact of technology on social issues and problems (e.g., addictions, mental health etc.). C. Providing faculty development in:
1. Technology-enhanced practices, including use of virtual worlds, and other innovative platforms,
2. Technology-driven practice innovations impacting the field. D. Ensuring faculty expertise in technology-related social work practice.
1. See Faculty Research Cluster hiring recommendation in subsequent section.
Goal 4: Prepare students to work in complex health care environments. A. Reviewing and strengthening curriculum to ensure all students will: 1. Develop basic skills in interprofessional practice and, more specifically, integrated health care,
2. Understand and navigate the complexities of practicing within various health care systems and settings,
3. Develop basic knowledge and skills in substance abuse screening, assessment and intervention. B. Creating a distinct certificate in Interprofessional Health, including the development of additional required courses and electives in health, including a NTT position with interprofessional health expertise. C. Strengthening existing relationships with interprofessional health faculty in RBHS, including:
1. Full implementation of the new MSW/MPH degree, 2. Exploration of additional opportunities for broad student participation in partnerships with public health, dentistry, medicine, etc.
Goal 5: Enhance innovative methods of curriculum delivery. A. Developing innovative, module formats to quickly deliver and infuse content on emerging fields of practice and problem areas, etc. (for example, acceptance and commitment therapy, trauma informed care, etc.), including:
1. Creating innovative 1-credit course offerings, in face-to-face, hybrid and online formats. B. Developing robust block placements, and block placement system, for specialized and unique field opportunities. C. Developing innovative virtual placements that allow students a rich field placement experience using virtual clients, and supervisor and agency engagement strategies.
D. Growing quality online, night and weekend field placement opportunities. E. Offering targeted field workshops as part of required field hours. Who: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Team, Curriculum and Executive Committees, Field Education Team, and new Technology Workgroup.
SUPPORTING THE 21ST-CENTURY STUDENT RU-SSW will maximize success for 21st-century students by providing access to necessary tools and support to prospective and current students, and to alumni. Goal 1: Develop a framework and multi-year plan for responding to the needs of 21st-century students in the BASW, MSW, Ph.D. and DSW program options.
A. Developing a framework for student services that is clearly informed by data about the needs of our very diverse, heavily first-generation, heavily time-committed, rich lifeexperience students. B. Providing resources and referrals for economic assistance along with financial planning/literacy information for both prospective and current students that includes consideration of:
1. Strengthening and developing partnerships across the University and community with entities offering economic assistance and related resources for students,
2. Developing a strong partnership with Rutgers Financial Aid, 3. Engaging outside financial planning organizations to craft recommendations/content for students. Bringing more innovative thought to financial planning and literacy. Engaging alumni and highlighting success stories,
4. Engaging alumni in development of content and in engagement with students, 5. Developing and implementing a communication plan to ensure information is provided in multiple ways. C. Bolstering internal communication between admissions, student services, field and scheduling to avoid confusion around program commitments/promises. D. Developing a plan for flexible course scheduling (see curriculum) and minimizing scheduling conflicts. E. Developing a student-focused communication plan/policy that includes appropriate technology with established expectations, considering at a minimum:
1. Engaging a communications consultant with diversity focus, 2. Re-designing relevant website pages,
3. Enhancing web-archiving, 4. Identifying and providing varied opportunities for access to information specific to success in program and prospective employment opportunities,
5. Developing a comprehensive job board organized for both new graduates and alumni (e.g. become THE place to find a social work job),
6. Ensuring attention to availability of services (food pantry, mental health, etc.), and to engaging students in consideration of self-care and work/life balance. F. Attend to the needs of the whole student including mental health, trauma-related and wellness supports, work-family life balance/challenges, and self-care through internal RU-SSW programming for students and faculty and University resources.
Goal 2: Continue the strong focus on raising dollars for student scholarships and additional student supports. A. Considering a faculty/staff 5K fundraising event for student scholarships and other opportunities. B. Building a modern communications plan for calling attention to 21st-century student needs and highlighting our student success plan and our students. C. Promoting philanthropy for our students as community builders—Students Supporting Students, Rutgers Giving Day, etc. D. Promoting faculty and staff philanthropy in support of our students.
Goal 3: Partner more effectively with Rutgers Career Services. A. Advocating for a social work-specific career services professional staff person, and consider shared-funding model (as with Rutgers University Foundation). Current University career services has professional schools currently under one person, who is not knowledgeable about specific trends in social work. B. Developing and providing career services to students including job data bank (see above), workshop opportunities (resume building, interviewing, etc.).
C. Developing a plan to link students with alumni through formal mentorships.
Goal 4: Build stronger community among students and the School. A. Continuing to provide resources (fiscal/physical) to support RU-SSW student organizations. Strongly encourage participation of faculty and staff at student-organized events. B. Ensuring program-specific offerings. C. Increasing offerings/communications in technology-mediated environments, including developing online chat/discussion/support formats.
Who: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Team, and Development Director and Team.
RESEARCH FOR A JUST FUTURE RU-SSW will serve as an exemplary, top 20-ranked program, by identifying emerging social work research priorities, building research clusters/centers, and by enhancing support for our current research initiatives. Goal 1: Continue current focus on increasing T/TT and NTT Research faculty size to better approximate ratios with key competitor programs (R1, Big Ten, NYC-specific) and to better align faculty representation with student diversity.
A. Adding approximately 10 T/TT and NTT Research faculty members with strong research and grant writing potential over the next five years. B. Ensuring that RU-SSW meets aggressive diversity hiring goals by ensuring that RU-SSW is a full participant in the Rutgers diversity hiring program including:
1. Adhering to all recommended recruitment and hiring protocols, 2. Ensuring strong IIDEA research foci in our research portfolio. C. Ensuring that RU-SSW salary and start-up packages are competitive with R1 peers. D. Focusing hiring on strategic considerations, including:
1. Replacing key faculty expertise, as needed, relative to faculty retirement/departure, curriculum needs, etc.,
2. Ensuring broad, diverse representation of faculty in our research centers and general faculty,
3. Building out new research clusters with a high likelihood of funded research agendas, and the potential for strong interdisciplinary connections at Rutgers in key areas that emerged from our Environmental Scan, including: i. Technology and Social Work ii. Social Determinants of Health and Health Care Practice iii. Social Impacts of Climate Change and Environmental Justice iv. Immigration and Refugee Needs and Policy v. Juvenile and Criminal Justice Practice and Reform
4. Recruiting senior leadership for each cluster using a targeted recruitment process, followed by our regular process for adding junior faculty,
5. Ensuring IIDEA perspectives permeate our research portfolio.
Goal 2: Increase faculty research productivity. A. Increasing RU-SSW performance on key metrics of T/TT faculty productivity, including articles, books, presentations, and public scholarship dissemination efforts, along with grants submitted, grants awarded, total dollars, etc. in accordance with Rutgers-New Brunswick approaches to tracking research productivity. B. Increasing external funding for research efforts from diverse funding sources. C. Increasing the effective indirect cost recovery percentage. D. Developing additional grant writing and research management supports, including items such as mechanisms for accessing statistical consultation and editing support, along with budget development and project management training. Who: Dean, Associate Deans for Research and Faculty Development, Research Advisory Group, new Cluster-specific Senior Search Committee(s), and Junior Faculty Search Committee.
INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RU-SSW will actively support New Jersey social work practice communities through its research and community engagement efforts. Goal 1: Identify, develop, and leverage new and existing strategic partnerships between the School and communities. A. Creating a new Task Force on Community Engagement (faculty and staff), with a multiyear charge to oversee our community engagement efforts. B. Ensuring that the Continuing Education team is responding rapidly to emergent community training needs. C. Conducting an audit of existing community partnerships between faculty and community entities, including articulation of the existing, center-based efforts. D. Developing a portfolio of existing faculty expertise and interests in community engagement, and use existing faculty relationships to broker connections for unconnected faculty. E. In partnership with the community, identifying and prioritizing 3-5 areas of emerging social work practice that warrant a team approach to social community engagement (including perhaps areas identified for research priority along with emerging areas of practice—these areas should focus/embrace diverse and marginalized communities). F. Developing a model for intensive community engagement in these key areas that includes NTT/TT faculty leadership, specialized field opportunities for multiple students, opportunities for RU-SSW faculty and staff volunteerism, etc. G. Developing a competitive internal funding initiative (course release and pilot dollars) to support start-up for community engagement initiatives, funding 1-2 such start-ups per year. Engage RU-SSW development efforts in engaging potential donors and supporting faculty in grant writing efforts. These efforts should be sustainable, after initial start-up through faculty/staff leadership, field education support, and fundraising efforts.
Goal 2: Increase faculty, staff and student engagement in social policy advocacy. A. Providing training to the entire RU-SSW community on policy advocacy, community organizing and proactive media engagement. B. Developing a media rapid-response process for faculty experts willing to provide commentary on emerging social issues, and provide training. C. Developing a peer support group for those engaging in policy advocacy in their area of expertise.
Goal 3: Create faculty promotion supports for community engagement activities. A. Operationalizing the new (upcoming) Rutgers Community Engaged Research standards for T/TT promotion. B. Including community engagement standards in NTT annual review promotion ladders. C. Developing training for NTT faculty on connecting community engagement and dissemination efforts.
Goal 4: Develop a robust community engagement communication plan. A. Developing a framework and plan for disseminating information on RU-SSW community engagement efforts, including:
1. Creating a strong web and social media presence highlighting community engagement,
2. Developing an annual internal faculty/staff award for exemplary community engagement. Who: Community Engagement Task Force (new), SSW Communications Office, Associate Deans for Research and Faculty Development, SSW Development Team, and Field Education Team.
ORGANIZATIONAL FOUNDATIONS FOR SUCCESS RU-SSW will invest to ensure strength in organizational foundations that support the development of faculty, staff and students to achieve the mission of the School. Organizational foundations elements will ensure achievability of goals, objectives and measures for the other five initiatives and also will include goals, objectives and measures of its own. Goal 1: Creating a cohesive culture and climate. A. Enhancing emotional, social and intellectual community building through organized and social events/initiatives by creating a “culture committee� of faculty and staff throughout the School inclusive of all programs, centers/institute, and administrative services. B. Enhancing initiatives to recognize faculty/staff achievements, as noted above and by creation of staff awards/recognition system.
Goal 2: Investments in infrastructure and other operational instruments, including, but not limited to: A. Expanding space through the One Square Block initiative available in Downtown New Brunswick to meet future needs. B. Enhancing functional information technology for providing sustainable advantage. C. Creating resources for skill development across multiple strategic planning initiatives. D. Further streamlining administrative processes (business, information technology and other administrative efforts).
Goal 3: Improving branding and communication. A. Bolstering Office of Communication and Marketing to include elements articulated in strategic planning initiatives. B. Adding a staff member to the Office of Communication and Marketing. C. Increasing technology-related training for RU-SSW members.
Goal 4: External development and fundraising. A. Articulating development priorities in accordance with strategic planning initiatives, including, but not limited to:
1. 2. 3. 4.
Student scholarships, Endowed chairs, Foundation-funded research initiatives, Foundation-funded community engagement initiatives.
Who: Dean’s Administrative Team, (Associate Dean for Administration & Finance, Development, and Communications Teams), and new Staff Advisory Council.
