SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM SELF-STUDY
VOLUME 1
Juniata College
Huntingdon, Pennsylvania
March, 2012
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 1: PROGRAM MISSION AND GOALS........................................ 5
AS 1.0.1: Mission Statement .................................................................................................................................. 5
AS 1.0.2: Social Work Program Goals ..................................................................................................................... 6
ACCREDITATION STANDARD B2.0--CURRICULUM .................................................................... 7
AS B2.0.1: How Mission and Goals Are Consistent with Core Competencies of Generalist Practice ...................... 7
AS B2.0.2: Social Work Program Core Competencies ........................................................................................... 11
AS B2.0.3: Operational Definition of the Core Competencies of the Social Work Program ................................... 11
AS B2.0.4 Rationale for the formal curriculum of the Social Work Program ......................................................... 13
AS B2.0.5 How Curriculum Content (Knowledge, Values and Skills) Implements the Operational Definition of the
Ten Core Competencies ....................................................................................................................................... 16
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 2.1: FIELD EDUCATION ............................................................ 19
AS 2.1.1: The program discusses how its field education program connects the theoretical and conceptual
foundations of the classroom with the practice setting, fostering the implementation of evidence-informed
practice. ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
AS B2.1.2: The program discusses how its field education program provides generalist practice opportunities for
students to demonstrate the core competencies................................................................................................. 20
AS 2.1.3: The program discusses how its field education program provides a minimum of 400 hours of field
education for baccalaureate programs. ............................................................................................................... 22
AS 2.1.4: The program discusses how its field education program admits only those students who have met the
program’s specified criteria for field education. .................................................................................................. 23
AS 2.1.5: The program discusses how its field education program specifies policies, criteria, and procedures for
selecting field settings; placing and monitoring students, maintaining field liaison contacts with field settings;
and evaluating student learning and field setting effectiveness congruent with the program’s competencies. ... 23
AS 2.1.6: The program discusses how its field education policy specifies the credentials and practice experience
of its field instructors necessary to design field learning opportunities for students to demonstrate program
competencies. ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
AS 2.1.7: The program discusses how its field education program provides orientation, field instruction training,
and continuing dialog with the field education settings and field instructors. ..................................................... 32
AS 2.1.8: The program discusses how its field education program develops policies regarding field placements in
an organization in which a student is also employed to ensure the role of the student as learner, student
assignments and field education supervision are not the same as those of the student’s employment. ............. 33
2
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 3.0: IMPLICIT CURRICULUM .................................................. 34
AS 3.1 Diversity .................................................................................................................................................... 34
AS 3.1.1: Specific and continuous efforts to provide a learning environment that respects all persons. .............. 34
AS 3.1.2: How the Program models affirmation and respect for diversity and difference .................................... 40
AS 3.1.3: Plans to improve the learning environment to affirm and support persons with diverse identities ...... 43
AS 3.2: Student Development .............................................................................................................................. 44
AS B3.2.1: Criteria for admission to the Social Work Program and AS 3.2.2: Process for evaluating applications
and notifying applicants of the decision. ............................................................................................................. 44
AS 3.2.4 Policies and procedures concerning the transfer of credits .................................................................... 46
AS 3.2.5: Documentation that Academic Credit for Life or Previous Work Experience is Not Given ..................... 47
AS 3.2.6: Program academic and professional advising policies and procedures .................................................. 48
AS 3.2.7: How the Program informs students of criteria for evaluating academic and professional performance,
including policies and procedures for grievance .................................................................................................. 49
AS 3.2.8: Discussion of Policies and Procedures for Termination ......................................................................... 50
AS 3.2.9: Policies and Procedures specifying student rights and responsibilities to participate in formulating and
modifying policies affecting academic and student affairs ................................................................................... 51
AS 3.2.10: How the Program provides opportunities and encourages students to organize in their interests. ..... 53
Accreditation Standard 3.3: Faculty ..................................................................................................................... 54
AS 3.3.2: Discussion of how faculty size is commensurate with the number of curricular offerings in class and
field; class size; number of students; and faculty teaching, scholarly and service responsibilities ....................... 56
AS 3.3.3: The Program identifies two full-time MSW faculty with a degree from a CSWE-accredited program. ... 57
AS 3.3.4: Faculty workload policy and how it supports the achievement of institutional priorities and the
Program’s mission and goals. ............................................................................................................................... 72
AS 3.3.5: Faculty demonstrate ongoing professional development as teachers, scholars and practitioners through
dissemination of research and scholarship, exchanges with external constituencies such as practitioners and
agencies, and through other professionally relevant creative activities that support the achievement of
institutional priorities and the program’s mission and goals ............................................................................... 73
AS 3.3.6: The Program describes how its faculty models the behavior and values of the profession in the
Program’s educational environment.................................................................................................................... 79
Accreditation Standard 3.4—Administrative Structure ........................................................................................ 84
AS 3.4.1: Discussion of Program administrative structure and how it provides the necessary autonomy to achieve
the Program’s mission and goals ......................................................................................................................... 84
3
AS 3.4.2: The Program describes how the social work faculty has responsibility for defining program curriculum
consistent with the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards and the institutions policies. ...................... 86
AS 3.4.3: The Program describes how the administration and faculty of the social work program participate in
formulating and implementing policies related to the recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure of
program personnel. ............................................................................................................................................. 87
AS 3.4.4: The Program identifies the Program Director ........................................................................................ 88
AS B3.4.4(a) The Program describes the Program Director’s leadership ability. ................................................... 89
AS B3.4.4(b): The Program documents that the director has a full-time appointment to the social work program.
............................................................................................................................................................................ 91
AS B3.4.4(c): The Program describes the procedures for determining the program director’s assigned time to
provide educational and administrative leadership to the program, and demonstrates that this time is sufficient.
............................................................................................................................................................................ 91
AS 3.4.5: The Program identifies the field education director. ............................................................................. 92
AS 3.4.5(a): The Program describes the field director’s ability to provide leadership in the field education
program though practice experience, field instruction experience, and administrative and other relevant
academic and professional activities in social work. ............................................................................................ 92
AS 3.4.5(b): The Program documents that the field director has a master’s degree in social work from a CSWEaccredited program and at least 2 years of post-baccalaureate or postmaster’s social work degree practice
experience. .......................................................................................................................................................... 93
AS B3.4.5(c): The Program describes the procedures for determining the field director’s assigned time to provide
educational and administrative leadership for field education and demonstrates that this time is sufficient...... 93
AS 3.4.5(d): The Program provides documentation that the field director has a fulltime appointment to the social
work program. ..................................................................................................................................................... 94
Educational Policy 3.5: Resources ........................................................................................................................ 94
AS 3.5.1: The Program describes the procedures for budget development and administration it uses to achieve
its mission and goals. The program submits the budget form to demonstrate sufficient and stable financial
supports that permit program planning and faculty development. ..................................................................... 94
AS 3.5.2: The Program describes how it uses resources to continuously improve the Program and address
challenges in the Program’s context. ................................................................................................................... 98
AS 3.5.3: The Program demonstrates sufficient support staff, other personnel, and technological resources. .. 100
AS 3.5.4: The program submits the library form to demonstrate comprehensive library holdings and/or
electronic access and other informational and educational resources necessary for achieving its mission and
goals. ................................................................................................................................................................. 102
AS 3.5.5: The Program describes and demonstrates sufficient office and classroom space and/or computermediated access to achieve its mission and goals. ............................................................................................. 104
4
AS 3.5.6: The Program describes its access to assistive technology, including materials in alternative formats (e.g.
Braille, large print books, books on tape, assistive learning systems). ............................................................... 105
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 4: ASSESSMENT ....................................................................... 106
AS 4.0.1: The program presents its plan to assess the attainment of its competencies, specifying procedures,
multiple measures, and benchmarks to assess the attainment of each of the Program’s competencies. ........... 106
AS 4.0.2: The Program provides evidence of ongoing data collection and analysis and discusses how it uses
assessment data to affirm and/or make changes in the explicit and implicit curriculum to enhance student
performance. ..................................................................................................................................................... 116
AS 4.0.3: The Program identifies any changes in the explicit and implicit curriculum based on the analysis of
assessment data. ............................................................................................................................................... 118
AS 4.04: The Program describes how it makes its constituencies aware of its assessment outcomes. ............... 121
AS 4.0.5: The Program appends the summary data for each measure used to assess the attainment of each
competency for at least one academic year prior to the submission of the self-study. ...................................... 122
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................... 123
APPENDIX 1 – Search Committee Guidelines for Diversity Employment ............................................................ 123
APPENDIX 2 – Social Work Focuses .................................................................................................................... 130
APPENDIX 3 – The Future of the Accredited Social Work Program ..................................................................... 132
APPENDIX 4 – APAC Memo Regarding Future of the Social Work Program ........................................................ 140
APPENDIX 5 – Revised Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (PSEI) ...................................................... 143
APPENDIX 6 – Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (2004 Version) ..................................................... 191
APPENDIX 7 – Self Rating Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) ................................. 230
APPENDIX 8 - Summary Frequency Distributions for PSEI Ratings ...................................................................... 234
APPENDIX 9 - Summary Frequency Distributions for SRS Ratings ....................................................................... 237
APPENDIX 10 – Revised Self Rating Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) .................. 240
5
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 1: PROGRAM MISSION AND GOALS
AS 1.0.1: MISSION STATEMENT
The Mission of the Social Work Program
The Social Work Program at Juniata College is dedicated to providing an educational program of
high caliber to facilitate the emerging social worker’s integration of professional knowledge,
values, and skills into a culturally competent, strengths based generalist practice grounded in
scientific inquiry in a manner consistent with the directions established by the Council on Social
Work Education and the National Association of Social Workers. The program aims to further
the purposes of the profession by ensuring that its graduates develop the competence to provide
effective social work services across a spectrum of ecological systems, including individuals,
families, groups, organizations, and communities, as well as across a broad range of human
wellness concerns in order to enhance the quality of life for all persons. Social work graduates
focus on applying this generalist orientation in a manner that: is grounded in evidence-informed
practice principles; respects the dignity, integrity and worth of all human beings; emphasizes the
importance of human relationships; and is sensitive to and appreciative of the diverse ways of
being human. The program prepares graduates who are committed to social work values,
including the protection of human rights, service to the community, and the pursuit of social
justice.
The Relationship Between the Mission of the Social Work Program and the Mission of
Juniata College
Founded in 1876 by members of the Church of the Brethren to prepare individuals “for the useful
occupations of life,” Juniata is now an independent, co-educational college of arts and sciences.
The mission of Juniata College, which can be found in Juniata College’s online catalog
(http://www.juniata.ede/services/catalog), is as follows:
Juniata’s mission is to provide an engaging personalized educational
experience empowering our students to develop the skills, knowledge and
values that lead to a fulfilling life of service and ethical leadership to the
global community.
The mission of the Social Work Program builds upon and complements the mission of Juniata
College. The Social Work Program recognizes that educated persons must be adept at
understanding the limitations of existing knowledge and ways of thinking, in order to develop
attitudes and skills that support a spirited, rationally guided, scientific inquiry into the nature and
ways of their society and their increasingly interdependent and technologically linked world.
This view necessitates that educated persons develop and nurture an appreciation of human
culture as an adaptive mechanism in its myriad forms, as these forms are reflected in a diverse
society and international community.
In its mission, the Social Work Program embraces an outlook which calls particular attention to
the need to foster and maintain ecological conditions in all social systems which maximize each
6
human being’s potential for wellness, growth and optimum development. This ecological
perspective recognizes that fundamental social and economic justice, which powerfully shapes
the extent to which human potentialities are realized, is sometimes compromised by institutional
forces of poverty and oppression, and that such forces are antithetical to the ecology of wellness,
growth and optimum potential. Therefore, the Program’s mission and goals underscore the need
for educated persons to highly value mutual support, open and tolerant exchanges of diverse
ways of thinking and being, and individual and cooperative initiatives leading to progressive
human accomplishments which further the aims of the social work profession.
Together, the College and the Social Work Program seek to ensure that baccalaureate social
workers will enter their careers with those special qualities and competencies that will enable
them to live satisfying and productive lives as informed, caring and socially responsible persons
and professionals in a participatory democracy and global community.
AS 1.0.2: SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM GOALS
The goals of Social Work Program are to:
1.
Organize and deliver a coherently structured curriculum based on a liberal arts foundation
in a manner that enables the student to integrate the profession’s values and ethics,
including its commitment to evidence-based practice principles.
2.
Provide students with substantive educational content and learning experiences that
enable them to develop competencies that support:
a.
A strength based, generalist approach to practice with client and consumer
systems of various sizes and types;
b.
A functional appreciation of the dynamic social and institutional contexts in
which social work is practiced, including the structure and behavior of human
formal and informal organizations and the processes and dynamics of social
change which make these contexts more socially and economically just and
responsive to the realization of each person’s optimum potential.
3.
Prepare baccalaureate social workers that respect and act affirmatively upon their
responsibilities for ongoing professional development and renewal that give credence to
the increasingly global nature of human institutions.
4.
Prepare baccalaureate social workers capable of effectively discharging culturally
competent professional duties and responsibilities with diverse client and consumer
populations, focusing as needed on rehabilitation and/or prevention.
Discussion of How Program Goals are Derived from the Program’s Mission and Support
the Purposes of Social Work Education
Our primary mission is to provide an educational program of high caliber to facilitate the
emerging social worker’s integration of professional knowledge, values and skills into a
culturally competent, strengths based generalist practice in a manner consistent with the
directions established by the Council on Social Work Education and the National Association of
Social Workers. In addition, the Program aims to further the purposes of the profession by
ensuring that its graduates develop the competencies to provide social work services across a
spectrum of ecological systems, as well as across a broad range of human wellness concerns in
7
order to enhance the quality of life for all persons, by applying the generalist orientation in a
manner that is informed by and is sensitive to the diverse ways of being human. The four goals
of the Social Work Program are derived from and supported by the Mission of the Social Work
Program and are designed to reflect the purposes of social work education identified in the
Educational Policy, Section 1.1. The goals of the Social Work Program, which are implemented
through its explicit and implicit curriculum, promote the development of competent, effective
professional baccalaureate social workers who are prepared to provide leadership in service
delivery systems.
ACCREDITATION STANDARD B2.0--CURRICULUM
AS B2.0.1: HOW MISSION AND GOALS ARE CONSISTENT WITH CORE COMPETENCIES OF
GENERALIST PRACTICE
While the mission statement and goals serve as a broad conceptual umbrella to guide the
planning and implementation of the Program, the ten core competencies provide a more refined
framework for understanding what undergraduates must “do” to earn the status of BSW when
they successfully complete all requirements of the Program. Students who successfully complete
all requirements of the Social Work Program, including the capstone Social Work Professional
Semester, will demonstrate mastery of all ten core competencies. Each core competency links to
and carries out a goal(s) of the Social Work Program as follows:
Goal 1: Organize and deliver a coherently structured curriculum based on a liberal arts
foundation in a manner that enables the student to integrate the profession’s values and
ethics, including its commitment to evidence-based practice principles, throughout the
curriculum.
Goal 1 links to:
Competency 1: The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker
and to conduct her/himself accordingly.
Students demonstrate mastery of this competency throughout the foundation curriculum
of the Social Work Program, particularly in the Social Work Practice, Research and Field
Education components.
Competency 2: The student demonstrates application of social work ethical principles to guide
ethical decision making in professional practice.
Students demonstrate mastery of this competency throughout the foundation curriculum
of the Social Work Program, particularly in the Social Work Practice, Social Welfare
Policy and Services, Research and Field Education components along with learning
experiences related to values and ethics and diversity that are integrated throughout all
components of the curriculum.
Competency 3: The student demonstrates application of critical thinking skills to inform and
communicate professional judgments.
These skills are, in part, the product of the broad liberal arts education provided at Juniata
College. The social work faculty also recognizes that educated persons must be adept at
understanding the limitations of existing knowledge and ways of thinking, in order to
develop attitudes and skills that support a spirited, rationally guided inquiry into the
8
nature and ways of their society and their increasingly interdependent world. Throughout
the foundation curriculum social work students are provided with ongoing opportunity to
draw linkages between the concepts, theories, and frameworks of the classroom, and the
practice of social work via case studies, community projects, role-playing exercises,
increasingly challenging field experiences, and a host of other task assignments. Thus, it
is expected that students will demonstrate critical thinking skills as they learn to integrate
knowledge and practice.
Goal 2: Provide students with substantive educational content and learning processes that
enable them to develop competencies that support a) a strengths based, generalist approach
to practice with client and consumer systems of various sizes and types and b) a functional
appreciation of the dynamic social and institutional contexts in which social work is
practiced, including the structure and behavior of human formal and informal
organizations and the processes and dynamics of social change which make these contexts
more socially and economically just and responsive to the realization of each person’s
optimum potential.
Goal 2 links to:
Competency 4: The student demonstrates ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Human Behavior in the Social Environment component; the Social Work Practice
component; the Social Welfare Policy and Services component; and through Field
Education
Competency 5: The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and
economic justice.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in
the Social Welfare Policy and Services component including learning experiences related
to Populations at Risk and Economic Justice; through Field Education and learning
experience related to values and ethics and diversity that are integrated throughout all
components of the curriculum.
Competency 7: The student demonstrates ability to apply knowledge of human growth and
behavior and the social environment.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Social Work Practice component, the Human Behavior in the Social Environment
component; and through Field Education.
Competency 8: The student demonstrates ability to engage in policy practice to advance social
and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly
through the Social Welfare Policy and Services component which includes content on
Populations at Risk and Economic Justice; the Social Work Practice component; the
Human Behavior in the Social Environment component; Field Education and learning
experiences related to values and ethics and diversity that are integrated throughout all
components of the curriculum.
Competency 9: The student demonstrates ability to respond to contexts that shape social work
practice.
9
Mastery of this competency is facilitated through the foundation curriculum, particularly
through the Social Work Practice component; the Human Behavior in the Social
Environment component; the Social Welfare Policy and Services component and Field
Education.
Competency 10: The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with
individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Social Work Practice component; the Research component; and Field Education.
Goal 3: Prepare baccalaureate social workers that respect and act affirmatively upon their
responsibilities for ongoing professional development and renewal that reflect the
increasingly global nature of human institutions.
Goal 3 links to:
Competency 3: The student demonstrates application of critical thinking skills to inform and
communicate professional judgments.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by all components of the foundation curriculum.
Competency 6: The student demonstrates ability to engage in research-informed practice and
practice-informed research.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated through the foundation curriculum, particularly
through the Research component; the Social Work Practice component and Field
Education.
Accomplishing Goal 3 is also facilitated by the broad liberal arts education that is provided at
Juniata College, especially through Juniata’s commitment to empower students to ”develop the
skills, knowledge and values that lead to a fulfilling life of service and ethical leadership to the
global community.” (Juniata Online Catalog 2011-12. http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/)
Goal 4: Prepare baccalaureate social workers capable of effectively discharging culturally
competent professional duties and responsibilities with diverse client and consumer
populations, focusing as needed on rehabilitation and/or prevention
Goal 4 links to:
Competency 1: The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker
and to execute professional responsibilities within the boundaries of professional social work
practice.
Students demonstrate mastery of this competency throughout the foundation curriculum
of the Social Work Program, particularly the Social Work Practice, Research and Field
Education components.
Competency 4: The student demonstrates ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Social Work Practice component; the Social Welfare Policy and Services component
including learning experiences related to Populations at Risk and Social and Economic
Justice; the Human Behavior in the Social Environment component; through Field
Education and learning experiences related to values and ethics and diversity that are
integrated throughout all components of the curriculum.
10
Competency 5: The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and
economic justice.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Social Work Practice component; the Human Behavior in the Social Environment
component; the Social Welfare Policy and Services component including content on
Populations at Risk and Economic Justice; through Field Education and learning
experiences related to values and ethics and diversity that are integrated throughout all
components of the curriculum.
Competency 6: The student demonstrates ability to apply knowledge of human growth and
behavior and the social environment.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly in the
Human Behavior and the Social Environment component; the Social Work Practice
component; the Research component, Field Education and learning experiences related to
values and ethics and diversity that are integrated throughout all components of the
curriculum.
Competency 8: The student analyzes, formulates and advocates for policies that advance social
well-being.
Mastery of this competency is facilitated by the foundation curriculum, particularly
through the Social Welfare Policy and Services component which includes learning
experiences related to Populations at Risk and Economic Justice; the Social Work
Practice component; the Human Behavior in the Social Environment component; Field
Education and learning experiences related to values and ethics and diversity that is
integrated throughout all components of the curriculum.
11
AS B2.0.2: SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM CORE COMPETENCIES
Students that successfully complete the requirements of Juniata College’s Social Work Program
will demonstrate:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct oneself accordingly.
Application of social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in
professional practice.
Application of critical thinking skills to inform and communicate professional judgments.
Ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.
Ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.
Ability to engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
Ability to apply knowledge of human growth and behavior and the social environment.
Ability to engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and to
deliver effective social work services.
Ability to respond to contexts that shape social work practice.
Ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
AS B2.0.3: OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE CORE COMPETENCIES OF THE SOCIAL WORK
PROGRAM
Competency 1: The student demonstrates the capacity to identify as a professional social worker
and to conduct oneself accordingly. This includes ability to:
1.1
advocate for client access to the services of social work;
1.2
practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual professional
development;
1.3(a) attend to professional roles;
1.3(b) attend to professional boundaries;
1.4(a) demonstrate professional demeanor in behavior;
1.4(b) demonstrate professional demeanor in appearance;
1.4(c) demonstrate professional demeanor in communication;
1.5
engage in career-long learning; and
1.6
use supervision and consultation
Competency 2: The student applies social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision
making in professional practice. This includes ability to:
2.1
recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows professional values to guide
practice;
2.2
make ethical decisions by applying standards of the National Association of Social
Workers Code of Ethics and, as applicable, of the International Federation of Social
Workers/International Association of Schools of Social Work Ethics in Social Work Statement
of Principles;
2.3
tolerate ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts; and,
2.4
apply strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled decisions.
12
Competency 3: The student demonstrates the application of critical thinking to inform and
communicate professional judgments. This includes ability to:
3.1
distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including researchbased knowledge, and practice wisdom;
3.2
analyze models of assessment, prevention, intervention, and evaluation; and,
3.3
demonstrate effective oral and written communication in working with individuals,
families, groups, organizations, and communities.
Competency 4: The student demonstrates ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.
This includes ability to:
4.1
recognize the extent to which a culture’s structures and values may oppose, marginalize,
alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power;
4.2
gain sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal biases and values in
working with diverse groups;
4.3
recognize and communicate their understanding of the importance of difference in
shaping life experiences; and,
4.4
view themselves as learners and engage those with whom they work as informants.
Competency 5: The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and
economic justice. This includes ability to:
5.1
Identify and articulate the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination;
5.2
advocate for human rights and social and economic justice; and
5.3
engage in practices that advance social and economic justice.
Competency 6: The student engages in research-informed practice and practice-informed
research. This includes ability to:
6.1
use practice experiences to inform scientific inquiry; and
6.2
use research evidence to inform practice.
Competency 7: The student demonstrates ability to apply knowledge of human growth and
behavior and the social environment. This includes ability to:
7.1
utilize conceptual frameworks to guide the processes of assessment, intervention, and
evaluation; and,
7.2
critique and apply knowledge to understand person and environment.
Competency 8: The student demonstrates ability to engage in policy practice to advance social
and economic well-being and to deliver effective social work services. This includes ability to:
8.1
analyze, formulate, and advocate for policies that advance social well-being; and
8.2
collaborate with colleagues and clients for effective policy action.
Competency 9: Ability to respond to contexts that shape social work practice. This includes
ability to:
9.1
continuously discover, appraise, and attend to changing locales, populations, scientific
and technological developments, and emerging societal trends to provide relevant
services; and,
9.2
provide leadership in promoting sustainable changes in service delivery
13
Competency 10: The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with
individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities.
EP2.1.10(A) – ENGAGEMENT
The student demonstrates the ability to:
10(a).1
substantively & affectively prepare for action with individuals, families,
groups, organizations, and communities;
10(a).2
use empathy and other interpersonal skills; and
10(a).3
develop mutually agreed-upon focus of work & desired outcomes.
EP2.1.10(B) – ASSESSMENT
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(b).1
collect, organize, and interpret client data;
10(b).2
assess client strengths and limitations;
10(b).3
develop mutually agreed-upon intervention goals & objectives; and
10(b).4
select appropriate intervention strategies.
EP2.1.10(C) – INTERVENTION
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(c).1
initiate actions to achieve organizational goals;
10(c).2
implement prevention interventions that enhance client capacities;
10(c).3
help clients resolve problems;
10(c).4
negotiate, mediate, and advocate for clients; and
10(c).5
facilitate transitions and endings.
EP2.1.10(D) – EVALUATION
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(d).1
critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate interventions.
AS B2.0.4 RATIONALE FOR THE FORMAL CURRICULUM OF THE SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM
Steeped in the liberal arts tradition of Juniata College, the Social Work Program provides
students with the theoretical foundation (knowledge), philosophical perspectives (values),
practice skills, and problem solving capabilities (skills) required to meet the challenges they will
encounter in their professional life. Guided by the standards of the Council on Social Work
Education and the National Association of Social Workers, the curriculum is designed to enable
students to successfully master the ten social work core competencies. Students who
successfully complete the Social Work curriculum will demonstrate:

A capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.

The application of social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in
professional practice.

The application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.

Ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.

Ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.

Ability to engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.

Ability to apply knowledge of human growth and behavior and the social environment.

Ability to analyze, formulate and advocate for policies that advance social well-being.

Ability to respond to contexts that shape social work practice.
14

Ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
The general attributes of the social work curriculum are as follows:

It moves from the general to the specific as the student moves through the undergraduate
program.

It is constructed as an integrated whole. What is learned in previous courses informs
study and exploration in current courses. Students are expected to make connections
regularly between past and present learning throughout their social work education
experience.

