School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141 DOI 10.1007/s12310-010-9034-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
The State of School Social Work: Findings from the National School Social Work Survey Michael Stokely Kelly • Stephanie Cosner Berzin Andy Frey • Michelle Alvarez • Gary Shaffer • Kimberly O’Brien
•
Published online: 24 March 2010 Ó Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract School social work is a large and growing subspecialty in social work practice; however, little is known about present school social work practice from a national perspective. The National School Social Work Survey (n = 1,639) represents the first data in over ten years to describe the diverse practice contexts and interventions employed by school social workers. The survey also seeks to better understand school social work practice in light of the significant educational reforms of the past decade that are increasingly shaping student experiences. Gary Shaffer (1946–2009): During the preparation of this article, our colleague and team member Dr. Gary Shaffer passed away after a long illness. We dedicate this article to him and to his memory as a leader in school social work. M. S. Kelly (&) Chicago School of Social Work, Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail:
[email protected] S. C. Berzin Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA A. Frey Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA M. Alvarez Department of Social Work, Minnesota State University-Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA G. Shaffer School of Social Work, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA K. O’Brien Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA
123
Findings from this survey indicate that the characteristics of school social workers, the context in which they practice, and their practice choices remain largely unchanged over the past 10 years. Implications for future research, policy, and practice are discussed based on these findings. Keywords School social work Practice in schools School mental health Survey research 3-Tier model of intervention
Introduction School social work has evolved into a complex and specialized practice field, one that has presumably been affected by changes in relevant practice models, education policy, and school-based intervention research over the past decade. However, there is limited data on what school social work practice looks like in the new millennium, as the most recent national survey data on school social work practice is over 15 years old (Allen-Meares 1994). There is a pressing need for current data on school social work practice to help assemble the core knowledge of this practice field and to create an agenda for future research, practice, and policy directions. A century ago, the first school social workers were called ‘‘visiting teachers,’’ and many of their practice innovations (e.g., conducting home visits, leading classroom groups, and consulting with teachers and principals) are still widely practiced today in the field of school social work (Dupper 2003; SSWAA 2005). Over time, school social work shifted from a role linking students, home, and school to a clinical casework model where individual students experiencing acute social, emotional, or behavioral
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
problems were served by school social workers (e.g., Allen-Meares 1994; Costin 1969; Kelly 2008). However, in the past 15 years, there have been significant changes in school-based mental health-related practice models, education policy, and school-based research that indicate a shift from a predominantly clinical casework orientation to an orientation that focused at least equally on primary prevention and environmental factors affecting achievement and adjustment problems (Frey and Dupper 2005; Kelly et al. 2010). With regard to practice models, response to intervention (RTI) and positive behavior support (PBS; Sugai and Horner 2008) are nationally recognized models that may be influencing school social work practice. Both RTI and PBS encourage schools to examine academic performance, behavior, and social–emotional learning through a three-tier framework where students are provided different levels of instruction and intervention based on their need (universal, selective, or indicated; or Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3). A visual representation of the three-tiered model is presented in Fig. 1. At Tier 1, primary prevention practices focus on supporting achievement and school adjustment problems and preventing initial occurrences of academic failure or problem behavior. Tier 1 practices apply to all students and are used by all adults in the school setting. Tier 2 interventions seek to prevent repeated academic failure and the reoccurrence of problem behavior, and they focus on those students who need more support than is offered through Tier 1. Finally, Tier 3 interventions focus on students who
Tier 1 Interventions (preventive, proactive interventions applied to all students)
15-20% are not successful ("at-risk")
Tier 2 Interventions (rapid response, high efficiency interventions applied to some students)
1-5% are not successful
Tier 3 Interventions
(assessment-based, high intensity applied to individual students)
Fig. 1 Response to intervention as a basis for making intervention decisions. Reprinted with permission from Frey et al. (2009). Positive behavior support and response to intervention in elementary schools. In Walker H, Shinn MK (eds.) Interventions for achievement and behavior problems: Preventive and remedial approaches (3rd ed.). National Association of School Psychologists, Bethesda, MD