Appendix 1: STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS SUMMARY BY CO-CHAIRS JUDY L. POSTMUS AND SHARON A. FORTIN At the beginning of the 2018/2019 academic year, the School’s standing Dean’s Advisory Committee was expanded with additional members to serve as the Rutgers University School of Social Work (RU-SSW) Dean’s Advisory Committee for Strategic Planning (SPC). Included among the members were six who serve on the RU-SSW Strategic Planning Steering Committee. SPC members included (Steering Committee Members are bolded): DuWayne Battle, Douglas Behan, Natalie Bembry, Charles Chear, Laura Curran, Marian Diksies, Laura DiMarcantonio, Patricia Findley, Sharon Fortin (co-chair), Anna Haley, Arlene Hunter, Mark Lamar, Michael LaSala, Theresa McCutcheon, Andrew Peterson, Judy Postmus (co-chair), Ramesh Raghavan, and Allison Zippay. The charge given to the committee was to develop a strategic planning process that incorporated key voices within and exterior to RU-SSW. Working closely with Dean Cathryn C. Potter and a consultant, Adelaide Ferguson, the process began by conducting an environmental scan. As such, SPC worked to identify and cover key informant areas and created working groups to that end. The workgroups each worked to collect data within five areas that include: 1) Analysis of Competitor Programs; 2) Analysis of Existing Data; 3) Data Collected from Key Community Stakeholders; 4) Data Collected from our Students; and 5) Data Collected from our Faculty and Staff. The results from these efforts were presented School wide in the Strategic Planning Environmental Scan Report. RU-SSW then held three mini-retreats (faculty, program/administrative/research staff, and Institute for Families staff) in May and June 2019 to discuss and collect suggestions for strategic priority areas and ideas to be considered. Six categories emerged from the environmental scan: curriculum and programs; strategic research initiatives; community engagement; strategies to improve School infrastructure; ideas for strengthening School culture; and other ideas falling outside the other five categories. At the retreats, participants were assigned to groups that were facilitated by members of SPC. Each individual brainstormed ideas for each of the six areas. Members at each table then sorted and grouped individual ideas, then discussed and refined those ideas coming to consensus on five main ideas. Each table then presented those five main ideas to the plenary. Participants indicated their top five priority preferences for ideas they would like to see implemented with the strategic plan.
Following these retreats, SPC co-chairs Postmus and Fortin reviewed the major ideas as well as all individual ideas generated at every table. They organized these major and individual ideas into similar categories identifying main themes with sub themes and ideas. Every priority preference was counted and weighted. These findings were then reviewed by Dean Cathryn C. Potter and Associate Deans Laura Curran, Sharon Fortin, and Judy Postmus, and in July 2019, major priority areas were identified and presented to the SPC for discussion and to develop initiative statements and present goals to Dean Potter. Between August and October 2019, the plan was drafted and went through several initial edits among the Dean and Associate Deans. During this time, Dean Potter held a meeting of researchfocused faculty to further develop the research initiative and identify key areas for potential research clusters and foci. The penultimate draft was presented to RU-SSW faculty and staff between October and December 2019 for them to provide feedback and further inform the final draft. Much of the feedback received was with regard to action planning to operationalize the plan. As discussed between the Dean and Associate Deans, this signaled completion of the plan and the School’s ability to implement it and begin the action planning phase. We would like to provide special thanks to all of those within the School and our external partners for working with us to generate this forward-thinking plan. We are excited to continue these partnerships as the plan evolves over the next five years.
Appendix 2: STRATEGIC PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN REPORT
Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction
2
Strategic Planning Timeline
3
Workgroup Reports 1.
Analysis of Competitor Programs
4
2.
Existing Data
13
3.
Community Stakeholders
25
4.
Student Stakeholders
29
5.
Faculty & Staff Stakeholders
40
Page | 2
INTRODUCTION With the beginning of the 2018/2019 academic year, the School’s standing Dean’s Advisory Group was expanded with additional members and serves as the School of Social Work (SSW) Dean’s Advisory Committee for Strategic Planning (SPC). Included among the members are six who serve on the RU-SSW Strategic Planning Steering Committee. SPC members include (Steering Committee Members are bolded): DuWayne Battle, Doug Behan, Natalie Bembry, Charles Chear, Laura Curran, Marian Diksies, Laura Dimarcantonio, Patricia Findley, Sharon Fortin (co-chair), Anna Haley, Arlene Hunter, Mark Lamar, Michael LaSala, Theresa McCutcheon, Andrew Peterson, Judy Postmus (co-chair), Ramesh Raghavan, and Allison Zippay. The charge given to the committees was to develop a strategic planning process that incorporated key voices within and exterior to RU-SSW. Working closely with Dean Cathryn C. Potter and a consultant, Adelaide Ferguson, the process began by conducting an environmental scan. As such, SPC worked to identify and cover key informant areas and created working groups to that end. The workgroups each worked to collect data within five areas that include: 1) Analysis of Competitor Programs; 2) Analysis of Existing Data; 3) Data Collected from Key Community Stakeholders; 4) Data Collected from our Students; and 5) Data Collected from our Faculty and Staff. The results from these efforts constitute our environmental scan which is provided in the report below. This environmental scan will be distributed to all RU-SSW faculty and staff for their review prior to convening them into three groups (Faculty, IFF Staff, and all other Program/Administrative and Research Staff) to ask for recommendations and priority areas to inform six (6) major categories that surfaced from the scan. These categories include: 1) Suggestions for curriculum and/or programs; 2) Ways to engage the community (external – local, national, & global); 3) Ideas around strategic research initiatives; 4) Strategies to improve the RU-SSW infrastructure (i.e., human, technical, physical, administrative, & fiscal); 5) Ideas for strengthening the RU-SSW culture (internal – faculty, staff, & students; and 6) Other innovative initiatives. As faculty and staff read this report, they are encouraged to think of what innovative priorities and recommendations they may bring to their group session including which category listed above these suggestions belong. Once faculty and staff recommendations are collected, the Strategic Planning Steering Committee will draft a strategic plan and collect feedback prior to additional discussion in the fall of 2019.
Page | 3
STRATEGIC PLANNING TIMELINE November - December • Developed Process 2018
January - April 2019
May - June 2019
Summer - Early Fall 2019
Fall 2019
Spring 2020
• Launched Environmental Scan Working Groups • Working Groups Collected/Analyzed Data • Reported data to Steering Committee • Present Data at Faculty/Staff Meetings • Discuss/Formulate Big ideas • Finalize Priorities & Draft Plan
• Distribute Draft Plan
• Implement Plan
Page | 4
Analysis of Competitor Programs The Analysis of Competitor Programs working group includes Andrew Peterson (lead), Charles Chear, and Laura Curran. This report provides an analysis of 23 competitor schools of social work. The schools were selected based on their 1) U.S. News & World Report ranking, 2) public university RI aspirant peer status, and 3) geographical proximity. In sum they represent public, Research 1 aspirant peers, and regional peers with which we compete for enrollment. Aspirant peers include: University of Wisconsin-Madison; University of Washington; University of Texas-Austin; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; University of California-Berkeley; University of Pittsburgh; University of Michigan; and Case Western University1. Regional peers include: University of Pennsylvania; Columbia University; New York University; Temple University; State University of New York-Albany; Stony Brook University; Seton Hall University; Richard Stockton University; Ramapo College; Montclair State University; Monmouth University; Kean University; Fordham University; City University of New YorkHunter College; and Bryn Mawr College. This report discusses regional peers and aspirant peers separately, and together as overall competitors. Our survey instrument was adapted from the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) annual program survey and provides a comparative snapshot of our academic programming in multiple realms. Hence, CSWE categories were used, among other things, to examine methods specialization, field of practice specialization, certificate programs, and joint degrees. Using a team of two students, data collection methods included website reviews and email correspondence with key informants, typically faculty administrators.2 Faculty size and composition: As is well known, we are one of the largest programs amongst our competitors in relation to faculty size. The median number faculty being 35 (24 TT, 11 NTT, 26 adjunct). The median number of faculty not possessing an MSW was six. Compared to regional peers, aspirant peers have more faculty with a doctorate degree in a discipline other than social work, social welfare, or social policy. These disciplines include economics, public health, public policy, sociology, and urban planning. The most popular nonsocial work/social welfare discipline, however, is psychology with one department having as many as 11 psychologists. Two departments have six psychologists, one has five, and one has seven. Research Centers: The overwhelming majority (78%) of competitors were found to host one or more affiliated research centers. The broad foci of the centers included violence prevention, trauma, evidence-based practice, community development, child well-being/child welfare, poverty, non-profit leadership, prevention, race and social justice, aging, veterans, addictions and translational research. Innovative areas include digital health equity research and the big data innovation research. 1
Case Western was included in the aspirant peers in error as it was inappropriately coded as a public university. The team decided to include the data given its RI status and U.S. News & World Report ranking. 2 The data collection instrument and additional tables are available upon request.
Page | 5
Compared to our regional peers, there is a considerably larger number of research centers among aspirant peers which can be characterized as follows. Aspirant peers have more ethnicity and race-focused centers. There are more research centers focused on poverty and policy. There are research centers focused on collaboration between health professions. There are some centers focused on computational social science and data science. The name of research centers among aspirant peers use the following words more than regional peers: innovative, collaborative, excellence, institute, integrative, lab, and group (e.g. research group, intergroup). Branding efforts: Almost half (43%) of the schools were found to have strategic branding efforts in place, ranging from university-affiliated logos to substantive areas (e.g., child advocacy) to taglines including: “make waves, move mountains” (Columbia U); “A century of leadership, a legacy of service” (UNC Chapel Hill, https://www.unc.edu/school/social-work/) External Funding/Endowments: Despite collection efforts, reliable data cannot be reported for this area. MSW Programs Tuition: The median tuition was $19,645 and the median out-of-state tuition was $31,004 (range: $11,428-$53,812). This compares to Rutgers University School of Social Work in-state fulltime tuition of $17,000 and out-of-state full-time tuition of $30,000 (plus fees). Rutgers University School of Social Work online MSW program tuition is approximately $28,000. GRE & Enrollment Data: No program required the GRE as part of the application for admittance. Despite collection efforts, reliable enrollment data cannot be reported in this area. Part-time Options: 80% of competitor programs offered a part-time option. Online Options: Almost 1/3 (29%) of our regional peers offer a fully-online MSW degree and 37% of our aspirant peers offer a fully-online MSW degree. Methods Specialization: Among our competitors, 61% offered specializations in clinical or direct practice; 17% offered specialization in advanced generalist. In terms of “macro” practice, no school offered a specialization in administration but others offered a specialization in community development, organization, and planning, policy practice, program evaluation, and/or non-profit or public management. Only 20% of schools did not offer a methods specialization. Table 1.1: Methods Specializations Methods Specialization*
All (N=23)
Regional (N=15)
Clinical/direct practice
61% (n=14)
60% (n= 9)
Aspirant (N=8) 63% (n=8) (Interpersonal Practice: Michigan)
Rutgers X
Page | 6 Methods Specialization* Advanced generalist Community development, organization, and planning Policy practice Program evaluation Non-profit or public management
All (N=23) 17% (n=4) 39% (n=9) 23% (n=5) 17% (n=4) 4% (n=1)
Other
Regional (N=15)
Aspirant (N=8)
7% (n=15)
38% (n=8)
27% (n=4)
63% (n=8)
7% (n=1)
50% (n=8)
20% (n=3)
13% (n=8)
7% (n=15)
0% (n=8)
21% (n=3) Macro/organization management and leadership/social enterprise administration
0% (n=8)
Rutgers
X Management and policy
No specialization 20% *Valid n is included in chart due to missing data Field of Practice Specialization: Both aspirant and regional peers offer a specialization in child advocacy/child protection/child welfare as well as specializations in health or health care, mental health, aging/gerontology, non-profit management, global/international social work, disabilities, and a number of other fields of practice. Only 5% of programs did not offer a field of practice specialization. Rutgers University School of Social Work does not offer a field of practice specialization. Table 1.2: Fields of Practice Field of Practice* Child advocacy / protection / welfare Health/Health care Mental health Aging/Gerontology Non-profit management Global/International Disabilities Family support School social work Research Military/Veteran Clinical social work Criminal justice