It is professionally engaging and demonstrative. Students are provided with regular,
ongoing opportunity to draw linkages between the concepts, theories, and frameworks of
the classroom, which sometimes may seem abstract, and the practice of social work via
case studies, community projects, role-playing exercises, increasingly challenging field
experiences, and a host of other task assignments. Thus, it is expected that students will
“demonstrate” that they can integrate knowledge and practice.
The curriculum is designed so that students first master a beginning foundation of knowledge,
skills, and values of social work and its related disciplines, which include sociology, psychology,
and human biology. Students are encouraged to test, refine and elaborate on this foundation in
order to develop and hone an increasingly sophisticated approach to generalist social work
practice, through a process of professional growth and maturation. The integrity of this process is
well supported by program faculty who strive to ensure that the structure and implementation of
all essential elements of the program, including the curriculum and academic advising:





are consistent with the developmental and educational needs of students;
are organized such that the educational enterprise is well sequenced and non-repetitive;
are organized and presented so as to foster a unified, integrative view of social work
practice’s essential knowledge, values and skills;
maximize opportunities for students to test and refine new knowledge, outlooks, and
skills via experiential learning processes throughout the four year program;
are clearly communicated to and understood by students as they strive to meet the
Program’s requirements.
The Social Work curriculum is designed to meet the College requirements for the Program of
Emphasis. Juniata College does not have traditional “majors.” Each student must design and
successfully complete a Program of Emphasis that consists of 45-63 credit hours with a
minimum of 18 credit hours at the 300 or 400 levels. The POE is similar to the “major” found at
most other colleges, but the POE has some unique and noteworthy characteristics. The POE is
very much “student centered” in that it places the student at the center of academic decision
making. In consultation with two academic advisors, students draft POE goal statements and
develop rationales for their chosen program. There are fifty-nine “designated” Programs of
Emphasis at the college and “Social Work” is among them. Academic departments or programs
prepare the designated POE, which specifies the courses students must take to satisfy the POE
requirements. While the Program of Emphasis is a tangible document in which students
articulate their undergraduate goals and the means to accomplish them, the POE is also very
15
much a developmental process, one that begins in the first year and typically continues into the
senior year. The POE document and process guide students in identifying and carrying out their
academic and career goals.
The courses in the Social Work Program of Emphasis are included in the following table:
Social Work Program of Emphasis
Course Number
Title
Credits
Prerequisites
Dist.
BI 190
Human Biology
3
N
SO 101
Introduction to Sociology
3
S
SO 203
Minority Experiences
3
SO 101
S
SW 221
The Life Cycle
3
SO 101 or PY 101
S
PY 101
Introduction to Psychology
3
S
ND.SS 214
Statistics for Social Science
4
S
ND.SS 215
Social Science Research Methods
4
ND.SS 214
S
SW 231
Social Problems & Social Welfare
3
SO 101 or PY 101
S
SW 333
Social Welfare Policy & Services
3
SW 231 & ND.SS 215
S
SW 230
Introduction to Social Work Practice
4
SO 101
S
SW 330
Social Work Practice: Individual, Family
& Small Groups Laboratory
2
SW 230
SW 331
Social Work Practice: Individual, Family
& Small Groups
4
SW 230
SW 332
Social Work Practice: Large Groups,
Organizations & Communities
4
SW 230
SW 490
Social Work: Professional Semester
12
Permission
SW 495
Social Work: Professional Semester
Research Seminar
3
Permission
Skills
QS
S
S
S
S
S
Total credit hours = 58
The Social Work POE is constructed under the guidelines established by the Council on Social
Work Education. Students seeking the Bachelor of Social Work Credential (BSW) from Juniata
College must complete all of this POE. In addition, social work students must have a full time
MSW faculty member as their Program Advisor.
CW
16
AS B2.0.5 HOW CURRICULUM CONTENT (KNOWLEDGE, VALUES AND SKILLS) IMPLEMENTS THE
OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF THE TEN CORE COMPETENCIES
The social work curriculum is framed around course work in five major areas, which are
described below:
1.
Human Behavior in the Social Environment (HBSE)
The HBSE component is organized to enable students to apply knowledge of human
behavior and the social environment in order to guide the processes of assessment,
intervention and evaluation; and to understand the person in relation to her/his
environment. Students will demonstrate an understanding of:

The interactions between and among human biological, psychological, social,
spiritual and cultural systems as they affect and are affected by human behavior;

The impact of social and economic forces on people and social systems, including
the impact of discrimination, economic deprivation, and oppression, particularly
as these influence human development and often undermine human potentiality;

The ways in which systems promote or deter people in maintaining or achieving
optimum health and well- being;

The impact of human diversity in its myriad forms on the development of people
across the life span; and,

How values and ethical issues relate to HBSE content.
Courses included in the HBSE component of the curriculum include:
BI 190 Human Biology (3 credits)
PY 101 Introduction to Psychology (3 credits)
SO 101 Introduction to Sociology (3 credits)
SO 203 Minority Experiences (3 credits) (Prerequisite: SO 101)
SW 221 The Life Cycle (3 credits) (Prerequisite: SO 101 or PY 101)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (12 credits) (Prerequisite:
Permission) (Corequisite: SW 495)
SW 495 Social Work: Professional Semester Research Seminar (3 credits)
(Prequisite: Permission) (Corequisite: SW 490)
2.
Research
In the research component students demonstrate an understanding of a scientific,
analytical evidence based approach to building knowledge that informs practice; enables
the student to use practice experience to inform research, and to evaluate the delivery of
social work services in all areas of practice using ethical standards of inquiry.
Knowledge of both qualitative and quantitative research content enables the social
workers to provide high quality service; to initiate change; to improve practice, policy
and social service delivery; and to evaluate her/his own practice.
Courses included in the Research component of the curriculum include:
ND.SS 214 Statistics for the Social Sciences (4 credits)
17
ND.SS 215 Social Science Research Methods (4 credits) (Prerequisite: ND.SS
214)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (12 credits) (Prerequisite:
Permission) (Corequisite: SW 495)
SW 495 Social Work: Professional Semester Research Seminar (3 credits)
(Prerequisite: Permission) (Corequisite: SW 490)
3.
Social Welfare Policy and Services (SWP&S)
In the SWP&S component the student demonstrates:

ability to describe and analyze social problems

ability to analyze, formulate and advocate for policies that advance social wellbeing.

ability to collaborate with colleagues and clients for effective policy action

ability to respond to contexts that shape practice including ability to respond to
the impact of:
o the history and current patterns of provision of social welfare services;
o the political and organizational influences on social policy that affect social
work practice;
o the influence of changing locales, populations, scientific and technological
developments, and emerging societal trends in the provision of relevant
services.

ability to provide leadership in promoting sustainable changes in service delivery
and practice to improve the quality of social services.
Courses included in the Social Welfare Policy and Services component of the curriculum
include:
SO 101 Introduction to Sociology
SW 231 Social Problems and Social Welfare (3 credits) (Prerequisite: SO 101)
SW 333 Social Welfare Policy and Services (3 credits) (Prerequisite: SW 231)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (12 credits) (Prerequisite: Permission)
(Corequisite: SW 495)
SW 495 Social Work: Professional Semester Research Seminar (3 credits) (Prerequisite:
Permission) (Corequisite: SW 490)
4.
Social Work Practice (SWP)
In the SWP component the student demonstrates a beginning mastery of the knowledge,
skills, and values of generalist practice that combine to enhance the well-being of
individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities, as well as to help improve
environmental conditions that adversely affect people. Students demonstrate the
knowledge, values and skills that are fundamental to strengths-based, culturally
competent generalist social work practice including:
EP2.1.10(A) – ENGAGEMENT
The student demonstrates the ability to:
18
10(a).1
10(a).2
10(a).3
substantively & affectively prepare for action with individuals, families,
groups, organizations, and communities;
use empathy and other interpersonal skills; and
develop mutually agreed-upon focus of work & desired outcomes.
EP2.1.10(B) – ASSESSMENT
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(b).1
collect, organize, and interpret client data;
10(b).2
assess client strengths and limitations;
10(b).3
develop mutually agreed-upon intervention goals & objectives; and
10(b).4
select appropriate intervention strategies.
EP2.1.10(C) – INTERVENTION
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(c).1
initiate actions to achieve organizational goals;
10(c).2
implement prevention interventions that enhance client capacities;
10(c).3
help clients resolve problems;
10(c).4
negotiate, mediate, and advocate for clients; and
10(c).5
facilitate transitions and endings.
EP2.1.10(D) – EVALUATION
The student demonstrates ability to:
10(d).
critically analyze, monitor, and evaluate interventions.
Courses included in the Social Work Practice component of the curriculum include:
SW 230 Introduction to Social Work Practice (4 credits) (Prerequisite: SO 101)
SW 331 Social Work Practice: Individuals, Families and Small Groups
(4 credits) (Prerequisite: SW 230) (Corequisite: SW 330)
SW 332W Social Work Practice: Large Groups, Organizations and Communities
(4 credits) (Prerequisite: SW 230)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (12 credits) (Prerequisite:
Permission) (Corequisite: SW 495)
SW 495 Social Work: Professional Semester Research Seminar (3 credits)
(Prerequisite: Permission) (Corequisite: SW 490)
5.
Social Work Fieldwork
In the fieldwork component students apply social work knowledge, values and skills in
supervised, structured settings, often in the context of a social service agency, for the
purpose of integrating the classroom experience with applied, practical experiences in the
field. The fieldwork experiences aim to develop and enhance students’ capacities for selfdirected practice. Students who satisfactorily complete the social work field experience
requirements will demonstrate:

A capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
19









The application of social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making
in professional practice.
The application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional
judgments.
Ability to engage diversity and difference in practice.
Ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.
Ability to engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
Ability to apply knowledge of human growth and behavior and the social
environment.
Ability to analyze, formulate and advocate for policies that advance social wellbeing.
Ability to respond to contexts that shape social work practice.
Ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families,
groups, organizations and communities.
Courses included in the Social Work Fieldwork foundation curriculum include:
SW 330 Social Work Practice: Individuals, Families and Small Groups Lab (2
credits) (Corequisite: SW 331)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (12 credits) (Prerequisite:
Permission) (Corequisite: SW 495)
SW 495 Social Work: Professional Semester Research Seminar (3 credits)
(Prerequisite: Permission) (Corequisite: SW 490)
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 2.1: FIELD EDUCATION
AS 2.1.1: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM CONNECTS THE
THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE CLASSROOM WITH THE PRACTICE
SETTING, FOSTERING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE-INFORMED PRACTICE.
The program’s mission highlights the development of a “culturally competent, strengths based
generalist practice grounded in scientific inquiry” as a principal aspiration for the development
of its students. Further, the mission emphasizes that program graduates will develop “the
competence to provide effective social work services across a spectrum of ecological systems,
including individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities, as well as across a
broad range of human wellness concerns in order to enhance the quality of life for all persons.
Social work graduates focus on applying this generalist orientation in a manner that: is grounded
in evidence-informed practice principles; respects the dignity, integrity and worth of all human
beings; emphasizes the importance of human relationships; and is sensitive to and appreciative
of the diverse ways of being human in order to enhance the quality of life for all persons. The
program prepares graduates who are committed to social work values, including the protection of
human rights, service to the community, and pursuit of social justice.”
Program goals call explicit attention to the student’s integration of professional values and ethics
and the provision of “substantive educational content and learning experiences” that enable
students to develop the necessary competencies [italics added]. Similarly, Program goals include
preparing baccalaureate social workers that ” respect and act affirmatively upon their
20
responsibilities for ongoing professional development and renewal that give credence to the
increasingly global nature of human institutions,” and are “capable of effectively discharging
culturally competent professional duties and responsibilities with diverse client and consumer
populations, focusing as needed on rehabilitation and/or prevention.” Such language is
intentional and reflects the program’s commitment to fuse the “content” of social work with the
“practice” of social work as a regular, ongoing feature of its curricular scheme. In fact, a central
attribute of the program’s curriculum is that it is professionally challenging and demonstrative.
Students are provided with ongoing opportunities to make meaningful connections between the
concepts, theories, frameworks, and research informed practice principles explored in the
classroom setting and the practice of social work. For example, in SW230 Introduction to Social
Work Practice, and SW 331, Social Work Practice with Individuals, Families and Small Groups,
students are required to engage in ongoing library and community research in preparation for a
series of individual and group role-plays and actual client interviews. In SW 230, over the course
of the series of three weekly role plays with an individual client and a series of three weekly
interviews with a resident of a local nursing home, and in SW 331 over a series of five weekly
group role plays, students engage in practice informed research and research informed practice.
Through these experiences students “demonstrate” the implementation of evidence-informed
practice and their ability to integrate classroom learning with field education.
Field education represents the experiential extension of the knowledge, values and skills
explored in the classroom. Fieldwork is arguably the most important place where the proverbial
rubber meets the proverbial road for social work students and it is a critically important element
of Juniata’s Social Work Program.
AS B2.1.2: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM PROVIDES
GENERALIST PRACTICE OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE CORE
COMPETENCIES.
The Social Work Program has since its inception distinguished between four modes of field
education. When integrated across the undergraduate experience these modes provide a rich
palate of generalist practice opportunities for students to demonstrate increasing competence in
their emerging professional repertoire. These modes are as follows:
1.
Orientation to Social Service Networks wherein students are exposed to a broad range of
social services, programs, policies, and agency social work personnel through
coursework taken most typically in the sophomore year. For example, in SW230
Introduction to Social Work Practice and in SW331, Social Work Practice with
Individuals, Families and Small Groups students are required to do library and
community research to explore the nature of a variety of social service networks and the
resources they provide in preparation for role-plays and actual client interviews.
In SW231 Social Problems and Social Welfare students working in groups study a
particular social problem and the social welfare responses to that problem by going
beyond the campus and collecting data from national, state, regional, and county agencies
and staff.
21
2.
Volunteer Work, Community Service and Summer Employment that offer students
valuable exposure to and experience in responding to human needs in the contexts of
community based organizations and social service agencies. In SW 230, Introduction to
Social Work Practice, students are required to complete sixteen hours of volunteer work
for the semester in a local social service agency or community organization. Agencies
and organizations in which students volunteer vary from year to year, but have included
Headstart, the Youth Forestry Camp, Westminster Woods Nursing Home, Mainstream
Counseling After-School Program, Huntingdon Drop-In Center, the Juniata College
Health and Wellness Center, JC Blair Hospital, Horsepower Farm Therapeutic Riding
Program and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, among others.
Although not formally required by the program, students receive strong encouragement
and guidance, particularly in the process of student academic advisement, to seek out and
volunteer and summer work opportunities to test interests and aptitudes for social work
and to expand their professional horizons beyond that which the program’s resources can
provide.
Social work students participate actively in campus based student organizations that work
in consort with community based agencies and networks. For example, The Juniata
Chapter of Habitat for Humanity, which was founded by social work students as part of a
class project, partners with Huntingdon Area Habitat for Humanity on local builds. The
chapter is also dedicated to building campus and community awareness about affordable
housing and homelessness and engages in planning and fundraising to send Juniata
students to international and domestic build sites. Similar opportunities are available to
social work student volunteers with the Social Work Club, Special Olympics, campus
blood collection drives, Horsepower Farm, and Huntingdon House, a domestic violence
and rape crisis and prevention program, to name a few.
Beyond volunteer opportunities, the campus Community Service Office offers one credit
Community Engagement courses that target local concerns, Urban Immersion service
learning trips, Spring Break Alternative trips, and Cultural Learning Tours, each of
which has broad appeal for social work students and involves an experiential learning
component. For example, over winter break in 2012 social work students participated in
the Urban Immersion trip to Philadelphia that involved working with residents of a
homeless shelter, providing supports to a food pantry, and providing socialization
activities for children in a women’s shelter.
3.
Social Work Practice during the junior and senior years in which social work students
typically enroll in SW330 Social Work Practice: Individuals, Families, and Small Groups
Lab, which is taken concurrently with SW331 Social Work Practice: Individuals,
Families and Small Groups, and SW332 Social Work Practice: Large Groups,
Organizations, and Communities. Each of these courses requires student engagement in
collateral field assignments that connects the classroom with practice settings.
In SW330 students participate in a “mini-field experience,” which requires the student to
volunteer for eight hours per week for ten weeks in an approved agency under the
22
supervision of an agency staff member. The primary purposes of such experiences are to
provide students opportunity to: observe agency day-to-day functions; demonstrate the
application of beginning practice behaviors related to the core competencies in a
supervised setting; and engage clients in a helping relationship for the purpose of
conducting an assessment and developing an intervention plan. Some examples of site
locations for the mini-field experience include Westminster Woods, a continuing care
retirement community; SKILLS, a sheltered workshop for persons with developmental
disabilities; the Youth Forestry Camp, an institution for court adjudicated delinquents;
and the Children’s Partial Hospitalization Program at J.C. Blair Hospital Behavioral
Health unit.
While enrolled in SW332 students are required to plan and implement an organizational
and/or community project of their choosing in order to demonstrate application of core
competencies in the context of large groups, organizations and the community.
Averaging about three hours per week per student across the semester, the project serves
to link the classroom with practice in the field to affect needed change in some larger
target system. Examples of recent projects include a partnership with the Huntingdon
Community Center to increase enrollment and improve retention in an after school
program for at risk youth, and an initiative to assess and respond to issues associated with
food insecurity and hunger relief in a local community.
4.
The Social Work Professional Semester in which students complete a minimum of 500
hours of field instruction while enrolled SW490Social Work: Professional Semester in
the spring semester of their senior year. Students are placed in a variety of approved
social service settings under the supervision of an approved agency field instructor.
Agencies are required, among many other things, to provide both depth and breadth of
experiential learning opportunities in a variety of programming areas, thus allowing
students to practice a scope of social work roles and problem-solving approaches with
client systems of various sizes and types in order to demonstrate mastery of the core
competencies of the social work profession. SW495 Social Work Professional Semester
Research Seminar is taken concurrently with SW490 and complements the agency
experience by integrating the values, knowledge, and skills of class with the practice of
field.
The integration of class and field is an ongoing developmental process. The four modes
of field experience help ensure each student has a broad range of practice opportunities in
a variety of practice contexts to apply, test, analyze, and synthesize classroom content on
a regular basis throughout the undergraduate experience in order to master the core
competencies of the social work profession.
AS 2.1.3: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM PROVIDES A MINIMUM
OF 400 HOURS OF FIELD EDUCATION FOR BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS.
As documented in 2.1.2 above, the Social Work Program Manual, and the syllabus for SW490
and SW495, the program requires of each student a minimum of 500 hours of field education
during The Social Work Professional Semester, which is taken in the spring semester of the
23
senior year. Also, each student will experience at least 80 hours of field education in SW330 and
40 hours in SW332.
AS 2.1.4: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM ADMITS ONLY THOSE
STUDENTS WHO HAVE MET THE PROGRAM’S SPECIFIED CRITERIA FOR FIELD EDUCATION.
Students are admitted into The Social Work Professional Semester via an academic advising and
registration process that requires the written approval of their academic advisors, one of whom is
a Program faculty member with an MSW; and the written permission of the Social Work Field
Director. Students may enroll in SW 490, Social Work Professional Semester and its corequisite SW 495, Social Work Professional Semester Research Seminar only after meeting the
specified criteria of the program, including completion of all other required courses in the social
work curriculum with a minimum grade of “C-,“ and maintenance of a grade point average of at
least 2.5 on a 4 point scale in both the social work curriculum and the overall college curriculum,
as required by program policy.
AS 2.1.5: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM SPECIFIES POLICIES,
CRITERIA, AND PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING FIELD SETTINGS; PLACING AND MONITORING
STUDENTS, MAINTAINING FIELD LIAISON CONTACTS WITH FIELD SETTINGS; AND EVALUATING
STUDENT LEARNING AND FIELD SETTING EFFECTIVENESS CONGRUENT WITH THE PROGRAM’S
COMPETENCIES.
Selection of Field Agencies
The Social Work Professional Semester field placement represents the culmination of students’
undergraduate education in social work. It provides them with challenging structured
opportunities to apply the knowledge, skills, and values learned to date in a professionally guided
and supervised setting. It is, therefore, critical that students are placed in agencies that can best
facilitate the integration of prior coursework and field experiences with practical, applied
experiences during The Professional Semester in a manner that well supports the program’s
goals and enables students to demonstrate mastery of the core competencies. To ensure that
agencies selected for student field placements provide suitable opportunities and supports that
permit students to demonstrate the competency practice behaviors associated with entry level
generalist practice, agencies must meet the following criteria:

The agency must be recognized, licensed, and/or accredited by the applicable bodies.
Selection of an agency is based, in part, on national, regional, state, and/ or community
recognition that it is a reputable provider of social work services. The agency and its staff
must operate according to acceptable community and professional standards.
Membership in and/or licensing by an appropriate organization is one criterion used in
determining the degree to which the appropriate and necessary standards are met. For
example, a hospital social service department would be expected to meet the standards set
forth by the Joint Commission on Accreditation.

The services the agency delivers and the agency’s practices and policies must be
supportive of and consistent with the program’s mission, goals, and objectives for
undergraduate social work education. No aspect of agency policy, practice, or service
24




provision should be in conflict with the profession’s purpose and ethics as they are
expressed by the National Association of Social Workers.
The agency must demonstrate a successful record of providing services to clients, as well
as a commitment to professional social work staff development and organizational
change based on the findings of current empirically based research.
The agency must be committed to providing students with a substantive, structured
orientation during the initial weeks of the placement in a manner that increasingly
heightens student familiarity with agency structure, policies and procedures, clientele,
staffing patterns, intervention schema and referral sources.
The agency must be willing to provide students opportunities to apply the generalist
model of practice with a range of systems (i.e., individuals, families, groups,
organizations and the community), as the agency has opportunity or occasion to do so.
Further, the agency must provide students with a variety of social work practice
experiences that involve increasingly challenging cases and require increasingly complex
problem solving interventions, taking into account students’ readiness and previously
demonstrated competence.
The agency must provide adequate supervision by a competent, experienced staff person
who is consistently available to the student during the field placement process. Field
instructors are selected on the basis of their educational background, professional
experience and reputation, and commitment to the professional development and
perspectives of the social work student. Field instructors must demonstrate: they have
earned an MSW or a BSW from a CSWE accredited program and have two years of
experience in the field after earning the degree; they have at least one year of experience
in the placement agency for the MSW and two years for the BSW; competence in the
provision of social work services grounded in research-informed practice and a
commitment to social work values and ethics; a capacity to provide regular supervision
aimed at facilitating the professional development and acculturation of social work
students; and a willingness to partner with the student and the faculty field liaison in a
collaborative relationship to achieve the goals of The Professional Semester and its
corequisite, the Professional Semester Research Seminar.
The Social Work Program faculty configuration provides for a field coordinator with twenty-five
percent release time who, in consultation with other social work faculty, is responsible for
administering the field placements associated with The Professional Semester.
All potential field placements are screened by the field coordinator who meets with agency staff,
including the potential agency based field instructor(s), to provide a beginning orientation to: the
social work curriculum; the general purposes of the field placement in the educational process of
preparing BSWs; the particular objectives and assignments of The Professional Semester; and to
assess the degree to which the agency conforms with the standards and expectations of the
program. Agency representatives present their ideas about the nature of the field experience they
envision for students. All parties have the opportunity to ask and answer questions. If the parties
mutually agree to continue deliberation and planning toward the development of a field
placement, the process continues. By this stage of the process the agency will have had full
access to The Social Work Program Manual, the syllabus for the Professional Semester, and any
25
documentation it may require, e.g., the college’s certificate of liability insurance and the field
director’s curriculum vitae.
For the subsequent meetings the agency is asked to prepare and present its emerging plan for the
field placement that describes: the content and methods to be employed by the agency for the
student’s orientation; the duties and tasks for which the student will be responsible; and the
agency’s plan for supervising the student. Using this emerging plan as a springboard, the agency
representatives, including potential field supervisors, and the field director meet and deliberate
until a plan for the field placement is reached that is acceptable to both parties.
During the planning discussions described above, potential agency-based field instructors are
invariably key players, so it is quite typical for the selection and orientation of field instructors to
be embedded in the broader planning process. However, regardless of the particular
circumstances, once potential field instructors are identified, face-to-face meetings with the
program field director ensue during which the agency-based field instructor shares information
and provides documentation as needed concerning her/his: educational history;
professional/employment history; professional licenses, certifications and memberships; previous
experiences in field supervision; and philosophy toward supervision.
Once there is a mutual determination to proceed with placing a student at the agency, the
program’s field director and the agency-based field instructor engage in meetings and ongoing
consultations, focusing more specifically on the role of the Professional Semester in the
professional development of Juniata undergraduate social work students. Supervisory approaches
to field instruction are explored with significant attention being given to the model of formative
and summative field evaluation used to promote the student’s professional growth and
development. The Social Work Program Manual, The Professional Semester Syllabus, and other
supporting materials are drawn upon prominently as these processes unfold.
Placement and Selection of Students
Students are expected to play an active role in a sequential process of exploration and
consultation which leads to their being considered and selected for a particular field placement.
Ideally this process begins in the spring of the junior year to assure that the spring semester
senior year field placement is right for them and they are right for it. Regularly scheduled
preregistration advising in the spring of the junior year, during which the course plan is
developed for the entire senior year, provides a beginning opportunity for the social work student
and social work academic advisor to begin, if it has not already begun, the process of further
exploring the student’s career preferences, social work practice interests, and field placement
opportunities for the Professional Semester. Thus, the field director usually has a fairly clear,
albeit tentative sense of the field placement interests of the next year’s social work seniors about
six months before their field placements have to be finalized. Early in the fall semester of their
senior year students anticipating a spring semester field placement attend an introductory
meeting with social work faculty at which the requirements of the Professional Semester and the
process of agency placement are explained.
26
The field agency placement process involves ongoing deliberations between the student and the
field director. It is through this process that field placement preferences become clarified and
field placement decisions are made. In most instances students are enrolled in SW332 Social
Work Practice: Large Groups, Organizations and Communities during the fall semester of their
senior year, which allows students anticipating their field placement in the upcoming spring
semester regular access to the field director, who teaches that practice course.
Once a determination of field placement preference is made between the student and the field
director, who by this stage in the process has consulted the agency and knows with some
certainty that the field placement is available, the student makes formal application to the agency
by preparing and mailing the required application portfolio to the agency-based field instructor.
The application includes a current resume, a current academic transcript, a letter of
recommendation from a supervisor or faculty member, and a cover letter in which the student
provides a brief introduction and presents her/his general goals for the field placement.
Following the submission of the application portfolio the student contacts the agency-based field
instructor to schedule a formal interview, which is to be modeled after a typical professional
employment interview. The program encourages the agency-based field instructor to pose such
prompts as, “If the agency accepts you for a field placement, what kind of social worker will it
be getting?” Or, “Tell me about your philosophy of social work and how that philosophy will
help this agency and the clients it serves.” The broad purposes of the interview are to allow each
party to ask and answer questions pertaining to the field placement, to allow the agency and the
student to screen each other, and to allow each party to clarify the nature, scope, and goals of the
field placement, particularly for the student’s benefit. If the agency-based field instructor,
student, and field director mutually agree to the field placement for the student, the field director
contacts the agency field supervisor to formalize the agreement.
Ongoing negotiation, clarification, and contracting between the student, the agency-based field
instructor, and the field director occur throughout The Professional Semester to assure the
student has adequate access to the resources and opportunities needed to satisfy the requirements
of the Professional Semester.
Monitoring Students and Maintaining Contacts with Field Agencies
The field director assumes faculty field liaison responsibilities during the Professional Semester
and maintains regular contact with the student and agency-based field instructor to monitor and
further the aims of the field placement. Over the course of the field placement, students meet biweekly with the faculty field liaison for one hour of one-on-one supervision. The meetings,
which are informed in part by the faculty field liaison’s reading of the student’s field journal,
provide an effective context to monitor student progress and to assist in planning subsequent
student fieldwork activity. The meetings afford structured opportunities to:

review student progress and promote refinement of the student’s professional
development;

establish learning objectives to facilitate the field experience, particularly in light of the
professional development objectives and competencies for the Professional Semester;

identify and address any obstacles that may arise with the field placement;
27



enhance the degree of sophistication with which the student integrates prior coursework,
research-informed practice knowledge and skills, and professional values with the field
experience;
review recently completed assignments, providing additional feedback as warranted, and
to plan for and support the student’s aspirations for upcoming assignments;
enhance the student’s understanding of and ability to use supervision; and
promote the student’s effective use of professional self, particularly with regard to the
self-regulation of practice and professional development.
The faculty field liaison also monitors the student’s progress and the agency’s contributions to
the field experience through regular bi-weekly telephone and/or e-mail contacts with the agencybased field instructor. These contacts typically occur in consort with the faculty field liaison’s
individual bi-weekly meetings with students. Through this process the agency-based field
instructor, the student, and the faculty field liaison develop mutual interpretations and
expectations concerning the field learning process on an incremental basis over the course of the
Professional Semester in a manner that affords greater accountability and control than might
otherwise be possible.
Generally, the faculty field liaison, the student, and the agency-based field instructor meet
formally on two occasions if there is an established ongoing relationship between the agency and
the program. The first meeting occurs near the mid-term date of the semester and focuses on: a
review of the student’s accomplishments and development to date, using the midterm evaluation
as a platform to guide the discussion; and, perhaps most importantly, developing a mutually
agreed upon plan for the second half of the field placement that will continue to facilitate the
student’s mastery of the core competencies, and support the student’s professional interests as
they evolve during the Professional Semester.
The second meeting occurs at the end of the semester once the student and agency-based field
instructor have completed the final summative evaluation. The intent of this meeting is to review
the overall field experience, paying particular attention to the student’s professional strengths
that were identified and nurtured during the semester. The meeting also provides opportunity to
reflect on the field learning process wherein the agency-based field instructor, student, and
faculty field liaison can assess the assets and limitations of the field experience in light of the
demands of undergraduate social work education. Such a regular review process permits
opportunities for continuous year-to-year improvement in the field placement from the
perspectives of both the field agency and the program.
In situations where the relationship between the field agency and program is new and/or in
instances where a new agency-based field instructor will be supervising the student, at least one
additional meeting is added at the start of the semester during which the student, agency-based
field instructor, and faculty liaison meet to: discuss the orientation process; clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each party; and explore opportunities for the student’s Professional Semester
project.
Beyond the typically scheduled meetings described above, the faculty field liaison provides
whatever additional oversight and support the agency-based field instructor and/or the student
28
may require as the Professional Semester unfolds. For example, less experienced agency-based
field instructors usually receive more frequent contacts and more support from the faculty field
liaison than a seasoned agency-based field instructor with a proven track record.
Evaluating student field learning
Evaluating student learning and professional development is a recurring theme throughout the
Social Work Program. Such evaluation occurs through a partnership between the student and
significant others, including student colleagues, social work faculty, and agency-based field
instructors. The program believes that the process of evaluation should emphasize the student’s
professional assets and strengths, while also identifying areas for future work in which deliberate
attention must be paid to foster growth and improvements in the student’s professional
development.
By spring semester of the senior year when students enroll in The Professional Semester, the
program seeks to put them at the forefront of an evaluation whose guiding philosophy is both
formative and summative in character. It is formative in that the evaluation scheme requires field
students to engage in ongoing self-examination by regularly making entries in the evaluation
instrument. It is summative in that at the end of the semester the agency-based field instructor,
the faculty field liaison, and student partner to evaluate the student’s professional development
on each core competency dimension specified in the “Objectives of Field Instruction in The
Professional Semester” section of The Social Work Program Manual.
The principal benefits of such an evaluation scheme are that it:

requires students to demonstrate integration of prior coursework, current evidence based
knowledge, research-informed practice, and their emerging practice wisdom and the
field experiences of The Professional Semester as on ongoing feature of the field
placement;

puts students at the forefront of their examination of their “professional self” and their
professional development needs during the Professional Semester;

provides a remarkably effective framework for students, their agency-based field
instructors, and the faculty field liaison to identify and articulate students’ weekly
learning objectives that support their educational and professional development needs in
ways that assure the field experiences are consistent with the educational ambitions of
the program; and

encourages students to cultivate the skills and outlooks they will need to manage their
professional development when then enter the field as self-directed BSWs.
The following section describes the student’s, the agency-based field instructor’s, and the faculty
liaison’s roles in the formative and summative dimensions of the Professional Semester
evaluation scheme:
The student’s role in the formative evaluation process
Insofar as formative evaluation is an ongoing process, students make entries to the Field
Evaluation Instrument on a regular, i.e., daily and/or weekly basis during the semester.
29