133
have serious achievement or school adjustment problems that constitute a chronic condition and who have not responded to Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions. With regard to school policy, two recent examples are discussed briefly here. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA 2004) permits school districts to ‘‘use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures,’’ in lieu of establishing a discrepancy between ability and achievement, to identify students with learning difficulties (PL 108-446 § 614[b][6][A]; § 614[b][2 & 3]). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires school personnel to use evidence-based practices, which may necessitate a shift to more prevention-based work (No Child Left Behind 2002). Finally, the body of school-based research amassed over the past 15 years has also given school social workers with a clinical casework orientation ample reason to reconsider their approach to practice. This literature base emphasizes the importance of the following: (1) integrated, sustainable intervention efforts that emphasize primary prevention; (2) early screening and intervention; and (3) comprehensive approaches (Dunlap et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2004; Scott et al. 2008; Walker et al. 1996). These models and policies, as well as the research base, embrace a multi-tiered system of support that recognizes the importance of primary prevention and the critical nature of intervening within the context of an ecological framework. Ecological theory views clients as being part of a larger system of interactions and relationships beyond their individual selves (Bronfenbrenner 1979; Siporin 1980). Ecological systems theory in social work calls for all social workers (including school social workers) to intervene at multiple levels of a client ‘‘system’’ (e.g., microsystem, mesosystem, and macrosystem) to address the ways that these different systems’ interactions might be impacting the client’s well-being (Clancy 1995). Contemporary educational intervention models and policies, as well as the ecological theory and research base supporting them, in social work schools have converged to create increased calls by school social work scholars to think and practice from a more ecological systems framework within their schools (Frey and Dupper 2005; Frey et al. 2008; Kelly 2008). Yet, the extent to which contemporary school social work practice reflects the growing emphasis on ecological systems theory and related practice models is unknown. The current study will allow the practice community to better understand whether school social work practice reflects these trends. The following aspects of practice were examined: (1) the level (i.e., primary prevention versus secondary and tertiary prevention) and focus (i.e., individual versus environmental) of practice activities; (2) the utilization of resources to identify evidence-based
123
134
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
practices; (3) characteristics of the work force; and (4) characteristics and utilization patterns of students. In addition to the descriptive analysis of these aspects, bivariate analyses were employed to examine the relationship between prevention orientation, workplace characteristics (e.g., public or private school; elementary, middle, or high school; urban or rural), and worker characteristics (e.g., gender, education level, licensure status). Finally, it was hypothesized that the number of schools would be negatively correlated with the percentage of time school social workers reported engaging in primary prevention activities.
Method Participants The sample (n = 1,639) provides a portrayal of the population of school social workers who belong to national and state associations. As can be seen in Table 1, the sample is primarily female (88.6%) and Caucasian (78.4%). Most respondents reported having a master’s degree in social work (87.2%). Licensure or certification is common, with 71.3% reporting that they have a state school social work license or certificate and 46% reporting that they have a clinical social work license. As can be seen in Table 2, data on practice context suggests the vast majority of school social workers practice in the public education system (88.8%) and that most positions require a state social work certification or license (77.9%) that may or may not need to be school social work
specific. Few respondents (15.6%) describe their job as grant-funded or as a contract position. When outside funding is received for the position, the funding most commonly comes from the federal (19%) or state (17.8%) government. Respondents are roughly equally distributed in different size districts with about a quarter of respondents in each setting, small town or rural areas, mid-sized cities, suburban areas, and urban areas. Respondents indicate most frequently (44.3%) that they work in elementary school settings with high school (21.4%) and middle school (17.7%) less frequently hosting school social workers. Respondents reported serving between 0 and 415 schools (mean = 4.61; SD = 15.2; median = 2). However, when outliers (reporting serving more than 50 schools) were eliminated, the mean number of schools served was 3.59 (N = 1,560; SD = 4.80); in this subset, 597 (38%) served a single school, while 298 (19%) served two schools, 175 (11.5%) served three schools, and 490 (31.5%) served four or more schools.