All (N=23)
Regional (N=15)
Aspirant (N=8)
59% (n=13)
47% (n=7)
75% (n=6)
52% (n=12) 48% (n=11) 48% (n=11) 32% (n=7) 22% (n=5) 22% (n=5) 22% (n=5) 22% (n=5) 18% (n=4) 17% (n=4) 14% (n=3) 13% (n=3)
33% (n=5) 33% (n=5) 27% (n=4) 20% (n=3) 20% (n=3) 20% (n=3) 20% (n=3) 13% (n=2) 20% (n=3) 7% (n=1) 13% (n=2) 13% (n=2)
88% (n=7) 75% (n=6) 88% (n=7) 50% (n=4) 25% (n=2) 25% (n=2) 25% (n=2) 38% (n=3) 13% (n=1) 38% (n=3) 14% (n=1) 13% (n=1)
Page | 7 Field of Practice*
All (N=23)
Gender/Women’s issues Addictions/Substance abuse Integrated/behavioral health Human services management Ethnic studies Family/Marriage Trauma Case management Social justice/human rights Religion/Spirituality
13% (n=3) 13% (n=3) 9% (n=2) 9% (n=2) 9% (n=2) 9% (n=2) 9% (n=2) 4% (n=1) 4% (n=1) 4% (n=1)
Other
35%
No specialization 5% *Valid n is included in chart due to missing data
Regional (N=15) 7% (n=1) 7% (n=1) 7% (n=1) 7% (n=1) 7% (n=1) 7% (n=1) 0 0 0 0
Aspirant (N=8)
7% (n=3) Evaluation & Policy; World of Work; Contemporary Social Issues
25% (n=2) 25% (n=2) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 25% (n=2) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 38% (n=3) Multigenerational Practice with Children, Families and Elders; Integrated HealthMental Health – both at U of Washington
7%
Certificate Programs**: 40% school social work; 10% had a certificate in addictions/substance abuse; 24% health care; 23% had a certificate in aging/gerontology; 21% in child advocacy/welfare/protection; 16% in clinical social work; 12% global/refugee; 12% mental health; 11% non-profit management; 5% women/gender studies; 6% human services management; 6% juvenile justice; 6% spirituality; 6% military /veteran. Table 1.3: Certificate Programs Certificate*
All (N=23)
School social work Addictions/substance abuse Health/Health care Aging/gerontology
40% (n=20) 10% (n=21) 24% (n=17) 23% (n=22)
Regional (N=15) 23% (n=13) 7% (n=14) 8% (n=12) 14% (n=14)
21% (n=19) 16% (n=19) 12% (n=17) 12% (n=17) 11% (n=19) 11% (n=19) 5% (n=19)
Child advocacy/welfare/protecti on Clinical social work Global/refugee Mental health Non-profit management Family support Women/gender studies
Aspirant (N=8)
Rutgers
71% (n=7) 14% (n=7) 60% (n=5) 38% (8)
X X X
25% (n=12)
14% (n=7)
X
17% (n=12) 0 0 8% (n=12) 8% (n=12) 14%
14% (n=7) 40% (n=5) 30% (n=7) 14% (n=7) 14% (n=7) 14% (n=7)
Page | 8 Certificate*
All (N=23)
Human services management Juvenile justice Religion/Spirituality Military/Veterans Social justice/Human rights
6% (n=17) 6% (n=18) 6% (n=18) 6% (n=18) 5% (n=19)
Other
33% (n=18)
Regional (N=15) 0 9% (n=11) 9% (n=11) 9% (n=11) 0
31% (n=13)
Aspirant (N=8)
Rutgers
14% (n=7) 0 0 0 13% (n=8) 40% (n=5) Prevention; Social Work with Latinos certificate; Interprofessional Education Certificate
X
Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC)
*Valid n is included in chart due to missing data **CSWE categories were used to code certificate programs Joint degrees: All MSW programs surveyed offer joint degree options. The most popular is public health (65%), followed by law (52%), the MBA (26%), public policy/administration (26%), divinity/theology (22%) and education (17%). A smaller number of schools offer urban planning (13%), international studies (9%), and criminal justice (9%). Table 1.4: Joint Degrees Joint Degree* Public health Law MBA Public policy/administration Divinity/Theology Education Urban planning International studies Criminal justice MSW/PhD
Regional (N=15)
Aspirant (N=8)
Rutgers SSW
47% (n=7)
100% (n=8)
In process
40% (n=6)
75% (n=6)
X
26% (n=6)
13% (n=2)
50% (n=4)
Under consideration
26% (n=6)
7% (n=1)
63% (n=5)
X
22% (n=5) 17% (n=4) 13% (n=3) 9% (n=2) 9% (n=2)
13% (n=2) 20% (n=3) 13% (n=2) 7% (n=1) 13% (n=2)
X
13% (n=3)
13% (n=2)
38% (n=3) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 13% (n=1) 0 50% (n=4) Michigan, UWMadison, UCBerkeley, Pitt
All (N=23) 65% (n=15) 52% (n=12)
X
Page | 9
Joint Degree* MSW/applied doctorate in social work
Other
All (N=23)
Regional (N=15)
Aspirant (N=8)
4% (n=1)
7% (n=1)
0
14% (n=2) Jewish Studies; Psychotherapy
52% (n=4) Information technology; MD/DVM/PharmD; Bioethics and Medical Humanities; Public and International Affairs
26% (n=6)
Rutgers SSW
*Valid n is included in chart due to missing data Licensure pass rate: Only four MSW programs publically posted licensure pass rates: University of Pittsburgh (92%); Columbia (88%); NYU (87%); and Ramapo (77%). This compares to the most recent Rutgers University School of Social Work rates of 80% (New Brunswick); 64% (Newark); 59% (Camden). Innovative Coursework at Aspirants: Below are some of the more innovative courses offered at aspirant institutions. • Behavioral, Psychosocial and Ecological Aspects of Health and Disease (Michigan) • Advanced Clinical Social Work Practice in Integrated Healthcare (Michigan) • Integrated Health Care Policy and Services (Michigan) • Data Skills for Social Service Agencies (1 credit-Michigan) • Psychopharmacology for Social Workers (1 credit-Michigan) • Immigration Enforcement, Human Rights, and Social Justice (1 credit-Michigan) • Anti-racist Organizing for Social and Economic Change (U of Washington Seattle) • Mindfulness and Social Work Practice (UT Austin)Leadership Training in Autism (interdisciplinary class—UT Austin) • Spanish for social workers (UT Austin) • Practice Skills Lab (Wisconsin) • Influencing Political Systems for social change (Wisconsin) • Prevention Science (Wisconsin, cross-listed nursing, ed psych, med) • Economics and social work (Pitt) • Race and social problems (Pitt) Most aspirant schools have stand-alone courses entitled Motivational Interviewing, DBT, CBT and do have not courses entitled “HBSE” beyond an introductory course.
Page | 10 BASW/BSW Programs There are 10 regional peer BASW/BSW programs and five BSW programs at our aspirant peers that are the focus of this report. They include Ramapo College, Seton Hall, Monmouth, Stockton University, Temple U, SUNY-Albany, Stony Brook U, Fordham, NYU, and CUNY-Hunter. Five of our aspirant peers offer BSW/BASW programs, including UC Berkeley, UWMadison, UT-Austin, U of Washington-Seattle, and U of Pittsburgh. Among these programs, the average in-state tuition is $17,661 and out-of-state tuition is $30,902. We were unable to obtain accurate BSW enrollment information and five-year BSW enrollment trends. BSW course requirements Most BSW programs require the following courses: introduction to social work (60%); human behavior and development (87%), seminars (60%), theory and practice of social work (66%), research (86%) and social welfare policy (60%). Half of the programs require a race, ethics, and/or diversity course and a field seminar. A smaller number require history or philosophy of social work, social work with communities and organizations, social work with individuals, groups and families, and/or data analysis and evaluation. Typical elective courses are related to substance use and abuse, family violence, and/or child welfare. Minors and Certificates Nine schools offered a minor in social work and five schools offered a certificate program. These include certificates in the following areas: addictions treatment (one school); aging (four schools); child welfare/child advocacy (four schools); family support (one school); health (two schools); mental health (one school) and juvenile justice (two schools). Rutgers does not currently offer certificates to our BASW students. Rutgers does offer a social work minor on the Camden campus only. Online offering One school reported offering some of their BSW courses online. Rutgers currently offers several courses online, but does not offer a fully online degree. Doctoral Education DSW None of the aspirant peers reviewed in this analysis offer a DSW program. However, two of our regional peers, New York University and University of Pennsylvania (which are also RI institutions) do offer the degree. NYU’s program is an executive style structure (19 courses over three year periods) allowing students to remain in full time employment. All classes have an online component. Students are required to complete two publishable papers in lieu of a dissertation. Core faculty include multiple TT and NTT faculty. Admissions requirements include a preferred LCSW and the miller’s analogies exam. The degree aims to prepare clinical social workers for leadership roles in agencies and academic settings. Coursework includes:
Page | 11 •
• • • • • • • • • • •
Philosophies of Knowledge and MindSocial Theories and their Relationship to Clinical Practice Contemporary Theories of Clinical Practice I and II Social Work Practice Research Clinical Social Work and Social Policy: Past and Present Implementing Evidence-Based and Evidence-Informed Practices Contemporary Understandings of Human Development and Well-Being Theories of Human Rights and Social Justice Trauma-Informed Treatment and Treatment of the Addictions Teaching and Learning in Social Work Teaching or Field-Based Learning Internships Publication Development Workshops I, II, and III Capstone Course
The University of Pennsylvania’s DSW program similarly seeks to prepare leaders in the area of clinical social work with an emphasis on evidence-based practice. The three-year program is majority online (synchronous) with an on-campus residency experience. Teaching faculty are a combination of standing U Penn faculty and invited external experts. Students are required to complete a dissertation. The program requires a MSW and at least two years of post-MSW practice experience. Courses include: • Clinical Theory I: Psychodynamic, Relational, Attachment and Neurobiology Theories • Clinical Theory II: Behavioral and Cognitive Behavioral Theories • Research Methods I: Research Design and Quantitative Inquiry • Research Methods II: Qualitative Inquiry • Applied Social Statistics • Trauma-informed Theory and Interventions for Individuals and Organizations • Teaching Social Work Practice • Relational Theories and Social Work Practice • Family and Couples Therapy • Social Construction and Social Work Practice: Transforming Dialogues • Race, Culture and Identity • Substance Use InterventionsEnrollment data was not available. PhD Below, we present data on competitor PhD programs. We focused our analysis on the eight peer aspirants and included three regional peers (Columbia, NYU and U Penn). Table 1.5: PhD Programs Multiple Paper Dissertation Format Part-time Option Numbers of enrolled students MSW/PhD combined
37.5% (n=6) 25% (N=7) 21-39 (N=8) 38% (n=8); Michigan, UW-Madison, UC-Berkeley
Page | 12 Table 1.6: PhD Course Requirements Program Credits University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
45 before candidacy
University of WisconsinMadison
45 before candidacy
University of Washington University of TexasAustin
Unclear; quarter system
47 credits
University of CaliforniaBerkeley
N/A, no standard requirement, must be enrolled full time prior to qualifying exams
University of Pittsburgh
50 credit hours before dissertation
Columbia University
30 CU credits; 45-50 total
University of Michigan
Unknown
University of Pennsylvania
Unknown
New York University
48 credits
Case Western University
37 credits
Course work requirements 12 methods/analysis courses; one Conceptualization of Social Problem; one teaching; five elective courses Five methods/analysis courses; four theory and/or policy; six electives; one credit seminar Five methods/analysis courses; four theory and/or policy; six electives; one credits seminar Six methods/analysis; one theory; one writing practicum; one teaching; five electives; one specialization/comprehensive exam preparation course Six courses analysis/methods, one history/philosophy; electives as appropriate Five methods/analysis; two theory; two policy and one elective; five gen electives Seven courses in methods/analysis, two concentration specific; one history of social welfare; three courses social/behavioral science; field of practice tutorial Must choose concentration: Advanced practice; social policy and policy analysis; or, social policy and administration Complete joint PhD in Anthropology; Economics; Political Science; Psychology and Sociology Four methods/analysis; one history/philosophy; one theory; one policy; one economics; five electives (must include additional theory) Seven methods/analysis; two theory; one intervention research; one history/policy; three substantive area classes (e.g. mental health, children etc.) Requirement unclear; seven methods/analysis offered; two theory; one teaching
Rutgers University
36-48 credit hours
Page | 13 Seven methods/analyses; one theory; one policy; one history/theoretical foundation; two electives; two small credit seminars
Page | 14
Existing Data The Existing Data working group includes Judy Postmus (lead), Natalie Bembry, and Laura Dimarcantonio. The group was charged to collect existing data on a wide array of topics as part of the environmental scan. The group generated a list of possible sources and then received feedback from the Dean’s Advisory Committee regarding any missed data that were available. The data used in this report are by no means exhaustive; some data were not collected or available to be included. After analysis of the existing data, the group organized the results into five categories, including: 1) understanding the larger landscape at the national and state levels; 2) understanding the status of the profession of social work; 3) understanding our students in the School of Social Work; 4) understanding our faculty; and 5) understanding our funding. Understanding the Larger Landscape at the National and State Levels Census & IPEDS Data The most recent census data indicates an overall population increase in New Jersey of 1.3% from 2010 to 2018. The data estimates that 38 percent of the population aged 25 years or older has earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. Table 2.1: Distribution of NJ Resident Population
Enrollment at NJ colleges and universities decreased overall by 0.5% from 2015-2016 and 2016- 2017. The decrease was primarily due to lower enrollment at the state community colleges. Graduate enrollment decreased 0.6% at public institutions and overall between 2016 and 2017. Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education Data The WICHE Knocking at the College Door data indicated that NJ was the 9th producer of high school graduates with an average of 100,500 graduates projected between 2011-2012 and 20312032 producing about 16.5% of the Northeast’s total of graduates. This data also indicated that
Page | 15 NJ will experience a decline in graduation numbers over the next 24 years. The report also displayed decreasing numbers of White graduates with a steady increase of non-White graduates.