Students are provided with a document that identifies examples of “student
behavioral indicators” for the practice behaviors associated with each core
competency, which in the beginning of the formative evaluation process helps
them make more prudent and meaningful connections between their field
experiences and the competencies than otherwise would be the case.
For each applicable social work competency specified in the Field Evaluation Instrument,
students make narrative entries describing how they have exhibited practice behaviors in their
field experiences that are associated with the applicable competency. For example, a student
writes an elegant social plan that addresses the need for increased parental involvement in an
after-school program for drug and alcohol involved youth. She then presents that plan to the
agency’s staff as part of an organizational retreat. That student could link that experience to
Competencies 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(c), etc.
 How students do this:
o They download the Field Evaluation Instrument and save it in a secure location
such as the college’s U drive;
o They word process their narrative entries, following the directions provided on the
Field Evaluation Instrument, being sure to indicate the date the activity occurred
in parenthesis at the end of each entry.
o They keep an updated back-up copy of the Field Evaluation Instrument at all
times.
Students are strongly encouraged to use regular supervision with the agency-based field
instructor and the faculty field liaison to facilitate the formative evaluation process.
While students may not have the opportunity to engage in agency based activities pertinent to
every competency identified in the evaluation instrument, it is expected that most competencies
will receive attention during the course of the field placement and that many competencies will
receive attention on multiple occasions.
The student’s role in the summative evaluation process
At least one week before the evaluation is due for submission to the faculty field liaison, students
submit a printed, stapled copy of the Field Evaluation Instrument to the agency-based field
instructor. This copy contains:

all entries the student has made to date pertaining to competencies specified in the
evaluation instrument;

all entries made by the student pertaining to “areas that require ongoing professional
development attention;”

and “Summary Comments by Student” in the “Evaluation Summary,” which is located at
the back of the instrument.
30
The agency-based field instructor’s role in the formative and summative evaluation process
During the course of regular supervision the field instructor provides whatever guidance and
support may be required to assist the student in making increasingly sharper connections
between the field experiences and the core competencies.
One week prior to the date the evaluation is due to the faculty field liaison, the student submits
the Field Evaluation Instrument to the agency-based field instructor who reviews the student’s
narrative comments for each competency.
Agency-based field instructors provide a rating on a five-item Likert scale, ranging from “well
below” to “well above” for each competency using “the qualities and characteristics associated
with self-directed, entry level generalist social work practice” as the evaluative standard for the
rating. For any competency for which a “well below” or “below” rating is assigned, the agencybased field instructor specifies in the space provided on the evaluation what tasks and/or
behaviors the student needs to demonstrate to improve the rating.
Field instructors also complete the “Evaluation Summary” and the “Recommendation by Field
Instructor” sections
.
The agency-based field instructor and the student then schedule a meeting to review and discuss
the evaluation. At the conclusion of the meeting both parties sign and date the evaluation,
indicating that the meeting occurred and both parties accept the evaluation.
The student then returns the signed evaluation to the faculty field liaison by the scheduled due
date.
The faculty field liaison’s role in the formative and summative evaluation
As part of regular supervision and monitoring of the student’s professional development while in
field placement, the faculty field liaison reviews the student’s field journal and the student’s
entries in the formative evaluation, offering guidance and support as needed. Such monitoring
allows the faculty field liaison to work in ongoing partnership with the student to shape the field
experience in ways that best meet the student’s academic and professional development needs, as
well as to assure the goals of The Professional Semester are realized.
Upon receipt of the completed Field Evaluation that has been signed and dated by the student
and the agency-based field instructor, the faculty field liaison carefully reviews the evaluation,
enters applicable comments, and signs off on the evaluation.
As part of the exit interview which occurs during finals week after the completion of the field
placement and before commencement, the student reviews the faculty field liaison’s evaluative
comments and the student and faculty liaison discuss the evaluation, focusing primarily on an
identification and exploration of the student’s discernible professional strengths and the student’s
needs and plans for ongoing professional development.
31
Evaluating Field Setting Effectiveness
Like the evaluation of student development and performance in field education, the effectiveness
of the field experience itself is evaluated at formative and summative levels to assure it meets the
needs of the program and its students. As already noted in section 2.1.5, there is active
collaboration and frequent communication between the student, the agency-based field
instructor, and the faculty field liaison during the course of the Professional Semester. Thus, all
parties, but especially the faculty field liaison, can keep their fingers on the pulse of the field
education process as it unfolds (i.e., the formative dimension), allowing for modifications to be
made as needed to assure the field placement is effectively responsive to the student’s
professional development needs.
Summative evaluation of field setting effectiveness is multifaceted and includes:

the end of semester meeting involving the student, the agency-based field instructor, and
the faculty field liaison to review the totality of the field placement experience with an
eye toward making continuous improvements in the placement for subsequent students;

dedicating a significant portion of senior social work student exit interviews to a
qualitative evaluation of the field placements. Students are asked to explore:
o
the degree to which there was a match between their expectations and actual field
experiences;
o
the degree to which they were sufficiently challenged as the field placement
unfolded; and,
o
the extent to which the agency supervision’s frequency and intensity supported
their professional development needs.

administration of a quantitative and qualitative questionnaire to both students and
agency-based field instructors that assesses:
o
the sufficiency of the orientation to the field placement;
o
the extent to which the field placement afforded the student opportunity to engage
a range of client systems, i.e., from individuals to communities;
o
the degree to which the field experience placed greater responsibilities, duties,
and challenges on the student in ways that contributed positively to the student’s
professional development;
o
the degree to which the agency-based supervisor and other agency staff were
familiar with the Professional Semester’s assignments and offered supports as
needed to optimize the student’s success; and,
o
the sufficiency of the faculty field liaison’s contributions and contacts in
supporting the needs of the agency-based supervisor.
AS 2.1.6: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION POLICY SPECIFIES THE
CREDENTIALS AND PRACTICE EXPERIENCE OF ITS FIELD INSTRUCTORS NECESSARY TO DESIGN
FIELD LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO DEMONSTRATE PROGRAM COMPETENCIES.
The program recognizes and fully appreciates the central role agency-based field instructors play
in designing and overseeing field learning opportunities for emerging BSWs to demonstrate
program competencies. As already noted in the discussion on the selection of field agencies, the
program’s policy expects the agency to provide adequate supervision by a competent, seasoned
32
staff person who is consistently available to the student during the field placement process. Field
instructors are selected on the basis of their educational background, professional experience
and reputation, commitment to the perspectives of the social work profession, and dedication to
the professional development of the social work student.
The program’s policy stipulates that field instructors must have earned an MSW or a BSW from
a CSWE accredited program and have two years of experience in the field after earning the
degree, and they must have at least one year of experience in the placement agency for the MSW
and two years for the BSW. The policy further stipulates that field instructors must:

be competent in the provision of social work services grounded in research-informed
practice and a commitment to social work values and ethics;

possess the knowledge and skills to provide regular supervision aimed at optimizing the
professional development and acculturation of social work students; and,

be willing and able to partner with the student and the faculty field liaison in a
collaborative relationship to achieve the goals of the Professional Semester field
placement and its corequisite, the Social Work Professional Semester Research Seminar.
Due to the rural nature of the program’s central Pennsylvania service area there may be
exceptional circumstances where an MSW or BSW agency-based field supervisor may not
always be available. The last time such a circumstance occurred was in the spring semester of
2007. In such instances the program will consider field instructors who possess a master’s degree
in a related discipline and otherwise meet the standards for field instruction. In these cases the
program faculty field liaison monitors the field placement process with greater intensity and
provides more support to both the agency-based field instructor and student. For example, oneon-one meetings between the student and the faculty field liaison would occur weekly instead of
bi-weekly. The frequency of contact between the faculty field liaison and the agency-based field
instructor would increase as well, based on the faculty field liaison’s assessment of the need for
additional support for and monitoring of the agency field instructor’s supervision of the student
in the Professional Semester.
AS 2.1.7: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM PROVIDES
ORIENTATION, FIELD INSTRUCTION TRAINING, AND CONTINUING DIALOG WITH THE FIELD
EDUCATION SETTINGS AND FIELD INSTRUCTORS.
The Social Work Program enjoys stable, enduring relationships with its field agencies and
agency-based field instructors. In a typical year fifty percent or more of its field instructors are
graduates of Juniata’s BSW program, the great majority of whom have gone on to complete their
MSW and secure their professional social work license. Additionally, the relatively small
number of students enrolled in the Professional Semester in most years (i.e., six or fewer) allows
the field director, who is also the faculty field liaison, to devote considerable individualized
attention to each field placement and each student. Thus, the continuity of program-agency
relationships, the general tendency of field instructors to be program graduates, the relatively
small number of students in field placement, and the highly engaged role of the faculty field
liaison provide conditions that greatly optimize the degree to which the agencies and program
work collaboratively with mutual understanding of the purposes and processes required to meet
student professional development and academic needs.
33
The approach to field administration and to student field monitoring and evaluation taken by the
program is perhaps unique to undergraduate social work education because it is so personalized,
paying very deliberate incremental attention to each student’s professional development in the
context of each student’s unique field placement over the course of the Professional Semester.
Furthermore, because the approach requires an ongoing partnership between the student, the
placement agency, and the program there is considerable opportunity for all of the parties to
incrementally plan and implement field experiences with a shared sense of purpose and method.
Based on formal and informal feedback from students, agency-based field instructors, and
program alumni, the Social Work Program believes its approach to field education, including
agency-based field instructor orientation and training and the channels of continuing dialog
between the program and the field agencies, provides an exceptional platform for maximizing the
student’s professional competence as an entry level baccalaureate level social worker.
Please note that the particular details of field instructor orientation and training and the channels
of continuing dialog were previously discussed in section 2.1.5.
AS 2.1.8: THE PROGRAM DISCUSSES HOW ITS FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM DEVELOPS POLICIES
REGARDING FIELD PLACEMENTS IN AN ORGANIZATION IN WHICH A STUDENT IS ALSO EMPLOYED TO
ENSURE THE ROLE OF THE STUDENT AS LEARNER, STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS AND FIELD EDUCATION
SUPERVISION ARE NOT THE SAME AS THOSE OF THE STUDENT’S EMPLOYMENT.
As stipulated in the Social Work Program Manual, the program’s policy is generally not to
consider a social work student’s place of employment to be a viable option for the Professional
Semester field placement. In fact, there have only been two occasions in the thirty year history of
the program where an agency employing the student was also used for the student’s field
placement.
However, in very rare circumstances the program recognizes that such a placement may need to
be considered. For example, a non-traditional student may have a financial situation that requires
continuity of employment and the income that goes with it to meet family obligations. In such
unique circumstances and only when certain conditions can be assured will a waiver of the
program’s policy be considered on a case-by-case basis. These conditions include that all usual
requirements for a field placement are satisfied including:

the agency is duly recognized or licensed;

the agency-based field supervisor is properly experienced and credentialed; and,

that a formal agreement is developed between the agency, the student, and the program
that assures all objectives of field instruction will be met, including all assignments
associated with the Professional Semester.
This agreement will require significant changes in the “student-employee’s” usual job
description to minimize, if not eliminate, any overlaps or conflicts between the “student” roles
and responsibilities and those of the “employee.” In addition, the agency must assign a qualified
agency-based field instructor that is different from the student’s normal work supervisor to
oversee and evaluate the student during the course of the Professional Semester.
34
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 3.0: IMPLICIT CURRICULUM
AS 3.1 DIVERSITY
AS 3.1.1: SPECIFIC AND CONTINUOUS EFFORTS TO PROVIDE A LEARNING ENVIRONMENT THAT
RESPECTS ALL PERSONS.
Named for two distinguished minority alumni, The Dorothy Baker Johnson and Raymond R.
Day Social Work Program has modeled respect for human diversity and a commitment to
nondiscrimination since its initial accreditation in 1981. The Program honors the achievements
of Ms. Johnson, who worked for improved educational opportunities for women at a time when
women were rarely encouraged to seek higher education; and Dr. Day, who was one of the first
African American graduates of Juniata College. Dr. Day grew up in the local area, graduated
from Juniata College in 1945 and went on to a distinguished career in higher education. In 1987
Ray Day established the Ray Day Endowed Scholarship whose income is used to provide
academic scholarships to students of color and to fund the Raymond R. Day Social Science Prize
“given annually to a senior with an outstanding academic record and personal attributes relevant
to a career in the helping professions.” This prize has been awarded to a deserving social work
student every year since its inception. Dr. Day was a leader in the struggle for civil and human
rights throughout his life and provides a fitting role model for Program faculty and social work
students, who strive to model understanding of and respect for diversity, and to practice
nondiscrimination in their personal and professional lives. The Program proudly carries
Raymond R. Day’s name as a memorial to his life and spirit, which represent that to which all
social workers should aspire.
The Program recognizes its responsibility to provide a learning context in which respect for all
persons and understanding of diversity are practiced. It therefore conducts all of its affairs,
including faculty personnel matters, student affairs, the organization and implementation of the
curriculum and the formulation and implementation of departmental and Program policies
without discrimination to persons or groups on the basis of age, class, color, culture, disability,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race,
religion, sex, and sexual orientation. The Program also recognizes its responsibility to inform
the campus and larger community of its commitment to respect human diversity and to practice
nondiscrimination. Therefore, the first page of the Social Work Program Manual includes the
following Statement of Nondiscrimination:
It is the policy of the Social Work Program that persons associated with it,
including faculty, students, field supervisors and allied professionals treat other
persons, including the clients/consumers of social work services, in a
nondiscriminatory manner with dignity, respect, fairness, equity and justice
regardless of age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender
identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion,
sex, and sexual orientation.
In addition, the Mission of the Social Work Program, Program Goals and Core Practice
Competencies, which are discussed under Accreditation Standard 1, clearly declare the
35
Program’s commitment to the provision of a learning context in which respect for all persons and
understanding of diversity are practiced. The social work foundation curriculum clearly
integrates content on diversity that promotes understanding, affirmation and respect for people
from diverse backgrounds, and encourages students to engage diversity and difference in
practice. Content on diversity is integrated throughout every course in the foundation
curriculum. As an expression of their commitment to teach about diversity and
nondiscrimination, Program and department faculty also emphasize content on diversity and
nondiscrimination in the elective courses in the department, including SO 204 American
Families, SO 234 Constructing Race and Ethnicity, SO 241 Child and Family Services, SO 242
Aging and Society, SO 243 Death and Dying, SO 244 Drugs and Society, SO 260 Introduction to
Criminal Justice, SO 302 Social Deviance and Criminology, SO 305 Gender and Society, SO
310 American Indians, SO 320 Wealth, Power and Society, SO 335 Social Change, SO 351
Cultures of the World and SO 362 Juvenile Justice.
Since the mid-1980s Program faculty have consistently acted as catalysts in developing
campus initiatives to build an institutional culture and infrastructure that creates visible
symbols, policies, and programs that highlight Juniata’s commitment to the values and
ideals associated with diversity in a community of higher education. Program faculty
have served on the campus wide Diversity Committee since it began in the mid-1980s.
Currently, three members of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department
serve on the Diversity Committee, with Dr. Cynthia Merriwether-deVries representing
the Social Work Program. In addition, Program faculty work closely with the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion to support and affirm Juniata College’s mission and strategic plan
to welcome and include all learners, especially students who are marginalized structurally
and socially.
The Social Work Program and the Office of Diversity and Inclusion have a mutually
supportive and beneficial relationship that enhances the ability of the Social Work
Program to create and maintain a learning environment that respects diversity. Under the
direction of Dr. Grace Fala, Special Assistant to the President for Diversity and Inclusion,
the Office of Diversity and Inclusion offers diversity-enhanced educational, cultural,
spiritual and relational programs designed to enrich learning, especially with regard to
minority populations. Dr. Fala’s most recent report to the Juniata College administration
on the accomplishments of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the areas identified
for future work, provides a detailed description of many components of the institutional
learning environment that demonstrate the College’s commitment to diversity. Dr.
Fala’s report of October, 2011 follows:
Diversity and Inclusion at Juniata College
At Juniata College, we realize that a diverse population makes us a stronger, more
viable, and more vivacious community. A campus climate frames the backdrop in
front of which learning unfolds. It is the undertone of a message. The climate on
our campus is a measure of the commitment that Juniata gives to diversity. Our
aim is to send and live a message of welcome and inclusion.
36
How? Through campus-wide initiatives, such as:
The Office of Diversity and Inclusion and Campus Ministry share mutual, open,
inviting space at the Unity House. Available to all students, the Unity House is
one representation of the College’s commitment to the integration and
nourishment of individuals of all races, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, socioeconomic statuses, sexual-orientations, gender identities, and abilities. Housed
there are the administrative offices of the Special Assistant to the President for
Diversity and Inclusion, the College Chaplain, the Campus Minister, the Unity
House Coordinator and the Juniata Associate for Diversity and Inclusion.
Students have access to the Unity House around-the-clock, for sharing,
meditating, playing, problem-solving, studying, and socializing. They can also
meet with any of the House leaders, for individual guidance and support.
In addition to Juniata College’s mission and strategic plan to welcome and include
all learners, especially students who are marginalized structurally and socially, we
offer diversity-enhanced educational, cultural, spiritual and relational programs
designed to enrich learning, especially with regard to minority populations.
Educational programs at Juniata include and are not limited to courses such as:
Minority Experiences; Gender and Conflict; Politics of Race and Gender;
Sexuality and Literature; Slave Narratives; Culture, Class & Gender; Women,
Work & Identity; Intercultural Communication; World Literatures; Great
Orations: Woman’s Suffrage/ Civil Rights; and Civil Rights and Song.

Of special mention is our “Beyond Tolerance Series.” Over the
course of one academic year, students can attend any or every one
of eight-to-ten interactive programs/workshops focused on
diversity and inclusion. Guest presenters, artists and facilitators
challenge the Juniata community to become more mindful of
ourselves as global citizens. (The reader may access the 2011-12
Beyond Tolerance schedule of events at:
http://www.juniata.edu/services/diversity/BeyondToleranceSeries.
html )

In 2011, Juniata launched its new P.E.A.C.E. certificate for
“Participating in Educational Activities and Create Equality.”
Members of the Juniata community and residents of the local
communities can earn an official Juniata College PEACE
certificate by attending any six of the eight Beyond Tolerance
programs. (The reader will find a description of the P.E.A.C.E.
certificate program at:
http://www.juniata.edu/services/diversity/peacecertificate.html )

Two additional academic programs are offered every-othersemester. “Unlock Your Voice” features students giving public
37
presentations and performances that celebrate women poets and
writers. “Lift Evry’ Voice” celebrates Black literary artists.

Each year Juniata College also sponsors a campus-wide,
commemorative convocation in honor of Dr. Reverend Martin
Luther King.

In addition, each year, students and members of the faculty are
represented (or are presenting) at Pennsylvania conferences that
highlight diversity, namely: PALOMA (Pennsylvania
Administrators, Leaders, and Officers of Multicultural Affairs);
PA-NAME (Pennsylvania-National Association of Multicultural
Education) conference, SALE (Students Advocating Lifestyle
Equality), SNAP (Students Networking across Pennsylvania), and
the Diversity Conference at PSU.
Cultural Programs at Juniata include and are not limited to: Celebration of
Kwanzaa; Eid Dinner; Chinese New Year Dinner; Fiesta Latina; Pride
Week; Plexus Inbound (educational enrichment experiences for all
incoming freshmen); international films; retreats; service learning;
interfaith dialogues; and so forth. Many of these events also welcome the
creative sharing of ethnic foods, music, art and culture.

Of special mention is our Juniata Presents Artist Series. Most
artists featured each year represent cultural diversity in music,
dance, comedy, and/or theater.