Table 2 School social workers’ practice/work setting Percent
Total number of cases (N)
Local public education agency
88.8
1,396
Private school
1.0
15
Social service agency contract
3.6
56
School-based health clinic
.1
1
Other
6.5
104
15.6
244
19.0 17.8
312 292
Employer
Grant-funded position Received funding for position
Table 1 School social work characteristics Percent
Total number of cases (N)
Gender
Federal State Foundation
2.4
40
Agency
5.5
90
Other
8.6
141
Rural
15.0
234
Small town
12.5
196
Male
11.4
181
Female
88.6
1,410
White/Caucasian
78.4
1,285
Black/African American
10.6
174
Mid-sized city
25.0
391
Hispanic
6.3
104
Suburban
25.6
401
4.7
47
Urban
21.9
343
Race
Other Education
Population size
Grade level
Master’s in social work
87.2
1,429
Pre-kindergarten/early childhood
2.6
41
School social work license
71.3
1,169
Elementary
44.3
689
Licensed clinical social worker
46.0
754
Junior high school/middle school
17.7
275
NASW license NASW academy clinical social worker
10.4
170
High school
21.4
332
NASW school social work credential
10.3
169
Other grade arrangement
14.0
217
123
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
While 1,639 survey respondents are used for analysis, an additional 1,317 people responded to the survey in a limited way. In an attempt to examine missing data, bivariate analysis was done to compare complete respondents within incomplete respondents. Analysis suggests that no differences emerge in responses from incomplete respondents compared to complete respondents in the early part of the survey. Multiple imputations for missing data were also considered but could not be completed due to the lack of data available for these additional respondents. Therefore, respondents who did not complete the characteristics section of the survey (Sect. 3) were removed from the analysis. Removing incomplete respondents from our analysis yielded the final sample of 1,639 respondents. Sample Recruitment and Procedures Contacts were made to the School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA), the school social work section of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and representative associations in every state. The SSWAA and organizations from 48 states elected to participate in the project. Organizations that represent school social workers (including state school work associations, state NASW chapters, and state school counseling associations that included both school social workers and school counselors) from 48 states participated in the project, with Maine and Nevada being the only states with no state-specific organization participating. School social workers in these states were captured in the dataset if they responded through the SSWAA distribution. Participation method varied by association with 10 state associations providing a list for survey distribution by the study team, SSWAA and 36 state associations distributing a link to the survey website themselves, and two state associations providing the information in a newsletter or on their website without a direct e-mail about the survey. The SSWAA distributed an internet link to the survey via e-mail to 1,644 of its members; this represents 80% of their membership for whom valid e-mail addresses were available. Through direct distribution by the survey team, the survey was distributed to 1,790 participants from 10 state associations. Of the 36 state associations distributing the e-mail themselves, data from 12 associations indicates that 2,686 individuals received the survey e-mail; the additional 24 associations were unable to provide numbers for their distribution lists. No accurate data exists on how many potential respondents viewed the survey information on association websites or newsletters. The survey was provided via internet link taking respondents directly to the survey website. Potential participants received three additional reminder e-mails if they had not already completed the survey. The survey took
135
about 30 min to complete and no incentives were offered to respondents to participate. Survey Instrument The present study utilized data collected as part of the National School Social Work Survey. The survey was developed through an iterative process involving project researchers, SSWAA staff, and an expert panel. Question construction was based on a review of school social work practice literature and a modified version of the Illinois State School Social Work Survey (Kelly 2008). The survey was revised with the input of a 23-person expert panel consisting of academics, practitioners, and school social work leaders. Additionally, the survey was field tested by 11 school social work practitioners for clarity, readability, and content. Figure 4 in the Appendix provides a detailed description of the instrument development process. The final survey totaled 30 questions and was conducted via e-mail. The survey focused on three areas of inquiry: (1) practice modalities, (2) student characteristics and utilization, and (3) respondent characteristics. Practice choices were assessed by looking at prevention activities and clinical activities. To understand time spent on prevention activities, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage of time they actually spend and ideally would spend on primary prevention work and secondary and tertiary prevention. Respondents were also asked what accounted for the discrepancy between actual and ideal percentages. Further, participants were asked the frequency with which they engage in a number of activities (e.g., parent engagement, classroom groups, individual