| Introduction |
| Over the last 15 or so years social work training, through the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW), has come under the microscope of continued reviews and restructuring with the intention of turning out more competent and better prepared social workers. The fact that these reviews have taken place indicates that it was thought that there was something seriously wrong with social work education and training. What exactly was wrong was far from clear. |
| This study, undertaken by the Universities of Sheffield and Edinburgh between 1992 and 1995, set out to evaluate outcomes in social work education and the first year in work, as seen through the eyes of newly qualified social workers and their first line managers. It covered samples in England, Wales and Scotland. Here we focus on the findings of the Scottish sample. The study throws some light on how successful efforts to improve social work education and training have been and what problems still remain. |
| Social work training Courses (CQSW and DipSW) |
| Three-quarters of the newly qualified had found their course enjoyable and interesting but only three-fifths found it well taught. A similar percentage also thought that their course had found a good balance between theory and practice. Seven out of 10 experienced their course as stressful but had developed few coping strategies. |
| Around 70% were satisfied or very pleased with the teaching of social policy, sociology, social work theory, values, and social work skills, but levels of satisfaction with the teaching of law and psychology were low. Applied teaching was valued but not well taught. |
| Workshops and lectures were the most popular teaching method, but popularity depended on the qualities of the lecturer and his/her familiarity with the subject matter. Group tutorials and self-directed learning were the least popular. |
| Teaching of theory |
| Almost nine out of 10 of the newly qualified claimed to have developed a theoretical framework for assessment (but were less certain of what this was). A large number of theoretical perspectives/methods of work were mentioned. As a result only five approaches accounted for 10% or more of the total influences mentioned. These were: different counselling approaches; family work based largely on systemic ideas; behaviour modification; task-centred work. |
| The most popular theorists were Carl Rogers, Erikson, Bowlby, Egan and, to some extent, Pincus and Minahan. The diversity of theorists and approaches taught or individually pursued by students (over 80) far from being a strength was a sign of 'anarchy'. |
| Practice placements |
| Almost 90% of the newly qualified agreed or strongly agreed that they had had good teaching (supervision) in their practice placements. However, at least a fifth of all placements were described as having been unsatisfactory. Over 90% of students had a fieldwork placement, the next most common being 54% in day care. Three-fifths of students reported working with children and families, whereas 26% worked with older people. |
| Readiness to practice |
| Around 90% said that they were 'well' or 'very well' prepared to practise, but only around two-thirds attributed this to their course. More DipSW than CQSW holders attributed their preparedness to their course. Those who perceived the course as a good preparation were also likely to have experienced it as well taught. |
| Around eight out of 10 said that their course prepared them adequately or well to practise with children and families, and seven out of 10 with adolescents. However, many commented that they were far less well prepared to work with people with learning difficulties, disabilities, offenders, ethnic minorities and those with mental health problems. This is possibly understandable as those studying for the DipSW had to choose from a range of specialisms. |
| Between 70 and 90% of the newly qualified said that they were 'adequately' or 'well' prepared by their course to deal with a range of areas of practice and tasks including: making and writing assessments; decision making; family work; counselling individuals; negotiating with users; making home visits; report writing; keeping records; planning interventions; preparing for team meetings; form filling; evaluating interventions; and working with groups. |
| The newly qualified did not feel adequately or well prepared to: handle small budgets; work with the private sector; use Information Technology court work; work with minority ethnic groups; use time management techniques; deal with education agencies; accommodate children; or deal with criminal justice agencies. |
| Before starting work around half the newly qualified had many anxieties about their levels of preparedness, especially in the area of child protection; guidelines and procedures; the quality of supervision and the range of resources available. |
| First year in work: Students' views |
| Many of the anxieties expressed by the newly qualified before starting work seemed were confirmed for them, especially in relation to the quality of induction and supervision, the specifics of legislation, guidelines and procedures and the limited resources available at a time when the public's expectations were rising. |
| Once in work around two-thirds of the newly qualified were working in areas similar to their chosen areas of particular practice. Over half were in children and families work, a quarter in community care and about one in 10 in offenders' work. The rest (11 %) were in generic type work. |
| Forty per cent of the newly qualified felt 'very sure' about the use of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 21% about the use of the Community Care Act and 4% about the use of the Mental Health Act. Serious tensions were found between the emphasis placed by the newly qualified on interpersonal and process skills and the more procedural and technical skills valued by agencies. |
| Scots were more likely to carry heavier caseloads and more complex cases than their English counterparts, including child protection cases which they were not supposed to have at this stage. Over a third said they were either 'struggling' to cope, or struggling 'some of the time'. However, there was no association between complexity of cases and perceived ability to cope. There was widespread dissatisfaction with the quality and variability of induction to work, but in-service training was perceived more favourably. |
| Nine out of 10 claimed to have had supervision either weekly, fortnightly or monthly but its consistency and quality varied widely. Many claimed that supervision ion sessions were frequently cancelled, postponed or interrupted. Approximately one in 10 said that they 'never' had supervision. |
| Senior social workers' views |
| Around two-thirds of seniors found the newly qualified 'highly' or 'mainly' well prepared for the work they were asked to do. Only one In 10 said 'poorly'. Seniors expected knowledge, skills and practical work experience that reflected their own area of specialisation. They added that those with no such background found it much harder to transfer knowledge and skills. |
| Comparison between CQSW and DipSW holders in work. |
| Almost eight in 10 of DipSW holders felt that they were 'very effective' or 'mostly effective' in their practice. Significantly more DipSW than CQSW holders felt like this. A number of other significant differences were found between the holders of the CQSW and the DipSW qualification in favour of the latter, including: the perception that their course was 'a good preparation for practice'; greater satisfaction with the teaching of social work skills; finding theory more relevant and more inclined to use it in their practice; fewer claiming to have had a poor placement experience; more claiming to have been helped to be responsive to changing demands; and feeling 'mostly effective', rather than 'sometimes effective', in their work. |
| Overall, both qualifications had strengths and weaknesses. Seniors could not identify major differences between the two qualifications, except for the greater emphasis of the DipSW on specialisms and on anti-discrimination. The main value attributed to the DipSW was its emphasis on areas of particular practice, but apparently this did not go far enough. |
| Significantly more Scots than their English counterparts were in favour of extending social work courses, but their recommendations to trainers and employers were the same as the newly qualified in England. Expectations from an extended course included more: practice opportunities; in depth theory; skills teaching and the application of theory to practice; and better defined specialisms, What many respondents did not want was to add another year to existing structures. |
| If competent practice is a blend of knowledge, skills and values, then the study showed that improvements are required in all three of these areas. |
|
| John Trisellotis and Peter Marsh |
|
| The study was carried out by the Universities of Edinburgh and Sheffield. Cathlin Macaulay, Joan Hanson and George Doswell assisted with data collection and analysis. |
| The full study was funded by the Social Work Services Group of The Scottish Office and the Department of Health. It was published by Avebury in November 1996. |
| "Readiness to Practice: Training of Social Workers in Scotland and Their First Year in Work", the research report summarised in this Research Findings, may be purchased (price £5 per copy). |
| Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office Ltd and addressed to: |