Table 2.2: NJ Public School Graduate Trends 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2010 White
2013
2016 Latinx
2019 Black
2022 Asian/Pac Isl
2025
2028
2031
Amer./Ind./Alaska Native
College Board Data Between 2014 and 2018, College Board data indicated an increase in the number of SAT test takers who selected social work as a major of interest. The number of test takers in New Jersey selecting social work as a possible major in college increased 22%. Understanding the Status of the Profession of and Education in Social Work Bureau of Labor Statistics Data The BLS reported that in 2017 the median pay for social workers was $47,980 per year, and $23.07 per hour. Jobs in the social work profession overall are projected to grow 16% between 2016 and 2026. This is much faster than the projected growth rate of 7% for all occupations. In 2017 in New Jersey, there were an estimated 67,560 jobs in community and social service occupations including substance abuse counselors, family therapists, healthcare and educational social workers. Human Resources & Services Administration A recent HRSA Health Workforce study presented supply and demand projections for social workers and other behavioral health professions from 2016 through 2030. In two different projections scenarios – one that assumes equilibrium and one that factors in unmet need estimates – the national supply of social workers will be more than adequate for demand in 2030. In fact, the projections estimate a national surplus of approximately 200,000 to 253,000 social workers. New Jersey projections also estimate a surplus of 12,000 to 14,000 social workers by 2030. New Jersey projections also indicate a more modest surplus of marriage and family therapists and school counselors by 2030. On the flip side, New Jersey projections for mental health and addictions counselors indicate an inadequate of supply when factoring in the current unmet needs in these areas. CSWE 2017-2018 Annual Report CSWE’s 2017-2018 annual report indicates that 87% of BSW graduates are female, the median age is 23 years old and the mean income is $31,327. The same report indicates that 90% of MSW graduates are female and the median age is 28 years old, although nearly 13% were 40
Page | 16 years old or older with significant work experience. 75% of MSW students were enrolled in fulltime programs, compared to 80% of BSW students. As of June 2018, CSWE recorded the following number of accredited social work programs and enrolled students: • 521 Baccalaureate social work programs & 28 programs in candidacy; 60,306 students enrolled with 87% full time • 261 Masters social work programs & 17 programs in candidacy; 63,569 students enrolled with 65% full time • DSW Programs; 1,052 students enrolled with 33% full time • PhD Programs; 2,152 students enrolled with 78% full time Understanding our Students in the School of Social Work Rutgers total enrollment has continued to grow over the last three years, although the pace has slowed. From 2015-2016, Rutgers overall enrollment grew 2.1%, and in 2016-2017, Rutgers enrollment increased by 0.4%. The Rutgers University School of Social Work has data that represent a number of categories which include: 1) application data to all of our programs; 2) applicant yield; 3) data on program enrollment; 4) data on the experiences of students in our programs; and 5) data on students after they leave the programs. Application Data The BASW Program: In 2018, 198 students applied to the BASW major in New Brunswick and Camden. This number is a decline from the 222 applications received in 2017 and 213 applications in 2016. Overall, Camden experienced a slight increase in 2018, while New Brunswick and Mays Landing applications declined. 250
Table 2.3: BASW Applications
200 150 100 50 0 Overall
New Brunswick
2016
Camden
2017
2018
Mays landing
Page | 17 The MSW Program: Overall applications to the MSW program have also decreased in the last five years.
Table 2.4: Overall MSW Application Trend 1750 1700 1650 1600 1550 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
The largest decrease in applications has been in the on-campus MSW program, while online MSW program applications have steadily increased since 2013. The Traditional Advanced Standing applications have increased slightly, from 228 in 2013 to 264 in 2018. Overall, the hybrid MSW programs, which include Blended Online and Intensive Weekend, have experienced declining applications. The Intensive Weekend received 122 applications in 2018, down from a high of 196 applications in 2013. The Blended Online MSW received 126 applications in 2018, down from a high of 178 applications in 2014. The DSW & PhD Programs: The PhD program has seen an increase in the number of students applying since 2014; the number of applications to the DSW program has been inconsistent over the past five years.
Table 2.5: PhD and DSW Applications 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2013
2014
2015 PhD
2016
2017
2018
DSW
The PhD program admits seven students per year, anticipating a class of five full-time students and one or two part-time students. Of those who enrolled in the program, 32 students have graduated over the
Page | 18 past five years; two students have withdrawn. The average length of completion of the PhD degree is five years. The DSW program has admitted between 18-23 students each year since 2013 and nearly all of those admitted also enrolled in the program. In the past five years, 50 students have graduated from the DSW program. The average length of time to complete degree is three years. MSW Applicant Yield Rutgers University School of Social Work continues to be the first choice for the majority of admitted applicants. Of the 1,114 MSW applicants admitted for 2018 (spring, summer and fall terms), 766 (69%) chose to enroll at RU-SSW. This is compared to 68% who chose to enroll at RU-SSW in 2017. In 2017, 86% of the new MSW class at RU-SSW were New Jersey residents. Of the 14% who were non-residents, the states with the largest representation were New York (20), Pennsylvania (19), California (7), Arizona (5), Maryland (4) and North Carolina (4). The median age of the new class was 27, and the average GPA was 3.39. The ethnic breakdown of the class is below: • 52% White Non-Hispanic • 21% Black Non-Hispanic • 19% Hispanic Non-Puerto Rican and Puerto Rican • 9% Other including Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Two or More Races, or Unknown Data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) indicated where applicants who did not enroll at RU-SSW ultimately enroll. Between 2016 and 2018, New York University, Fordham University, and the University of Pennsylvania have consistently shared the largest application overlap with RU-SSW and enrolled the largest number of students who were also admitted to RU-SSW. For example, in 2018, 25 students who applied to both RU-SSW and NYU chose to enroll at NYU. An additional 17 students who were admitted to both Fordham University and RU-SSW chose to enroll at Fordham, and 12 students who were admitted to both RU-SSW and the University of Pennsylvania chose to enroll at the University of Pennsylvania. In 2018, Columbia University also emerged as a competitor, enrolling 17 students who were also admitted to RU-SSW. 2018 was the first year Columbia University reported data to the NSC. NSC data also demonstrated the growing competition from online MSW programs. The number of applicants applying to both RU-SSW and Widener University, Walden University or Cappella University has increased from 23 in 2016 to 41 in 2018. NSC data indicated that these institutions enrolled only two of the applicants that RU-SSW admitted and 30 of the applicants that RU-SSW denied. This highlights that more applicants are considering both RU-SSW and other MSW programs and that RU-SSW is more selective than these institutions. An increasing number of online programs created more competition for RU-SSW, as does the addition of MSW programs at NJ state institutions, including Ramapo College and Montclair State University. Farleigh Dickinson, a private NJ institution, is also expected to launch a MSW program in the next two years.
Page | 19 Program Enrollment The MSW program has grown substantively since 2013. Between 2013 and 2014, the total student enrollment increased 5.16% from 1,569 to 1,650. The years 2014 and 2015 saw the largest increase of 9.15% from 1,650 students to 1,801 students. There was a slight increase between 2015 and 2016 of 3% growing from 1,801 to 1,855 students. The final years of 2016 to 2017 demonstrate a slight decrease of -1.99% reducing from 1,855 to 1,818 total students enrolled.
Table 2.7: Total MSW Student Enrollment 2013-2017 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
The MSW program has shown some shifts in the program enrollment numbers where the traditional full-time and part-time program has seen a slight decline. However, the Blended, Online and Intensive Weekend programs have increased. The most significant increase was in the Online program enrollment, with an enrollment of 84 in 2013 up to 482 in 2017.
Table 2.8: MSW Enrollment by Program 2013-2017 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2013 Fulltime Traditional
2014 Parttime Traditional
2015
2016 Blended
Online
2017 Intensive Weekend
Page | 20 Retention Rate: SSW boasts a high retention rate for first-year students averaging 91.1% over the last five academic years (2013-2017). The retention rate has decreased and increased each year. During 2013, the MSW program retained 94% of the students after the first year. In 2014, the retention rate decreased to 89%. The following year the retention rate increased to 92% with 2016 decreasing to 87%. In 2017, the retention rate increased once again to 92%. Specializations: SSW has two specializations: Clinical Social Work (CSW) and Management and Policy (MAP). The specialization numbers have been nearly consistent over the years of 2013-2017 with most students choosing the CSW specialization. Field Data (OTG): In the last five years, the RU-SSW has consistently placed students with over 500 different agencies. In 2014, the Office placed 2,182 students over the three primary semesters, compared to placing 2,061 students in 2018. This is a difference of 121 students. In fall 2018, 45% of field placements were in a clinical social work setting, 33% were in general social work settings, and 6% were in management and policy. In 2018, the most frequently requested field placements were in the areas of child welfare, followed by working with adolescents, addiction, and healthcare. Field Data (OL): Child welfare and working with adolescents are the most frequently requested areas for placement in the 100% Online MSW. Placements in the areas of addiction and aging are also popular. Field locations are scattered throughout the United States. Between spring 2018 and spring 2019, the online MSW hosted field placements in 31 states and the District of Columbia. Courses Cancelled: Data from 2016-2018 suggested that most of the cancelled courses were required courses that had too many sections (e.g., SWPS I; HBSE). Other cancelled courses were those that were electives or newly developed. For example, the advanced HBSE course on poverty was offered for three years on all three campuses; it was cancelled each time due to lack of enrollment. Similar patterns emerged for: • Environmental Justice • Human Sexuality • Perinatal, Death, Dying, & Bereavement • Special Topics: Military • Perpetrators (new course offered Spring 2019) Other courses had varying rates of cancellations, depending on the year and the campus, such as: • Solution Focused Therapy • LGBTQ Issues • Direct Practice Theories & Models • Developmental Disabilities • Spirituality • Advanced HBSE on AIDS Additionally, weekend and summer courses are fading in attendance with most courses offered cancelled due to low enrollment.