counseling, etc.). Researchers categorized these as primary or secondary/tertiary practices. If the activity targeted students who had not previously been identified with achievement or adjustment problems, it was categorized as primary prevention. Student characteristics and utilization patterns were assessed related to referral patterns, reasons students are at risk, and use of special education, government, and outside therapeutic services. Respondent characteristics focused on both the workforce setting and individual characteristics. Questions were related to gender, race, education, licensure, and years of experience. To describe workplace context, questions were asked related to the state where practicing, number of schools, agency type, funding mechanism, district size, and school grade. A detailed description of the survey instrument can be found in Table 3. Data Collection and Analysis Data was collected between February 28, 2008 and May 31, 2008 using an online survey format. Participants were
123
136
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
Table 3 Questions and response options for the 2008 National School Social Work Survey Survey question/construct
Response options/scale
Practice modalities Percent of time actually spent on primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention
Continuous
Percent of time ideally spent on primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention Amount that the following accounts for the discrepancy between actual and ideal percentages: number of students/schools, prescribed role, lack of training, and other
Continuous 1–5 (1 = a little, 2 = some, 3 = half, 4 = most, 5 = all)
Percent of time spent on administrative tasks
Continuous
Extent relies on the following prevention approaches to support children prior to their being referred for school social work services: increasing parental involvement, community engagement, delivering teacher professional development, and participating on school-wide committees or task forces
1–5 (1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = usually)
Extent relies on the following clinical approaches with referred students: individual counseling, group counseling, classroom groups, family-based practice, sessions with the student and teacher, and other approaches
1–5 (1 = rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = usually)
Student characteristics and utilization Source from whom they receive the most referrals
Self, other student, teacher, counselor, attendance officer, administrator, parent, special education team, or other
Number of students referred for the following reasons: behavior problems, emotional problems, academic problems, attendance, or other
1–5 (1 = few, 2 = some, 3 = half, 4 = most, 5 = all)
Risk factors that explain the causes of student problems: poor learning of social skills, social behavior problems, parent–child conflict, lack of connectedness, limited school resources, inconsistent classroom management, unhealthy school or classroom climate, weak or inconsistent adult leadership, and overreliance of security measures
1–5 (1 = few, 2 = some, 3 = half, 4 = most, 5 = all)
Percent of students regularly served who receive social work services as part of a special education individualized education plan
Continuous
Number of students who receive government services
1–5 (1 = few, 2 = some, 3 = half, 4 = most, 5 = all)
Number of students who receive outside counseling or therapeutic services
1–5 (1 = few, 2 = some, 3 = half, 4 = most, 5 = all)
Respondent and workplace characteristics Race Gender
African American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, White/European American, or other Male or female
State they practice in
All states were listed
Educational experience (respondents could choose multiple responses)
Bachelor’s degree in social work, other bachelor’s degree, master’s degree in social work, other master’s degree, doctorate in social work, and other doctorate
Certification and licensure (respondents could choose multiple responses)
State-issued school social work certificate/license, licensed clinical social work, NASW academy of clinical social workers, and NASW school social work specialist
Years of practice
Continuous
Number of schools
Continuous
Agency type
Public school, private school, agency that delivers contract services, school-based health clinic, or other
Position funding
Grant, contract, or other time-limed project
Funding source
Federal, state, foundation, agency contracts, or other
District size Grade level most involved in serving
Rural, small town, mid-sized city, suburban, or urban Pre-kindergarten/early childhood, elementary, junior high/ middle school, high school, or other arrangement
123
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
sent an e-mail link to the online survey. The survey was implemented using Opinio software (2009). Following survey completion, data was downloaded into Microsoft Excel and transferred to SPSS for analysis. Data analysis primarily included descriptive statistics and frequencies to summarize and describe characteristics and utilization patterns of students and the use of multiple levels of intervention. Following descriptive analysis, we used bivariate methods to assess whether individual and workplace characteristics were associated with particular practice patterns. The study was primarily concerned with examining how individual characteristics, workplace context, and practice roles are related to the number of schools a school social worker practices in and the characteristics associated with prevention orientation.
