#cswe

[nursingwriter]

Social Work Intentions of Social Work Social work in health care began in late nineteenth ad early twentieth century in the United States. The first social work classes were offered in the summer of 1898 at Columbia University (Social Work History, 2011). These classes were designed to facilitate the development of private and charitable organizations to serve people in need. Changes in demographics, attitudes about how the sick should be treated, and the role of social and psychological factors facilitated the emergence of this field of work. The mass migrations, chiefly from Europe, in the 19th century landed many immigrants in New York and other eastern cities. This influx of people lead to mass crowding, increased social problems and ill health. In 1905 the Massachusetts General Hospital hired the first professional social worker. Dr. Richard Clarke Cabot believed there to be a connection between tuberculosis and social conditions. Cabot, in charge of the outpatient ward of the hospital, along with his newly created social workers redefined the way health and well-being was managed. The economic, social, family, and psychological conditions that were causing many health issues were recognized for the first time. Soon social workers were attending to social health issues in conjunction with medical doctors who attended to physiological health issues. By 1911 there were 44 social work departments in 14 different cities. By 1913 that number had grown to over 200 (Gehlert & Browne, 2006). Tannenbaum and Reisch (2001) report that during World War I the expansion of government agencies led to increased professionalism in public-sector departments devoted to social welfare. Through the Red Cross and the Army, the War also provided opportunities for social workers to apply casework skills to the treatment of soldiers with "shell shock." Social workers were now sought as specialists in the social adjustment of non-impoverished populations. By 1927, over 100 child guidance clinics appeared in which teams of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers provided services primarily to middle-class clients. In 1930, the U.S. social welfare system was an uncoordinated mixture of local and state public relief agencies, supplemented by the modest resources of voluntary charitable organizations. The Great Depression influenced social work practice and redefined the role of government as an instrument of social welfare. The public began to view poverty as the result of economic circumstances rather than personal failure and the idea that social welfare assistance was a government responsibility rather than a private charitable function gained wider acceptance. This change in perception eventually evolved into a complex national social welfare system. The Social Security Act of 1935 expanded and improved standards of social welfare throughout the country and helped establish a regular, unprecedented role for the federal government as a source of aid as well as introduce the concept of entitlement into the American political vocabulary. The scope of social welfare expanded beyond financial relief to the poor to include housing, rural problems, recreation and cultural activities, child welfare programs, and diverse forms of social insurance to Americans of all classes. In the decade after World War II considerable efforts were made to enhance the field's professional status. The formation of CSWE in 1952, the establishment of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1953 and the establishment of the National Association of Social Workers in 1955 further strengthened the profession. The primary beneficiaries of social policy changes between 1940 and 1960, however, were middle- income, white workers and, by the early 1960s, the United States lagged considerably behind other Western industrialized nations in the degree of social provision. At the same time, voluntary and public sector agencies shifted the focus of services from low-income to middle- and upper-income groups and reduced the role of community-based volunteers in organizational decision making and service delivery. In a hostile political environment, social activism declined and openly anti-welfare attitudes reemerged. In the early 1960s, well-publicized exposes of poverty and the emergence of new perspectives on social problems forced Americans to rediscover the over 40 million people, approximately one third of them children, whose lives had been bypassed by modern economic and social progress. This led to President Johnson to proclaim an "unconditional war on poverty" in January 1964. The primary instrument of the war on poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) which included such programs as the Job Corps, Upward Bound, the Neighborhood Youth Corps, Community Action, Head Start, Legal Services, Foster Grandparents, and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). In 1965, Congress enacted Medicare and Medicaid, established the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), funded an array of services for the aged through the Older Americans Act, and created the Food Stamp Program under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. The Elementary and Secondary School Education Act overturned longstanding precedents and directed federal aid to local schools in order to equalize educational opportunities for children. In 1966, the Model Cities Act targeted certain urban areas with comprehensive services and emphasized the concept of community control. Although the social work profession did not influence public policies on the scale it had in the 1930s, social workers played key roles throughout the 1960s in various anti-poverty and community-action programs and helped train individuals in new organizations like the   https://www.paperdue.com/customer/paper/social-work-intentions-of-social-work-social-52523#:~:text=Logout-,SocialWorkIntentionsofSocialWorkSocial,-Length3pages Read the full article

[intelliontechnologies]

Top CAD Certifications to Boost Your Career

Introduction

In today’s competitive job market, having CAD (Computer-Aided Design) skills is a valuable asset for professionals in engineering, architecture, manufacturing, and design industries. However, to stand out, earning a recognized CAD certification can enhance your credibility, improve your job prospects, and increase your earning potential. In this blog, we explore the top CAD certifications that can boost your career.

1. Autodesk Certified Professional (ACP)

Offered by: Autodesk

Why It’s Valuable:

Recognized globally as a benchmark for CAD proficiency.

Covers software like AutoCAD, Revit, Fusion 360, Inventor, and Civil 3D.

Demonstrates expertise in advanced features and workflows.

Ideal For: Engineers, architects, and designers looking to prove their expertise in Autodesk software.