Page | 21 After They Leave the SSW Licensing Data: The Association of Social Work Boards national pass rate in 2017 for first-time test takers was 81%. Rutgers SSW 2017 pass rate for first-time test takers yielded 80% in New Brunswick, 64% in Newark, and 59% in Camden. The data does not reveal students who may select New Brunswick as their campus who may be either Camden or Newark students. The data also does not distinguish between first-time test takers and their graduation year.
Table 2.11: ASWB First-Time Test Takers 100% 50% 0% New Brunswick
Newark 2014
2015
2016
Camden 2017
Alumni Data: BASW Alumni: BASW alumni from the class of 2018 were surveyed within six months of graduation by Rutgers University Career Services. 59 graduates, or approximately 81% of those surveyed, replied to the survey. 95% of those responding indicated positive post-graduation outcomes that included employment (24%) and furthering education (71%). This reflects the large number of BASW graduates who go on to pursue a MSW. Only five responders included salary information, reflecting a median starting salary of $33,000. This is slightly higher than the $31,000 median salary reported by the 2017-2018 CSWE annual salary. MSW Alumni: In January 2018, RU-SSW MSW alumni who graduated in 2015 and 2016 were surveyed by RU-SSW about their employment experiences post-graduation. Overall, MSW graduates were either employed full (92%) or part-time (8%) as opposed to unemployed. Of those who were currently employed either full or part-time, over nine in ten (92%) said that their job was in the field of social work. About half (49%) of graduates with full-time jobs were offered one job before accepting their first full-time position, three in ten (29%) were offered two, one in eight (12%) received three offers, and one in ten (10%) received four or more. Current salary information of graduates is displayed below. Table 2.12: Alumni Salaries Annual Salary, Current (n = 78) Hourly Salary, Current Part-Time Job (n = 8) Hours Per Week, Current Part-Time Job (n = 8)
Min $10,000 $23 6.0
Max
Median
SD
$125,000 $45 40.0
$47,000 $31.25 20.0
$15,341 $7.657 9.382
The top source to secure a job was through an online posting (32%), followed by a referral from a friend or acquaintance (20%). Previous employment at their current agency was also named as
Page | 22 a way alumni landed their jobs, including both those who worked there as part of their field placement (17%) or who held a previous non-field placement job there (10%). Additionally, 9% made an unsolicited personal inquiry, 11% secured their job in an “other� fashion, and 1% answered a newspaper advertisement. Very few (1%) got their jobs as the result of assistance from a private or public employment agency. When asked to indicate all duties they perform at their job (from a list of possibilities), alumni indicated the following: Table 2.13: Duties Engaged at Current Position Individual Counseling Casework Group Work Family Therapy Planning Program Development Administration/Management Supervision
65% 61% 49% 44% 37% 28% 23% 17%
Alumni were also asked to check off as many settings that describe their current place of employment. Table 2.14: Setting of Current Position Mental Health Health Child Welfare Addictions Alcohol Abuse/Treatment Family Agency Drug Abuse/Treatment Housing
44% 17% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% 10%
Page | 23 Understanding Our Faculty As seen in the chart below, the SSW has a number of different types of faculty teaching our courses with the majority as part-time lecturers (PTLs). The percentage of courses taught by PTLs has remained fairly consistent, ranging from 74-76% over the past four years even though the number of PTLs has steadily increased. The number of tenured and non-tenure track faculty have remained fairly consistent over the past 4 years.
Table 2.15: SSW T, TT, NTT, PTL Count FY15-FY19 Tenured
Tenure Track
Non-Tenure Track
Tenured - w/Leave of Absence
Average PTL Count FY 19 FY 18 FY 17
28 30 27
9
32
2 185
7
30
169
10
32
168
FY 16
26
8
FY 15
23
6
36 36
122 95
Understanding Our Funding Research Funding Overall, most of the grant and research funding comes from the State of New Jersey and local governments (38%), followed by foundation grants (22%), and university (including SSW) grants (14%). Only 13% of our awards are from federal sources which is lower than the 14% of federal funding for grants received by the University. Most of these grants or contracts are generated by the Institute for Families; 19 faculty (TT and NTT) have generated grants or contracts over the past three years. Income & Expenses of SSW Salaries and wages have consistently been increasing over the last four years. Additionally, though we saw a large jump in the fringe benefits expenses, they have dropped down slightly in fiscal year 2018. The professional services category includes the 50% Pearson share of the cost to run our online courses; it also includes any sub-awards or professional service agreements. The “other� expense category includes costs for rent, travel, supplies, telecom expenses, and business meeting expenses; this overall category has also seen increases in the last few years.
Page | 24
Table 2.16: SSW Expenditure Totals FY15 to FY18 2015
$25,000,000.00
2016
$20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $0.00 SALARY & WAGES
FRINGE BENEFITS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OTHER OPERATING SCHOLARSHIPS & EXPENSE FELLOWSHIPS
EXPENSE CATEGORIES
The revenue for the School has also increased primarily through student tuition and fees and through grants, contracts, and facilities and administrative recovery.
Page | 25 Data Sources American College Health Association National College Health Assessment (Fall 2018). Retrieved from https://www.acha.org/documents/ncha/NCHAII_Fall_2018_Reference_Group_Executive_Summary.pdf Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors Annual Survey (2016). Retrieved from https://www.aucccd.org/assets/documents/aucccd%202016%20monograph%20%20public.pdf Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Outlook Handbook 2016-2017. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/community-and-social-service/social-workers.htm Council of Social Work Education (CSWE). 2017-2018 Annual Report. Retrieved from https://www.cswe.org/CSWE/media/CSWEAnnualReports/cswe_20172018AnnualReport_WEB.pdf Human Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Health Workforce (2018) State Level Projections of Supply and Demand for Behavioral Health Occupations: 2016-2030. Retrieved from https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bhw/nchwa/projections/state-level-estimates-report2018.pdf National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/use-the-data United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/nj State of New Jersey Office of the Secretary of Higher Education. Office of Research and Accountability Student Unit Record (SURE). Retrieved from https://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/statistics/index.shtml Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE). Projections of high school graduates. Retrieved from https://knocking.wiche.edu/
Page | 26
Community Stakeholders The Community Stakeholders working group includes Cathryn Potter and Mark Lamar (coleads), Michael LaSala, and Theresa McCutcheon. They collected data from two sample groups, using two formats to collect such data and included: an online survey of all field instructors (89 responses from n of 700), and personal interviews with a group of state and regional leaders (27 responses from n of 45) who were selected for their leadership and impact upon social work practice in varied communities. All were asked the following questions: • What do you see as the opportunities and challenges for the profession of social work in 5-10 years? • Thinking toward that future, what will be the major areas of social need? • What critical abilities will social workers need to be effective in the future context? • What new program, or program element or course at SSW what would it be? The responses were analyzed qualitatively, identifying themes and connections among respondents within the two groups, and then across samples. While some rudimentary “counts” were created for themes to identify those with the strongest support, the complex discussion of those themes, especially among the interview sample, makes it difficult to reduce the findings to simple counts, and to graphs. Three themes emerged very clearly across both samples, with each sample contributing additional, specific themes. These themes weave through the answers to all the questions and include: 1) The Haves and the Have Nots; 2) The Imperative to Integrate Micro and Macro Skills; and 3) A Spotlight on Health Care Systems. The Haves and the Have Nots “The divide between the Haves and the Have Nots is growing. Two distinct social groups – those who have opportunity and those who do not.” (Interview Sample) “It would be important for social workers to get a grip on social justice… Be more connected to communities in need.” (Interview Sample) “The great income inequality in the US, everything is related to that.” (Interview Sample) This theme was voiced by both samples where respondents discuss the need to respond to a set of current and potentially worsening social justice issues affecting communities. Respondents named the divides between communities characterized by diversity of all kinds, by refugee and immigration status, by poverty, by exposure to personal and community violence, by access to basic human needs, such as food and housing, by access to health care, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, and by age, as our population ages. They saw the next 10 years as bringing greater division between those who have and those who need. They argued for the primacy of social work in such a future, but they did not see it as an easy future to navigate. Therefore, they emphasized the need for all social workers to have strong diversity and inclusion skills, stronger perhaps than those we are now ensuring. As discussed in the next section,
Page | 27 respondents also focused on increasing skills in macro-practice domains, with special emphasis on the ability to partner well with diverse communities. The Imperative to Integrate Micro and Macro Skills “We need to be given tools to not only work at an individual level but also think about systems, even if the social worker has a clinical focus. What can we do to shift the culture of an agency …or policies that we know go against the best interest of the person?” (Field Sample) “Clinical and administration need to be taught together and not in specialty areas…We have to regain the skills we brushed aside in the effort to be psychologists.” (Interview Sample) “Social workers need more of a business sense… No market, no mission.” (Interview Sample) “All social workers need to see the bigger picture – understand how government works, how policies work, how these affect people.” (Interview Sample) “Social workers have lived in a bubble – letting someone else do the social action.” (Interview Sample) This theme was voiced very strongly by both samples with a large majority of respondents in the interview sample discussing it in some way. Respondents argued that many social workers are not adequately prepared for the macro skills they need currently and will need more strongly in the future. They emphasized the need for social workers be prepared to lead in the specific macro areas (e.g., policy, administration, and community organizing) and argue that social workers should be prepared to engage in all. They also argued that the professional imperative for social justice is embodied in these macro engagements, and that many social workers have not adequately performed this role. There was a particular emphasis on the need to engage with diverse communities in need, in order to build social programs, and design and advocate for social policy. Many recommended courses on the “business of social work” in order to prepare all for eventual administrative roles. This latter piece of the theme, the need to prepare social workers to lead organizations, came through very strongly in the interview sample. This is perhaps not unexpected given that the respondents are leaders in community and government entities; however it is important to note that they are concerned that social work settings may not be led by social workers in the future. A Spotlight on Healthcare Systems “Ultimately the focus will be on the patient and the community, not the patient in the hospital.” (Interview Sample) “Integrated health care – the language is permeating everything.” (Interview Sample) Perhaps because many respondents work in health, or allied health settings, there was much discussion in both samples about the future of health care, and the skills social workers need to
Page | 28 thrive in such settings. Respondents discussed the need for parity between health, behavior addiction, and mental health. Many in both samples discussed the importance of substance abuse, especially the opioid epidemic, as a challenge. The second most talked about health challenge in the field sample was the ability to meet the needs of growing aged population and the range of gerontological services that will be imperative to their health and well-being. They looked to social workers to lead in this arena, while acknowledging the losses in roles to other health professions. They emphasized the need to take a public health and population health approach, with a focus on social determinants of health for at-risk communities. They saw health care in community settings as a hallmark of the future and that interprofessional health teams are critical. Skills such as program development, policy advocacy, interprofessional team work, and brief interventions were mentioned. Some respondents suggested a stronger, specific healthfocused certificate that prepares social workers for interprofessional practice. Additional Themes from the Field Sample Significant Challenges and Social Needs Respondents worried about reduced funding for increasingly vulnerable communities. They worried also about the kinds of models in use for reimbursement of services. They expressed concern about the sustainability of the profession given the low salary structures. Finally, respondents worried about the need to maintain and expand professional identity, and the need for social workers to stay relevant in changing policy and workforce settings. New Program Elements Respondents discussed the needs for specific skills and courses in the direct practice arena, with the most frequently discussed area relating to trauma, and a recognition of the impact of early childhood experiences, particularly from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) framework. Research skills were also mentioned by several respondents. Other skills mentioned by a few included documentation, critical thinking, technology, diversity, palliative care, foster care, dementia, treatment planning, burnout, forensics, LGBT, creativity, and mindfulness. Additional Themes from the Interview Sample Challenges and Areas of Social Need Protecting and Expanding the Profession: Some respondents discussed the need to hold ground in existing fields of practice, and to lead in the expansions of social work into new and changing areas of practice. Embracing Diversity and Inclusion: Respondents spoke about the need to ensure the profession is diverse, and that all social workers can work effectively with diverse communities. Technology: Some respondents discussed a wide range of technology-related areas of importance to the profession and individual social workers. These ranged from new ways of delivering interventions, to fully understanding the impact of technology on work and communities now and in the future.