137
Level and Focus of Practice Choices The present study examined the extent to which school social workers would like to and actually engage in primary prevention activities versus secondary and tertiary prevention activities. Figure 2 illustrates that school social workers (86.4%) reported a discrepancy between the actual time and the ideal time spent on Tier 1 and Tier 2 primary prevention activities. Respondents reported spending more time on Tier 3 activities than they would ideally like and less time on primary prevention work in Tier 1 and Tier 2 than they would ideally like. Figure 3 illustrates that school social workers engage in primary prevention activities less frequently than secondary/tertiary activities. Over 60% reported doing individual counseling all or most of the time, while 30.8% reported doing group counseling and
Results Primary Prevention
These study results provide information on the characteristics and utilization patterns of students. The largest group of respondents (44.4%) reported that they receive the most referrals from teachers. School counselors (13.1%), administrators (11.6%), and the special education diagnostic team (16.0%) account for another 40% of referrals. Referral reasons varied, with school social workers reporting multiple reasons for referrals. Behavioral issues (57.8%) and emotional problems (55.7%) are cited by the majority of school social workers as the reason for referral all or most of the time. Academic problems (24.3%) and attendance issues (26.9%) are less commonly cited as the reason for referral. About 30% of school social workers reported that more than half of their caseload is served as part of an individualized education plan (IEP). Children served by school social workers are seen as at risk due to a number of factors. The majority of school social workers (50.3%) described that all or most students are at risk due to social and behavioral problems, while 41.8% attribute poor social skills for putting children at risk, and 25.6% attribute student risk to weak adult relationships characterized by limited, inconsistent adult leadership from parents, teachers, and other important adults. Twenty-four percent of school social workers reported that most or all of the children they serve receive government services such as Medicaid, TANF, SSI, or free/ reduced lunch. Few school social workers (7.4%) reported that most or all of the children they serve receive any counseling or therapeutic services from an outside agency or professional.
Secondary and Tertiary Prevention
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Actual Time Spent
Ideal Time Spent
Fig. 2 Percentage of actual vs. ideal time spent on primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention activities. Note. Primary prevention was defined as work (direct or indirect/administrative) at the classroom, school, or district level to remove risk factors or promote resiliency factors for students to reduce new referrals for school social work services. Secondary/tertiary prevention was defined as work (direct or indirect/administrative) at the individual, family, or classroom level to remove barriers to learning for specific students who have been referred for school social work services and reduce the severity of those students’ problems at school (Tier 3 interventions)
60 PRIMARY PREVENTION Parent Engagement
50
Small Groups
Percent
Characteristics and Utilization Patterns of Students
Improving School culture
40
Prevention Interventions Community Engagement Committee Work
30
Social Skills Interventions Teacher Inservice Data Analysis
20
SECONDARY/TERTIARY PREVENTION Individual Counseling Family-Based Practice
10
Classroom Groups Teacher Consultation
0
Activities
Fig. 3 Primary prevention and secondary/tertiary prevention activities employed by school social workers
123
138
21.2% reported doing family work all or most of the time. Classroom groups (12.2%) and teacher sessions (9.1%) are used by fewer social workers all or most of the time. Additionally, they reported spending an average of 30% of their time on administrative tasks. This inadequate time for prevention tasks is most often attributed to serving too many students; most respondents (65%) pointed to the burden created by administrative tasks as the primary reason for the discrepancy between actual and ideal time spent on prevention activities. Understanding Prevention Orientation As school social workers vary considerably in the number of schools served (range = 1–93, M = 3.8, SD = 6.5), the study investigated whether school social workers who serve more schools differ from other workers in terms of individual characteristics, work context, or roles. Data on individual characteristics including race, gender, educational level, school social work licensure, and clinical licensure yielded insignificant results. Prevention orientation was not related to the number of schools that school social workers had. The number of schools was, however, related to school social work practice roles, with more schools associated with less frequent use of individual counseling (F = 14.5, p \ .01), group counseling (F = 13.3, p \ .01), and classroom groups (F = 8.0, p \ .01) and more frequent use of family practice (F = 4.7, p \ .01). Bivariate analysis was also concerned with understanding whether the school social work services’ provided roles or school social workers’ perceived roles vary by the SES of the children served by school social workers. Reporting half or more students receiving services from government social welfare programs (including Medicaid, SSI, TANF, and free/reduced school lunch) was a proxy for low SES within a school system. For school social workers situated in this context, there were no significant differences in prevention orientation or discrepancy between actual and ideal orientation compared to school social workers in higher SES schools. Additionally, administrative time and time spent on individual counseling were not associated with the SES of children served. Other practice modalities did differ by context, with school social workers in lower perceived SES schools reporting more time spent on group counseling (v2 = 32.4, df = 4, p \ .01) and classroom groups (v2 = 10.2, df = 4, p = .04) and less time on family practice (v2 = 38.0, df = 4, p \ .01) and student/ teacher sessions (v2 = 9.4, df = 4, p = .05). In an attempt to investigate the characteristics that impact prevention orientation, bivariate analyses were conducted examining the relationship between school social workers and workplace characteristics and time
123
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
spent on prevention activities. Tests that examined gender, education level, years of experience, and licensure all produced insignificant results. Further, workplace characteristics including urban setting, elementary school, public versus private institution, and contract work were also not associated with percent of time spent on prevention work. Examining reasons for discrepancy between ideal and actual time spent on prevention work yielded one significant finding. School social workers who reported serving too many students as a reason for not having time for prevention work reported spending less time on prevention activities (F = 7.9, p \ .01).