Certification Levels:

Autodesk Certified User (ACU) – Beginner

Autodesk Certified Professional (ACP) – Intermediate

Autodesk Certified Expert (ACE) – Advanced

2. SolidWorks Certified Professional (CSWP)

Offered by: Dassault Systèmes

Why It’s Valuable:

Focuses on 3D modeling and mechanical design.

Demonstrates proficiency in parametric modeling, assemblies, and design automation.

Well-regarded in manufacturing and mechanical engineering industries.

Certification Levels:

Certified SolidWorks Associate (CSWA) – Entry-level

Certified SolidWorks Professional (CSWP) – Intermediate

Certified SolidWorks Expert (CSWE) – Advanced

3. Certified Drafter (CD) by ADDA

Offered by: American Design Drafting Association (ADDA)

Why It’s Valuable:

Recognized in the drafting and design industry.

Covers essential CAD drafting standards, blueprint reading, and drawing principles.

Ideal for professionals in engineering, architecture, and product design.

Certification Levels:

Certified Apprentice Drafter

Certified Drafter

Certified Design Drafter

4. PTC Creo Certification

Offered by: PTC

Why It’s Valuable:

Focuses on parametric and direct modeling.

Recognized in industries like aerospace, automotive, and product design.

Demonstrates expertise in 3D CAD design, surfacing, and simulation.

5. CATIA Certification

Offered by: Dassault Systèmes

Why It’s Valuable:

Industry standard for aerospace and automotive design.

Covers advanced CAD modeling, surface design, and engineering analysis.

Essential for professionals working in large-scale product design and manufacturing.

6. Revit Architecture Certification

Offered by: Autodesk

Why It’s Valuable:

Highly valued in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry.

Demonstrates proficiency in building information modeling (BIM).

Covers 3D modeling, documentation, and project collaboration in Revit.

7. Siemens NX Certification

Offered by: Siemens

Why It’s Valuable:

Recognized in automotive and industrial design.

Covers CAD, CAM, and CAE tools used in product lifecycle management (PLM).

Used by top companies in engineering and manufacturing sectors.

8. Bentley MicroStation Certification

Offered by: Bentley Systems

Why It’s Valuable:

Focuses on CAD software used in civil engineering, infrastructure, and transportation.

Essential for professionals working with large-scale engineering projects.

How to Choose the Right CAD Certification

Consider the following factors when selecting a CAD certification:

Industry Requirements: Choose a certification that aligns with your field (mechanical, civil, architecture, etc.).

Software Expertise: Select the certification based on the CAD software you use most.

Career Goals: Opt for a certification that enhances your employability and skill set.

Certification Level: Start with a beginner-level certification and progress to advanced levels.

[sahraeyll]

nova southeastern university portal.nsu fort lauderdale colleges near lakeland. Post university state.Post university online classes.nursing schools in lakeland florida.online college info. online colleges for early youth education. online colleges for psycology.online colleges that accept fafsa. social work masters programs online schools. certified online msw programs and finest online msw programs cswe certified. health care administration…

[hannybstudies]

oh my gosh just found your blog and i’m so happy!! i’m a hs sophomore who has already begun to do social work research for school and for my own personal knowledge. my biggest struggle, especially w/jnr yr approaching, is the lack of guidance in finding good social work programs. any suggestions for high schoolers looking to study social work in terms of exploring colleges/universities/programs/etc???

hi, honey!! ahh this message is so sweet :’) i’m glad to hear you’re interested in social work! tbh when i first set my sights on social work, I struggled with the same conundrum. luckily, the closest university to me had a social work program so I just jumped on that opportunity. I didn’t even apply to any other schools, which in hindsight was kind of foolish lmao but I guess it worked out.

anyways, with that being said, I think finding a program will depend on your circumstances (i.e. living, expenses, etc). HERE is a link to the Council on Social Work Education’s Accreditation Directory! browse around and see if there are any colleges/universities that seem like a good fit; and maybe call the campus to learn more information! I hope this helped and I wish you the best of luck on your search!! let me know if you ever have any questions :D 

[studying-inwonderland]

I’m working on my xmas list.  Anyone have any reccomendations for Social Work books?  I’m thinking non-fiction.  I really enjoyed Unfaithful Angels, The New Jim Crow, Generation Me etc.  Anything similar with an analysis of a social issue of phenomenon.  Also really interested in alternate perspectives so don’t be afraid to recommend something I might not “like” to hear.  Also will check out any documentary/film recs but I want books to ask my parents for.  Its a life goal of mind to have a library of field related books.  I’m not looking for text books tho no one can afford that shit.