Occasionally, the Juniata Distinguished Speakers Series boasts
diversity-enhanced presentations as well.
Spiritual Programs: Juniata welcomes students of all faith-based
traditions. Interfaith programs are mostly holistic and community-based.
Participants often work together in various service projects, educational
activities, dialogues and reflections. Recognized as relevant student
organizations on campus are: Christian Ministry Board; Hillel (Jewish
student organization); Catholic Council; Muslim Student Association;
United Spiritual Community; Brethren Student Fellowship.
Relational Programs: Student clubs and campus organizations also reflect
Juniata’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. Specifically, any
member of the Juniata community can participate in the: African
American Student Alliance; AWoL (All Ways of Loving for LGBTA);
Chinese Club; Club International; French Club; German Club; Hillel;
Japanese Club; Muslim Student Association; Plexus; Russian Club;
Spanish Club; and so forth.
38
Health & Wellness Center: In addition to regular counseling sessions,
Juniata’s counseling center provides opportunities for students to study
wholesome diet & nutrition, healthy sexual encounters, exercise
regiments, stress relievers, and positive communication practices.
How have we evolved?
Over the last twenty years Juniata College has been slowly and steadily
diversifying its student population. We have grown from 4% domestic minorities
in 1992 to 12% ALANA (African, Latino, Asian, and Native American) students
in 2012. We have also increased our international student population almost
twofold over the same time period, from 6% to 10%. Juniata College has
successfully changed its composition and complexion, especially with regard to
the cultural and racial backgrounds of 22% of our 1600+ students. There were
understandable reasons why ALANA students did not attend Juniata in the past
but, through the efforts of an evolving community, we challenged those barriers
and, in spite of them, we continue all-the-more, to diversify.
What’s Needed?
Unfortunately, we have not yet witnessed similar results with regard to diversity
employment. We have made some improvements, however, at a more gradual
growth with: 8% for faculty, 2% for staff, and 4% for administration. Our
overall average for diversity employment is currently at 5% of 438 employees.
This year, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, with the assistance of Human
Resources, started a new group on campus, called the Stewards of Diversity.
Stewards are undergoing diversity employment training this year so that next
year, at least one Steward will participate on each selection committee formed.
Over the next decade, we hope to reap results similar to our present student
population, and more. With at least a dozen or more retirements expected in the
next three years alone, the present is the best time to rekindle our communitybased efforts and commitments to diversify our staff, faculty and administration.
Like many institutions, we are not without bias. If and when bias (either perceived
and/or real) surfaces on campus, the College is committed to responding swiftly
and methodically. A Bias Response Team reviews the alleged incident and, if
fitting, appropriate actions are taken. In addition, a twenty-member Diversity
Committee comprised of administrators, faculty, staff and students meets monthly
(or, as needed) to discuss campus-wide diversity initiatives and/or setbacks
involving: programming; climate; inclusion; recruitment; retention; and student
life.
We are always seeking ways to better ourselves, to be bolder, and more awake to
the realities of those we might not see or appreciate fully. This is not only our
mission it is, in a word, our nourishment. To this end and with this aim, we are
39
committed to co-creating an open, welcoming and supportive communication
climate with/by/and for all members of the Juniata community. Sometimes
though, we fall short of this goal and, as a consequence, we inhibit progress. In
comparison to a decade ago, an inclusive climate has evolved tenfold. In
comparison to where we ought to be, however, we still fall short. Initiatives to
enroll and hire more domestic minorities are slowed down by fiscal, geographical,
and perceptual limitations. We need to quite intentionally commit more resources
to what we truly value—excellence in diversity and inclusion. By strengthening
one, we strengthen all.
What’s Expected?
Each member of our growing community is unique. Each member has stories to
share—stories that kindle compassion and inspire humanity. We celebrate the
values gained through listening, learning, and coloring outside the box. We
welcome opportunities to stretch awareness of and prompt actions from ourselves,
as global citizens. With an ear toward Gandhi, we encourage our students to be
the creative and positive difference that each wants to make in the world. The
more we embody values worth teaching, the more wholesome, attractive, and
authentic the climate for learning.
It is within this institutional learning environment, described in Dr. Fala’s report above,
that the Social Work Program is embedded. Over the past decade Program faculty have
made specific and continuous efforts to provide a learning environment in which respect
for all persons and understanding of diversity and difference are practiced. As members
of the Diversity Committee and the faculty at large, Program faculty helped to challenge
barriers that made recruitment of diverse students difficult. Program faculty were
instrumental in encouraging institutional commitments to diversity such as:
 including Diversity and Inclusion in the College’s Strategic Plan;
 establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and hiring a Special Assistant to
the President for Diversity and Inclusion;
 implementing educational, interactive Beyond Tolerance programs; and
supporting additional conferences, clubs and projects on campus.
 adding more inclusive language and images to our marketing literature;
 encouraging collaboration between and among various constituencies of the
College to ensure community commitment and development, and to improve the
climate for diverse students, faculty and staff;
 strengthening and expanding international studies abroad and exchange programs,
and establishing a “Global Village” option for students; and
 shifting our enrollment strategies to attract more minority populations.
40
AS 3.1.2: HOW THE PROGRAM MODELS AFFIRMATION AND RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY AND
DIFFERENCE
The Program demonstrates its commitment to diversity and nondiscrimination in conducting all
of its affairs, including faculty personnel matters, student affairs, the selection of agencies and
their clientele as field education settings, research and professional development initiatives,
resource allocations, program leadership, the selection of course speakers, financial support for
diverse campus wide speakers and the organization and implementation of the curriculum.
It is important to note that the Program must demonstrate its commitment to diversity while in
interaction with a social environment that provides limited opportunity for interaction with
individuals from diverse racial or ethnic backgrounds. Juniata College is located in the small,
very homogeneous town of Huntingdon in rural central Pennsylvania. The surrounding counties
of Huntingdon, Centre, Blair, and Fulton also have very homogeneous populations, with few
persons of color represented in the population. Therefore, the agencies that we use for field
education and their clientele offer few opportunities for work with racial or ethnic minorities.
However, there is diversity in class, socioeconomic status, family structure, marital status, age,
disability, country of origin and sexual orientation.
Juniata’s student population, including the students with a POE in Social Work, tends to be very
homogeneous. Most Juniata students come from a white, middle class, rural or small town
background and have very limited experience with diverse populations. This is why the work of
the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and the Diversity Committee is so important, and is one of
the many reasons the Program faculty so vigorously support them. Specific, focused efforts on
the part of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Enrollment staff and members of the
Diversity Committee (which at various times over the past decade has included every member
of the Social Work Program) to recruit and maintain a greater number of students with diverse
backgrounds have produced significant results. The student population at Juniata College has
increased from 2% domestic minorities in 2000 to 12% ALANA (African, Latino, Asian, and
Native American) students in 2012. The College has also increased its international student
population almost twofold over the same time period, from 6% to 10%. Over time, Juniata
College has successfully changed its composition and complexion, especially with regard to the
cultural and racial backgrounds of 22% of our 1600+ students.
41
Percentage of Incoming Students
Diversity Among Incoming Students
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Incoming Year
Domestic ALANA Students
International Students
Program faculty take special care to integrate issues related to diversity throughout the social
work curriculum, including readings and assignments related to diversity; the use of videos that
focus on diversity issues; field trips to locations where there is a more diverse population, for
example, to Harrisburg for the PA NASW sponsored Lobby Day; and a diverse array of speakers
in class.
In addition, the Program supports campus wide speakers on diversity related issues through
financial contributions from its budget. Over the past three years the Department of Sociology,
Social Work and Anthropology has sponsored campus speakers whose topics related to diversity
such as: genealogist Judy Heald, who lectures on multi-ethnic families; filmmaker Chris Ivy,
who spoke on the gentrification of black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh; former executive director
of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Bruce Davis, who lectured on Hollywood
films and their impact on race perceptions; and lecturer King Downing, who will speak on the
implications of torture for the broader society in April, 2012. The Social Work Club will
sponsor and pay for King Downing’s campus presentation.
Program faculty also emphasize the impact of international and global issues on populations at
risk and social and economic justice in dealing with the topics of diversity and
nondiscrimination. For example, in October, 2009 the Social Work Program sponsored a
campus-wide presentation on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children/Human Trafficking
Seminar by Dr. Mark Rodgers, Dean of the Dominican University Graduate School of Social
Work. Along with other academic programs and campus organizations, the Social Work
Program will sponsor a series of speakers and films during Genocide Awareness Week in April,
2012. For example, the Social Work Program will help to fund speaker Eugenie Mukeshimana,
Rwandan genocide survivor, who is the:

Educational Outreach Coordinator at the Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict
Resolution, and Human Rights at Rutgers University
42


Board Member for Voices of Rwanda, Miracle Corners of the World and Mothers to
Mothers
Founder and Executive Director of the Genocide Survivors Support Network (GSSN), a
charitable organization with a mission to help genocide survivors rebuild their lives and
educate communities about the crime of genocide
In addition, the social work advisors and Program faculty work hard to support and encourage
social work students to study abroad and to take a foreign language (which is not required at
Juniata.)
Program faculty also offer support to and participate in campus organizations that celebrate
diversity and nondiscrimination such as All Ways of Loving, Habitat for Humanity, the Social
Work Club, the African-American Student Alliance, Plexus Multicultural Awareness Committee,
and Power-up Gambia, a club that raises funds to purchase solar panels for medical centers,
clinics and hospitals in Gambia. Dr. Merriwether-Devries has served as the faculty advisor to
the African-American Student Association since 2002, for the Plexus Multicultural Awareness
Committee since 2008, and for Power-up Gambia since 2010.
Four members of the department, including Professors Radis and Reilly and Drs. MerriwetherdeVries and Welliver have completed the Safe Zone training, which deals with issues of concern
to GLBTA students, and have their offices designated as “safe zones” for GLBTA students.
However, it is important to note that all Program faculty offices provide a “safe zone” for
students of any background.
All Program faculty have an “open door” policy and welcome students into their offices for
conversation and consultation on both academic and personal matters. Dr. Merriwether-deVries
is particularly sought out by students with diverse backgrounds and provides a much needed
“home base” for many minority students, several of whom affectionately and respectfully call
her “Mama Cy.” She is particularly adept at helping students, especially those from
underrepresented groups and returning adult students, put the demands of balancing the roles of
student and family member into perspective.
In addition, Dr. Merriwether-deVries is an outstanding mentor for students interested in social
work and sociology, particularly for returning adult students and students from diverse
backgrounds. Over the past four years, among other students, Dr. Merriwether-deVries
mentored two young women of color, both of whom engaged in significant research projects
under Dr. Merriwether-deVries’s supervision; presented the results of their research at
professional conferences as well as at the Juniata College Liberal Arts Symposium; and in May,
2011 were accepted into graduate school and funded to pursue Ph.D.’s. These two very bright
and talented young women may not have achieved these outstanding accomplishments without
the mentoring of Dr. Merriwether-deVries.
In addition, Program faculty model respect for diversity and a commitment to nondiscrimination
through the research and professional development activities in which they are engaged. Dr.
Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Welliver accompanied two Sociology students to the Eastern
Sociological Society 2011 meeting in Philadelphia, PA. The students displayed a poster based
43
on research conducted under the supervision of Dr. Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Welliver on
best practices promoting independent undergraduate research that extends beyond traditional
campus based samples of convenience to include subjects who are members of disenfranchised
or traditionally underrepresented populations.
AS 3.1.3: PLANS TO IMPROVE THE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT TO AFFIRM AND SUPPORT PERSONS
WITH DIVERSE IDENTITIES
The Program is proud of its diverse composition and continues to work toward a more diverse
faculty in the future. Program faculty consists of one man and two women, one of whom, Dr.
Cynthia Merriwether-deVries, is the first and only African American faculty member at Juniata
College. Over the past decade the Social Work faculty has clearly and consistently advocated for
a more diverse faculty, staff and administration on campus. These efforts in combination with
the efforts of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Diversity Committee and Human
Resources have resulted in changes in recruiting policies at Juniata College. In 2011, the Office
of Diversity and Inclusion, with the assistance of Human Resources, started a new group on
campus, called the Stewards of Diversity. Stewards participated in diversity employment
training in the fall if 2011 so that beginning in the spring of 2012, at least one Steward will
participate on each selection committee formed. Two faculty from the Sociology, Social Work
and Anthropology Department, Dr. Cynthia Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Daniel Welliver,
participated in the Stewards of Diversity training, and will participate on selection committees
across campus departments as needed. Please see Appendix 1 for the Juniata College Search
Committee Guidelines for Diversity Employment prepared by the Diversity Committee and the
Stewards of Diversity.
Within the past three years, Dr. Merriwether-deVries has worked closely with the Enrollment
Office and key alumni to institute new enrollment initiatives in order to affirm and support
students with diverse identities, whom we are working very hard to recruit. These initiatives
include:
 The Enrollment Office sends a letter to all accepted ALANA students specifically
addressing concerns about the degree to which diversity is represented in the campus
community, and the supports that are available on campus for diverse students.
 The College pays for charter buses to transport potential ALANA applicants from
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Manhattan and the five boroughs surrounding New York City to
and from the Juniata campus.
 In the 2011-12 academic year, the Enrollment Office hired a student multicultural
admissions counselor to address student and parent concerns about the presence or
absence of diversity on campus.
 In the spring semester the Enrollment Office sponsors a “multicultural admitted students
weekend,” during which admitted ALANA students are paired with an ALANA Juniata
student, whose POE is in the area of interest expressed by the visiting student. Students
attend classes on Friday and are involved in social activities on campus throughout the
weekend. In addition, the prospective ALANA student attends one workshop on a topic
related to adjustment to college.
 Juniata College has specific liaisons working with a primarily minority serving high
school in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on the connections forged through the liaisons,
44

Juniata College sponsors a joint Alumni and Enrollment Event that brings students and
their guidance counselors from the minority serving high school in Baltimore to campus
via a charter bus. Students and counselors arrive on campus on Sunday and attend two
workshops: a workshop on adjustment to a predominantly white college campus; and a
workshop on financial planning for college and how to pay for a Juniata education.
Students attend classes and meet faculty on Monday, and are then transported home by
charter bus.
In 2012-13 the Plexus Inbound Freshman Orientation Program will implement a new peer
mentor program for ALANA students. Two student interns will work with the Plexus
Inbound Program to recruit student mentors from the Plexus Multicultural Awareness
Committee, each of whom will be assigned to mentor a freshman ALANA student.
In addition, Program faculty will continue to serve on the Diversity Committee, provide support
and consultation to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and work with the Enrollment Office in
their continued efforts to recruit and maintain a more diverse student body at Juniata College.
AS 3.2: STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
AS B3.2.1: CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION TO THE SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM AND AS 3.2.2: PROCESS
FOR EVALUATING APPLICATIONS AND NOTIFYING APPLICANTS OF THE DECISION.
Juniata College does not have traditional “majors.” Each student must design and successfully
complete a Program of Emphasis that consists of 45-63 credit hours with a minimum of 18 credit
hours at the 300 or 400 levels. The POE is similar to the “major” found at most other colleges,
but the POE has some unique and noteworthy characteristics. The POE is very much “student
centered” in that it places the student at the center of academic decision making. Students, in
consultation with two academic advisors, draft POE goal statements, identify classes to attain
their goals, and develop rationales for their chosen program. There are fifty-nine “designated”
Programs of Emphasis at the college and “Social Work” is among them. Academic departments
prepare the designated POE, which specifies the courses students must take to satisfy the POE
requirements. While the Program of Emphasis is a tangible document in which students
articulate their undergraduate goals and the means to accomplish them, the POE is also very
much a developmental process, one that begins in the first year and typically continues into the
senior year. The POE document and process guide students in planning academic programs that
reflect their interests and needs.
In the spring semester, first year students craft “Initial Programs of Emphasis” or IN-POES in
consultation with their academic advisors. The IN-POE is a planning document that requires the
student to identify an area of academic interest along with up to ten courses she/he has taken, is
currently taking or plans to take within the next two semesters that will lead her/him toward the
achievement of these goals.
In the spring semester of their sophomore year all Juniata College students are required to
organize a Program of Emphasis or POE in consultation with their academic advisors. The POE
is a much more substantive and detailed academic plan in contrast to the IN-POE. It requires the
student to identify her/his academic goals and how this POE should help her/him meet these
45
goals. The student must show how the courses she/he has chosen present an integrated
whole. The student must lay out a course plan comprised of 45 to 63 credits and provide a
rationale for each course or group of courses that explains how the POE courses will help meet
her/his academic and career goals. When read by another, the POE should make clear the
intellectual path the student has chosen. In addition, the student must identify the career
path she/he intends for the POE to support.
In the senior year, most students review their POE from sophomore year, and students may
amend or revise the POE at this time to better reflect their maturing interests and needs.
In keeping with the Program’s goals and objectives, students who choose social work as a field
of scholarly pursuit and as a career must exhibit a healthy, genuine desire to work with people in
a range of problem solving capacities. This requires that students must be sensitive and open to
the needs and values of others, committed to the pursuit of social change on behalf of and in
collaboration with clients and consumers, as well as with the society at large, and capable of and
committed to learning and incorporating the principles and ethics of social work into their
problem solving repertoire. As previously noted, the POE is “student-centered;” in that the
process of developing a POE aims to keep the student at the forefront of educational planning.
In the social work program this “student-centered” process must occur in a manner that
acknowledges and respects the profession’s goals and objectives for undergraduate “generalist”
preparation for a social work career.
The decision to pursue social work at Juniata College is taken quite seriously by the faculty and
others associated with the program. For this reason, students electing to write their POEs in
social work must do so in regular, ongoing consultation with the social work faculty advisor. All
social work students are required to have a social work faculty member who holds the MSW as
their program advisor. Social work students and their social work faculty advisor engage in a
deliberate process to ensure that social work is right for the student and that the student is right
for social work. This process includes, but is not limited to:

An exploration of the student’s interests, past experiences, values and motivation that
have led her/him toward social work;

An exploration of the student’s knowledge of and familiarity with the profession (e.g.,
what social work is about and what a career in social work may be like);

Strong encouragement by the faculty advisor to use the resources of Career Services to
further explore social work careers and to assess student interests and personal attributes,
and to better determine student-career “fit;”

Strong encouragement and guidance by the faculty advisor to seek out others with similar
interests, including social work students and practitioners, for advice, insights, and
clarification;

Strong encouragement and guidance to seek out other resources and opportunities to test
interests and aptitudes for social work, including volunteer activities, community service,
and summer employment;

An ongoing dialogue between the student and the social work advisor and faculty for
purposes of continued exploration of educational and career interests relevant to social
work; and
46

A regular review and assessment of the student’s academic progress and fitness related to
the student’s social work goals and POE.
Official admission to the Social Work Program occurs at the point that a student has completed a
POE (not the IN-POE) in social work that has been approved by the social work faculty advisor
and the Registrar. Students will not be admitted to the program until they have engaged in the indepth advising process described above with a social work faculty advisor and have completed
an approved social work POE. The signature of the social work faculty advisor on the POE
indicates faculty approval of the student’s rationale for entering the Social Work Program and an
understanding on the part of both the student and the social work faculty advisor that the
student’s personal goals and career objectives are compatible with the goals and values of the
social work program and the profession of social work. Therefore, the approved POE represents
formal admission to the Social Work Program and is recognized as such by the Registrar, the
College, and the student. The student knows that she/he has been admitted to the Social Work
Program at the time the social work advisor officially signs her/his POE form. Students are also
provided with a copy of the official POE signed by the social work advisor and the Registrar by
the Registrar’s Office.
AS 3.2.4 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CREDITS
The college’s policy and procedures for the transferring of credit are described in the online
catalog at
http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/section.html?s1=admission&s2=transfer_credit. These
documents describe how the transferring student should make application to the College, the
nature of the documentation the student must present for review by the Office of Enrollment and
the Registrar, distinctions between transferring with or without an A.A. degree and minimum
grade requirements. The transfer of credit requires the minimum grade of “C-” and the course
being imported to Juniata must reasonably approximate a course that is regularly offered at
Juniata. In instances where the reasonable approximation standard is not clearly met, the course
for which transfer of credit has been requested is reviewed by the applicable department
chairperson who renders the transfer decision. Department chairs consult with other department
faculty on these matters whenever possible.
The policies and procedures for transferring academic credit into the social work program are
included in the Social Work Program Manual. Credit for courses taken at accredited colleges
and universities may be transferred into the Social Work Program in accordance with Juniata
College policy. Students entering Juniata’s Social Work Program from another college or
university and matriculated students taking courses elsewhere who wish to transfer credits into
the program must have each course evaluated by social work faculty who will determine if the
course or courses in question satisfy the program’s requirements. Students requesting transfer
credit must submit syllabi, bibliographies, and other materials as requested for review. The
Program Director makes decisions pertaining to the transfer of credit into the program in
consultation with program faculty.
The granting of academic credit for students transferring from other accredited social work
programs is done with care. The student’s need for fairness must be balanced against the
47
Program’s need to preserve the integrity of its mission, goals, and objectives. The Social Work
Program will not accept the importation of transfer courses for any of the social work practice
courses in its required curriculum, unless the practice course was taken at a college or university
with a CSWE accredited undergraduate social work program, and only if the course is a very
close approximation of the same course as it is structured and taught at Juniata College.
Determination of the transferability of a social work practice course into Juniata’s social work
program is made by the Program Director in consultation with social work faculty.
The Program Director/Department Chair, in consultation with her MSW colleague, is responsible
for determining whether or not credit may be granted for courses in the Program. The
determination to grant transfer of credit into the Program from another accredited program is
made after a thorough review of all necessary information which may include the transferring
institution’s college catalog, its social work handbook/catalog, the course syllabus, course
assignments and bibliographies. If necessary, the Program faculty will speak directly with the
instructor from the transferring institution to gain additional information and insights. Whenever
possible, Program faculty also engage the student seeking to transfer credit in discussions to
examine the extent to which the student is able to articulate how the course being transferred
contributes to her/his preparation and development in social work. Favorable determinations for
transferring credit are made only after Program faculty have sufficient evidence to be assured
that there is strong congruence between the course being transferred and its equivalent course in
the Program, as well as the degree of compatibility between the transfer course’s conceptual
frames of reference and that of the Program equivalent course. When there is reasonable doubt
about this congruence, students may take equivalency examinations to demonstrate the degree to
which they are proficient. In instances where the student demonstrates near proficiency on the
examination, special assignments may be developed for the student so as to enable the student to
satisfy the Program’s expectations and transfer the course credit. Such a practice is used to
prevent the student from having to duplicate educational effort in cases of near proficiency. A
transfer student may not transfer the Social Work Professional Semester or the Professional
Semester Research Seminar into the Program.
For students transferring into the Program from a non-CSWE accredited institution, the same
policy and procedures as described above are applicable. However, in this case the Program will
not grant transfer credit for any practice course or field experience.
Program faculty consider each transfer student’s request for transfer of credit carefully, and
within College and Program guidelines make every effort to ensure that students transferring into
the social work program do not repeat foundation content.
AS 3.2.5: DOCUMENTATION THAT ACADEMIC CREDIT FOR LIFE OR PREVIOUS WORK EXPERIENCE
IS NOT GIVEN
It is the Program’s policy that no academic credit will be given to students for previous life or
work experience. This policy is specified in the Social Work Program Manual which is given to
all social work students upon entry to the Program.
48
AS 3.2.6: PROGRAM ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL ADVISING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
All students who express an interest in social work are assigned a social work faculty advisor.
Juniata College and the Social Work Program place great importance on the academic advising
process and partnership with students throughout their undergraduate career at the college. All
students are assigned a first-year advisor upon arrival at Juniata. In cases where a student
identifies social work as her/his likely area of study, he/she is assigned a social work faculty
advisor. By the end of the first year the student will choose two advisors: a liberal arts or general
advisor and a POE or program advisor. Students writing Initial POEs or IN-POEs in social work
are required to have a social work faculty member who holds the MSW as their program advisor.
Students who do not write an IN-POE in social work but who later plan to write POEs in social
work in the sophomore year are required to secure a social work faculty member as their
program advisor as early as possible in their undergraduate career. The social work faculty
advisor works closely with each social work student to determine if admission to the program is
appropriate.
The duties of the social work program advisor include:

Advising students on course selection, monitoring academic progress, POE development
and alteration, career planning, graduate study, study skills, and other related academic
and career matters, such as the consideration of study abroad and selection of field
placements in social work;

Referring students to other offices, personnel, and resources who can assist students on
academic, career, financial, housing, and personal matters;

Using the “Notice of Concern” form and process to maintain a record of student
strengths, problems, and progress, and to share this information with relevant parties
(e.g., student services staff and other faculty advisors) listed on the form;

Maintaining an active file of information on each student, including course and academic
records and Notices of Concern, which shall be passed on to subsequent advisors
whenever a student elects to change advisors;

Writing letters of recommendation regarding field placements, job placement, study
abroad, graduate school, and so forth, when these letters are requested and warranted;

Informing the advisee’s instructors and field supervisors of any special circumstances
that could affect the advisee’s academic performance and to advocate on behalf of the
advisee when warranted;

Signing all college forms that require the advisor’s signature, including the POE, course
registration forms, drop-add forms, etc.;

Informing students of situations wherein they may or should change advisors and/or
POEs when academic and/or personal factors warrant such a change;

Informing students of their rights and privileges under the college’s policies in matters
pertaining to academic probation, suspension or dismissal from the college due to
violations of academic or student conduct standards, and the needs of students with
disabilities, and advocating on behalf of students when warranted; and

Participating in advisor training sessions when they are offered to continually improve
their effectiveness as academic advisors.
49
AS 3.2.7: HOW THE PROGRAM INFORMS STUDENTS OF CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ACADEMIC AND
PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE, INCLUDING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR GRIEVANCE
The Juniata College Catalog 2011-12 and the Social Work Program Manual inform students
about the College’s standards for “good academic standing.” The Social Work Program Manual
also includes information about the academic standards of the Program, which are of particular
importance to social work students. Beyond the academic standards of the College, social work
students must satisfy the academic standards of the social work program. These standards are as
follows:

Social work students must complete all courses in the social work curriculum with a
grade of “C-“ or higher.

To be eligible for enrollment in the Social Work Professional Semester and its
accompanying seminar, which are taken in the second semester of the senior year,
students must achieve a 2.5 GPA on a 4 point scale in required social work courses and
an overall GPA of 2.5.
In addition to these general academic standards, the criteria by which the student will be
evaluated for each course in the Program are described in detail in course syllabi. Evaluation
criteria are directly associated with course objectives and program objectives. The evaluation
instruments for the mini field experience in SW 330 and for SW 490, the Social Work
Professional Semester are included in the Social Work Program Manual. All social work
students are informed about the criteria for evaluation in SW 330 and SW 490 from the time they
enter the Program.
Evaluation processes and criteria vary over the Program curriculum depending on the particular
course and the particular assignments within a course. The faculty recognize that student
evaluation is best when it is multi-dimensional and when students have the opportunity for
regular, systematic feedback, both in the context of a course and over the undergraduate career.
Since evaluation is mostly a tool for enhancing student development, it should provide students
and faculty with useful information about the degree of mastery the student has developed
concerning social work knowledge, values, and skills, and it should be attentive to the student’s
strengths, as well as areas for future work.
Program faculty use the following strategies to evaluate student performance: regular
examinations ranging from objective and short essay to all essay formats; class preparation and
participation; research assignments and research papers; case studies; group projects and group
presentations; journals/logs; student products such as the social plan or the Professional Semester
project; self-evaluation; peer evaluation; and collaborative student-field instructor-faculty
supervisor evaluation of fieldwork including the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument,
among others. In all instances, social work students are informed in advance of the evaluation
criteria associated with each evaluation strategy.
If a student wishes to appeal a grade, the student needs to first make the appeal to the faculty
who assigned the grade at issue within two weeks of receipt of the grade. If the student is not
satisfied, he or she may appeal to the appropriate department chair or course director. Further
appeal must be made to the Provost. It is expected that a final decision on all grade appeals will
50
be made within four weeks of the time the grade was received. The specific procedure for filing
an appeal of a course grade is found at
http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/section.html?s1=appr&s2=grade_appeals.
Students have the right to appeal academic matters relating to graduation requirements, academic
probation, academic dismissal, and other issues to the Student Academic Development
Committee. The appeal must be made in writing and submitted to the Registrar. It is important
that the student who wishes an appeal to be heard by the committee prepare the appeal as quickly
as possible. The decision of the Student Academic Development Committee may be appealed to
the Registrar.
AS 3.2.8: DISCUSSION OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR TERMINATION
Under certain circumstances the social work faculty may determine that a student seeking to
complete a POE in social work is unsuitable for the profession. In such instances, members of
the social work faculty recognize their professional and ethical responsibilities to “select out” a
student whose academic and professional performance or social behavior preclude entrance into
the profession. The Program’s policies related to termination of a student’s enrollment in the
social work program for reasons of academic and professional performance or social behavior
are discussed in the Social Work Program Manual. The termination of the social work student is
done with extreme care and sensitivity and only on the basis of sound evidence that the student
is, in fact, unsuitable for the profession. A student’s suitability may be brought into question by
any of the following:

Failure to meet the standards of good academic standing and progress of the college;

Unsatisfactory academic performance in the social work program (i.e., a final course
grade below C- in any required social work course or failure to meet the 2.5 minimum
GPA standards);

Violation of social work ethics as defined in the NASW Code of Ethics;

Violation of college policy concerning acceptable social and academic behavior (e.g.,
excessive consumption of alcohol; not adhering to the standards of academic integrity);