Page | 29 The Qualities/Skills of Social Workers Respondents spoke with some passion about the skills and qualities needed for success as a social worker. Those mentioned by multiple respondents include: cultural humility, the ability to partner with diverse communities and individuals, emotional intelligence, creativity, analytic abilities in complex situations, resilience and true empathetic motivation (as opposed to exercise of power over others). Several respondents worried that not all our students are prepared for the complexity and difficulty of the situations they will face in practice at both micro and macro levels. Recommendations for SSW Education Many respondents discussed the need for focus on improving field education. Some worried about the uneven quality of current field settings, recognizing that most are very strong, but noting that some are not. Some discussed the need for the profession to consider a longer course of study, perhaps by adding an additional full field year. Some discussed the need for establishing a specialization earlier in the MSW program to focus field education more strongly on specific settings. Recommendations for new courses included the need for specific course(s) on casemanagement skills, and perhaps one focused on case management in health care settings. Several suggested specific courses on trauma, on cultural and general communication, on empathy and “unpacking one’s own stuff,” on program development, and research on program outcomes. The Respondents Community Sample Degrees: 16 MSW, 3 JD, Also MPH, MHA, MPA, Ph.D., and B.A. Years in Practice: Average 21. 6 Fields of Practice: All Administrators: 6 Public Administration, 7 Leaders of Alliances, 6 Health, Mental Health and Substance Abuse, 3 Religious Social Service Agencies, 4 Other Field Sample Degrees: 85 MSW, 2 DSW, 1 Ph.D., DMin Years in Practice: Average 20.1 Fields of Practice: 13 General Social Service/Mental Health, 11 Health, 5 Substance Abuse, 4 Religious Social Service, 4 Aging, 4 Schools, 4 Corrections. Also Housing, Youth Services, Foundation, Private Practice Educational Institutions: 44 Rutgers, 11 NYU, 4 Stockton, 4 Hunter, 4 Penn. Also, Adelphi, Marywood, Kutztown, Columbia, Fordham, Hunter, Kean, Marist, Monmouth, Simmons, Temple, Chicago, Kentucky, USC, Yeshiva
Page | 30
Student Stakeholders The Student Stakeholders working group that includes Marian Diksies (lead), DuWayne Battle, and Patricia Findley with support from Department Administrator Melissa Parsowith used feedback from current students to develop questions to help determine current perceptions and future directions of the Rutgers School of Social Work. We surveyed students across the different programs: BASW (320 current students), MSW (1,665 current students), DSW (45 current students), and PhD (43 current students). We surveyed across the varied platforms of the MSW Program: Online, Blended, and Intensive Weekend programs, as well as students across each of the main campus and off-campus locations: Camden, Newark, New Brunswick, and Mays Landing. A mixed-methods approach was used with both electronic surveys and in-person student engagement activities across our three main campuses and one off-campus location. The surveys were conducted for five days (Monday – Friday) during the third week of February 2019. Additionally, an in-person student engagement activity was planned for each of the four locations mentioned above on Wednesday of that week. Events took place in Newark, New Brunswick, Camden, and Mays Landing. Five themes that emerged from the survey questions are discussed below, as well as a sixth theme that comes largely from the student engagement activities. These included: 1) Employment Aspirations; 2) Recommended Curricular Changes; 3) Descriptions of the School; 4) School Reputation / Branding; 5) Perceptions of Social Problems; and 6) Student Engagement. Employment Aspirations We used an email campaign that pushed out one question each day of the week of February 18, 2019 seeking feedback from students. We utilized Poll Everywhere software for this process. Students were asked to respond to questions that we emailed via student listservs. Responses were captured in word clouds that could be seen online, and the results were available for immediate viewing. This was particularly useful in providing a visual image of the responses, especially during our in-person student engagement activities. The first theme relates to students’ employment aspirations. Responses: BASW: 62 MSW: 271 Doctoral: 13. Question 1: What would be your ideal job five years after graduating the program? Students were asked to select the ideal job five years after graduating from the program from a list of job categories. The categories were created from a review of results of the Nationwide Survey of 2017 Social Work Graduates and The National Social Work Workforce Study (https://www.cswe.org/Centers-Initiatives/Initiatives/National-Workforce-Initiative/Survey-of2017-SW-Grads-Report-FINAL.aspx)3. Ideal Jobs #4.1 Table 4.1 below indicates students’ perceptions of their ideal jobs five years after graduation. Undergraduate students intend to work with children and families; in 3 Drs.
Battle and Haley-Locke were on the National Workforce Initiative Steering Committee as contributors to this publication, and Dean Potter serves on the Deans advisory committee to this initiative.
Page | 31 advocacy; and with groups, organizations and communities. MSW students aspire to work with children and families, in private practice, and in school settings. Doctoral students are interested in academia, research, and private practice. Responses: Camden: 46 replies Newark: 7 replies Mays Landing: 33 replies.
BASW
Table 4.1- Ideal Jobs MSW
Doctoral
Children and Families
Children and Families
University/College Faculty
Advocacy
Private Practice
Research
Groups/Orgs and Communities
School
Private Practice
School
Psychiatric
Children and Families
Legal
Advocacy
Government/Policy
Government/Policy
Groups/Orgs and Communities
Higher Education Administration
University/College Faculty
Social Service Administration
School
Private Practice
Medical
Groups/Orgs and Communities
Psychiatric
University/College Faculty
Advocacy
Higher Education Administration
Health Care Administration
Government Administration
Medical (tied with Higher Ed Admin)
Recommended Curricular Changes Students were asked to recommend positive curricular changes to the Rutgers SSW. Below, the themes from the responses illustrate that undergraduate students desire more experiential learning, as well as a broader and deeper exposure to the field of social work. MSW students are interested in changes in the quality and quantity of required readings, greater flexibility with field education, and increasing the management and policy content in the curriculum. Regarding the field practicums, students prefer a reduction in field hours, block placements, and paid internships. Doctoral students desire a more diverse faculty, advanced statistics, and more support for writing. Responses: BASW: 89 replies MSW: 250 replies Doctoral: 23 replies. Question 2: If you could make one positive change to the School curriculum, what would it be? Students were asked this open-ended question. Themes were ranked by number of responses, then the top themes were identified and are reported below: BASW students: 1. More hands-on, real life experience in the classroom Incorporate more real life examples of theory and practice (and decrease the amount of readings). More counseling-centered or interaction-based courses. Classes cover theories and perspectives but lack in practical exercises in dyads or group facilitating.
Page | 32 2. More exposure to breadth and depth of social work A place in the curriculum to help students explore different fields of interest to help narrow down where they may want to work in the future. Perhaps a unit in one class that gives a brief overview of some of the different areas in which a social worker can work. MSW students: 1. Quality and quantity of the readings Make some of the course load (especially reading) more realistic – students would be more likely to read more if there wasn't such an impossible amount assigned for some classes (this coming from someone who actually tries to do the reading). I would update course content, in particular readings, to reflect culturally-diverse perspectives. The readings sometimes reflect antiquated views. 2. More flexibility with field Hours: I would make internship hours less. It’s really not good for students when they are trying to understand their course work. It’s very draining. I am so tired right now. Block placement: I would make the field placement in the summer since there are a lot of students who work full time and have a child. Paid internships: Field placements should have some level of stipend pay, a lot of students are sacrificing work in order to make balancing school a lot easier but are struggling with financial needs. Having some sort of stipend might help the students advance. 3. Enhance MAP content in the curriculum Undeniable emphasis on clinical social work from the start. Professors completely skip over MAP-related coursework assuming students are clinical social work. It creates the idea that MAP social work is not important. MAP & Clinical students need to understand each other's work for effective social work. Emphasize the importance of MAP! Doctoral students (DSW & PhD) Students: 1. More diverse faculty Have a more diverse faculty… 2. More coursework in advanced statistics More advanced stats/methods classes (e.g., MLM, propensity score matching, etc.) offered.
Page | 33 3. More writing supports Publication development workshops. Descriptions of the School Students were asked to submit one word that they would use to describe the School. The word clouds were formed from the responses. The larger the word, the more responses for that word. Although the overall description of the school is very positive, we should not ignore the negative perceptions that students also have of the School while remembering that the size of the word indicates the number of responses. Responses: BASW: 53 replies MSW: 218 replies Doctoral: 23 replies. Question 3: What one word would you use to describe the School? Respondents: BASW: 53 replies MSW: 218 replies Doctoral: 23 replies School Descriptions from BASW Students: Figure 4:2 below represents the way that undergraduate social work students see Rutgers SSW. BASW students describe Rutgers SSW as empowering, welcoming, dedicated, and busy, but the undergraduates also described the School as rigid, bewildering, and disrespectful. Figure 4.2: BASW School Descriptions
School Descriptions from MSW Students: Figure 4:3 below represents the way that MSW social work students see Rutgers SSW. These students describe our program as supportive, passionate, encouraging, great, and caring.
Page | 34 Figure 4.3 MSW School Descriptions
School Descriptions from Doctoral Students (DSW & PhD): Figure 4.4 below represents the way that doctoral social work students see Rutgers SSW. Doctoral students describe the School as competitive and collaborative. Figure 4.4 Doctoral School Descriptions (DSW &PhD)
School Reputation/Branding Respondents were asked to think prospectively regarding the School’s reputation or branding in the next five to ten years. Undergraduate students wanted the School to be known as the flagship social work school on the East Coast in terms of educating the best social workers in the region and the nation. MSW students would like to see Rutgers gain the reputation as being strong advocates for change, rising in the national rankings, and training students for social, economic, and environmental justice. Doctoral students want Rutgers SSW to be known for exemplifying and leading in social justice efforts and producing competitive scholars, researchers, and social workers. Responses: BASW: 45 replies MSW: 230 replies Doctoral: 9 replies. Question 4: In a few words, tell us what you would like the School to be known for in 5-10 years. Below find, by program, the general themes with quoted responses which illustrate the theme. BASW Students 1. Strong reputation
Page | 35
I would like the academic reputation of the Rutgers School of Social Work to continue to increase and maybe inch closer to the reputation of Columbia University. I would like for the School to be known for educating the finest social workers in the country. I would like the Rutgers School of Social Work to be known for creating the best social workers on the East Coast! 2. School that best prepares social work professionals I would like Rutgers School of Social Work to be known for having the most wellprepared social work graduates. I would like for the School to be known for educating the finest social workers in the country. MSW Students 1. A school that prepares strong advocates for change I would like the School to be known for producing successful advocates for change (no matter their specific orientation towards research, clinical work, policy, or management). I would like the School to be known as one that produces strong social workers that impact change on a national level. Effective and far-reaching training in diversity issues as well as how to combat oppression on multiple levels of practice. Not only producing clinicians, but professionals who bring social work values into a variety of spheres. 2. SSW to rise in national ranking One of the top 10 for producing the best in the field of social work. I would like the SSW to be known as a top leader in preparing graduate students for a successful career in social work, whether it be clinical or MAP focused. 3. School that trains social workers on issues of social, environmental, and economic justice. Effective and far-reaching training in diversity issues as well as how to combat oppression on multiple levels of practice. Not only producing clinicians but professionals who bring social work values into a variety of spheres.