[speaking-walls]

New blog post is here! Use the link in my bio to head on over and read PRACTICAL suggestions invoking the CSWE Competencies! These were drilled into my head in undergrad, so I hope you appreciate this post that gives all the details☺️ #socialwork #sociaworklife #mentalhealth #socialjustice #cswe #education #success #undergrad #college #competence https://www.instagram.com/p/B0w1u-AgcAu/?igshid=1hoj5o481xrl3

[erisis]

I randomly complimented this incredibly well dressed woman on her outfit and without hesitation she immediately suggested we get a photo together!! So here’s Dr. Sharon Alston and me being fabulous together at CSWE!!!! #fabulousfemmes #coolwomen #greatstyle #transwoman #anaheim (at Anaheim, California) https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck1xUFXvf0a/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[meadowsopranostoriamosposter]

The national association of social workers is a “bunch of Karen’s” and you are presumably at least a masters level clinician and you don’t know what the CSWE is...very good

[shock]

In my last semester of social work, I’m taking an internship that requires field hours for the whole last year of school to graduate. Social work students are trying to have our remaining hours waived so that we can still graduate as our field placements have shut down and we can no longer do our internships. If you mind signing this petition for it, I’d really appreciate it. With everything else going so crazy, my degree that I’ve worked four years on is in jeopardy and I’m so, so tired.

http://chng.it/CVx9Z9swc8

[laceyspencer]

Service User Inclusion in Social Work Education, a Factor Analysis-Juniper Publishers

Social Work Education in the United States

Social work curricula across the United States lacks service user inclusion in the education of social workers, despite the trademark of the profession being service user oriented. Social work education in the United States requires a four-year undergraduate degree, or a two-year graduate degree, in social work. Both undergraduate and graduate social work degrees require students to complete internship hours working with individuals, families, groups, communities and/or organizations, with the goal of enabling and encouraging the application of social work-related knowledge, skills and values covered during classroom instruction (theory) within real-life settings (practice). For many students, the internship serves as the first encounter with service users of social service organizations, meaning they may have little-to-no understanding of service user experiences, or the skills needed to work collaboratively with service users, prior to this point in their academic careers.

Social workers are tasked with assessing service users of social service organizations for eligibility and need for services, thereafter, working collaboratively with service users to meet these assessed need(s). Social workers in the United States are expected to adhere to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics, which emphasizes respect for service users, service user self-determination and preservation of the dignity and worth of every person [1]. International professionals in the field of academia, as well as social workers and service users, have argued in favor of service users being included in the education of social work students to prepare and equip them with the knowledge, skills and values necessary to provide social work services to service users while on their internship and after graduation [2,3].

Go to

Service User Inclusion in Social Work Education

Between 2003 and 2004, the inclusion of service users receiving health and social work services became mandatory in social work education in the United Kingdom (UK). Service user inclusion was viewed as important and necessary for the “new generation of social workers to gain a thorough grounding in clients’ experiences and expectations from the very start of their training and careers” [3]. Universities and social service organizations varied in the extent to which service users were included and some academics began to publish case studies and evaluations of service user inclusion [4].

Branfield [5] explored service user perceptions of their own inclusion in UK-based social work education, including barriers to, and components of, good practice. Service users reported that in order to employ and promote quality social workers, service users should take part in their education, which should entail inclusion in the selection of students into the program (admission), training and writing coursework (curriculum) and evaluating student progress (assessment). Service users reported potential barriers to their inclusion, such as access to the university, inadequate training and negative attitudes from faculty and students toward their inclusion. Alternatively, good practice was identified as accessibility to the university, identifying and providing training to service users as well as faculty and students being open and receptive to service user knowledge and experience. Branfield [5] and the service users concluded that best practice approaches to service user inclusion remains relatively unknown.

Universities across Europe and the rest of the world have begun considering service user inclusion in social work education. Robinson & Webber [4] conducted a comprehensive review of the current literature on the models and effectiveness of service user inclusion in social work education. The research reviewed was primarily conducted in the UK (where, as aforementioned, service user inclusion is mandatory) and included only four studies -- two from Croatia, one from Israel and one from the US. The US-based study was an evaluation of a small-scale project consisting of a one-day (6 hour) activity bringing social service users into a facilitated dialogue with social work students with the aim of changing student attitudes towards persons with mental illness [6]. No further studies of service user inclusion in social work education in the US have been found. Therefore, there is currently limited knowledge on the extent to which service users are included in social work education in the US and the potential benefits and drawbacks to inclusion for students, service users and the overall social work profession.

Go to

Rationale for the Study

Self-determination, empowerment and partnership with service users are all central values to social work practice [1]. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, are taught to establish collaborative relationships with service users during their coursework and internships. In fact, the very paradigm of social work is to act “with” and not “for” service users. Although service user input is currently incorporated in social work education in indirect ways (e.g. literature with first-person service user accounts and service user feedback on intervention literature), social work educators need to evaluate whether or not the aforementioned social work values are genuinely incorporated into curriculum, or if the inclusion is more tokenistic and superficial [7]. Schools of social work in the United States have emphasized incorporating content related to racial and ethnic minority groups taught by faculty members belonging to those groups [8] with service users occasionally being included as guest speakers or co-trainers in the classroom [9]. However, it cannot be assumed that the appropriate faculty will have the ability and availability to teach such coursework.

The New York State Office of Mental Health (NYSOMH) includes service users in the training of psychiatric hospital staff and found that service users reported feeling valued and empowered for having their opinions sought out and service providers (including social workers) felt higher respect for service user rights, greater acceptance of service user self-advocacy and greater sense of importance of viewing each service user as an individual Bassman (2000). Scheyett & Diehl [7] found that service users have a desire to participate in social work education through co-teaching, course content development and implementation, being included in curriculum committee and syllabus review processes as well as research and field practicum. Hence, the motivation is there for both students and service users to welcome service user inclusion in social work education.