Any other academic, social, psychological, behavioral or emotional indicators that
suggest to the social work faculty that a student’s ability to responsibly discharge
professional social work duties and functions ought to be questioned.
When suitability and/or termination are at issue, the social work faculty take deliberate steps to
involve the student in an assessment of the issue in question in relation to the student’s interest in
and commitment to the social work profession. In terminating a student the faculty take care in
considering the rights of the student, as well as the responsibility of the profession to act in the
best interests of clients and consumers of social work services. The social work faculty
recognizes that termination, if necessary, ought to occur as early in the student’s academic career
as possible. Therefore, regular monitoring of student progress and development through the
advising system is of great importance.
Any student who is terminated from the social work program has the right to appeal that decision
to the Student Academic Development Committee.
51
AS 3.2.9: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SPECIFYING STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES TO
PARTICIPATE IN FORMULATING AND MODIFYING POLICIES AFFECTING ACADEMIC AND STUDENT
AFFAIRS
The Program embraces the college-wide policies and procedures concerning student rights and
responsibilities and it conducts itself accordingly. Various student rights and responsibilities are
documented in the Juniata College Online Catalog 2011-2012 at
http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/ ; in The Pathfinder, the online student handbook found
at http://www.juniata.edu/services/pathfinder/conduct.html; and in the Social Work Program
Manual, which each social work student receives upon admission to the program. Documents
specifying student rights and responsibilities are readily accessible to students. Each first year
student is introduced to The Juniata College Online Catalog and The Pathfinder and how to
access them online during the first year student orientation. In addition, because Juniata College
is committed to principles of fairness and educating the whole person, faculty and staff routinely
make students aware of their rights to appeal and grievance through regular advising procedures
and routine contact. For example, informing students about their rights to appeal, how to exercise
those rights, and other grievance procedures is part of the first year advising program.
The Juniata College Online Catalog addresses a wide range of topics that pertain directly or
indirectly to student rights. These include but are not limited to policies related to academic
integrity, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, standards of academic
progress and grade appeals. The Catalog also includes the following statement on the
Principles of a Liberal Arts Lifestyle found at
http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/section.html?s1=appr&s2=responsibility, which
identifies many of the values and ethics supported by the social work profession and which the
Program fully endorses in our advising of students:
Principles of the Liberal Arts Lifestyle
As a community, Juniata is dedicated to providing an academically rigorous and
personally enriching liberal arts education. Students have a responsibility to
expand and fulfill their lifestyles to embrace the opportunities that lead to wellrounded citizenship.
The Student Government of Juniata College, as servant of the students, approves
the following principles of a liberal arts lifestyle, and believes that these
principles serve as the vehicle to successful life experiences.
A Juniata student who fully engages in a liberal arts lifestyle:
• Recognizes the value of being a citizen of the world in an increasingly
global and diverse community.
• Seeks opportunities to serve in activities that enrich communities and
give back to humanity.
52
• Builds meaningful and lasting relationships with academic peers, faculty,
staff, and future colleagues.
• Regards healthy lifestyle choices as the keystone to success.
• Embodies a spirit of sustainability through awareness of finite resources.
• Realizes that learning is a lifelong process encompassing many
disciplines.
• Questions the assumptions and truths presented in life, as embodied in
Juniata’s maxim “Veritas Liberat.”
• Understands that integrity and honesty in all of life’s pursuits are virtues
unto themselves.
• Assumes responsibility for choices made
Approved by Juniata College Student Government, April 14, 2006
The Pathfinder includes but is not limited to policies on student rights and responsibilities related
to the use of alcohol and drugs on campus, criminal misconduct, campus sexual misconduct,
sexual harassment, the judicial process, and the rights of students with disabilities, campus
violence, hazing, guidelines for communicable diseases, Title IX, standards for student conduct
and academic appeals.
The social work faculty remains very sensitive to the students’ need to know and understand
their rights and responsibilities, both as Juniata students and as emerging professional social
workers. It actively seeks to ensure that students are aware of their responsibilities and it assists
students in being responsible by making clear the expectations for student and professional
conduct. Further, the Program seeks to ensure that students know their rights and how to exercise
them effectively. Therefore the Social Work Program Manual provides a description of student
rights and responsibilities as they pertain to the Standards of Student Conduct, Discipline,
Appeals of Academic Matters and the Rights of Students with Disabilities. The Program’s
dedicated advising system provides a useful means for informing social work students of their
rights and responsibilities. Social work faculty also works to ensure that all students know their
rights and how to exercise them. If, for example, a social work faculty member planned to bring
a charge of academic dishonesty against a student, the faculty member would tactfully confront
the student with the charge and the evidence. In addition, the faculty member would explain to
the student her/his right to appeal, as well as the particular process to be used should the student
actually wish to pursue the appeal. In addition, Program faculty stands ready to advocate for the
rights of all students at Juniata College and have done so with regularity.
Students also participate regularly in the ongoing development and refinement of policies at the
College and in the Program. Students involved with all-college bodies such as the Student
Affairs Council, Student Government and the Residence Hall Association take on advisory
53
and/or policy making roles in matters pertaining to student rights and responsibilities. Students
are also represented on the following standing faculty committees:

Academic Planning and Assessment—1 student representative (voice only)

Curriculum Committee—1 student representative (voice and vote)

Student Academic Development Committee—2 student representatives (voice and vote).
In addition, five student representatives serve on the Judicial Board; two students serve on the
International Education Committee; two students serve on the Distinguished Speakers
Committee; three students serve on the Peace and Conflict Studies Committee; and two student
representatives (voice only) serve on each of the committees of the Board of Trustees.
Students participate in the evaluation of the Program at virtually every level including course
evaluations, annual advisor evaluations, senior exit interviews, larger scale outcome studies and
the Periodic Program Review.
AS 3.2.10: HOW THE PROGRAM PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES AND ENCOURAGES STUDENTS TO
ORGANIZE IN THEIR INTERESTS.
Juniata College embraces a philosophy of educating the “whole person” and is committed to a
strong co-curricular program to complement its curricular endeavors. Likewise, the Social
Work Program recognizes both the curricular and co-curricular dimensions of the undergraduate
enterprise can contribute meaningfully to student educational and professional development.
Social work faculty strongly encourage social work students to be active members of student and
professional organizations and to organize in their own interests. For example, Program faculty
discuss student membership in NASW and distribute membership packets to social work
students in class. Social work advisors also keep NASW membership packets in their offices
and distribute them to students upon request.
The Sigma Chapter of Phi Alpha was established at Juniata College in 1988 through the
organizational efforts of social work students with the encouragement, guidance and support of
Professor Reilly, who served as the organization’s faculty advisor. However, student enthusiasm
for and participation in the organization have ebbed and flowed over the years. In 2007, largely
as a result of diminishing enrollment in the social work program that made maintaining a critical
mass for membership difficult, the social work student organization became dormant. Social
work students gravitated to other student organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Circle K,
and the United Spiritual Community, all of which have community outreach and service-toothers as important aspects of their mission.
In the fall of 2009 a small group of students, working in collaboration with Professor Reilly,
began the process of reinvigorating and reorganizing the social work student organization into
the Social Work Club. By 2010 the Social Work Club was recognized by Juniata College
Student Government as an officially sanctioned student organization. Throughout the 2010-11
and 2011-12 academic years the club’s efforts have focused principally on: socialization among
the members; service and outreach to the community; educational enrichment; and advocacy.
54
During the 2011-12 academic year the club’s active membership has ranged in the high teens.
The club meets weekly, averaging 6-10 members per meeting. The club’s recent efforts include:

Organizing a letter writing campaign to Pennsylvania legislators encouraging their
support of PA Senate Bill 922, which among other things would license social workers
with bachelor degrees to perform generalist social work services;

Organizing a “Secret Santa” Christmas dinner and party held at Professor Reilly’s house
that brought together a large contingent of social work students and social work faculty in
holiday cheer;

Making and distributing Valentine’s greetings for residents of Westminster Woods
Nursing Home ;

Planning for Social Work Club sponsored guest speakers in Spring semester 2012; and

Planning/coordinating social work student participation in NASW-PA’s annual
Legislative Advocacy Day on March, 27, 2012.
Presently, the club enjoys a good leadership structure and a critical mass of engaged members. If
those qualities can be sustained, the future of Juniata’s Social Work Club looks promising. Social
work faculty will continue to encourage students to “get involved and be a force” as the Social
Work Program Manual urges.
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 3.3: FACULTY
AS 3.3.1: Faculty qualifications, competence, expertise in social work education and practice,
and years of service to the program
The Program has operated with 2.5 faculty members since its initial accreditation in 1981. The
faculty has been extremely stable, with Professors Radis and Reilly serving as full time MSW
faculty for the past twenty-eight years. For the past eleven years Dr. Cynthia MerriwetherdeVries, who has a Ph.D in Human Development and Family Studies, has served as a half time
faculty member in the social work program, with additional duties half time in the sociology
Program. Both Professors Radis and Reilly have full time teaching appointments, possess
master’s degrees from CSWE accredited programs and have the equivalent of two or more years
post-master’s social work degree experience. Professors Radis and Reilly were both certified in
1989 by the Council on Social Work Education Commission on Accreditation to teach practice
courses and co-ordinate field instruction in baccalaureate programs in the United States. Copies
of the letters documenting this are included in this document.
The course teaching assignments of Program faculty have been exceptionally stable, which
enables program faculty to maintain a high level of continuity and integration in the Program’s
curriculum, as faculty have considerable opportunity for refining the courses they have taught
over time. Professors Radis and Reilly have taught the same courses in the social work
curriculum for twenty-eight years. Professor Radis teaches SW 221, The Life Cycle; SW 230,
Introduction to Social Work Practice; SW 330, Social Work Practice: Individuals, Families and
Small Groups Lab; and SW 331 Social Work Practice: Individuals, Families and Small Groups.
Based on her educational and professional background and her many years of experience in
undergraduate social work education, Professor Radis is highly qualified to teach the courses
mentioned above, which facilitate the social work student’s mastery of the Program’s
55
competencies listed in section AS B2.0.2. Please see Professor Radis’ curriculum vitae later in
this document.
Professor Reilly teaches SO 101, Introduction to Sociology; SW 231, Social Problems and Social
Welfare; and SW 332, Social Work Practice, Large Groups, Organizations and Communities.
Based on his educational and professional background and his many years of experience in
undergraduate social work education, Professor Reilly is highly qualified to teach the courses
mentioned above, which facilitate the social work student’s mastery of the Program’s
competencies listed in section AS B2.0.2. Please see Professor Reilly’s curriculum vitae later in
this document.
Although Professor Reilly is the Field Director, both Professors Radis and Reilly have taught
SW 490, Social Work Professional Semester and SW 495, Social Work Professional Semester
Research Seminar for twenty-eight years. Faculty resources are more than sufficient to provide
faculty supervision and support for students during their Professional Semester. In 2010 the
Program placed four students in field agencies for their Professional Semester; in 2011 the
Program placed three students in field agencies for the Professional Semester; and in 2012 the
Program placed three students in field agencies for the Professional Semester. Both Professors
Radis and Reilly are highly qualified and very experienced at supervising the academic
components of the Social Work Professional Semester and the Social Work Professional
Semester Research Seminar. In addition, Professors Radis and Reilly are very experienced at
guiding social work interns through the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument, in which
senior social work students document their mastery of the 10 Core Competencies of the Social
Work Program.
Since 2004, Dr. Merriwether-deVries has taught half-time in the social work program and half
time in the sociology program. Her teaching assignments in the social work program include SO
101, Introduction to Sociology, SO 203, Minority Experiences; SW 333, Social Welfare Policy
and Services; and ND.SS 215, Social Science Research Methods. Dr. Merriwether-deVries
possesses excellent academic credentials including extensive research and teaching experience
both at Juniata and Penn State, where she earned all three of her degrees. Her interdisciplinary
Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies uniquely qualifies Dr. Merriwether-deVries to
teach courses in both the Sociology and Social Work Programs, which is extremely beneficial to
the Department. Dr. Merriwether-deVries has a great breadth of knowledge in the field of
Sociology, including in the areas of social policy, research methods, aging, minority studies and
gender studies that overlap with Social Work. Dr. Merriwether-deVries is highly qualified to
teach the courses mentioned above, which facilitate the social work student’s mastery of the
Program’s competencies listed in section AS B2.0.2. Please see Dr. Merriwether-deVries’
curriculum vitae later in this document. Her interdisciplinary academic background and breadth
of knowledge, excellent research skills, outstanding interpersonal skills and easy rapport with
students from all backgrounds make her an invaluable resource for the Social Work Program.
56
AS 3.3.2: DISCUSSION OF HOW FACULTY SIZE IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE NUMBER OF
CURRICULAR OFFERINGS IN CLASS AND FIELD; CLASS SIZE; NUMBER OF STUDENTS; AND FACULTY
TEACHING, SCHOLARLY AND SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES
Although small in number with 2.5 faculty members assigned to the Social Work Program,
faculty resources enable the Program to achieve its goals and objectives. A significant virtue of
the Program is its small size allowing for a faculty-to-student ratio of approximately 1:12 for
each MSW faculty member. Such a favorable faculty-to-student ratio assures adequate time for
student advising; low course enrollments especially in the 300 and 400 level courses, which in
the past five years have ranged from 3-6 students; and exceptionally thorough faculty monitoring
and supervision of student professional development in the Professional Semester. In addition,
the low faculty-to-student ratio allows faculty members sufficient time for teaching and advising,
as well as the pursuit of professional development activities and service responsibilities, which
are additional expectations of the College. The small size of the program enables program
faculty to maintain close interpersonal and professional contact with each other on a daily basis,
so opportunities for informal and formal discussion of Program issues occur regularly. Faculty
members maintain a high degree of respect for each other and routinely seek each other out for
advice and consultation. Furthermore, the small size of the program enables faculty members to
be astutely familiar with the content and processes of each course and the overall curriculum,
which greatly enhances the potential for coherent integration of the course content and student
development from semester to semester and year to year.
The Social Work Program is embedded in the Department of Sociology, Social Work and
Anthropology. The Department has traditionally played a large service role on campus, with
many students who do not have Programs of Emphasis in Sociology, Social Work or
Anthropology enrolling in our courses. As long as a student has taken the prerequisite for the
course, she/he is permitted to enroll in any social work course, and we often have students who
do not have a Program of Emphasis in Social Work enrolled in SW 221, The Life Cycle; SW
231, Social Problems and Social Welfare; and occasionally in SW 230, Introduction to Social
Work Practice. In addition, Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries all crossteach courses in the Sociology and Social Work Programs. As mentioned above, Dr.
Merriwether-deVries teaches several courses in the Social Work Program, including SO 101,
Introduction to Sociology; SO 203, Minority Experiences; SW 333, Social Welfare Policies and
Services; and ND.SS 215, Social Science Research Methods. Professors Radis and Reilly teach
courses that are either required courses or designated electives in the Sociology Program, along
with other elective courses in Sociology. The enrollment in these elective courses generally
ranges between 15-30 students, and with enrollment in the Social Work Program generally very
small, Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries are well able to handle these
teaching assignments.
The Program faculty’s professional and teaching backgrounds and expertise enable them to cover
the undergraduate social work curriculum with breadth and depth. With a relatively small
faculty the Program addresses both the required and elective courses of the Program in a way
that is responsive to a broad range of student interests including but not limited to social work in
health and behavioral health care, social work and justice, and social work with children and
multigenerational families.
57
In the Fall Semester, 2010 the social work program provided the opportunity for students with a
Program of Emphasis in Social Work to focus on one of three areas of interest, including social
work with a focus on health and behavioral health; social work with a focus on justice; and social
work with a focus on children and multigenerational families by combining elective courses,
primarily in the Sociology and Psychology Departments, with a mini-field experience and/or
Professional Semester in an approved social work agency focused on the provision of social
work services in the area of health and behavioral health, justice or children and
multigenerational families. It is important to note that a focus in social work is optional and
must be combined with a POE in Social Work. The focus is not a secondary emphasis or a
minor. The focus will not be noted on the student’s transcript, which is clearly explained to the
student choosing a focus during individual advising sessions. However, Program faculty plan to
discuss the possibility of noting the social work student’s focus on a co-curricular transcript with
the Registrar in the future. The focuses are a vehicle to organize and formalize what social work
faculty have been doing for decades through advisement, which is to encourage students to
combine the social work POE with elective courses that build upon and complement their areas
of interest within social work. The focuses are also a way to demonstrate to students the
creativity and flexibility of the social work profession and to market the social work POE to a
broader group of students on and off campus. There are many students who come to Juniata
College with an interest in working in the health professions, in justice and with children and
families, but who are unfamiliar with social work as a profession and the creative and flexible
pathways the pursuit of a POE in Social Work opens up for them. The focuses also provide
Program faculty with a way to enhance the use of Program and department resources in a
creative and economical way. The elective courses included in the focuses are already being
taught in our department and in the Psychology and Education Departments. No new courses
were developed for inclusion in the social work focuses. The description of the focuses in social
work and the courses included in each focus are included in Appendix 2
AS 3.3.3: THE PROGRAM IDENTIFIES TWO FULL-TIME MSW FACULTY WITH A DEGREE FROM A
CSWE-ACCREDITED PROGRAM.
Please see the Council on Social Work Education, Commission on Accreditation Faculty
Summary, Parts I and II below. Professor Reilly possesses the MSW degree from Marywood
College, which is accredited by CSWE. Professor Radis possesses the MSS in Social Work from
Bryn Mawr College, which is accredited by CSWE. Both Professors Radis and Reilly are
assigned full-time to the social work program.
Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation (COA)
58
Faculty Summary-Part I
Form F2_2008-Duplicate and expand as needed. Provide table(s) to support self study narrative addressing Accreditation Standards
below.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__
This form is used to assist the COA in the evaluation of the program’s compliance with Accreditation Standards stated below.
3.3.1 The program identifies each full and part-time social work faculty member and discusses her/his qualifications, competence, expertise
in social work education and practice, and years of service to the program. Faculty who teach social work practice courses have a master's
degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and at least two years of social work practice experience.
3.3.2 The program discusses how faculty size is commensurate with the number and type of curricular offerings in class and field; class
size; number of students; and the faculty's teaching, scholarly, and service responsibilities ...
B3.3.3 The baccalaureate social work program identifies no fewer than two full-time faculty assigned to the program, with full-time
appointment in social work, and whose principal assignment is to the baccalaureate program. The majority and no fewer than two of the
full-time faculty has either a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program, with a doctoral degree preferred, or a
baccalaureate degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and a doctoral degree preferably in social work.
M3.3.3 The master's social work program identifies no fewer than six full-time faculty with master's degrees in social work from a CSWEaccredited program and whose principal assignment is to the master's program. The majority of the full-time master's social work program
faculty has a master's degree in social work and a doctoral degree preferably in social work.
Provide the information requested below for all faculty employed in full-time and part-time positions within the last 3 years.
Years of
Practice
Experience*
Years of Employment as Full-Time
Educator
Current
Previous
Position**
Positions**
Percentage of
Time Assigned
to Program
BSW
MSW
BSW
BSW
11
Initials and Surname of
Faculty Member
Date of
Appointment
Ethnicity
S. T. Radis
9/1/1984
white
10
F. R. Reilly
6/1/1974
white
10
C. Merriwether-deVries
9/1/2001
African
American
MSW
BSW
MSW
28
100
38
100
11
50
* Indicate the total number of years practice experience after receiving the baccalaureate degree and/or master’s of social work
degree.
Combine full-time and part-time work into a full-year equivalence years of full-time teaching.
** Should sum to total of years of full-time teaching.
MSW
Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation (COA)
Faculty Summary—Part 2
Form F2_2008-Duplicate and expand as needed. Provide table(s) to support self study
narrative addressing Accreditation Standards below.
This form is used to assist the COA in the evaluation of the program’s compliance with
Accreditation Standards stated below.
3.3.2 The program discusses how faculty size is commensurate with the number and type of
curricular offerings in class and field; class size; number of students; and the faculty's teaching,
scholarly, and service responsibilities. To carry out the ongoing functions of the program, the
full-time equivalent faculty-to-student ratio is usually 1:25 for baccalaureate programs and 1:12
for master’s programs.
B3.3.3 The baccalaureate social work program identifies no fewer than two full-time faculty
assigned to the program, with full-time appointment in social work, and whose principal
assignment is to the baccalaureate program. The majority and no fewer than two of the full-time
faculty has either a master’s degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited program, with a
doctoral degree preferred, or a baccalaureate degree in social work from a CSWE-accredited
program and a doctoral degree preferably in social work.
M3.3.3 The master's social work program identifies no fewer than six full-time faculty with
master's degrees in social work from a CSWE-accredited program and whose principal
assignment is to the master's program. The majority of the full-time master's social work
program faculty has a master's degree in social work and a doctoral degree preferably in social
work.
Provide the information requested below for all faculty. Provide the information requested below
for all faculty employed in full-time and part-time positions within the last 3 years. List from
highest to lowest in rank.
TenureGender
Track ( Tenure (
(
( One)
One)
One)
One)
Initials and Surname of
Faculty Member
Current Rank
or Title
PartTime
FullTime
S. T. Radis
Professor of
Social Work
X
X
F. R. Reilly
Professor of
Social Work
X
X
C. Merriwether-deVries
Associate
Professor of
Sociology
X
X
Yes
No
Yes
No
NA
M
F
X
X
X
60
RADIS, SUSAN T (RADIS)
EDUCATION
M. S. S.
Bryn Mawr College
School of Social Work and Social Research
Social Work
May, 1973
B. S.
Penn State University
Rehabilitation Education
August, 1969
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
Juniata College
Professor of Social Work
Huntingdon, PA 16652
August, 1984-present
Penn State University
Instructor of Social Work
University Park, PA 16802
August 1978-May 1984
University of North Dakota
Assistant Professor of Social Work
Grand Forks, North Dakota
August 1973-August 1978
PROFESSIONAL POST-BACCALAUREATE AND POST-MASTERS SOCIAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Philadelphia County Board of Assistance
Caseworker
Philadelphia, PA
October 1969-September 1971
Children’s Services
Facilitator for two Parents Helping Parents (Parents Anonymous) groups in Huntingdon
County, weekly support groups for parents at risk for child abuse
Huntingdon, PA
October 1985-October 1994
I have attached a letter dated April 7, 1989 from Scott Briar, Ph. D., Chairperson of the
Commission on Accreditation, which serves as official notice from CSWE that I am certified to
61
teach practice courses and co-ordinate field instruction in baccalaureate social work programs in
the United States.
CURRENT PROFESSIONAL AND ACADEMIC MEMBERSHIPS
Academy of Certified Social Workers—1976 to present
National Association of Social Workers—1973 to present
Council on Social Work Education
Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors
Licensed Social Worker in the state of Pennsylvania—1989-present
COMMUNITY SERVICE ACTIVITIES (2008-2011)
Volunteer Ombudsman for the Centre County Office of Aging at the Fairways Nursing
Home at Brookline Village in State College, 2005-present. Volunteer ombudsman visit
nursing homes and assisted living facilities for a minimum of 6 hours per month as
representatives of the Office on Aging to ensure that residents of nursing homes and assisted
living facilities are being properly cared for, treated with dignity and respect and assured of their
rights.
Participant in the Pennsylvania Department of Aging Tier Two Ombudsman Training
Program in April, 2009.
Ombudsmen who have completed Tier Two Training are eligible to actually investigate
complaints of abuse and neglect, or instances where the rights of a resident of a nursing home or
assisted living facility are alleged to have been violated. This training is required by law for all
ombudsmen prior to conducting an investigation into a reported concern and for the designated
PEER Trainer. I was required to complete the Tier II Training in order to participate in the
PEER Train the Trainer workshop, which was necessary for me to complete my sabbatical
project in the Spring 2010.
Participant in the Pennsylvania Department of Aging PEER (Pennsylvania Empowered
Expert Residents) Train the Trainer Workshop in Lewisburg, PA September 29-30, 2009.
The PEER Train the Trainer Workshop familiarizes the trainer with a curriculum developed by
the Pennsylvania Long-term Care Ombudsman’s Office that educates residents who wish to
become PEERs on residents’ rights, provides self-advocacy training and empowers residents to
act for themselves.
PEER Trainer for the Centre County Office of Aging, January 19-June 2, 2010.
During my sabbatical in the Spring Semester 2010 I facilitated four PEER Training Groups: one
group at the Fairways nursing home at Brookline Village in State College on January 19, 26,
February 2, 9 and 16; a separate group at The Inn, Pine Castle and Windsong assisted and
independent living facilities at Brookline on January 21, 28, February 4, 11 and 18; one group at
Windy Hill nursing home and Moshannan Heights assisted living facilities in Philipsburg on
March 3, 10, 17, 24 and 31; and a group at Centre Crest nursing home in Bellefonte on May 5,
12,19, 26 and June 2. As a result of my facilitation of the PEER Training a total of thirty-one
62
residents completed the PEER Program, and the first four PEER Groups were established in long
term care facilities in Centre County.
Participant in the Council on Social Work Education 2008 EPAS Reaffirmation Workshop
in Alexandria, VA, April 9-10, 2010.
The purpose of the workshop was to familiarize BSW Program Directors with the new
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards in preparation for writing the Reaffirmation of
Accreditation Self-Study.
Attended the Pennsylvania Department of Aging Statewide Ombudsman Enrichment
Conference in State College, April 22-23, 2010.
Participant in the Pennsylvania Statewide PEER Recognition Day in Mechanicsburg, PA
along with two PEERs and three staff members from Windy Hill nursing home and
Moshannan Heights assisted living facilities in Philipsburg, PA on June 9, 2010. Sponsored
by the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman, the Statewide PEER Recognition Day
brings together hundreds of PEERs, ombudsmen and facility staff to celebrate the
accomplishments of PEER groups from facilities in almost every county in Pennsylvania. Each
PEER group has the opportunity to share highlights from their group activities and receive
recognition from their PEERs across the state of PA.
PEER Trainer for the Centre County Office of Aging, January 25-February 22, 2011.
I trained additional PEERs at the Fairways nursing home in State College on January 25,
February 1, 8, 15 and 22.
PEER Trainer for the Centre County Office of Aging, May 31-June 28, 2011.
I trained a new PEER group at the Hearthside Nursing Home in State College on May 31, June 7,
14, 21 and 28.
Volunteer PEER Coordinator for the Centre County Office of Aging, March 2010-present.
I have facilitated the monthly PEER follow-up meetings at the Fairways nursing home and the
Inn assisted living facility at Brookline Village in State College since March, 2010.
RECOGNITION
Recognized by the Centre County Human Services Council as the Centre County Office of
Aging 2012 Volunteer of the Year, for my service as a volunteer ombudsman, volunteer PEER
Trainer and volunteer PEER Coordinator.
PRESENTATIONS AND WORKSHOPS
Workshop on Contracting in the Human Services for Huntingdon County Headstart
Family Service Workers, presented in two parts in September,2005 and March, 2006.
Workshop on “Life as an Ombudsman: Dealing with Loss and Grief” presented at the
Centre County Office of Aging quarterly volunteer ombudsman meeting on September 17,
2010.
63
“Is there life after youth? The PEER Program” presented at Juniata College Bookend
Seminar on April 20, 2011, as a report on my sabbatical activities in the Spring Semester, 2010.
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
SABBATICAL ACTIVITIES
Implementation of the Pennsylvania Empowered Expert Residents (PEER) Program in
Five Centre County Long Term Care Facilities—January-June, 2010
During my sabbatical in the Spring Semester 2010 my primary goal was to work with the Centre
County Office of Aging to implement the Pennsylvania Empowered Expert Residents (PEER)
program in one or more of the six long-term care facilities in Centre County. Prior to March,
2010 there were no PEER Ombudsman Programs in the long-term care facilities in Centre
County, although successful PEER Ombudsman Programs were in operation in other counties in
Pennsylvania. The first of its kind in the nation, the PEER project, first implemented in 2002,
trains residents of long-term care facilities to be advocates within their own facility, and works
with staff and residents to enhance the quality of care and the quality of life for their peers. Selfresolution and consumer empowerment are themes consistently emphasized in the resident
training program developed under the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The
PEER Program gives residents of long-term care facilities a voice in resolving concerns, needs
and problems faced by their fellow residents. It affirms the abilities of nursing home residents
and gives them an opportunity to stay productive and involved in community life. My sabbatical
project involved training PEER volunteers in five facilities to advocate on behalf of themselves
and their peers in their long-term care facility. The PEER training that I provided to residents
follows a curriculum developed by the Pennsylvania Long-term Care Ombudsman’s Office that
educates residents on residents’ rights, provides self-advocacy training and empowers residents
to act for themselves.
As a result of my sabbatical activities residents of five long term care facilities in Centre County
established active PEER groups. 31 residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities in
Centre County completed the PEER Training I provided during my sabbatical. Currently there
are 28 PEERs in Centre County who ‘found their voices” and who advocate on behalf of
themselves and their peers to protect their rights as residents of long term care facilities, and who
work with their peers, facility staff and administration to make their facility as home-like as
possible.
SERVICE TO THE COLLEGE
Health Professions Committee—member and advisor to health professions students 1995present
Personnel Evaluation Committee—member 2000-2002
Juniata College Board of Trustees Committee on Advancement and Marketing--faculty
representative 2005.
Judicial Board-2005-06
Faculty Development and Benefits Committee—member 2007-09
64
In collaboration with John Hille, Executive Vice President for Enrollment and Retention, I
continue to work on establishing a partnership between the Social Work Program and the
Human Services Department at Penn Highlands Community College, May 2011-present.
This partnership would enable students at PHCC to transfer to Juniata with up to 60 credits and
complete the BSW Program within two years.
SERVICE TO THE DEPARTMENT
Chair of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department—1997-present
Program Director of the Dorothy Baker Johnson and Raymond R. Day Social Work
Program—1997-present
Director of the Criminal Justice/Justice Studies Program—2005-08
In addition to my duties as Chair of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology and Criminal
Justice Department and Program Director for the accredited BSW Program, I administered the
Criminal Justice Program from 2005-2008 due to Dr. Wiinamaki’s unexpected illness and
subsequent resignation, and while Dr. Polly Smith and Professor Daniel Welliver designed the
new Justice Studies Program.
Updated March 15, 2012
65
66
Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation (COA)
Faculty Data
Form F1_2008
1. Name of Faculty Member: F. Robert Reilly
2. Degree Information: Graduate
 Masters of Social Work
 Marywood College School of Social Work
 Social Work with concentration in Criminal Justice, Community Organization and Social
Planning
 May, 1974
Degree Information: Undergraduate
 Bachelor of Arts
 Susquehanna University
 Major in Sociology with minors in Psychology and Philosophy
 May, 1971
3. Academic Appointments
 Juniata College, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
 Charles A. Dana Professor
 Huntingdon, PA
 August, 1974
 August, 2012