Page | 36 I would like to see the Rutgers MSW program be at the forefront of social, environmental and economic justice in New Jersey and an active member in the national arena. The "Rutgers" name comes with power that we should use to help others. Doctoral (DSW &PhD) Students 1. A school that embodies and leads in social justice efforts Leader in addressing important social justice issues via research, policy, and clinical work from both faculty and graduates. Diversity in leadership, faculty, and student body. Embodiment of social justice (not just lip service) principles in strong social work research arena, collaborate with other centers/departments (in and out of Rutgers) for a more interdisciplinary approach where we can make greater impact. Public health, medical social work, gender studies, global, etc. 2. A school that has strong research training to produce competitive scholars and social workers Producing well-trained researchers, who are productive members of faculty and wonderful colleagues. For being competitive and producing first-rate, knowledgeable, and well-rounded social workers. Policy analysis. So much of this School is focused on the MSW or clinical side. I want to be known for going to a great social policy institution. Perceptions of Social Problems Student Stakeholders were also surveyed regarding their perceptions of the social problems that will need to be addressed in the next five to ten years. BASW and MSW students are concerned about substance abuse, poverty, homelessness, and environmental sustainability, among other social problems. Doctoral students focused on student debt and disparities such as economic inequalities. Responses: BASW: 50 replies MSW: 158 replies Doctoral: 17 replies. Question 5: What will be a primary social problem that our profession will need to be prepared to address in 5-10 years? Below find, by program, the general themes with quoted responses,which illustrate the theme. BASW Students Many students combined their thoughts across the thematic areas. The quotes below represent the combination of themes as the students expressed them.
Page | 37 Many children who have parents who are addicts, who have lost parents to overdose, and many more children living in foster care and with extended family due to the increase in heroin use. Cost of living increases without significant wage increases will lead to more people requiring government assistance to fill gaps. There will be more emphasis on dealing with environmental sustainability. Homelessness. With Big Pharma becoming greedier and greedier, I feel that obtaining necessary medication for the middle class and those without insurance will be a real social issue in our country. The immigration system needs to be reformed. Gun safety laws need to be passed, such as mandating federal background checks for anyone who is trying to buy a gun. Also, need to address healthcare and make reforms. MSW Students As with the above section, many students combined their thoughts across the thematic areas. The quotes below represent the combination of themes as the students expressed them. The deleterious effects of poverty (this includes environmental injustice). How to support individuals who have lived through a mass shooting/school shooting. This is particularly applicable to our time as school shootings are rising. We need to identify the primary needs of these individuals who have faced this particular trauma. Poverty. Being CULTURALLY COMPETENT. USA is filled with immigrants from multiple cultures, languages and backgrounds. The impact of gun violence. While approximately 78,000 people in this county are killed by guns each year, many more are left behind as witnesses, gun-related injuries and loved ones. Inequality in our country, and the resulting social unrest. The wage gap and the effects it will have on student loans and financial growth. Economic justice! We are fast approaching such a great disparity between the haves and the have nots. I think poverty and income inequality are the two major social problems that we will need to be prepared to address.
Page | 38 Sex trafficking and sex workers Adolescent suicide. I think that the issues of mental health, substance abuse, homelessness and the aging will be factors that social workers will continue to contend with in the future. Doctoral (DSW PhD) Students Once again, as previously noted, students combined their thoughts across the thematic areas. The quotes below represent the combination of themes as the students expressed them. Student debt will soon become debt by middle-aged citizens. This debt will decrease the chances of people ever owning homes, or even cars and more reliance will be seen on social programs. Larger health, housing and wealth disparities. Poverty and low incomes – globally and within academia. Increasing disparity between haves and have nots (divisions of class/race/sexuality/gender). Need innovative, participatory, collaborative approaches to partner with community (move away from doing research TO community) or social work risks perpetuating differential, even inadvertently. The notion of “personhood” especially as issues like war, climate change and poverty continue to force people to move across borders. Student Engagement In-Person Sessions: A Day of Engagement As indicated above, in-person student engagement events took place in Newark and New Brunswick on Wednesday, February 20, 2019 in the mid-morning. In Camden and Mays Landing, these events were postponed until the following Wednesday February 27, 2019 due to weather-related school closings. The purpose of the events was to promote student engagement, increase participation in the surveys, and allow students an opportunity to respond both in a focus group setting, as well as to write on index cards their responses to three broad questions Responses: New Brunswick 13 replies Camden: 46 replies Newark: 7 replies Mays Landing: 33 replies. Question 1: How do you identify the spirit of the Rutgers School of Social Work in one word? Question 2: What do you think that the spirit of the School of Social work should be in the next five years? Question 3: What suggestions/recommendations would you make for Rutgers SSW?
Page | 39 Student Recommendations: During the in-person student engagement events, students were treated to food, social work swag, and raffles on each campus. The students responded to the three questions above. Questions one and two are similar to questions from the online surveys. Question number one was displayed as a word cloud at the session on a laptop for the students to see and react to as the image changed with student participation. Students were also given index cards and asked to make suggestions for the SSW. The index cards were placed into formal metal suggestion boxes which will remain on each campus for student input after this week of engagement. All three questions were openly discussed. For the purposes of this report, the student recommendations are presented Table 4.2 below. There is overlap in the students’ suggestion for flexibility in course offerings, more student events, and exposure to different field settings. Students are also interested in a writing class, more online offerings, more study abroad opportunities, greater diversity, and being more welcoming of minorities. Table 4.2 Student Recommendations New Brunswick
Camden
Newark
Mays Landing
More course offerings
More course offerings
Paid field experiences/stipends
Job fairs/events
More exposure to different social work settings
Variety of course times
More flexibility in class options
Flexibility in field requirement
Need to evaluate faculty
Training for faculty
Opportunity to engage more with faculty (outside of classroom)
Engaging events
Job fairs/events
Variety of course times
Field visits
Explore different field settings
Field trips to communitybased organizations Flexibility in field requirements
Writing class
More accessibility to staff
Mentoring
More study abroad options
Diversity Welcoming minorities
Field trips to community-based organizations Flexibility in field requirements More accessibility to staff
More study abroad options More clarity about program requirements
More clarity about program requirements Rigor of instruction
Limitations There are several limitations in our strategy that we would like to note. First, all student samples were convenience samples and relatively small. We had to rely on the students seeing the e-mail messages forwarded from this planning group via Student Affairs and program directors (i.e. Allison Zippay and Michael LaSala). Messages were sent before the week started and daily during the week. We realized e-mail is not the most effective way to reach students, but we decided it was the best option at the time. We also used paper signage for the in person
Page | 40 engagement days which was posted the week before the event. The second limitation was in how we defined “doctoral” students. We combined the PhD and the DSW students into one group given the smaller number of students from each of these programs. Their “ideal job” answers did include advanced clinical jobs as well as academic positions to consider both the DSW as well as the PhD students. The third and final limitation was the weather. As noted above, the inperson day for student engagement found us in the middle of a snow storm. We had to reschedule Camden and Mays Landing, and Newark ended with the announcement that the campus would be closing at 2pm that day. Conclusion Despite the limitations, the planning committee felt the week was very successful. Students in the in-person sessions were engaging and truly wanted to give feedback about SSW. We did receive responses to the online portion of the programming, with some friendly competition between the MSW Director and the BASW Director on response rates. Overall, the planning team felt that the responses from the students will help to inform the strategic planning process.
Page | 41
Faculty & Staff Stakeholders The Faculty and Staff Stakeholder working group includes Sharon Fortin and Allison Zippay (co-leads), and Douglas Behan, Arlene Hunter, and Ramesh Raghavan. The group collected qualitative data from faculty, staff, postdoctoral associates, and part-time lecturers. The questions solicited feedback with regard to the future state of the School, including aspirational distinctiveness, developing the social work workforce, opportunities for future direction, primary social issues/problems in 5-10 years, research, teaching, curriculum, and administrative support needs. The faculty and staff retreat held on February 4, 2019 had approximately 180 attendees split into 15 focus groups and asked questions (detailed in the section below) that resulted in over 2,300 comments recorded. Included in SSW’s annual survey of part-time lecturers were three questions which yielded a response rate of 46% (83 respondents of 181 surveyed); it should be noted the overall survey yielded a response rate of 61%. Major themes captured by this effort include: School reputation and rank; School culture; marketing and branding; student life/engagement; program/curriculum enhancements; research production and dissemination; diversity; administrative infrastructure and process efficiency; connection to School mission/vision; and serious concerns for the social work profession. Overall, there was general consensus that the School – faculty/staff/students – need to be prepared for and adapt to changes in society and the field. CLOUD POLL – Primary Social Issue in 5-10 Years At the faculty/staff retreat, and on the PTL survey, participants were asked: “What will be the primary social issue or problem that the social work profession will need to be prepared to address in 5-10 years?” The below chart indicates the top issues where responses were mentioned by five or more participants/respondents. Table 5.1: Cloud Poll – Primary Social Issue 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
10 12
33
25
4
29 29
2 4 16
8 12
10
8
6
6
8
8
1 10
2 8
3 7
2 6
7
2 4
2 3
5
1 4
PTL Faculty/Staff
Other social issues not included above with two to four participant responses include in random order: LGBTQI, “isms”, sexual violence, diversity, cultural and linguistic diversity, diversity of
Page | 42 thought, funding, food, hunger, incarceration, reproductive rights, disability, depression, demographics, policy, inequity, divided nation, accessibility, isolation, anxiety, salary, branding the profession, capacity, and affordability. CLOUD POLLS - RU-SSW *Spirit* Current vs. Future State At the retreat, two cloud polls were posed: 1) “Using one word, what captures the spirit of RU-SSW?” and, 2) “Using one word, what should capture the spirit of RU-SSW in 5-10 years?” The below charts include responses made by five or more participants regarding the current and future state of RU-SSW *spirit*. Table 5.2: Cloud Poll – Current RU-SSW Spirit 40 30 20
38 29
10 11
10
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
0
Current
Table 5.3: Cloud Poll – Future RU-SSW Spirit 60 50 40 30
53
20 10
24
22
15
13
11
10
0
Future
8
7
7
6
5
5
Page | 43 What makes RU-SSW distinct and why? REPUTATION: Most respondents pointed out Rutgers’ reputation both within the State and outside the State particularly at professional social work organizations and conferences. SIZE, DIVERSITY, and LOCATION: All but one group commented on the size of the School as well as the range of programs, formats, dual degree options, certificates, and research assistantship opportunities for students. Many respondents cited the wide variety of Field Education placement settings and a strong Continuing Education program as distinctive factors as well. Respondents also noted Rutgers’ affordability as we are able to offer in-state tuition to New Jersey residents, the diversity and professional experience of a very large part-time lecturer pool, and interdisciplinary nature of the faculty and faculty collaborations. Geographic location was also noted as a distinction. Rutgers’ close proximity to New York City, Philadelphia and campuses and programs throughout New Jersey were seen as positive features that respondents believed attracted students and other constituents. RESEARCH ARM: More than half of the groups pointed out the research strengths of the School and its Centers and Institutes. STATE and COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Comments included SSW’s connections to the community and the State of NJ with specific mention to the Department of Health, Department of Children and Families, and Department of Human Services. QUESTION ASKED OF PTLs ONLY (online survey): In one or two sentences, why did you choose to teach at the Rutgers School of Social Work? Motivations for teaching by order of frequency: • To train the next generation of social workers • Passion for teaching • Rutgers alum; want to give back and pay forward; loyalty to the university and the social work program • Reputation of the SSW and RU; program excellence • Strong curriculum; excellent faculty, staff, and students • Support, welcome, and respect provided to PTLs by RU faculty and staff • Rewarding experience • Importance of professional social workers to the education of social work students • Professional growth and development How can we further distinguish RU-SSW from other schools? MARKETING and BRANDING: Ten (10) groups indicated the need for promotion through marketing efforts. Specific recommendations included launching a social work research journal, sharing published research with community partners, strengthening recruitment pipelines with community colleges, and developing website enhancements. SCHOOL CULTURE and DIVERSITY: Two thirds of the groups commented on the need to develop a “sense of home” and nurture connections within the School, particularly due to the