Go to

Methodology

As of July 2014, there were 500 undergraduate and 233 graduate social work programs that are accredited by the CSWE. The CSWE provides an up-to-date list of all accredited undergraduate and graduate programs on their website, along with contact information for each program director. All 733 programs were emailed invitations to participate in the Survey Monkey questionnaire; follow up reminders were sent on a weekly basis.

This quantitative study is as an exploratory cross-sectional research study using non-probability purposive sampling techniques. The research tool is a non-pre-existing questionnaire, developed through a review of literature informing the theoretical framework, uploaded to Survey Monkey, thereafter, targeted toward social work faculty across the United States. Informed consent was attained through Survey Monkey before participants began the questionnaire. Data were collected from 12:00 AM EST March 1st, 2018 until 11:59 PM EST April 30th, 2018, a duration of 61 days.

The data collected were analyzed through SPSS using descriptive statistics to determine percentages and frequencies of responses to questions. Bivariate analyses were employed to determine relationships between two variables while multivariate analyses were employed to explain the variance among variables. Factor analysis was employed in efforts to estimate a model that explains variance and covariance between the observed variables by a set of underlying factors and weightings. Reliability was analyzed through Cronbach’s Alpha (otherwise known as coefficient alpha) and validity was analyzed through Pearson’s r. Factor analysis helps explore the actual, rather than mere theoretical, correlations between variables. This required trimming away some items to reduce error, increasing reliability and possibly forming new, unexpected factors. The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy is a statistic that allows the researcher to look at some basic assumptions. KMO, varying from 0-1 with the industry standard being 0.50 or higher to proceed, generally indicates whether the variables can be grouped into a smaller set of underlying factors. KMO values below 0.50 suggest that factor analysis may not be useful. By employing factor analysis as the predominant analysis modality to uncover the underlying structure of this study’s set of variables, the researcher believes that the richness of collected data was drawn out and presented on full, clear display.

The questionnaire was piloted to several colleagues and professors of the researcher and suggested edits were considered and, in most cases, implemented. Despite having been piloted and thereafter refined, there were limitations and obstacles to this study. Only 404 social work faculty participated in the study during the 61-day data collection period. Although the questionnaire was purely quantitative, completing it, even with time and intention, may have posed challenges for social work faculty who are resistant to, or unable to access, online surveys. The same can be said for social work faculty who use different terminology than that of the questionnaire and those whose primary language may not be English. Finally, social work faculty, despite being assured confidentiality, may not always answer honestly because they know the discipline of social work favors service user inclusion in all aspects of the social work profession. Hence, social work faculty may have answered this survey as though they are in favor of service user inclusion in social work education even if they aren’t in favor of it, an anticipated threat to internal validity [10,11].

Quantitative research methods focus more on breadth than depth, this study is no different. While a great deal of content was collected through this study, it was lacking a great deal of context by design. Follow-up questions, leading to higher clarity, were not available. A personalized data collection experience was not provided to participants, rather a uniform process by which all participants were expected to respond.

Quantitative data aims to quantify and analyze collected data into numbers, frequencies and algorithms, furthering potential for a loss of context in the presentation of content. In contrast to qualitative research, quantitative designs assume a single, aggregate reality (objectivity) with little to no variation (subjectivity). Either design can be used to study any topic, and both are careful, diligent processes to discover and interpret knowledge. Although qualitative design would clearly yield more context and complexities, a quantitative design was chosen to reach a greater number of participant responses in the interest of external validity and generalizability as well as to limit researcher bias as much as possible [12].

Despite the detail within the informed consent, some participants may not have been willing to share how included or not included social service users are in their programs for fear of seeming to fall short of community outreach goals or deviating from program standards and bylaws. Although all efforts were made to bridge any potential gaps in communication and understanding, participants may still think that service users are included in their respective programs when they are not. Other participants may instead think that service users are not included in their programs when they are, based on what their own idea of what service user inclusion looks like. All of this means that substantial considerations must be made for a myriad of potential scenarios while reviewing survey results, while acknowledging that it would be impossible to prepare for every individual variation beforehand.

Go to

Results

The dependent variable

Scale reliability is generally a prerequisite to scale validity, thus the industry standard 0.70 minimum benchmark [10,11] in calculating Cronbach’s Alpha was employed to determine internal consistency/reliability among questions related to (DV) service user inclusion in social work education, an 11 item inventory aggregated into a single composite score. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient associated with the inventory was 0.891 (N = 370), justifying use of the composite score for DV.

The theoretical range for the DV was 0-55 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward service user inclusion in social work education. The mean composite score of the DV for participants in this study (N = 370) was 31.584 (SD = 7.264) with the median score being 31, and the mode being 29 (N = 31 or 8.378% of participants). The lowest recorded score among the participants was 12 and the highest was 55, setting the range at 43. A visual depiction of the range of participants’ scores mirrored a normal curve as indicated in (Figure 1) with elements of DV further detailed in (Table 1).