University of Newcastle, Department of Social Work
Visiting Scholar
Newcastle, Australia, NSW
January, 2001
May, 2001
 University of Munster and Fachhochschule Munster
 Visiting Professor
 Munster, Germany
 May, 1989
 August, 1989
4. Professional post-baccalaureate and post-master’s social work experience
 Diagnostic and Behavior Clinic, Lackawanna County Prison
 Assistant Director
 Scranton, PA
 August, 1972
 May, 1974
5. Current Memberships
 National Association of Social Workers
 Academy of Certified Social Workers
 Licensed Social Worker, Commonwealth of PA [#SW-002296-E]
 Association of Baccalaureate Social Workers
67
 National Organization for Victim Assistance
6. Community Service for last three years
 Board Member, Huntingdon Area Habitat for Humanity
7. Special awards, etc. received during last three years
 Inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa, National Leadership Honor Society [2010]
8. Professional presentations during last five years
 “The Salience of Social Capital in Natural Disasters” presented as part of the Bookend
Seminar Series, Juniata College, Huntingdon, PA, April 2009
 “Hearing the Voice of the Other: An Oral History Approach” presented at the PA-National
Association of Multicultural Education’s Annual Conference, Huntingdon, PA, April 2009
 “Building Culturally Competent Bridges in Human Service Organizations” [with Dr. Cynthia
Merriwether deVries] presented at the Dismantling Discrimination and Oppression PANASW Annual Conference, Monroeville, PA, March 2008
9. Professional Publications for last five years
 None
10. Additional relevant information
 Holds a letter of certification from the Council on Social Work Education, Commission on
Accreditation “to teach practice courses and co-ordinate field instruction in baccalaureate
programs in the United States.”
68
69
CURRICULUM VITAE
Cynthia Merriwether-de Vries,
 Ph.D.
 The Pennsylvania State University, College of Health and Human Development.
 Human Development and Family Studies
 May 2000
Academic Appointments
Juniata College
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Huntingdon PA
August 2002
Juniata College
Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology
Huntingdon PA
January 2001 to May 2002
The Pennsylvania State University.
Lecturer, Department of Sociology, College of Liberal Arts, & Department of Human
Development and Family Studies
University Park PA
June 1994 to December 2000
Professional academic, community-related and scientific memberships
American Sociological Association
Friends Association for Higher Education
Friends Council on Higher Education Member
Influencing State Policy Faculty Liaison 2001 to present
Pennsylvania Sociological Society Member
Community service responsibilities
Centre County Special Olympics Volunteer
Huntingdon CountyDrug Abuse Prevention and Education Network
State College Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Member of Committee for Advancement and Outreach
State College Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Religious Education Committee Clerk
State College Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Religious Education Committee teen group teacher
70
Presentations
Merriwether-de Vries, C. In the Light of the Jasmine Spring: Exploring Quakerism and
The Bible in the Context of Modern Social Change4 in the Middle East Workshop
presented at Baltimore Yearly Meeting Annual Sessions Conference August 2011
Merriwether-de Vries, C., Gregory, B., & Salmon, S., Health Concerns in Baltimore City
Pimlico-Arlington Health Status and Healthy Options. New Fellowship Outreach
Corporation Community Baltimore MD June 2011
Merriwether-de Vries, C. “Sustainable Me Connecting Study Abroad to Campus
Activities The Long-distance Contributions of Power-up Gambia” Paper presented at
The Penn’s Woods Project: Incorporating Sustainability Across the Curriculum
University Park PA May 11 2011
Merriwether-de Vries, C. & Welliver, D. “Small Meets World”. Paper presented at the
2011 Eastern Sociological Society Annual Conference Philadelphia PA February 2011
Merriwether-de Vries C,. Rotary and the Gambia: Through an African Lens: Rotary
Foundation Dinner February 2010
Merriwether-de Vries, C., Expatriate American Children and Youth: Extended Kin
Fosterage in The Gambia. Specially convened panel of the Unites States Embassy,
Serrekunda, The Gambia West Africa February 2009
Merriwether-de Vries, C. Rotary and the Gambia: The Next Chapter. Luncheon Address
Rotary Club District 7350 Huntingdon PA December 2008
Reilly F. R & Merriwether-de Vries C. Building Culturally Competent Bridges in
Human Service Organizations: Hearing the Voice of ‘The Other’. NASW-PA 2008
Conference: Building Bridges: Dismantling Discrimination and Oppression Radisson
Conference Center Pittsburgh Pennsylvania March 8, 2008
Merriwether-de Vries, C. “ Women Men and Higher Education: Lessons from the United
States 50 years after Brown Versus the Board of Education”. The Point Newspaper.
Monday January 29, 2007. Banjul, The Gambia.
Merriwether-de Vries, C. Service learning in unlikely places: Research methodology and
community service in Huntingdon County Pennsylvania. Urban and Regional Renewal
in Western Pennsylvania Conference at the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of
Public and International Affairs, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania November 17, 2006.
71
Merriwether-de Vries, C. Teaching multiculturalism in a predominately white collegiate
context: Investing in our collective future. Race and Pedagogy National Conference
University of Puget Sound, Tacoma Washington September 14-16 2006
Merriwether-de Vries, C. Once we were all strangers to these shores: Exploring the
sociology of minority groups in a predominantly white liberal arts college setting. LillyEast Conference on College and University Teaching, University of Delaware April 7-8
2006
Merriwether-de Vries, C. National Organization of Women & National Women’s
Studies Association “Women of Color and Allies Summit” Eastern Regional Conference
Community College, of Philadelphia March 18, 2005
Merriwether-de Vries, C. Constructing the village: The role of community social service
collaborative in augmenting education in a rural context. Oxford Roundtable, Oxford
University England March 21-26 2004
Merriwether-de Vries, C., (2003). Broadening Horizons: The Role of Bricks and Mortar
Institutions in Building Web-based Infrastructure. Juniata Voices. Huntingdon, PA:
Juniata College Press
Merriwether-de Vries, C. (2003, February 28). Racial stereotypes go underground. USA
Today, p. A15.
72
AS 3.3.4: FACULTY WORKLOAD POLICY AND HOW IT SUPPORTS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF
INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES AND THE PROGRAM’S MISSION AND GOALS.
The workload policy for Program faculty supports the achievement of both institutional priorities
and the Program’s mission and goals. Professors Radis and Reilly are permitted to manage their
workload in a flexible manner to enable them to carry out the mission and goals of the Program
and achieve institutional priorities. At Juniata College full time faculty members are expected to
teach an average of 21 credit hours over the course of two semesters, although faculty teaching
loads may vary significantly depending on the needs of the program and the department. The
Program Director, Professor Radis, and the Director of Field Experience, Professor Reilly, both
of whom hold full time teaching appointments, each receive release time to enable them to carry
out the mission and goals of the Program. For the past three years, Professor Radis has taught 16
credit hours for the year. This provides her with twenty-five percent release time in order to
carry out her duties as Program Director. Professor Reilly normally teaches 17.5 credits for the
year, which represents a seventeen percent reduction in his teaching load. However, as part of
their workload, faculty at Juniata College are also expected to carry out the role of program and
general liberal arts advisor, participate in the governance of the faculty and the College through
committee service and engage in other service to the College and the community. Although the
number of advisees varies considerably between faculty members depending on the needs of the
program, department and College, most faculty members advise approximately 30-35 students.
Professor Reilly maintains an advisee load of approximately 25 students, which represents a
twenty-five percent reduction in the average advising workload at Juniata College. In addition,
while it is common for faculty members to serve on one standing committee of the faculty in
addition to two or three ad hoc committees, Professors Radis and Reilly are committed to serving
on no more than one faculty committee at a time, in order to maintain a reduced workload that
allows sufficient time to carry out their duties within the Program. For the past three years
Professor Reilly has served on no standing faculty committees. It is also common at Juniata
College for faculty members to supervise students in independent studies, for which the faculty
member receives no additional release time or compensation, as a service to the student and the
College. In order to maintain a reduced workload in their capacity as Program Director and
Field Director respectively, Professors Radis and Reilly do not supervise students in independent
studies. Taken together, the workload reduction strategies employed by Professors Radis and
Reilly represent the twenty-five percent release time that they require to provide educational and
administrative leadership to the Social Work Program. Both the Provost and the President of
Juniata College are aware of and sensitive to the administrative demands of maintaining an
accredited baccalaureate social work program and both support the workload reduction strategies
described above.
In order to achieve the mission and goals of the Program, Program faculty divide responsibilities
carefully, taking into consideration each faculty member’s areas of expertise and experience, as
well as institutional needs and priorities. While Program faculty collaborate in the shaping of the
overall curriculum, the advising process and other aspects of Program policy, each faculty
member maintains the responsibility for particular areas of the social work foundation
curriculum. For example, Professor Radis is primarily responsible for developing, teaching and
monitoring the social work practice foundation curriculum, and Professor Reilly is primarily
responsible for teaching, developing and monitoring the social policy curriculum and field
73
experience. Dr. Merriwether-deVries is primarily responsible for developing, teaching and
monitoring the research foundation curriculum, in consultation with Professors Radis and Reilly.
Professors Radis and Reilly share the responsibilities of administering the Social Work Program.
Professor Radis has functioned as the Program Director and Professor Reilly has functioned as
the Field Director since 1997. From 1984 to 1996 their roles were reversed, with Professor
Reilly functioning as the Program Director and Professor Radis functioning as the Field Director.
Both have many years of experience in each of these roles and provide each other with
professional consultation and support in carrying out their respective administrative duties.
Professor Radis has also functioned as the Chair of the Sociology, Social Work and
Anthropology Department since 1997, and is responsible for assigning and managing the
workloads of the other members of the department. Department faculty members teaching in the
Sociology and Anthropology Programs are all very supportive of the Social Work Program. In
turn, Program faculty are supportive of their department colleagues teaching in other disciplines.
Department faculty step up to the plate and divide the responsibilities necessary to meet
institutional priorities in an equitable fashion. For example, all department faculty take turns
serving as the department representative at Enrollment events, which means that every faculty
member must be familiar with the requirements of every program in the department. All
department faculty serve on College committees and represent the interests of the department on
campus. Only Professors Radis and Reilly, who both possess the MSW degree, can serve as
academic program advisors for social work students. Other department members serve as the
academic program advisor for students with POEs in their discipline. Department members
work together to enable each faculty member to meet the goals of her/his program and to support
institutional priorities.
AS 3.3.5: FACULTY DEMONSTRATE ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AS TEACHERS,
SCHOLARS AND PRACTITIONERS THROUGH DISSEMINATION OF RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP,
EXCHANGES WITH EXTERNAL CONSTITUENCIES SUCH AS PRACTITIONERS AND AGENCIES, AND
THROUGH OTHER PROFESSIONALLY RELEVANT CREATIVE ACTIVITIES THAT SUPPORT THE
ACHIEVEMENT OF INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES AND THE PROGRAM’S MISSION AND GOALS
The Program demonstrates that it has ongoing exchanges with external constituencies through
the professional activities of Program faculty. Program faculty demonstrate ongoing
professional development as teachers, scholars and practitioners, which facilitates the
achievement of institutional priorities and the Program’s mission and goals. Program faculty
engage in professional development activities such as consultation with local social service
agencies; sabbaticals and other research; participation in professional workshops to earn CEUs
for licensing; membership and participation in professional organizations such as the Association
for Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors, NASW, the American Sociological
Association and the Council on Social Work Education; and participation on local boards.
Please see the curriculum vitae for Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries
above for a listing of their professional development activities over the past five years.
Professors Radis and Reilly are both tenured full professors who have met the expectations of the
College in the areas of teaching, advising, professional development and scholarship, and service
to the College and community in a fashion that is consistent with the achievement of institutional
priorities and the Program’s mission and goals. Dr. Merriwether-deVries is a tenured associate
74
professor who has also met the expectations of the College in the areas of teaching, advising,
professional development and scholarship, and service to the College and community in a
fashion that is consistent with the achievement of institutional priorities and the Program’s
mission and goals.
The discussion here focuses on a joint professional development effort of which the Program is
particularly proud, because it has impacted our roles as teachers, scholars and practitioners in
such a positive and growth producing way. In addition, it has enabled Program faculty to
demonstrate our commitment to our Program mission and goals in a way that facilitates the
achievement of institutional priorities, positively impacts student learning and contributes to the
welfare of the community.
In December 2004 on behalf of the Social Work Program Professor Radis applied for and
received a three year training grant from the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), that
provided funding for Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries to participate in
three Curriculum Development Institutes (CDIs) sponsored by the CSWE Gero-Ed Center. The
purpose of the CDIs was to train Social Work Program faculty to develop strategies for infusing
gerontological competencies into social work foundation courses, i.e. social work practice
courses dealing with individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities; social welfare
policy; human behavior in the social environment; social science research methods; cultural
diversity and social justice; and field experience. In response to the rapid aging of the US
population, the overall goal of the CDIs was to ensure that all graduates of accredited BSW and
MSW social work programs have mastered foundation competencies that enable them to work
effectively with older adults and their families. Over a three year period from 2005-2007,
Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries attended three CDIs and worked
together to infuse additional multigenerational content into our foundation social work courses
through the use of case studies and learning experiences that affirm the positive, growth
producing aspects of aging. This also included the development of research projects in the
policy courses and in selected field placements that encourage and support collaboration and
shared learning experiences between program faculty, students, senior service agency personnel
and aging clients/consumers. As a part of our participation in the three CDIs, Program faculty
set goals and developed action plans for each year of the grant. A goal for Year Two was to
“Identify opportunities to extend the gero-ed project into the community.” We met this goal
through increased faculty participation in community events and programs. For example, as a
result of her participation in the CDIs Professor Radis was motivated to complete the
Pennsylvania Department of Aging Tier One Ombudsman Training for the Center County Office
of Aging in September, 2006. The Tier One Training prepares a new ombudsman to make
resident visits and quality assurance visits in a nursing home or assisted living facility, attend
Department of Health Resident meetings, and to be a visible presence in long-term care settings.
Professor Radis has been a volunteer ombudsman representing the Centre County Office of
Aging at the Fairways nursing home at Brookline Village in State College since September,
2006.
In her sabbatical proposal prepared in September, 2008, Professor Radis indicated that she
planned to build on professional development activities in which she had engaged for the past four years
through the volunteer ombudsman program. In her proposal she wrote
75
Being a volunteer ombudsman is the most rewarding professional development
activity I have ever participated in during my 30+ years as a social work educator.
I have learned more about myself as a person, a social worker and a social work
educator as a result of being a volunteer ombudsman than I have learned through
any other means. I have become a more effective and helpful social worker and
teacher as a result. I doubt if I would have become a part of the volunteer
ombudsman program if I had not been involved with the Gero-ed project.
During her sabbatical in the Spring Semester 2010 Professor Radis’s primary goal was to work
with the Centre County Office of Aging to implement the Pennsylvania Empowered Expert
Residents (PEER) program in one or more of the six long-term care facilities in Centre County.
Prior to March, 2010 there were no PEER Ombudsman Programs in the long-term care facilities
in Centre County, although successful PEER Ombudsman Programs were in operation in other
counties in Pennsylvania. The first of its kind in the nation, the PEER project, first implemented
in 2002, trains residents of long-term care facilities to be advocates within their own facility, and
works with staff and residents to enhance the quality of care and the quality of life for their
peers. Self-resolution and consumer empowerment are themes consistently emphasized in the
resident training program developed under the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman.
The PEER training provided to residents followed a curriculum developed by the Pennsylvania
Long-term Care Ombudsman’s Office that educates residents on residents’ rights, provides selfadvocacy training and empowers residents to act for themselves. The PEER Program gives
residents of long-term care facilities a voice in resolving concerns, needs and problems faced by
their fellow residents. It affirms the abilities of nursing home residents and gives them an
opportunity to stay productive and involved in community life.
In preparation for implementing the PEER training Professor Radis participated in the
Pennsylvania Office on Aging Tier Two Ombudsman Training. The Tier Two training is a three
day training to explore the legal base for the ombudsman starting with the historic background
and the Older American’s Act, and continuing through a study of the various regulations
governing the long-term care system. This training is required by law for all ombudsmen prior
to conducting an investigation into a reported concern and for the designated PEER Trainer. In
addition, she participated in a two day Ombudsman PEER Train-the-Trainer workshop
sponsored by the Pennsylvania Office of the State Long-term Care Ombudsman that all trainers
are required to complete prior to the implementation of PEER Training in any long-term care
facility in Pennsylvania.
As a result of Professor Radis sabbatical activities residents of five long term care facilities in
Centre County established active PEER groups. 31 residents of nursing homes and assisted
living facilities in Centre County completed the PEER Training she provided during her
sabbatical. Currently there are 28 PEERs in Centre County who ‘found their voices” and who
advocate on behalf of themselves and their peers to protect their rights as residents of long term
care facilities, and who work with their peers, facility staff and administration to make their
facility as home-like as possible.
Professor Radis’s sabbatical activities built on an ongoing program of professional development
that began with Professor Radis’ participation in the Gero-ed Project, and which has continued
76
for the past six years. The activities in which Professor Radis engaged during the
implementation of the PEER Program in Centre County were invaluable for her personal
professional development as a social work educator. In addition, the relationships forged with
personnel in local long-term care facilities enhanced the recognition of Juniata College and our
Social Work Program in the community. Her work in the long-term care facilities in Centre
County has the potential to result in additional mini-field experience and Professional Semester
opportunities for our social work students. Furthermore, the implementation of her sabbatical
project supported and sustained the gains that the Social Work Program made during our
participation in the training grant sponsored by the CSWE Gero-ed Project. As a condition of
the grant the Program, along with the Provost as the official administrative representative of
Juniata College, agreed to support social work faculty efforts to promote and sustain
gerontological competencies within our social work program’s curricular and organizational
structure, which we have continued to do since 2007.
Professor Radis continues to work to extend the Gero-ed Project into the community and
enhance collaboration between our Social Work Program and agencies in the community that
provide services to our aging population. Future plans include the possibility of a collaboration
between Professor Radis and the Huntingdon County Office of Aging Long Term Care
Ombudsman to provide the PEER Training in the long term care facilities in Huntingdon. If that
collaboration becomes a reality, it may be possible to involve social work students in a related
field experience or service learning opportunity to work with the frail elderly population in
Huntingdon County.
Professor Reilly’s participation in the Gero-ed Project was invaluable, especially his work
developing field experience opportunities in agencies serving older adults for our senior social
work students in the Professional Semester. He developed or helped agency field instructors
reframe the Professional Semester experience in their agency to enable student social workers to
apply the social work competencies in a way that focused on the strengths, abilities and needs of
older adults. Over the past five years, as a result of Professor Reilly’s participation in the Geroed Project, senior social work students have completed their Professional Semester in the Social
Work Departments of several long-term care facilities, worked with therapeutic groups in the
geriatric outpatient behavioral health unit at JC Blair Hospital, and worked with older adults in
the behavioral health unit at the VA Hospital in Hollidaysburg, PA. In addition, he helped
students and field instructors in selected field placements to develop research projects that
encouraged and supported collaboration and shared learning experiences between program
faculty, students, senior service agency personnel and aging clients/consumers.
Dr. Merriwether-deVries also built on her participation in the Gero-ed Project to pursue
additional professional development opportunities. As a result of our Program’s participation in
the Gero-ed Project, Dr. Merriwether-deVries was selected to be a CDI Faculty Mentor for the
the Gero-Ed Center Cycle 2 CDI Program which was implemented between July 1, 2008 and
June 30, 2011. As a CDI Faculty Mentor Dr. Merriwether-deVries played an essential role in
supporting participating faculty as they progressed through the three-year program. Mentors
were selected to participate in the CDI Program based on their well-grounded understanding of
how to bring about curricular and organizational change, experience with the process of planned
change in their own programs, and their dedication to gero social work education. As a CDI
77
Faculty Mentor Dr. Merriwether-deVries was expected to carry out the following
responsibilities:












Hold monthly conference calls with faculty mentees across all three years.
Be available on an as-needed basis to respond to mentees’ questions and concerns that
arise between conference calls.
Communicate with mentees and others as needed for updates and resources.
Maintain communication with other mentors and the Gero-Ed Center PI and staff to keep
them informed of each program’s progress and any need for assistance.
Assist in ensuring that mentees complete all data collection and progress reports.
Provide input to the design and planning of 3 annual national workshops, immediately
prior to the fall CSWE Annual Program Meeting in 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Participate in workshop training and facilitation and meet with mentees in small group
settings during these three workshops.
When possible, meet with mentees at other national conferences or when visiting their
programs for any other purposes.
Provide guidance to mentees regarding dissemination of their findings, through
conference presentations or publications
Adhere to the timelines for activities and deliverables as described.
Assist, where needed, with recruiting programs to apply to apply for the CDI Program.
Submit brief reports regarding monthly conference calls with mentees by the end of each
month.
Dr. Merriwether-devries was the CDI Faculty Mentor for social work faculty from Johnson C.
Smith University in Charlotte, North Carolina; Northwestern College in Orange City, IA;
Slippery Rock University in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania; University of Arkansas at Monticello;
and Western Illinois University in Macom, Illinois during the Gero-Ed Center Cycle 2 CDI
Program throughout the 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic years. In her role as a CDI
Faculty Mentor she participated in the Cycle 2 CDI Program–Year 1 Workshop in Philadelphia,
in October, 2008, and the Cycle 2 CDI Program–Year 2 Workshop in San Antonio Texas in
October, 2009.
Her selection and work as a CDI Faculty Mentor was not only an honor for her, but also a
recognition of the dedication of our entire social work faculty in bringing about planned
curricular and organizational change in the social work program during our participation in the
Gero-ed project, as well as our dedication to gero social work education. Program faculty
continue to work together to promote and sustain gerontological competencies within our social
work program’s curricular and organizational structure. In doing so Program faculty
demonstrate our commitment to our Program mission and goals in a way that facilitates the
achievement of institutional priorities, positively impacts student learning and contributes to the
welfare of the community.
Program faculty participate in professional development and scholarship activities that support
the Program’s mission and goals, such as: Professor Radis’s work as a volunteer ombudsman,
PEER Trainer and volunteer PEER Coordinator; Professor Reilly’s decades long hands-on
involvement with Habitat for Humanity; and Dr. Merriwether-deVries’s mentoring of agency
based student research. The extensive community involvement of Program faculty who are
78
“doing their discipline” enriches the program, as faculty provide active role models for student
social workers and gain valuable real-life examples from practice to illustrate the concepts they
are teaching in the classroom.
Program faculty also have ongoing exchanges with local social work practitioners and the
agencies in which they practice through their field instruction activities. The Program maintains
collaborative relationships with the agencies upon which it depends to meet the needs of its
social work students. Juniata’s Social Work Program benefits from long-standing relationships
with its field agencies and field instructors. Many of the agencies and field instructors have
collaborated with the Program in providing field placements and field supervision for fifteen or
more years. In addition, many of the Program’s field instructors are graduates of the Program.
The continuity of these relationships pays significant dividends for the program and its students.
The Program’s field agencies have been instrumental in offering advice and consultation on
sustaining and modifying the program’s policies, particularly as it relates to field education. For
example, it is the Program’s policy to encourage students to complete their mini-field experience
and Professional Semester in different agencies with different client populations. Our rationale
for that policy is based on our view that it is to the student’s benefit to get a broad a range of
practical agency experience in different settings with diverse client populations, if possible.
However, occasionally we have made exceptions to that policy and permitted students to
complete both the mini-field experience and the Professional Semester in the same agency in the
same academic year. Based on their experience with those students for whom we have made
occasional exceptions to our policy, some field instructors have indicated that in their agency
setting it would be to the student’s benefit to complete the mini-field experience in the fall
semester of their senior year and their Professional Semester in the spring semester of their
senior year in the same agency. In those agencies in which we have permitted students to
complete both the mini-field experience and Professional Semester, field instructors and students
indicated that the two semester timeline allowed the student to complete a more in-depth
orientation and to begin their application of the social work competencies during the mini-field
experience in the fall semester of their senior year. Students were then able to begin the
Professional Semester with greater knowledge of agency policies and services, along with a more
experienced approach to the application of the social work competencies in that agency setting.
In some settings, such as the inpatient and outpatient behavioral health units at JC Blair Hospital,
this resulted in the student being able to work with more complex individual and group client
concerns, needs or problems, and to gain a greater degree of sophistication in the application of
the social competencies with that client population.
The collaborative relationships with local social work practitioners and agencies described above
often provide excellent feedback on which to base program renewal efforts. In general, field
instructors provide feedback of a very positive nature. Field instructors find their relationships
with the Field Director and the faculty field liaison to be effective in helping them understand the
Social Work Program’s design, especially the purposes and functions of The Professional
Semester. They consistently report satisfaction with the frequency of contact and level of support
they receive from the Field Director and the faculty field liaison. In fact, agency field instructors
who have occasion to work with other accredited social work programs, both graduate and
undergraduate, often volunteer that Juniata’s approach to fieldwork and field supervision is
79
superior in large part because social work faculty at Juniata College provide them with more and
better support than they typically receive from other programs.
AS 3.3.6: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES HOW ITS FACULTY MODELS THE BEHAVIOR AND VALUES OF
THE PROFESSION IN THE PROGRAM’S EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT.
For the past thirty-eight years Program Faculty have modeled the behavior and values of the
social work profession at Juniata College through their teaching, student advising, professional
development and scholarship activities, service to the College and service to the community.
Professors Reilly and Radis have made the modeling of the behavior and values of the social
work profession within the educational environment their life’s work. Dr. Merriwether-deVries
has joined the two MSW faculty in this endeavor for the past twelve years. Although much of
this discussion is included in other parts of the self-study, the highlights are summarized here.
Program faculty teach, advise students, engage in professional development activities and
scholarship, and provide service to the College and community in accordance with two major
social work values. Program faculty:

treat students, colleagues and all human beings with dignity and respect; and

respect students, colleague’s and all human beings’ right to self-determination.
In keeping with those values Program faculty recognize their responsibility to provide a learning
context in which respect for all persons and understanding of diversity are practiced. As
representatives of the Program, the faculty ensures that the Program conducts all of its affairs,
including faculty personnel matters, student affairs, the organization and implementation of the
curriculum and the formulation and implementation of departmental and Program policies
without discrimination to persons or groups on the basis of age, class, color, culture, disability,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political ideology, race,
religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
Since the mid-1980s Program faculty have consistently acted as catalysts in developing
campus initiatives to build an institutional culture and infrastructure that creates visible
symbols, policies, and programs that highlight Juniata’s commitment to the values and
ideals associated with diversity in a community of higher education. Program faculty
have served on the campus wide Diversity Committee since it began in the mid-1980s.
Currently, three members of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department
serve on the Diversity Committee, with Dr. Cynthia Merriwether-deVries representing
the Social Work Program. In addition, Program faculty work closely with the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion to support and affirm Juniata College’s mission and strategic plan
to welcome and include all learners, especially students who are marginalized structurally
and socially.
Over the past decade Program faculty have made specific and continuous efforts to
provide a learning environment in which respect for all persons and understanding of
diversity and difference are practiced. As members of the Diversity Committee and the
faculty at large, Program faculty helped to challenge barriers that made recruitment of
80
diverse students difficult. Program faculty were and are instrumental in encouraging
institutional commitments to diversity such as:

including Diversity and Inclusion in the College’s Strategic Plan;

establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and hiring a Special Assistant to
the President for Diversity and Inclusion;

implementing educational, interactive Beyond Tolerance programs; and
supporting additional conferences, clubs and projects on campus.