Discussion The present study represents the first attempt in over a decade to understand and conceptualize the school social work profession and its current trends. The population of school social workers has remained largely unchanged since previous studies (Allen Meares 1977, 1994; Costin 1969). The profession continues to be dominated by women who are Caucasian, hold a master’s degree in social work, and have been practicing for more than 5 years. Little change has also been noted in work environment with most school social workers working in the public education system, a higher percentage practicing in elementary schools, and practice occurring across rural, suburban, and urban communities. As noted in the Allen-Meares study (1994), school social workers most frequently work in multiple schools. Additionally, the population being served continues to face multiple individual, school, family, and community level risk factors such as achievement, school adjustment problems, and poor attendance. In spite of these difficulties, the vast majority of the students that school social workers serve overall do not receive counseling or therapeutic services from an outside agency. This leaves school social workers as the primary and often the only mental health professional with whom students are engaged. The findings from this study make clear that school social workers are the main providers of mental health services for some of the most challenging child and family mental health issues in the communities they serve, and they are coping with high caseloads and administrative paperwork demands as well. The results suggest school social workers may still be practicing with a clinical casework orientation, which focuses on service delivery primarily with students who have already experienced achievement and school adjustment problems. Although there have been these shifts in practice models, education policy, and school-based knowledge, the present study finds school social workers
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
take a limited role in school leadership through participation in school committees, development of prevention activities, and improvement to the overall school culture. This may in part explain Raines’s (2006) belief that a persistent weakness of the profession remains its invisibility. Given the challenge of meeting complex needs and the flexibility to remove learning barriers at multiple levels, there is a strong need for interdisciplinary work, collaboration, and a role in educational leadership (Allen-Meares 2006; Anderson-Butcher and Ashton 2004; Corbin 2005). The clear discrepancy noted here in the present study between what school social workers want to do to lead prevention efforts in their schools versus what they are actually doing suggests the barriers to an ecological orientation may be beyond their control. Two suggestions for future school social work practice are offered based on these findings. First, school social workers could increase their visibility by enhancing their collaboration with teachers. Study data suggests school social workers receive the majority of their referrals from teachers and believe they are helping teachers work with difficult students. However, they inconsistently use sessions with teachers as part of practice or consider in-service training to teachers as part of their job. Second, school social workers could increase their role in prevention activities. As schools are increasingly expected to develop programs that fit within the RTI and PBS three-tier models, school social workers have the skills and perspective to help school teams, parents, and groups of students mobilize to address student problems at multiple levels of intervention. One way to interpret the findings over the past 40 years of school social work survey research could be to say plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose; another way might be to argue that for the first time, the pressing realities of prevention and macrolevel practice in schools are so great that school social workers who are creative and resourceful enough to embrace these new pressures and adapt their work roles to them will flourish. The present study raises a number of questions for school social work researchers to explore further. As stated earlier, the survey data indicates that school social workers face a myriad of complicated student, family, and school factors that impact their practice choices. Further research is needed to learn more about practitioners who are managing to thrive in these highly complex environments and what additional training and professional development is needed to help support contemporary school social workers. Additionally, the roles of prevention program specialists and teacher consultants are ones that many school social workers in the study sample said they embrace, though little is known about how effective school social workers are in fulfilling these important roles; these may
139
necessitate the use of qualitative methodologies. Additionally, though searching for and applying research-based interventions are a clear priority of current federal policies like IDEIA and NCLB, little is known about how school social workers access these materials and what barriers may exist in their schools to affect their implementing research-based interventions with fidelity. Next, while bivariate analyses reported in this article are an important first step, more sophisticated analyses examining the characteristics of school social workers and practice approaches may be useful. Finally, it would also be valuable to have similar studies conducted on other school personnel, such as school psychologists and school counselors. Although this study provides insight into the present state of school social work, several limitations lead us to interpret findings cautiously. The limitations are primarily related to the sampling framework, missing data, and validity of the survey instrument. Because no central list of school social workers exists, we were forced to find an accessible group of school social workers for our study. These school social workers may not represent the full population of school social workers. For those who did respond, we had significant issues of non-completion leaving us with large gaps in data. Although analysis allowed us to gauge their similarity, our study may not be generalizable to the full range of school social work professionals. Additionally, the survey was a cross-sectional study completely based on respondent self-report, which limits the ability for the study to say anything specific about the actual ecology of the school contexts where school social workers practice.