Composite bivariate analyses

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency/reliability among questions related to (IV1) service user empowerment and consumerism, a 10-item inventory aggregated into a single composite score with a theoretical range from 0-50 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward service user empowerment and consumerism. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient associated with the inventory was 0.565 (N = 385), below the industry standard 0.70 minimum benchmark. The mean composite score for IV1 was 41.977 (SD = 3.647), with the median score of 42 and the mode being 45 (N = 53 or 13.766% of participants). The lowest recorded score was 22 and the highest recorded score was 50, setting the range at 28. A visual depiction of the range of participants’ scores mirrored a normal curve as indicated in (Figure 2) with elements of IV1 further detailed in (Table 2).

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for inventory items associated with both IV1 (10 items) and DV (11 items) together to determine internal consistency/reliability among all 21 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient associated with the combined inventories was 0.813 (N = 370), thus confirming internal consistency/reliability among IV1 and DV. There was a weak, statistically significant, positive relationship, between IV1 and DV (r (370) = 0.152, p=0.003). Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to determine the internal consistency/reliability among questions related to (IV2) service user inclusion in social work organizations, an 8-item inventory aggregated into a single composite score. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient associated with the inventory was 0.832 (N = 378), exceeding the industry standard 0.70 minimum benchmark.

The mean composite score for IV2 was 27.762 (SD = 4.912), with the median score of 28 and the mode being 28 (N = 38 or 10.052% of participants). The lowest recorded score was 13 and the highest recorded score was 40, setting the range at 27. A visual depiction of the range of participants’ scores mirrored a normal curve as indicated in (Figure 3) with elements of IV2 further detailed in (Table 3).

Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for inventory items associated with both IV2 (8 items) and DV (11 items) together to determine internal consistency/reliability among all 19 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient associated with the combined inventories was 0.922 (N = 370), thus confirming internal consistency/reliability among IV2 and DV. There was a strong, statistically significant, positive relationship between IV2 and DV (r (370) = 0.765, p=0.000).

Factor analysis

Factor analysis was employed to both validate this instrument measuring attitudes toward service user inclusion in social work education and to explore factors predicting directionality of attitudes (positive versus negative attitudes toward service user inclusion in social work education). IV1 was not found to be internally consistent/reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.565, below the industry standard 0.70), only so in conjunction with DV (Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.813, meeting the

The internally consistent/reliable and statistically significant variables and correlations validating the relationship between IV2 and DV were analyzed through dimension reduction, specifically factor analysis – principle components. The Varimax rotation method was selected for extraction. With IV2 and DV not aggregated into composite scores representing each variable individually, three components were extracted through factor analysis – principle components, with a Scree Plot Eigenvalue of 1 or higher, as visually depicted in (Figure 4). The three components and the overall sums of squared loadings explain 62.909% of the total variance between IV2 and DV, as visually depicted in (Table 4).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy for factor analysis was 0.910, with the industry standard being 0.5 or higher [10,11]. Analyzing the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity shows a significance of 0.000, indicating statistical significance, suggesting that factor analysis was useful. Based on the Principle Component Analysis extraction method using the Varimax with Kaiser Normalization rotation method, the Rotated Component Matrix, (Table 5), gleans three extracted factors that were then examined for loading weights upon all elements of IV2 and DV. This analysis finds that Component 1 (C1) appears to pertain to student development, Component 2 (C2) appears to pertain to professional development and Component 3 (C3) appears to pertain to service user compensation, with standardized regression weights visually depicted by (Figure 5).

The component plot in rotated space (Figure 6) gives a visual depiction of where each element of IV2 and DV fall within a threedimensions (C1, C2 and C3) space. These three components were then saved as variables for the purpose of analysis through linear regression for to establish model fit.

Linear regression shows that all three components are statistically significant in determining DV, each with a significance of 0.000. C1, student development, is most important for determining DV as it has an unstandardized beta of 5.690 and a standardized beta of 0.783. C2, professional development (unstandardized beta of 3.016 and standardized beta of 0.415) and C3, service user compensation (unstandardized beta of 3.040 and standardized beta of 0.419) are of some importance in determining DV (Table 6). The model summary shows values of 0.961 for R square as well as adjusted R square (Table 7) while the normal P-P plot of regression standardized residual gives a visual depiction of the, establishing model fit (Figure 7).

Go to

Discussion

Composite bivariate analyses showing results that are statistically significant were both attitudes on service user empowerment and consumerism (IV1) and attitudes on service user inclusion in social work organizations (IV2), found to show statistically significant correlation with attitudes on service user inclusion in social work education (DV). IV1 shows a weak, positive, but significant correlation of 0.152 with a two-tailed significance of 0.030. Thus, those who favor service user empowerment and consumerism are likely to favor some service user inclusion in social work education. IV2 shows a strong, positive, significant correlation of 0.765 with a two-tailed significance of 0.000. Thus, those who favor service user empowerment and consumerism are likely to favor more service user inclusion in social work education.

Since IV2 was found to be both independently internally consistent/reliable and show statistically significant correlation with DV, the relationship amongst the two was analyzed through factor analysis. The data associated with Scree Plot Eigenvalues, the Keyser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity essentially show that when IV2 and DV were not aggregated into composite scores representing each variable individually, three components were extracted through factor analysis explaining 62.909% of the total variance.