Page | 44 geographic distance between campuses and faculty/departments. The Institute for Families, in particular, was an area that many constituents knew little about. Four (4) groups mentioned increasing diversity of the faculty and the student body. CURRICULUM and STUDENT ENGAGEMENT: Suggestions were made to adjust the curriculum and courses offered so they anticipate changing and emerging needs in the profession. Specific mention was given to environmental social work, aging, veterans, global social work, and language proficiency. Several groups mentioned increasing the online program/courses with comment that courses should not be an online version of the in-class course. Also mentioned was to incorporate more “hands-on” or experiential experiences for students. Other comments included helping students navigate the job market (engaging alumni to assist with this objective was one suggestion) with specific mention of MAP (Management and Policy) specialization students was recorded. Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what will be the major issues, needs, and challenges in the field of social work? What do you see as the one greatest challenge facing the field of social work in the next 5-10 years? ADDRESSING MAJOR NEEDS WITHIN SOCIETY: Several groups indicated that engagement in policy and advocacy to address social issues needs to be addressed by the field. The most common targets of advocacy include: social, economic, and racial justice; the environment; immigration; reproductive rights; and criminal justice reform. Suggested strategies to address these needs included: training students in activism and community organizing; School support for direct community engagement (e.g., by the creation of community “clinics,” where students could learn social work skills in a mentored environment); and to address the needs of ruraldwelling populations. Additional trends included the aging of society, and problems of substance abuse (opioid epidemic and the legalization of marijuana). CHANGES WITHIN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL WORK: A dominant concern raised was technology and its ethics due to increased use of technology in service provision, including within the following areas: clinical documentation; electronic health records; and technologyenabled service delivery. Also raised in comments was the need to prepare students for a changing profession with specific mention given to the following needs: § A multi-lingual client population requiring social work practitioners with expanded language skills § Coping with changing (and declining) funding streams for social work § The changing needs of future populations § Dealing with lack of tuition affordability § Uncertainties in post-training employability § Integrating micro and macro practice in their work
Page | 45 SERIOUS CONCERNS FOR THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION: Groups raised serious concerns with: the professional identity of social workers, the status of social work in the nation, challenges to the maintenance of social work values in contemporary society, low levels of compensation, the under-valuing of the field in general, and the lack of funding for key social work services. Additionally, several changes in the social work practice environment were identified. These include poverty and economic inequality, the role of technology in social work practice, and the deleterious effects of the current administration’s policies (particularly immigration). What program additions and/or changes at RU-SSW do you think will be necessary? Thinking 5-10 years into the future, how can RU-SSW best prepare students for the social work workforce? Endorsed predominantly by staff and faculty
o Connecting macro and micro social work (e.g., by providing a MAP certificate) o Expanding language skills (e.g., Spanish) o Expanding global content and study abroad opportunities o Developing new specializations in community organizing and social justice o Improving online courses in terms of quality and reach
Endorsed predominantly by parttime lecturers o Enhancing the writing and critical thinking skills of o Opportunities to learn budgeting students and other business development o Improving the field placement skills for entrepreneurship and experience private practice (the “business o Adopting a multicultural lens to of social work�) pedagogy o Enhancing and marketing o Improving clinical existing certificate programs documentation (e.g., the aging certificate) and o Developing an integrative field dual degree programs (e.g., with work seminar law and divinity) o Addressing racial privilege in the classroom Endorsed about equally by both
Other responses not directly related to curriculum o Bettering the functioning of the School (e.g., enhancing collaboration and communication within the School) o Addressing training needs for staff (e.g., technology training) o Improving student services (e.g., enhancing career services and trajectories, improving communications with alumni, and enhancing student support for first-generation students) o Assuring smaller class sizes o Ensuring students get appropriate and adequate supervision within field placements o Educating students on passing licensing examinations o Improving admissions practices (e.g., by instituting face-to-face admissions interviews to ascertain fit with the profession)
ASKED OF FACULTY/RESEARCH STAFF (7 groups) Faculty: Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what are the trends/needs in the production and dissemination of research? RESEARCH PRODUCTION: Comments trended toward community-based participatory research that involves and is responsive to issues identified by community members and service providers. Additionally, comments indicated a need for enhanced supports for research within the School of Social Work, including additional funding and mentorship opportunities for PhD students; encouraging research among students in the MSW program; and supports for the research of NTTs.
Page | 46
RESEARCH DISSEMINATION: All groups indicated dissemination via sources accessible to lay audiences through non-academic media such as podcasts, research briefs, info-graphics, social media, and media interviews/interactions. Five groups (5) indicated needing broader access to peer-reviewed research and to engage in efforts to ensure the broader community and service providers have access to peer-reviewed research through open-access journals, and Rutgers libraries (for state agencies, non-profits, etc.). Comments also indicated that research partners should be provided access to research and that community partners and policy makers have access to research produced by faculty via research reports, expanded communications, etc. ASKED OF FACULTY/RESEARCH STAFF (7 groups): Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what are the trends/needs in our connection and service to the community? COMMUNITY-BASED RELATIONSHIPS AND PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH: Five (5) groups mentioned including further relationships in the community with service providers, community members, community leaders and others. Engage in efforts to improve data sharing (especially with the state); improve relationships between the University and the state; provide library access to agencies and the state. Recommendations included facilitating via the field office, PTLs, service providers, research partners, etc. Also indicated was to increase the conduct of community-based participatory research to engage community members. OUTREACH CENTER: Three (3) groups recommended creating an outreach center as a program of RU-SSW to provide programs/services such as wellness services and program evaluation. POLICY VOICE: Four (4) groups recommended efforts to connect the School with communities to serve as a voice in policy making and decision making, for example, working with communities to develop social impact statements. ASKED OF FACULTY/RESEARCH STAFF (7 groups): Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what should be done to best prepare the social work workforce? ENHANCE CAREER OPPORTUNITIES: Six (6) groups indicated a need to connect students to job opportunities; provide information on the types of jobs available post-graduation; and encourage students to utilize field experiences to explore career paths. ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF GRADUATES: Comments across several groups included: 1) more stringent admissions requirements and processes; 2) improve the writing quality among graduates; 3) provide better preparation of students in research; 4) provide a brown bag series to have faculty present their research to MSW students; and 5) enhance technology training for students. ENHANCE SELECTED CURRICULUM CONTENT: Comments across several groups included: 1) Ensure that students are receiving content related to work with older adults; 2) increase content on environmental justice and climate change (as key policy issues and because of effects on quality of life); and 3) encourage foreign language skills (such as Spanish for social workers).
Page | 47
ASKED OF ADMINISTRATIVE/PROGRAM STAFF (8 groups): Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what do you anticipate the administrative and program staff will need to support the RU-SSW? Thinking about responses to the last questions, what specific staff professional development opportunities are necessary to support the mission of the School? COMMUNICATION: There was general agreement on feelings of being silo-ed. Participants indicated wanting to know about specific roles/programs/offices throughout the School. Suggestions included: better internal communication (context, clarity, and delivery); SSW mobile app; better onboarding process; a directory with clarity of roles; a staff open house; staff newsletter; social work 101 orientation for those without social work backgrounds; events/activities; regular staff meetings; clarity of policies (e.g., University, School, unit, manager/supervisor); program “cheat sheets”; and an information warehouse (e.g., website or portal where forms can be found). Apparent need for better understanding of mission/vision was evident including alignment of roles to the mission. Others suggestions included face-toface and phone conversations over email exchanges and staff participation in Dean’s advisory council. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (recognition/appreciation, skill building, and career development): All groups indicated a need for training on/of: hardware (A/V), cloud applications and project/team management tools, website, social media, Microsoft Office, and customer service. Also expressed was the importance of understanding why certain technologies are relevant/important to staff and their work since time constraints may prevent them from voluntarily attending trainings, and that there are differences in training between the techchallenged and tech-savvy. Five (5) groups expressed the desire for increased recognition of staff through professional development. Three (3) groups would like to see more paths for career growth and promotion (future leadership training opportunities, “lunch and learn” events, formal mentoring program, and access to professional development funds). Some comments were specific to networking, and cross-training/collaboration between SSW units. Other comments indicated staff access to self-initiated training and professional development opportunities outside what the School can provide, and goal setting/evaluation between individual and supervisor. One comment that summarized one group’s conversation indicated staff are busy maintaining growth of the School, not on their own growth. CAPACITY (human and physical resources): Five (5) groups reported needing more staff with specific mention to enhancing information technology supports. Three (3) groups mentioned a need for improved infrastructure with the most common a desire for a centralized building. Also mentioned was ensuring hardware and software is up-to-date. Two (2) groups wanted business office/applications training and understanding of process workflows and expectations. Two (2) groups wanted to move toward paperless offices. Two (2) groups wanted more staff benefits and flexibility (e.g., tele-commuting, morning/afternoon breaks, work-life balance, and consideration for future generations of administrative workforce); having a better understanding of what benefits are already available was also indicated. Other comments made: innovative and adaptable workplaces; identification of functions necessary in the future that don’t exist now; ensuring efficient process workflows and position manuals, identifying best practices, and ensuring innovation in staff training, support, and tools to keep up with and ahead of the times.
Page | 48 Several comments were made with regard to diversifying funding streams so that grant/contract funded teams are not heavily reliant on one funding agency. Asked of all 15 groups: Thinking 5-10 years in the future, what aspirations do you have for RU-SSW? What opportunities are present for meeting those aspirations? EXTERNALLY-FOCUSED ASPIRATIONS: Eleven (11) groups discussed the need to improve RU-SSW’s reputation at both a regional and national level, with emphasis on raising the School’s national rank. Five (5) groups commented on the need to strengthen the communication and marketing strategy. Six (6) groups indicated a need for stronger connections developed with the State of New Jersey and with human service organizations in the community. Additional aspirations include expanding collaborations with other schools and disciplines, particularly within Rutgers, as well as with other Big 10 universities. Another aspiration expressed is hope the School will stay aware of and adapt to changes in the social and professional environments that the School operates within. INTERNALLY-FOCUSED ASPIRATIONS: Many of the comments highlighted a need to strengthen internal community. Two areas had the strongest representation in the feedback: 1) faculty and staff would like to see the level of internal collaboration increase within the School (in particular, increased research quality and output were identified as areas that would benefit from more robust collaborations), and 2) faculty and staff desire stronger and clearer mechanisms to increase their awareness of the diverse initiatives and programs taking place across the School. Four (4) groups suggested tapping into the faculty’s and staff’s passion for social work; there are many who in addition to their roles at RU-SSW also volunteer and serve communities outside the School. STUDENT-FOCUSED ASPIRATIONS: Five (5) groups indicated a desire to further address challenges experienced by students. Recommendations were made to increase student supports within the existing curriculum, such as student mentoring, addressing writing skills, job placement assistance, developing new ways to address their tight schedules, and finding ways to address the tuition burden possibly through creation of stipends or paid field work. NEW COLLABORATIONS: Two (2) groups indicated establishing increased global presence through expansion of international partnerships as a way to increase the School’s draw for new funding, students, and faculty. Two (2) groups recommended deepening ties in the local community as well as with other schools within Rutgers to expand impact on policy and practice to better allow for new research projects, new funding opportunities, resource sharing, and expanded job placement options for students and alumni. Increased connection to Rutgers Health was identified as a specific goal. Two (2) groups recommended the development of new centers as a way to expand collaboration; centers focusing on workforce development and policy development were specifically identified. Additionally, the creation of a community treatment clinic to provide student internships was also raised. FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES: Two (2) groups indicated the need for additional funding. Specifically mentioned was funding with the goal of establishing a single building that holds all of the School’s faculty, increasing the School’s endowment, and other funding from outside with several possible sources mentioned, including: corporations/businesses, alumni, New Brunswick Development Corporation, and private donors.