Conclusion The field of school social work, for all of its challenges and imperfections, continues to thrive as a social work subspecialty. Based on survey data presented here, it is clear that school social workers continue to act as a primary provider of mental health services in many communities. School social work respondents are also similar in their demographic details to previous surveys conducted over the past 40 years. The relative stability of the profession reflects an interesting question to future practitioners and researchers alike: How can this mature field respond best to the dramatic education reforms that are currently underway and only likely to intensify in this data-driven, evidencebased practice environment? Understanding the state of school social work practice and the needs at policy, research, and education levels will help us to arm future practitioners with the best interventions to serve students in need.
123
140
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141
Appendix See Fig. 4. Draft of survey instrument. Based on the Illinois survey of school social workers (Kelly, 2008) and a review of the current school social work literature. January-May 2007
Expert panel. A group of 30 leading researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in school social work were invited to review the draft instrument (23/30 accepted the invitation).
Second survey draft. This draft was
June-August 2007
completed based on the expert panel’s feedback and then field tested with 11 school social workers. School social workers were asked to rate the questions
Expert panel review. Panelists were asked to rate
on the same 1-5 scale for clarity and
each question on a 1-5 scale based for “clarity” and
relevance of the survey questions.
“relevance.” Any question that averaged a > 4.0
December 2007-January 2008
rating for clarity or relevance was further edited by the survey team or dropped. September-November 2007
Final survey draft completed. The final survey instrument was completed, uploaded to the Opinio online survey software program, and went “live” on February 28, 2008.
Fig. 4 Survey instrument development process, January 2007–January 2008
References Allen Meares, P. (1977). Analysis of tasks in school social work. Social Work, 22(3), 196–201. Allen-Meares, P. (1994). Social work services in schools: A national study of entry-level tasks. Social Work, 39(5), 560–565.
123
Allen-Meares, P. (2006, Summer). One hundred years: A historical analysis of social work services in schools [Special issue]. School Social Work Journal, 30, 25–43. Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26(1), 39–53.
School Mental Health (2010) 2:132–141 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Clancy, J. (1995). Ecological school social work: The reality and the vision. Social Work in Education, 17(1), 40–47. Corbin, J. N. (2005). Increasing opportunities for school social work practice resulting from comprehensive school reform. Children & Schools, 27(4), 239–246. Costin, L. (1969). School social work: An analysis of function. Psychology in the Schools, 6(4), 347–352. Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2008). Overview and history of positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support: Issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Springer. Dupper, D. R. (2003). School social work: Skills and interventions for effective practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Frey, A. J., & Dupper, D. (2005). Towards a 21st century model of school social work practice. Children & Schools, 27, 33–44. Frey, A. J., Lingo, A., & Nelson, C. M. (2008). Positive behavior support: A call for leadership. Children & Schools, 30(1), 5–14. Kelly, M. S. (2008). The domains and demands of school social work practice: A guide to working effectively with students families, and schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kelly, M. S., Raines, J. C., Stone, S., & Frey, A. (2010). School social work: An evidence-informed framework for practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
141 Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education: Dialogues and dialectics (5th ed. ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. No Child Left Behind (2002). Overview: Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/ overview/intro/4pillars.html. Opinio. (2009). Opinio Documentation [software]. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from www.objectplanet.com/opinio/documentation.html. Raines, J. C. (2006, Summer). SWOT! A strategic plan for school social work in the twenty-first century [Special issue]. School Social Work Journal, 30,132–150. School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA). (2005). State-by-state information on school social workers. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.sswaa.org/. Scott, T. M., Anderson, C., Mancil, R., & Alter, P. (2008). Functionbased supports for individual students in school settings. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support: Issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 421–441). New York, NY: Springer. Siporin, M. (1980). Ecological systems theory in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 7(4), 507–532. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16(2), 67–77. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209.
123