Essentially, when studying IV2 and DV, we are studying 62.909% of the same concepts, components or factors. In Layman’s terms, when studying sampled social work faculty and their attitudes on service user inclusion in social work organizations (IV2) with their attitudes on service user inclusion in social work education (DV), we are studying similar concepts, components or factors. Delving further into the identities of these three components by cross-referencing them with individual elements of IV2 and DV shows that student development (C1), professional development (C2) and service user compensation (C3) were most important in determining attitudes on service user inclusion in social work education (DV). Linear regression created a model that shows C1, student development, is the most important of these factors. Based on these figures and narratives, these findings were both reliable and valid.

Implications and contributions to social work

The focus of this study pertains to collegiate social work curricula across the United States lacking service user inclusion at the academic level, despite the trademark of the profession being service user oriented. There may be some universities around the United States that promote an abbreviated simulation of UK mandates, but nothing on a national or regional scale is known to exist at this time. This research study is important and timely for several reasons: the extent of service user inclusion in US social work education remains relatively unknown and the findings from this study could further the knowledge in this area by identifying the attitudes of social work faculty.

Implications gleaned from this study pertaining to social work practice suggests that practitioners should be aware of how they have been taught to view service users and the underlying policies that may make service users believe they are more involved in their own service plan than they really are. Implications gleaned from this study pertaining to social work education suggests that students and faculty should be more self-aware of how they view service user inclusion. The CSWE (Council on Social Work Education) may find it fruitful to reinforce the core social work values in encouraging (and when appropriate, requiring) service user inclusion in social work education, just as the accrediting body does in the UK.

Social work is defined as “a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. […] social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing” [13]. As the definition highlights, social work aims to engage people to enhance wellbeing and values collective responsibility in achieving this aim. The empowerment of individuals, groups and communities in need requires their active inclusion in the social work process of assessment, intervention and evaluation of services, yet service users’ views and perspectives are often ignored during this process [8,14]. This study’s findings indicate that much work remains in achieving buy-in from social work faculty across the US to embrace service user inclusion in social work education. Opening the door and allowing service users a seat at the table with decorated scholars is still not as accepted a practice or pursuit as the tenets of the social work profession suggest it should be.

considerations

There is a great deal of information to be gleaned from those with experiential knowledge on subject matter, beyond the limits of academic knowledge. The inclusion of service users in social work academia could help bridge the gap between academic knowledge and experiential knowledge. More importantly, meaningful inclusion of service users, defined as citizen power as opposed to tokenism or non-participation [15] is key in maintaining an environment where there is buy-in from all parties to advance social work theory and eventual practice.

However, cautiousness must be employed in aiming for meaningful inclusion of service users, as there is a risk of retraumatization through continual recollection. Service users should not be taken advantage of and coercion must be kept in check to ensure that service user inclusion always remains voluntary. Not all service users may have an interest in advancing social work academia and that should be acknowledged by all.

Limitations

A major limitation to this study is the exclusion of service users in a study designed to highlight the importance of service user inclusion. The primary reason behind this decision was to first establish the attitudes of social work faculty across the United States. This is not designed to be an exhaustive and complete study on the topic, further research must be done including service users, students and other constituents.

The research tool employed in this study was a quantitative questionnaire, and as with any quantitative questionnaire, the aim here was breadth at the expense of depth. Nuance was non-existent with the use of this structured questionnaire. Furthermore, the questionnaire was author-constructed with the pre-existing knowledge of a potential for high social desirability of participant responses (participants may have answered in such a way as to appear as though they value service user inclusion more than they do). Since “neutral” was a choice in the majority of questions, it’s likely that greater variation (and statistical significance) could have been established if “neutral” was not an available choice within the questionnaire. As with any newly constructed questionnaire, hindsight highlights a plethora of variables that could have been included but were not. For this study, a couple of these variables were years since social work practice and personal experience as service user, among many other potentials. Purposive sampling, employed in this study, is a non-probability sampling method, yielding results that are not as generalizable as probability sampling methods [10,11].

Areas of future research

This researcher’s goal has been to learn about the attitudes of faculty within social work programs toward service user inclusion in social work education, thereafter, mapping out the mechanisms by which such inclusion could potentially be achieved. The information gathered could eventually lead to the development of a “best practice” model, which could be implemented and evaluated on an ongoing basis. Future funding could enable programs to implement this “best practice” model and evaluate the outcomes for service users and students, thus fulfilling the need for evidence on the effectiveness of service user inclusion in social work education [4]. This study, by no means exhaustive and complete, aims to move one step closer to this “best practice” model by being a point of reference for future studies of similar nature.

With a priori hypotheses now established through this study in the way of three components (student development (C1), professional development (C2) and service user compensation (C3)), the next step from this study could be to run a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using a new sample set to test for and confirm these findings. Further next steps could include approaching this topic from a qualitative perspective. Including variables assessing faculty’s personal experience as a service user and/or carer as well as years since last direct practice with service users/careers would further advance this topic.

This study only includes social work faculty across the United States. Next steps from this study, whether qualitative or quantitative, could further expand the sample to include students, service users and/or careers. It would be helpful to find what these groups would see as helpful in-service user inclusion moving forward, in addition to what they view as barriers and facilitators to inclusion. Service users of social work services have formed advocacy groups to fight for inclusion in the shaping of social services and have used the slogan “nothing about us without us” in their mission. Service users argue for inclusion in all aspects of social work services from the education of future social workers to the evaluation of services and consultation on policies [8,14,16,17]. This exploratory study only examines how social work educators perceive service user inclusion in the academic process. Further research is needed through exploratory, descriptive and explanatory study designs bridge the gap between this study’s findings and the expressed spirit of the social work profession.

The extent of service user inclusion in US social work education remains relatively unknown. The findings from this study could further the knowledge in this arena by having identified the attitudes of service user inclusion from the perspective of sampled social work faculty across the United States. The data gathered, analyzed and (soon-to-be) disseminated (through social work conferences and peer-reviewed journals) could potentially lead to the development of a “best practice” model of service user inclusion in social work education. This model could then be implemented and evaluated on an ongoing basis with both undergraduate and graduate social work programs, thus fulfilling the need for evidence of the effectiveness of service user inclusion in social work education [4].

https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/ASM.MS.ID.555632.php

For More Articles in Annals of Social Sciences & Management studies Please Click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/index.php For More Open Access Journals In Juniper Publishers Please click  on: https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php

For more queries Juniper publishers please click on: https://www.quora.com/Is-Juniper-Publisher-a-good-journal-to-publish-my-paper

[socialworkerbee]

The purpose of the social work profession is to promote human and community well-being. Guided by a person-in-environment framework, a global perspective, respect for human diversity, and knowledge base on scientific inquiry, the purpose of social work is actualized through its quest for social and economic justice, the prevention of conditions that limit human rights, the elimination of poverty, and the enhancement of the quality of like for all persons.

Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE); 2015 (p.5)

[adnisais]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Adan Isais (@adnisais)

Como se vive el desayuno en el SolidWorks World. Más de 5000 personas desayunando al mismo tiempo. #sww18 #sww2018 #solidworksworld2018 #cswe #swugnmx

[socialworkmatters-blog1]

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar0gJ88g-3I)

The Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) has created simply video explaining why diversity is so important. Diversity simply means a mix of things, like an assortment. Within the field of social work, the clients are simply a big mix of people who represent many cultures, races, religions, ethnicities, etc. from around the world. Although we may not know every specific detail about each religion or culture, we can do our best to be inclusive and be as knowledgeable as possible. A social worker should be constantly learning in order to keep up with the world around them. 

[usis-education]

Hội thảo: Đến Đông Bắc Mỹ du học Adelphi University

Adelphi University chính là mảnh đất hứa cho rất nhiều bạn trẻ nuôi trong mình giấc mơ du học Mỹ bởi không chỉ được Tạp chí giáo dục Princeton Review bình chọn là "Trường đại học tốt nhất vùng Đông Bắc Mỹ", trường còn tọa lạc tại thủ đô văn hóa New York với những địa danh tên tuổi như Times Squares, Tượng Nữ thần Tự do, Phố Wall, Nhà hát Broadway, Central Park,… Và với chương trình học bổng thường niên dành cho du học sinh lên đến $54.000 USD thì việc chinh phục giấc mơ ấy không còn quá xa vời.

Khám phá Adelphi University

Thông tin học bổng

Học bổng $13.500 USD/ năm

Tổng giá trị học bổng cho mỗi sinh viên lên tới $54.000 USD.

Bên cạnh đó, Adelphi University còn được bình chọn là 1 trong 24 trường trên toàn nước Mỹ được công nhận “Best buy school” bởi Fiske Guide và kiểm định bởi các tổ chức hàng đầu như AACSB; MSACS; CCNE; ASHA; CSWE; NCATE. Và sự kiện vào ngày 28/06/2019 của USIS Education với sự góp mặt của Ms. Kailyn Rekos - Product Specialist (chuyên gia trong lĩnh vực học thuật và chương trình học bổng bậc cử nhân, thạc sĩ tại các trường: Utah, KU, UCF, Auburn, UIC,...) cùng các cố vấn học thuật của USIS sẽ mang đến cho bạn cơ hội du học Mỹ tại ngôi trường đáng mơ ước này.

Đăng ký tham dự hội thảo

Hội thảo Đến Đông Bắc Mỹ du học Adelphi University sẽ giúp các bạn nắm rõ các hồ sơ, thủ tục, điều kiện cần thiết để nhập học cũng như "săn" học bổng Adelphi University một cách dể dàng. Các chuyên gia hàng đầu trong lĩnh vực tư vấn du học Mỹ sẽ giải đáp cặn kẽ, giải tỏa mọi mối quan tâm lo lắng của quí vị bạn đọc.

Vui lòng liên hệ thông tin bên dưới để đăng ký tham gia hội thảo:

Điện thoại: (+84) 8 3822 0366 - (+84) ‭090 1355 565‬Địa chỉ: Lầu 7, P. 701, Toà nhà CJ, 06 Lê Thánh Tôn, Q.1Email:  info@usisedu.vn Chi tiết: 

https://usis-education.com/hoi-thao/den-dong-bac-my-du-hoc-adelphi-university

[todd-becker]

10/12/2019

i know i haven’t written in a while and i promise it’s because i’ve barely had time to catch my breath this semester.  easily the busiest i’ve ever been.  i seriously got back from presenting at inccip in england and have not stopped.  the thing is that classes are not too bad!  seriously!  my gra is keeping me BUSY busy.  which is good and a lot to stay on top of, all at the same time.  i absolutely love it, though.  i am with john cagle.  he’s really cool and our content areas are really similar.  and he’s SUPER PRODUCTIVE.  i seriously have no idea how he does it.  i think we’re already on about 10 projects, which is certainly gonna bode well for me and my cv till i go on the *job market*, though i essentially work from sunrise to sunset.  mostly when he talks, i just nod and try to keep up.  i think he likes me, though, which is super cool and makes working together really enjoyable.  he actually invited me to write a book chapter for The Oxford Textbook on Palliative Social Work (2nd ed.) that he’s coediting with terry altilio and shirley otis-green.  the chapter will be on cultural issues in palliative social work, and apparently this is the book that serves as the reference for the new licensing requirements for palliative social workers, so it should attract a wide readership!

in other news, things are going amazingly well.  so much so that i keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.  i got accepted to present at cswe in denver.  then, i got accepted to present at sswr in dc.  then, i got the AGESW fellowship i applied for, which means i will go to gsa in austin on their dime.  THEN, i got accepted to present my data analysis II study while (ironically, the one i did for john’s class) while already at gsa for AGESW, as part of the gsa late breaker poster session.  so, on top of solo presenting my research (¡!¡!¡!), i’ll be double dipping and presenting for $free.99!  what?! but what this post is really about is this!  it finally happened!!!  i can’t believe it!  let the record show that, after 36 weeks and literally COUNTLESS drafts read by cassey, morgan, nicole, john, and charlotte, i have finally submitted my first manuscript, Healthcare Encounters as Predictors of Death Anxiety in Older Adults, for publication!  i’m so excited for a variety of reasons:  1. it’s my first journal submission (duh);  2. the journal publishes 10 articles a year;  3. the journal is indexed everywhere;  4. the journal has an impact factor of 1.2 as of 2018;  5. i finally get to not think about this paper for a little while; and  6. the study used my favorite analysis: (logistic) regression!

[oaimniynaug]

CSWE was emotional nourishment

November 16, 2022

Early last week was rough, because for a moment on Monday I was staring down the barrel of two post-interview rejections (i.e., no job talks), with the first (M S U) being a 12-hour rejection and the second (U of K) for which I had high hopes. Both interviews felt great, which only compounded the disappointment.

I had to teach after the very disappointing email, and sitting in the office I didn’t feel like going to CSWE, because I didn’t know if I could manage the feelings of shame and humiliation - all unnecessary and unjustified, I know - when meeting with friends and colleagues who were getting multiple interviews alongside new announcements of job talks.

(I would say that my fortunes have turned considerably since last Monday, with new job postings which align better with my research. I also have four more interviews scheduled - U of D, F I U, O S U, and P S - so the rejections have stung a lot less. I also know interviews are but the first step and that many more rejections are in the horizon, but I’m learning to better manage the process. Not quite there yet, of course.)

Be that as it may, going to CSWE was absolutely the right decision. I want to systematically document the emotional nourishment through the many experiences and interactions.

Melanie and her mom housed and fed me for four days and four nights. Melanie drove us back and forth the conference, picked me up at the airport, and later dropped me off.

Javier and Melanie spent so much time on the first conference day easing my anxieties and boosting my confidence. They were so sensitive and empathetic and never made me feel inadequate.

I finally met face-to-face with work/journal team members I had only met online. Not only did we have a good dinner, we had an even better informal chat after.

Melanie introduced me to two new friends, Lea and Carla, one of whom (Carla) I chatted with for a long time about personal and professional reflections. She was easily the highlight of the conference, because I never expected to share so much about my partner and the upcoming trip to Singapore.

There were so many Luskin folks! So many! Which made me realise that because I never had a proper graduation I’ve not seen so many of them for such a long time. Michele and I talked at length, including over an enjoyable group lunch, and I saw so, so many coworkers.

Even my former department chair, whom I thought would’ve forgotten about me and couldn’t care less, reached out briefly and encouraged me on the job market.

Jenn, as always, lent her listening ear during dinner and gave me the usual confidence boost. That was lovely.

My solo presentation on Saturday was attended by 30-40 people! Normally sessions drew near-empty crowds, but folks were engaged, asked great questions, and I had fantastic engagement on Twitter thereafter.

During lunch, after the presentation, my old and new friends were so effusive and made me acknowledge that I was not keen to give myself credit, even though I may have done a good job. I was almost in tears (though I may have been tired, haha), but it made me feel like I belonged.

And on Sunday, knowing that I had a busy busy week ahead, I was able to do some mundane work and decompress. I left for Denver feeling recharged and re-energised.

Honestly, what more could one ask for?