adding more inclusive language and images to our marketing literature;

encouraging collaboration between and among various constituencies of the
College to ensure community commitment and development, and to improve the
climate for diverse students, faculty and staff;

strengthening and expanding international studies abroad and exchange programs,
and establishing a “Global Village” option for students, and;

shifting our enrollment strategies to attract more minority populations.
These specific, focused efforts on the part of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the
Enrollment staff and members of the Diversity Committee (which at various times over the past
decade has included every faculty member of the Social Work Program) to recruit and maintain a
greater number of students with diverse backgrounds have produced significant results. The
student population at Juniata College has increased from 2% domestic minorities in 2000 to 12%
ALANA (African, Latino, Asian, and Native American) students in 2012. The College has also
increased its international student population almost twofold over the same time period, from 6%
to 10%. Over time, Juniata College has successfully changed its composition and complexion,
especially with regard to the cultural and racial backgrounds of 22% of our 1600+ students.
In addition, Program faculty take special care to integrate issues related to diversity throughout
the social work curriculum, including readings and assignments related to diversity; the use of
videos that focus on diversity issues; field trips to locations where there is a more diverse
population, for example, to Harrisburg for the PA NASW sponsored Legislative Advocacy Day;
and a diverse array of speakers in class and on campus.
Program faculty also emphasize the impact of international and global issues on populations at
risk and social and economic justice in dealing with the topics of diversity and
nondiscrimination. For example, in October, 2009 the Social Work Program sponsored a
campus-wide presentation on Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children/Human Trafficking
Seminar by Dr. Mark Rodgers, Dean of the Dominican University Graduate School of Social
Work. Along with other academic programs and campus organizations, the Social Work
Program will sponsor a series of speakers and films during Genocide Awareness Week in April,
2012. For example, the Social Work Program will help to fund speaker Eugenie Mukeshimana,
Rwandan genocide survivor, who is the:

Educational Outreach Coordinator at the Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict
Resolution, and Human Rights at Rutgers University

Board Member for Voices of Rwanda, Miracle Corners of the World and Mothers to
Mothers
81

Founder and Executive Director of the Genocide Survivors Support Network (GSSN), a
charitable organization with a mission to help genocide survivors rebuild their lives and
educate communities about the crime of genocide
Program faculty also offer support to and participate in campus organizations that celebrate
diversity and nondiscrimination such as All Ways of Loving, Habitat for Humanity, the Social
Work Club, the African-American Student Alliance, Plexus Multicultural Awareness Committee,
and Power-up Gambia, a club that raises funds to purchase solar panels for medical centers,
clinics and hospitals in Gambia. Dr. Merriwether-Devries has served as the faculty advisor to
the African-American Student Association since 2002, for the Plexus Multicultural Awareness
Committee since 2008, and for Power-up Gambia since 2010.
Four members of the department, including Professors Radis and Reilly and Drs. MerriwetherdeVries and Welliver have completed the Safe Zone training, which deals with issues of concern
to GLBT students, and have their offices designated as “safe zones” for GLBT students.
However, it is important to note that all Program faculty offices provide a “safe zone” for
students of any background.
All Program faculty have an “open door” policy and welcome students into their offices for
conversation and consultation on both academic and personal matters. Dr. Merriwether-deVries
is particularly sought out by students with diverse backgrounds and provides a much needed
“home base” for many minority students, several of whom affectionately and respectfully call
her “Mama Cy.” She is particularly adept at helping students, especially those from
underrepresented groups and returning adult students, put the demands of balancing the roles of
student and family member into perspective.
Over the past decade the Social Work faculty has clearly and consistently advocated for a more
diverse faculty, staff and administration on campus. These efforts in combination with the
efforts of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Diversity Committee and Human Resources
have resulted in changes in recruiting policies at Juniata College. In 2011, the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion, with the assistance of Human Resources, started a new group on
campus, called the Stewards of Diversity. Stewards participated in diversity employment
training in the fall if 2011 so that beginning in the spring of 2012, at least one Steward will
participate on each selection committee formed. Two faculty from the Sociology, Social Work
and Anthropology Department, Dr. Cynthia Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Daniel Welliver,
participated in the Stewards of Diversity training, and will participate on selection committees
across campus departments as needed.
Within the past three years, Dr. Merriwether-deVries has worked closely with the Enrollment
Office and key alumni to institute new enrollment initiatives in order to affirm and support
students with diverse identities, whom we are working very hard to recruit. These initiatives
include:

The Enrollment Office sends a letter to all accepted ALANA students specifically
addressing concerns about the degree to which diversity is represented in the campus
community, and the supports that are available on campus for diverse students.
82





The College pays for charter buses to transport potential ALANA applicants from
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Manhattan and the five boroughs surrounding New York City to
and from the Juniata campus.
In the 2011-12 academic year, the Enrollment Office hired a student multicultural
admissions counselor to address student and parent concerns about the presence or
absence of diversity on campus.
In the spring semester the Enrollment Office sponsors a “multicultural admitted students
weekend,” during which admitted ALANA students are paired with an ALANA Juniata
student, whose POE is in the area of interest expressed by the visiting student. Students
attend classes on Friday and are involved in social activities on campus throughout the
weekend. In addition, the prospective ALANA student attends one workshop on a topic
related to adjustment to college.
Juniata College has specific liaisons working with a primarily minority serving high
school in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on the connections forged through the liaisons,
Juniata College sponsors a joint Alumni and Enrollment Event that brings students and
their guidance counselors from the minority serving high school in Baltimore to campus
via a charter bus. Students and counselors arrive on campus on Sunday and attend two
workshops: a workshop on adjustment to a predominantly white college campus; and a
workshop on financial planning for college and how to pay for a Juniata education.
Students attend classes and meet faculty on Monday, and are then transported home by
charter bus.
In 2012-13 the Plexus Inbound Freshman Orientation Program will implement a new peer
mentor program for ALANA students. Two student interns will work with the Plexus
Inbound Program to recruit student mentors from the Plexus Multicultural Awareness
Committee, each of whom will be assigned to mentor a freshman ALANA student.
In addition, Program faculty model respect for diversity and a commitment to nondiscrimination
through the research and professional development activities in which they are engaged. Dr.
Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Welliver accompanied two Sociology students to the Eastern
Sociological Society 2011 meeting in Philadelphia, PA. The students displayed a poster based
on research conducted under the supervision of Dr. Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Welliver on
best practices promoting independent undergraduate research that extends beyond traditional
campus based samples of convenience to include subjects who are members of disenfranchised
or traditionally underrepresented populations.
Professor Reilly is well known and well respected in the human service delivery system in
Huntingdon County for his past involvement and leadership in the development, implementation
and oversight of Huntingdon House, a program for victims of domestic violence. His work with
Huntingdon House also involved interaction with social service recipients through the provision
of direct services to victims as a support group leader. Professor Reilly also helped to design and
implement a training program for Huntingdon House volunteers. In addition, Professor Reilly
provided consultation to the Pennsylvania Governor’s Justice Commission; served as pro-bono
interim administrator of the county’s women’s health project for six months while the
organization was in transition; and provided leadership in the community as a member of the
School Board of the Huntingdon Area School District. Since 2003 he has served as a board
member of the Habitat for Humanity, Huntingdon County Chapter, and has actively participated
83
in local Habitat for Humanity building initiatives. In 2010 Professor Reilly was inducted into
Omicron Delta Kappa, National Leadership Honor Society.
He is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers and has been a Licensed Social
Worker in Pennsylvania since 1989. In order to maintain his social work license Professor Reilly
must obtain 30 PALSW continuing education units every two years. He participates in
professional development activities on a regular basis in order to obtain the required continuing
education units.
In her twenty-eight years on the faculty Professor Radis has engaged in career long learning by
consistently “doing her discipline,” and has been recognized by the College, and the Huntingdon
community for her professional service. From 1985-1994 Professor Radis facilitated two Parents
Helping Parents (Parents Anonymous) groups in Huntingdon County, which were weekly
support groups for parents at risk for child abuse. In addition, she provided consultation to
Parent to Parent Magic, a local Huntingdon agency that provided education, consultation,
mentoring service and individual and group counseling to parents of children with physical
and/or developmental disabilities. The agency also provided parent education to the general
public through parenting skills classes. From 1998-2002 Professor Radis taught two six week
courses on Active Parenting Skills per year, one for parents of children from 2-12 and one for
parents of adolescents from 11-18. The classes were structured to provide educational content
along with mutual aid and support through the group. From 2002-2004 Professor Radis was an
active participant in the Families and Communities Together collaborative, a multi-agency
collaborative whose mission is to coordinate and provide parent education programs throughout
Huntingdon County. She has also provided consultation to Huntingdon County Children’s
Services, Huntingdon County Headstart and the State Correctional Institutions at Huntingdon
and Smithfield.
In addition, Professor Radis has been a volunteer ombudsman for the Centre County Office of
Aging at the Fairways Nursing Home at Brookline Village in State College from 2005 to the
present. She has been a trainer for the Pennsylvania Empowered Expert Resident (PEER)
Program for the Centre County Office of Aging from January, 2010 to the present. Professor
Radis was selected as the Centre County Office of Aging 2012 Volunteer of the Year for her
work as a volunteer ombudsman, PEER Trainer and volunteer PEER coordinator.
She is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers and has been a Licensed Social
Worker in Pennsylvania since 1989. In order to maintain her social work license Professor Radis
must obtain 30 PALSW continuing education units every two years. She participates in
professional development activities on a regular basis in order to obtain the required continuing
education units.
In conclusion, Program faculty model the behavior and values of the social work profession in
their teaching, advising, participation in professional development and scholarship activities, and
through service to the College and community that support the Program’s mission and goals. The
extensive community involvement of Program faculty who are “doing their discipline” enriches
the program, as faculty provide active role models for student social workers and gain valuable
real-life examples from practice to illustrate the concepts they are teaching in the classroom.
84
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 3.4—ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE
AS 3.4.1: DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE AND HOW IT PROVIDES THE
NECESSARY AUTONOMY TO ACHIEVE THE PROGRAM’S MISSION AND GOALS
The Social Work Program is governed and administered in accordance with the policies of
Juniata College and the Educational Policies and Accreditation Standards of the Council on
Social Work Education. The President and the Provost recognize that an accredited social work
program requires compliance with standards imposed by the external accrediting agency. The
President and the Provost respect and support the Program faculty’s autonomy in planning and
developing all aspects of the Program.
The Program is housed in the Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology.
Professor Susan T. Radis ACSW, LSW has served as Program Director and Chair of the
Department since 1997. The two full time social work faculty, Professors Radis and Reilly, both
of whom have MSW degrees, maintain primary responsibility for the governance and
administration of the Program within the guidelines of Juniata College. The Program Director is
responsible for providing leadership and oversight to all aspects of the Program including
curriculum planning and development; course scheduling; developing and implementing
program policy; ongoing program evaluation; budgetary management; hiring, supervision and
evaluation of program and department personnel, and relations with the Council on Social Work
Education. The Director of Social Work Field Experience, Professor Reilly, is responsible for
the ongoing development and coordination of the Social Work Field Experience Program.
The Social Work Program has been a small program since its initial accreditation in 1981,
typically graduating between six and seven students a year with a POE in Social Work.
However, the Social Work Program has traditionally played a large service role on campus.
Many students who do not have Programs of Emphasis in Sociology, Social Work or
Anthropology enroll in our courses. As long as a student has taken the prerequisite for the
course, she/he is permitted to enroll in any social work course, and we often have students who
do not have a Program of Emphasis in Social Work enrolled in SW 221, The Life Cycle; SW
231, Social Problems and Social Welfare; and occasionally in SW 230, Introduction to Social
Work Practice. In addition, Professors Radis and Reilly cross-teach courses in the Sociology
Program. Professors Radis and Reilly teach Social Work courses that are either required courses
or designated electives in the Sociology Program, along with other elective courses in Sociology,
such as SO 204, American Families, SO 243, Death and Dying and SO 302, Social Deviance and
Criminology. The enrollment in SW 221, The Life Cycle, SW 231, Social Problems and Social
Welfare and the elective courses mentioned previously generally ranges between 15-30 students,
which balances out the small enrollment in our upper level Social Work courses. With
enrollment in the Social Work Program generally very small, Professors Radis and Reilly are
well able to handle these teaching assignments. This workload arrangement has always been
acceptable to the Provost and President in the past and was considered to be in keeping with
institutional priorities and the mission and goals of the Social Work Program.
However, in the summer of 2010, Professor Reilly, who has taught in the Social Work Program
for thirty-eight years, indicated to the Provost that he intended to initiate phased retirement
85
within three years. While the BSW program has been blessed with the support of the Provost,
President and Board of Trustees in the past, the Provost indicated in August, 2010 that he
questioned whether we should begin the reaffirmation of accreditation process. His concern
stemmed from the historically small number of students who choose a Program of Emphasis in
Social Work (6-7 per year), and the projected phased retirement of Professor Bob Reilly, which
he anticipates will occur during the next 3 years. The CSWE accreditation standards require that
every BSW program has a minimum of two full-time faculty who possess the MSW degree.
With the projected retirement of Bob Reilly, the Provost and President questioned whether we
should replace Professor Reilly with another faculty member with an MSW, which the Program
must do in order to maintain our accreditation, or assign the faculty position which will be
vacated when Professor Reilly retires to another department or program. In the midst of difficult
economic times, as the BSW Program was poised to begin the two year process of preparing for
our reaffirmation of accreditation review, we were asked by the Provost to justify the continued
existence of the social work program. The administration requested a brief “state of the social
work program” report along with recommendations to increase student interest in the program.
Professor Radis submitted the report, The Future of the Accredited Social Work Program, along
with a plan to increase enrollment in our social work courses to the Provost on October 4, 2010.
The report is included in this document in Appendix 3. In addition, at the request of the Provost,
Program faculty consulted with the Academic Planning and Assessment Committee (APAC),
about the future of the social work program. Professor Radis submitted a memo titled The
Future of the Social Work Program for APAC’s consideration on October 13, 2010. That memo
is included in this document in Appendix 4.
Through a series of discussions and negotiations with the Provost, the strong communication of
support for the Program to the Provost and President from alumni, and as a result of the hard
work of Professor Radis to increase enrollment in the Program, in May, 2011 the President and
Provost agreed to replace Bob Reilly at the time of his phased retirement with a faculty member
with an MSW, and to support the Social Work Program in the reaffirmation of accreditation
process. Professor Reilly will be replaced by a faculty member on a three-year fixed term
contract, which may become a tenure-track position contingent on continued growth in the
enrollment in the Program. On a positive note, the number of students with a POE in Social
Work increased from 11 in the Fall Semester, 2010 to 24 in the Spring Semester, 2012.
As described above, Professor Radis as the Program Director and Professor Reilly as the Field
Director, invested a tremendous amount of time and energy in efforts to increase enrollment in
the Social Work Program and encourage the Provost and President to support our reaffirmation
of accreditation. Since we did not know if the College would support the Program through the
reaffirmation of accreditation process, we did not revise the Professional Semester Evaluation
Instrument to reflect the requirements of the 2008 EPAS in time to use the revised instrument in
the Spring Semester, 2011. However, we did link the objectives included in the Professional
Semester Evaluation Instrument based on the 2004 EPAS to the ten core competencies included
in the 2008 EPAS. Each of the ten core competencies that now form the basis of our Program
and are included in our revised Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument, which is found in
Appendix 5, is linked to one or more of the twelve objectives included in the Professional
Semester Evaluation Instrument based on the 2004 EPAS. The conversion tables identifying the
ten core competencies and 41 practice behaviors included in the 2008 EPAS and linking them to
86
the twelve objectives of the 2004 EPAS is included in the discussion of Assessment later in this
document.
In conclusion, Program faculty believe that the administrative organization of the program
facilitates autonomy, while maintaining interaction with and mutual support within the college
community. The social work faculty enjoy a high level of autonomy, and institutional support
from key College administrators, including the President, Provost, Registrar, Director of
Enrollment, and Director of Human Resources, as well as from faculty outside the department
who teach in areas related to the Program’s interests. While this autonomy and support exists
within the governance and management structure to which all programs of the college must
subscribe, it is nonetheless sufficient to enable the social work faculty to exercise considerable
control, free of undue outside influence over the development, implementation, maintenance and
evaluation of essential aspects of the Program including the social work curriculum, individual
courses in the curriculum, the academic advising process, policies such as admission to the
Program or counseling students out of the Program, social work faculty/personnel, program
budget and related resources such as the library and the human-interaction laboratory.
AS 3.4.2: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES HOW THE SOCIAL WORK FACULTY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR
DEFINING PROGRAM CURRICULUM CONSISTENT WITH THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY AND
ACCREDITATION STANDARDS AND THE INSTITUTIONS POLICIES.
Steeped in the liberal arts tradition of Juniata College, the Social Work Program provides
students with the theoretical foundation, philosophical perspectives, practice skills, and problem
solving capabilities required to meet the challenges they will encounter in their professional life.
Guided by the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards of the Council on Social Work
Education and the professional values and ethics put forth by the National Association of Social
Workers, the curriculum is designed to enable students to successfully master the ten core
competencies of generalist social work. The Social Work Program strives to prepare competent,
effective professionals who will provide leadership in the development and provision of social
services across a spectrum of ecological systems and across a broad range of human wellness
concerns, by applying a generalist orientation that is grounded in scientific inquiry and evidenceinformed practice principles, and is sensitive to and appreciative of the diverse ways of being
human. The Program of Emphasis in Social Work is structured to comply with the educational
policies and accreditation standards of the Council on Social Work Education, and the policies of
Juniata College that define the Program of Emphasis (POE) as set forth by the Curriculum
Committee and approved by the Faculty. The College standards for the POE are found online at
http://www.juniata.edu/services/registrar/forms/POETypes.html. Through its curriculum, which
is reflected in the POE in Social Work, and associated activities the Social Work Program
facilitates the emerging baccalaureate social worker’s integration of professional knowledge,
values and skills into a culturally competent, effective, strengths based generalist practice.
Program faculty maintain almost exclusive autonomy over the social work curriculum. Although
the Program is required to submit its mission, goals, objectives, specific degree requirements for
Program graduates and the curriculum plan for each particular course in the Program curriculum
for review by faculty committees such as the Curriculum Committee and Academic Planning
and Assessment Committee, as is the case with all programs and courses at the college, the social
87
work faculty exercise fundamental control over every aspect of the curriculum. In addition, the
Program must participate in the Periodic Program Review process like all programs at the
College. The Academic Planning and Assessment Committee (APAC) is very responsive to the
needs and special circumstances of an accredited social work program. APAC is supportive and
understanding of the demands of the reaffirmation of accreditation process associated with the
CSWE accredited Social Work Program, and has permitted the Program to use the reaffirmation
self-study as the basis for the Periodic Program Review and according to a similar time table.
In maintaining program standards Program faculty must interface with the non-social work
faculty who teach PY 101, Introduction to Psychology, ND.SS 214, Statistics for the Social
Sciences and BI 190, Human Biology to ensure that Program objectives are achieved. Social
work faculty maintain very supportive, collegial relationships with these non-social work faculty,
who have been exceptionally responsive to the Program’s needs for many years. All other
Program courses and academically related initiatives are developed and monitored directly by
social work faculty.
AS 3.4.3: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES HOW THE ADMINISTRATION AND FACULTY OF THE SOCIAL
WORK PROGRAM PARTICIPATE IN FORMULATING AND IMPLEMENTING POLICIES RELATED TO THE
RECRUITMENT, HIRING, RETENTION, PROMOTION, AND TENURE OF PROGRAM PERSONNEL.
The administration and faculty of the social work program participate in formulating and
implementing College policies associated with the recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion and
tenure of program personnel. These policies are established and regulated by the Board of
Trustees of Juniata College in collaboration with the administrative officers of the College, the
Academic Planning and Assessment Committee, and the Personnel Evaluation Committee. The
Faculty of the College elects members of the Personnel Evaluation Committee and the Academic
Planning and Assessment Committees, and both Professors Radis and Reilly have served on
these committees during their tenure at Juniata College. The composition and responsibilities of
these faculty committees is found online in section 1.6.3 of the Juniata College Faculty
Handbook at http://www.juniata.edu/services/provost/handbook/1_6.html.
Any changes to the charge of a faculty committee, or changes in policy related to recruitment,
hiring, retention, promotion and tenure of program personnel must be passed by a majority vote
of the faculty. In fact, any policy related to faculty governance, the rights and responsibilities of
the faculty, and the curriculum related to graduation requirements must be passed by a majority
vote of the faculty. Juniata College is a small learning community and faculty are expected to
participate in faculty governance through service on faculty committees and attendance and
participation at monthly faculty meetings. Professors Radis and Reilly, along with every
member of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology, regularly attend and participate in
monthly faculty meetings. It is primarily through this participation in faculty governance that
program personnel contribute to the formation of policies related to recruitment, hiring,
retention, promotion and tenure of program personnel.
The College policies related to recruitment, retention, evaluation, promotion and tenure are
specifically stated in the Juniata College Faculty Handbook found online at:
88
http://www.juniata.edu/services/provost/handbook/ . The Social Work Program follows the
policies and procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook that have been established and voted
on by the Board of Trustees, the administrative officers of the College and the faculty.
Program personnel play a prominent role in matters related to faculty recruitment by writing the
job description, forming the search committee, determining which applicants to invite for oncampus interviews, planning for and conducting the on campus interviews, and recommending to
the Provost and President which applicant should receive an offer for employment. The Social
Work Program maintains responsibility for implementing the recruitment process for program
personnel in cooperation with the Provost, President and Director of Human Resources.
Matters of retention, promotion and tenure are regulated by college wide policies specified in
sections 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the Juniata College Faculty Handbook. The Social Work Program
follows the policies and procedures related to retention, promotion and tenure set forth in the
Faculty Handbook that have been established and voted on by the Board of Trustees, the
administrative officers of the College and the Faculty. The Personnel Evaluation Committee
makes retention and promotion recommendations to the Provost after conducting a very thorough
evaluation process based on specific evaluative standards and guidelines outlined in the Faculty
Manual. The specific criteria for evaluation for retention and promotion focus on four major
areas: teaching effectiveness, professional development and scholarship, academic advising and
service. This evaluation process incorporates data from both students and faculty colleagues.
Program personnel participate in the evaluation of their colleagues for retention and promotion
by writing Colleague Evaluations as requested by the Personnel Evaluation Committee. The
department chair is required to write an evaluation for all program and departmental faculty who
are being evaluated by the Personnel Evaluation Committee for retention and/or promotion.
Professor Radis is both the chair and the program director, and therefore, plays an active role in
the evaluation of all Program and department faculty for retention, promotion and tenure. As the
department chair and program director, Professor Radis believes that matters of retention and
promotion deserve ongoing attention and participates in both formative and summative
evaluation activities with the junior faculty she supervises. The goal is to promote the
professional development of program personnel over time, in order to enable them to be well
positioned for a favorable retention and/or promotion review by the Personnel Evaluation
Committee.
AS 3.4.4: THE PROGRAM IDENTIFIES THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR
Susan T. Radis, ACSW, LSW has served as the Program Director of the Social Work Program
and as the Chair of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department since 1997.
Professor Radis earned her CSWE accredited master’s degree in social work from Bryn Mawr
College School of Social Work and Social Research in 1973. She is a tenured full professor who
is currently in her twentieth-eighth year as a member of the social work faculty.
89
AS B3.4.4(A) THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR’S LEADERSHIP ABILITY.
Professor Radis has many years of leadership experience and service to the Program and the
Sociology Department, having served as the Program Director and Department Chair since 1997.
Prior to assuming the duties of the Program Director, Professor Radis served as the Director of
Social Work Field Experience from 1984-1996. As the Program Director, Professor Radis
provides leadership and oversight in all administrative aspects of the Program including:
curriculum planning and development; course scheduling; developing and implementing
program policy; ongoing program evaluation; budgetary management; hiring, supervision and
evaluation of program and department personnel, and relations with the Council on Social Work
Education. Professor Radis works closely with Professor Reilly, the Director of Social Work
Field Experience, in monitoring, developing and implementing the social work foundation
curriculum. In addition, as the Chair of the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology
Department, Professor Radis is responsible for monitoring the curriculum and supervising the
faculty in the Sociology and Anthropology Programs, which are also housed in the department.
The responsibilities of the Department Chair are extensive, and require the Chair to demonstrate
expertise in the leadership role. The Roles and Responsibilities of the Department Chair are
found online at http://www.juniata.edu/services/provost/deptchairs/dept_roles.html. Professor
Radis has provided leadership in the role of department chair and program director with the
support and cooperation of program and department faculty since 1997. Department faculty
work closely together to meet the goals of each program. Faculty in the Sociology and
Anthropology programs are very supportive of the Social Work Program and have worked in
collaboration with Program faculty to develop elective courses that are complementary to and
enhance all programs in the department.
At Juniata College Professor Radis is well respected as a faculty colleague and participates
actively in committee work, enrollment events and other activities in the College community. In
her twenty-eight years on the faculty Professor Radis has been elected to and served on
numerous faculty committees, including the Personnel Evaluation Committee, Faculty
Development and Benefits Committee, Professional Development Committee, Academic
Planning and Assessment Committee, Executive Committee, Student Academic Development
Committee, Judicial Review Board, Academic Judicial Board, Health Professions Committee
and numerous ad hoc and search committees. She currently serves on the Health Professions
Committee, on which she has served since 1995.
At Juniata College in order to be considered for retention, promotion and tenure, faculty
members are required to excel in teaching, professional development and scholarship, advising
and service to the college and community. The Personnel Evaluation Committee defines
professional development and scholarship in many ways; however, in professional programs like
Social Work, professional development is most commonly defined as “doing one’s discipline.”
In her twenty-eight years on the faculty, Professor Radis has consistently engaged in “doing her
discipline,” through which she has demonstrated her leadership ability. From 1998-2002
Professor Radis provided consultation to Parent to Parent Magic, a local Huntingdon agency that
provided education, consultation, mentoring service and individual and group counseling to
parents of children with physical and/or developmental disabilities. In addition, the agency also
provided parent education to the general public through parenting skills classes. Professor Radis
90
was recognized by Parent to Parent Magic for her leadership in the area of parent education, and
from 1998-2002 Professor Radis taught two six week courses on Active Parenting Skills per
year, one for parents of children from 2-12 and one for parents of adolescents from 11-18. The
classes were structured to provide educational content along with mutual aid and support through
the group. From 2002-2004 Professor Radis was recognized for her leadership in parent
education and social work education, and was invited to participate in the Families and
Communities Together collaborative, a multi-agency collaborative whose mission was to
coordinate and provide parent education programs throughout Huntingdon County. Professor
Radis has also provided consultation to Huntingdon County Children’s Services, Huntingdon
County Headstart and the State Correctional Institutions at Huntingdon and Smithfield.
In addition, Professor Radis has been a volunteer ombudsman for the Centre County Office of
Aging at the Fairways Nursing Home at Brookline Village in State College from 2005 to the
present. She has been a trainer for the Pennsylvania Empowered Expert Resident (PEER)
Program for the Centre County Office of Aging from January, 2010 to the present. The Centre
County Office of Aging and the administration and staff of five long-term care facilities in
Centre County recognize and acknowledge Professor Radis’s leadership ability in establishing
active PEER groups in five long-term care facilities in Centre County. Professor Radis was
selected as the Centre County Office of Aging 2012 Volunteer of the Year for her work as a
volunteer ombudsman, PEER Trainer and volunteer PEER coordinator.
Professor Radis’s primary teaching areas are social work practice, human behavior in the social
environment and field instruction. Professor Radis has a wealth of teaching experience, and
throughout her teaching career has taught every social work course required in a CSWE
accredited baccalaureate social work program, with the exception of a research and statistics
course. Over the past twenty-eight years Professor Radis has participated in the reaffirmation of
accreditation process four times, and has provided leadership in curriculum review and the
implementation of curricular changes necessitated by changes in the EPAS
Most recently, Professor Radis demonstrated considerable leadership ability in dealing with the
threat to the continuation of the BSW Program described above in the discussion of AS 4.0.1.
While the BSW program has been blessed with the support of the Provost, President and Board
of Trustees in the past, the Provost indicated in August, 2010 that he questioned whether we
should begin the reaffirmation of accreditation process. His concern stemmed from the
historically small number of students who choose a Program of Emphasis in Social Work (6-7
per year), and the projected phased retirement of Professor Bob Reilly, which he anticipates will
occur during the next 3 years. The CSWE accreditation standards require that every BSW
program has a minimum of two full-time faculty who possess the MSW degree. With the
projected retirement of Professor Reilly, the Provost and President questioned whether we should
replace Professor Reilly with another faculty member with an MSW, which the Program must do
in order to maintain our accreditation, or assign the faculty position which will be vacated when
Professor Reilly retires to another department or program. In the midst of difficult economic
times, as the BSW Program was poised to begin the two year process of preparing for our
reaffirmation of accreditation review, we were asked by the Provost to justify the continued
existence of the social work program. The administration requested a brief “state of the social
work program” report along with recommendations to increase student interest in the program.
91
Professor Radis wrote the report, The Future of the Accredited Social Work Program, and
developed a plan to increase enrollment in our social work courses, which was submitted to the
Provost on October 4, 2010. The report is included in this document in Appendix 3. In addition,
at the request of the Provost, Program faculty consulted with the Academic Planning and
Assessment Committee (APAC), about the future of the social work program. Professor Radis
wrote a memo titled The Future of the Social Work Program for APAC’s consideration and
submitted it to APAC on October 13, 2010. That memo is included in this document in
Appendix 4. Professor Radis also wrote and distributed a memo via email to alumni and friends
of the Social Work Program asking them to communicate their support for the continuation of
the Social Work Program to the Provost, President and the Chair of the Academic Planning and
Assessment Committee. It is very gratifying to note that many alumni responded to our request,
and communicated their support and concern to the Provost, President and Chair of APAC.
Through a series of discussions and negotiations with the Provost, the strong communication of
support for the Program to the Provost and President from alumni, and as a result of the focused
efforts of Professor Radis to increase enrollment in the Program, in May, 2011 the President and
Provost agreed to replace Bob Reilly at the time of his phased retirement with a faculty member
with an MSW, and to support the Social Work Program in the reaffirmation of accreditation
process. Professor Reilly will be replaced by a faculty member on a three-year fixed term
contract, which may become a tenure-track position contingent on continued growth in the
enrollment in the Program. On a positive note, the number of students with a POE in Social
Work increased from eleven in the Fall Semester, 2010 to twenty-four in the Spring Semester,
2012. As a result of Professor Radis’s strong leadership, dedication and continuing efforts to
increase enrollment in the Program, the future of the Dorothy Baker Johnson and Raymond R.
Day Social Work Program now looks very positive.
AS B3.4.4(B): THE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS A FULL-TIME APPOINTMENT
TO THE SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM.
Program Director, Susan T. Radis, ACSW, LSW, has a full-time appointment in the social work
program as documented in the Council on Social Work Education, Commission on Accreditation
(COA) Faculty Summary—Part 2.
AS B3.4.4(C): THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE PROGRAM
DIRECTOR’S ASSIGNED TIME TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP TO
THE PROGRAM, AND DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS TIME IS SUFFICIENT.
As the Program Director and Chair of the department, Professor Radis has considerable
autonomy to manage her workload in a flexible manner in order to provide educational and
administrative leadership to the Program. At Juniata College full time faculty members are
expected to teach an average of 21 credit hours over the course of two semesters, although
faculty teaching loads vary significantly depending on the needs of the program and the
department. Professor Radis has a full time teaching appointment, but receives twenty-five
percent release time in order to provide educational and administrative leadership to the program.
For the past three years, Professor Radis has taught 16 credit hours for the year which provides
her with twenty-five percent release time in order to carry out her duties as Program Director.
92
Professor Radis does not receive additional release time to carry out the administrative duties of
the department Chair. However, as part of their workload, faculty at Juniata College are also
expected to carry out the role of program and general liberal arts advisor, participate in the
governance of the faculty and the College through committee service and engage in other service
to the College and the community. Although the number of advisees varies considerably
between faculty members depending on the needs of the program, department and College, most
faculty members advise approximately 30-35 students. Professor Radis maintains an advisee
load of approximately 20-25 students, which represents a twenty-five percent reduction in the
average advising workload at Juniata College. In addition, while it is common for faculty
members to serve on one standing committee of the faculty in addition to two or three ad hoc
committees, Professor Radis is committed to serving on no more than one faculty committee at a
time, in order to maintain a reduced workload that allows sufficient time to carry out her duties
within the Program. It is also common at Juniata College for faculty members to supervise
students in independent studies, for which the faculty member receives no additional release time
or compensation, as a service to the student and the College. In order to maintain a reduced
workload in her capacity as Program Director Professor Radis does not supervise students in
independent studies. Taken together, the workload reduction strategies employed by Professor
Radis allow her sufficient time to effectively provide educational and administrative leadership
to the Social Work Program, and to effectively carry out the duties of department Chair. Both
the Provost and the President of Juniata College are aware of and sensitive to the administrative
demands of maintaining an accredited baccalaureate social work program and both support the
workload reduction strategies described above.
AS 3.4.5: THE PROGRAM IDENTIFIES THE FIELD EDUCATION DIRECTOR.
F. Robert Reilly ACSW, LSW has served as the Field Education Director since 1997. Prior to
assuming the duties of the Field Education Director, he was the Program Director from 19811996. Professor Reilly earned his CSWE accredited master’s degree from Marywood College
School of Social Work in 1974. He has held a full time appointment as a member of the social
work faculty since 1974.
AS 3.4.5(A): THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES THE FIELD DIRECTOR’S ABILITY TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP
IN THE FIELD EDUCATION PROGRAM THOUGH PRACTICE EXPERIENCE, FIELD INSTRUCTION
EXPERIENCE, AND ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER RELEVANT ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL
ACTIVITIES IN SOCIAL WORK.
Professor Reilly is well known and well respected in the human service delivery system in
Huntingdon County for his past involvement and leadership in the development, implementation
and oversight of Huntingdon House, a program for victims of domestic violence. His work with
Huntingdon House also involved interaction with social service recipients through the provision
of direct services to victims as a support group leader. Professor Reilly also helped to design and
implement a training program for Huntingdon House volunteers. In addition, Professor Reilly
provided consultation to the Pennsylvania Governor’s Justice Commission; served as pro-bono
interim administrator of the county’s women’s health project for six months while the
organization was in transition; and provided leadership in the community as a member of the
School Board of the Huntingdon Area School District. Since 2003 he has served as a board
93
member of the Habitat for Humanity, Huntingdon County Chapter, and has actively participated
in local Habitat for Humanity building initiatives. In 2010 Professor Reilly was inducted into
Omicron Delta Kappa, National Leadership Honor Society.
Professor Reilly is a member of the Academy of Certified Social Workers and has been a
Licensed Social Worker in Pennsylvania since 1989. In order to maintain his social work license
Professor Reilly must obtain 30 PALSW continuing education units every two years. He
participates in professional development activities on a regular basis in order to obtain the
required continuing education units.
In conclusion, since 1997 Professor Reilly has demonstrated exemplary leadership in the field
education component of the curriculum through his teaching in the Social Work Professional
Semester and its companion seminar, the Social Work Professional Semester Research Seminar,
his professional development activities, and his administration of field education in the Program.
AS 3.4.5(B): THE PROGRAM DOCUMENTS THAT THE FIELD DIRECTOR HAS A MASTER’S DEGREE IN
SOCIAL WORK FROM A CSWE-ACCREDITED PROGRAM AND AT LEAST 2 YEARS OF POSTBACCALAUREATE OR POSTMASTER’S SOCIAL WORK DEGREE PRACTICE EXPERIENCE.
Professor Reilly earned his CSWE-accredited master’s degree in social work from Marywood
College School of Social Work in 1974. Professor Reilly has the equivalent of two years of postmaster’s experience and was certified in 1989 by the Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation to teach practice courses and co-ordinate field instruction in
baccalaureate programs in the United States. A copy of the letter documenting this is included in
this document.
AS B3.4.5(C): THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE FIELD
DIRECTOR’S ASSIGNED TIME TO PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP FOR
FIELD EDUCATION AND DEMONSTRATES THAT THIS TIME IS SUFFICIENT.
In consultation with the Program Director, Professor Reilly is permitted to manage his workload
in a flexible manner to enable him to. At Juniata College full time faculty members are expected
to teach an average of 21 credit hours over the course of two semesters, although faculty
teaching loads vary significantly depending on the needs of the program and the department. As
the Field Director, Professor Reilly receives release time to enable him to effectively provide
educational and administrative leadership for field education. Professor Reilly normally teaches
17.5 credits for the year, which represents a seventeen percent reduction in his teaching load.
However, as part of their workload, faculty at Juniata College are also expected to carry out the
role of program and general liberal arts advisor, participate in the governance of the faculty and
the College through committee service and engage in other service to the College and the
community. Although the number of advisees varies considerably between faculty members
depending on the needs of the program, department and College, most faculty members advise
approximately 30-35 students. Professor Reilly maintains an advisee load of approximately 25
students, which represents a twenty-five percent reduction in the average advising workload at
Juniata College. In addition, while it is common for faculty members to serve on one standing
committee of the faculty in addition to two or three ad hoc committees, Professor Reilly is
94
committed to serving on no more than one faculty committee at a time, in order to maintain a
reduced workload that allows sufficient time to effectively carry out his duties as the Field
Director. For the past three years Professor Reilly has served on no standing faculty committees.
It is also common at Juniata College for faculty members to supervise students in independent
studies, for which the faculty member receives no additional release time or compensation, as a
service to the student and the College. In order to maintain a reduced workload in his capacity as
Field Director, Professor Reilly does not supervise students in independent studies. Taken
together, the workload reduction strategies employed by Professor Reilly represent the twentyfive percent release time that is required to effectively provide educational and administrative
leadership for field education. Both the Provost and the President of Juniata College are aware
of and sensitive to the administrative demands of maintaining an accredited baccalaureate social
work program and both support the workload reduction strategies described above.
AS 3.4.5(D): THE PROGRAM PROVIDES DOCUMENTATION THAT THE FIELD DIRECTOR HAS A
FULLTIME APPOINTMENT TO THE SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM.
Field Director, F. Robert Reilly, ACSW, LSW, has a full-time appointment in the social work
program as documented in the Council on Social Work Education, Commission on Accreditation
(COA) Faculty Summary—Part 2.
EDUCATIONAL POLICY 3.5: RESOURCES
AS 3.5.1: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES FOR BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION IT USES TO ACHIEVE ITS MISSION AND GOALS. THE PROGRAM SUBMITS THE
BUDGET FORM TO DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT AND STABLE FINANCIAL SUPPORTS THAT PERMIT
PROGRAM PLANNING AND FACULTY DEVELOPMENT.
At Juniata College the department Chair is responsible for developing, submitting and
administering the budget. In the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department the
position of Chair is always held by one of the two MSW social work program faculty, in order to
ensure that the Program Director has control over budget development and administration for the
CSWE accredited social work program. The Provost, the President and department faculty
support this arrangement. Planning for and developing the budget for the next academic year
ordinarily begins in December, when the Provost informs the Chairs of any budgetary
restrictions or guidelines for the next academic year. Typically, the Provost informs the Chairs
that departmental budgets must include no more than a specified percentage increase, ranging
from a zero-percent increase to perhaps a five-percent increase, depending on the College budget
allocation approved by the Board of Trustees. At the same time, the Provost generally indicates
that the percentage increase in budget allocations for departments and programs may vary,
depending on the anticipated needs of particular departments and programs during the next fiscal
year. For example, even in a year when the Provost indicates that there will be no increases in
departmental and program budgets, an individual department or program may receive an increase
in the budget to cover a special need or circumstance, such as the Social Work Program’s
anticipated budget increase to pay for the expenses associated with the CSWE reaffirmation of
accreditation process. In fact, in preparing the budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year in which Chairs
were instructed to prepare the department budget with no increases over the previous year’s
95
budget, the Program Director requested and received the necessary increase in the department
budget to pay for the accreditation related expenses. As the budget officer for the department and
program, the Program Director consults with department and program faculty prior to preparing
the budget to determine the anticipated budgetary needs for the next academic year. The
Program Director then prepares the budget online according to College procedures and submits
the budget to the Provost by February 1for review and approval. The Sociology, Social Work
and Anthropology Department budget includes lines for Student Assistant Wages; Department
Research; Field Trips; Field Education; Lectures (honorariums for course speakers);
Memberships including CSWE and BPD dues, professional memberships for individual
department members and social work licensing fees; Office and Instructional Supplies; and Staff
Development funds to cover the continuing education expenses of the two licensed social work
faculty. Upon reviewing the department budget the Provost may reduce the department’s budget
request for any line; however, in the experience of the Program Director, the Provost has been
extremely supportive in meeting the reasonable budgetary requests of the program. The Provost
informs the Chairs of the department’s budget allocation in April, and the Chair in turn informs
department and program personnel of the budget guidelines for the next academic year. The
Program Director/Chair prepares and manages the program and department budget online and
has the freedom to make line item transfers in the budget to ensure the Program’s needs are
sufficiently met. The Program Director and department faculty agree that the budgetary needs of
the department and program are more than sufficiently met in order to achieve the Program’s
mission and goals. The department budget provides sufficient and stable resources to support
Program planning and faculty development. Please refer to the Program Budget Form below, for
a detailed description of the Program budget.
In instances where an unexpected need arises that cannot be covered by the program or
department budget, the Provost has been extremely responsive and helpful in providing
additional funding to meet program or department needs. For example, the Provost’s budget
paid for Professors Radis and Reilly to attend a CSWE sponsored workshop on the 2008 EPAS
reaffirmation of accreditation standards held in Alexandria, VA in April 2010. In addition, the
Provost pays for adjunct teaching personnel when the need arises due to unforeseen
circumstances, such as the illness of a department member, or necessary changes in teaching
assignments. Program personnel also have access to professional development money through
the Professional Development Committee (PDC). The PDC manages and administers the
College’s professional development funds, which are available for use by all full-time faculty.
Faculty submit proposals for curriculum development projects and for travel to professional
meetings to the PDC, whose members review the proposals and allocate funds according to
guidelines developed and published by the committee. In most years each faculty member will
receive support for travel to at least one professional meeting. Social work program faculty have
received very favorable support and funding from PDC to attend professional meetings. As
mentioned above, in situations where PDC is not able to fund a program faculty member’s
request for curriculum development or necessary travel related expenses, the Provost will often
provide additional funding to meet the program’s needs.
96
Program Expense Budget
Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation
2008 EPAS
This form is used to evaluate a program’s compliance with Accreditation Standard (AS) 3.5.1.
AS 3.5.1
The program describes the procedures for budget development and administration it uses to achieve its
mission and goals. The program submits the budget form to demonstrate sufficient and stable financial
supports that permit program planning and faculty development.
Provide all of the information requested below. If accredited baccalaureate and master’s
programs are being reviewed at the same time, use one form for each program.
Type of Program:
Program
Expenses
X
Previous Year
2010-11
Dollar
% Hard
Amount
Money
Faculty &
Administrators
$201,876
100
Support Staff
See
addendum
100
Temporary or
Adjunct Faculty &
Field Staff
Fringe
0
$56,575
Student
Financial Aid
Technological
Resources
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Current Year
2011-12
Dollar
% Hard
Amount
Money
$207,005
100
Next Year
2012-13
Dollar
% Hard
Amount
Money
$216,398
100
0
100
100
0
100
$62,065
100
$61,377
100
100
3080
100
3080
100
1800
100
1800
100
3000
100
400
100
400
100
610
100
1400
100
1400
100
1000
100
5190
See
addendum
100
11320
See
addendum
100
5430
See
addendum
100
$267,232
-------
$287,070
-------
$290,895
-------
Supplies & Services
Travel
Master’s
Baccalaureate
97
Program Expense Budget Addendum
Council on Social Work Education
Commission on Accreditation
2008 EPAS
Other includes:
Expense Category
Research
Field Trips
Field Education
Lectures
Memberships
Professional Fees for
reaffirmation of
accreditation
Postage
TOTAL
Previous Year
2010-11
$600
300
260
1550
2380
0
Current Year
2011-12
$600
300
260
1550
2380
6130
Next Year
2012-13
$400
300
500
750
2480
1000
100
$5190
100
$11,320
100
$5430
98
AS 3.5.2: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES HOW IT USES RESOURCES TO CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE THE
PROGRAM AND ADDRESS CHALLENGES IN THE PROGRAM’S CONTEXT.
The Program makes appropriate use of its resources to continuously enhance the curriculum and
improve the Program. For example, the Program budget includes sufficient funding in the
Instructional Supplies line for Program faculty to purchase current DVDs that will enhance the
students’ classroom learning experience. The Lectures Line includes sufficient funding for
department and Program faculty to pay honorariums for course speakers that also enhance the
student’s classroom learning experience. In addition, the Program supports campus wide
speakers on diversity related issues through financial contributions from its budget. Over the
past three years the Department of Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology has sponsored
campus speakers whose topics related to diversity such as: genealogist Judy Heald, who lectures
on multi-ethnic families; filmmaker Chris Ivy, who spoke on the gentrification of black
neighborhoods in Pittsburgh; and former executive director of the Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences, Bruce Davis, who lectured on Hollywood films and their impact on race
perceptions.
Program funding has also been used sponsor speakers that inform students and faculty of the
impact of international and global issues on populations at risk and social and economic justice
in dealing with the topics of diversity and nondiscrimination. For example, in October, 2009 the
Social Work Program sponsored a campus-wide presentation on Commercial Sexual
Exploitation of Children/Human Trafficking Seminar by Dr. Mark Rodgers, Dean of the
Dominican University Graduate School of Social Work, in River Forest, Illinois. Along with
other academic programs and campus organizations, the Social Work Program will sponsor a
series of speakers and films during Genocide Awareness Week in April, 2012. For example, the
Social Work Program will help to fund speaker Eugenie Mukeshimana, Rwandan genocide
survivor, who is the:

Educational Outreach Coordinator at the Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict
Resolution, and Human Rights at Rutgers University

Board Member for Voices of Rwanda, Miracle Corners of the World and Mothers to
Mothers

Founder and Executive Director of the Genocide Survivors Support Network (GSSN), a
charitable organization with a mission to help genocide survivors rebuild their lives and
educate communities about the crime of genocide
In addition, Program faculty have used funds from the Field Trip line to pay for transportation
for students to Harrisburg for the PA NASW sponsored Lobby Day; and to fund the
transportation and lodging of students who present their research at conferences such as the
NASW-PA annual meeting.
The High-tech Equipment budget line funded the purchase of a digital video camera and tripod
that Professor Radis uses to video record students’ individual role plays in SW 230, Introduction
to Social Work Practice, and the group role plays in SW 331, SWP: Individuals, Families and
Small Groups. Use of the digital video camera enhances the role play and critiquing experience
in two social work practice courses and contributes to the overall improvement of the Program.
99
The Staff Development budget line funds continuing education for the two licensed MSW social
work faculty, who must earn 30 PALSW continuing education units every two years to maintain
their social work licenses. Professors Radis and Reilly regularly attend continuing education
workshops, which enhances their teaching, professional development and scholarship, and
ultimately their contribution to the continuous improvement of the Program.
Program resources are also used to continuously address challenges to the Program from the
educational environment. As previously discussed under section AS 4.0.1, while the BSW
program has been blessed with the support of the Provost, President and Board of Trustees in the
past, the Provost indicated in August, 2010 that he questioned whether we should begin the
reaffirmation of accreditation process. His concern stemmed from the historically small number
of students who choose a Program of Emphasis in Social Work (6-7 per year), and the projected
phased retirement of Professor Bob Reilly, which he anticipates will occur during the next 3
years. The CSWE accreditation standards require that every BSW program has a minimum of
two full-time faculty who possess the MSW degree. With the projected retirement of Professor
Reilly, the Provost and President questioned whether we should replace him with another faculty
member with an MSW, which the Program must do in order to maintain our accreditation, or
assign the faculty position which will be vacated when Professor Reilly retires to another
department or program. In the midst of difficult economic times, as the BSW Program was
poised to begin the two year process of preparing for our reaffirmation of accreditation review,
we were asked by the Provost to justify the continued existence of the social work program. The
administration requested a brief “state of the social work program” report along with
recommendations to increase student interest in the program. We submitted our report, The
Future of the Accredited Social Work Program, along with a plan to increase enrollment in our
social work courses to the Provost on October 4, 2010. The report is included in this document
in Appendix 3.
Part of our plan to increase enrollment involved updating our department webpage and Facebook
page to be more engaging and attractive to potential social work students both on and off
campus. Although our department budget has always included funds to pay for a student
assistant, historically we have not made much use of our student assistant in the Program and
department. In the Fall Semester, 2011 the department hired two student assistants, one of whom
has updated the department and Program webpages, all of the individual faculty webpages and
the department and Program Facebook pages to make them more attractive to current and
potential social work students. In addition, the student assistant worked with the Program
Director and our statistical consultant to code data for use in our continuous assessment of the
Program. During the 2011-12 academic year, the department and Program have used the student
assistants for more hours than were allocated in the Student Assistant budget line. However, the
Program Director has the autonomy and authority to reallocate funds from one budget line to
another in order to be more responsive to Program needs and challenges. The Program Director
reallocated funds from other budget lines in which there was a surplus into the Student Assistant
line to meet the needs of the Program.
In addition, throughout the 2010-11 and 2011-12 academic years, Professor Radis worked hard
to develop strategies to increase enrollment in the Social Work Program. Through discussions
100
with faculty, current and former students and Enrollment staff, Professor Radis concluded that
the biggest obstacle to recruiting students into the Social Work Program is students’ general lack
of knowledge about social work as a profession. The general public, including college bound
high school students, and students who are already on the Juniata campus typically do not know
what social work is, what social workers do, and how creative and flexible a career in social
work can be. In response to the challenge from the Provost to justify the continued existence of
the Program and the necessity to increase enrollment, Professor Radis devised a strategy to
inform students and faculty about social work as a profession, and the opportunities and
advantages available to students who choose a Program of Emphasis in Social Work. With the
goal of educating students about the social work profession and the Social Work POE, the
Program hosts at least one “Social Work Pizza Informational Event” every semester, usually
during the week prior to preregistration for the following semester or academic year. The
Program sends targeted emails announcing the “Social Work Pizza Event” to freshman and
sophomore students who have expressed an interest in a number of disciplines related to the
helping professions, including psychology, sociology, social work, peace and conflict studies,
communication, health professions and students who have an “exploratory” POE. In addition,
the Program informs the entire campus community of the “Social Work Pizza” events through
general campus announcement emails. These informational events are held from noon to 1 PM
in a convenient location, and the Program budget pays for a pizza and soda lunch for all in
attendance. Program faculty talk briefly about social work as a profession, the advantages of a
POE in Social Work, and answer questions about the Program. Current social work students also
attend and talk briefly about their experience in the Program, particularly their field experiences,
and invite students to participate in the Social Work Club. The “Social Work Pizza” strategy, in
combination with other strategies appears to be working. The number of students with a POE in
Social Work increased from 11 in the Fall Semester, 2010 to 24 in the Spring Semester, 2012.
The examples above illustrate how the Program makes appropriate, wise and effective use of its
resources to continuously enhance the curriculum, improve the Program, and respond to a
serious challenge from the Program’s educational environment. Program resources are sufficient
to support and enhance the Program, and the Program Director and Program faculty make full
and thoughtful use of the resources available to them to continuously improve the Program.
AS 3.5.3: THE PROGRAM DEMONSTRATES SUFFICIENT SUPPORT STAFF, OTHER PERSONNEL, AND
TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Support Staff and other personnel
The Social Work Program is housed in Good Hall, along with five other small social science and
humanities departments. Mrs. Jane Croyle, the educational services assistant for Good Hall,
provides support services to the Social Work Program and the other departments housed in Good
Hall. Juniata College takes pride in providing its faculty, students and administrative support
staff with excellent up-to-date computers, software and other instructional technology. As a
result, Mrs. Croyle provides sufficient and excellent support services to the Social Work
Program and all other departments in Good Hall in an efficient and timely manner. The Social
Work Program is extremely satisfied with the administrative support provided by Mrs. Croyle,
and has never experienced a lack of administrative support services. In addition to the
101
administrative support services provided by Mrs.Croyle, the department budget also includes
money to fund approximately 80 hours of student assistant wages, which is sufficient to meet the
program’s and department’s needs in most academic years. During the 2011-12 academic year,
during which Program faculty worked on the reaffirmation of accreditation self-study, Program
faculty used our two student assistants for more hours than were allocated in the Student
Assistant budget line. However, the Program Director reallocated funds from other budget lines
in which there was a surplus into the Student Assistant line to sufficiently meet the needs of the
Program.
Technological Resources
Every faculty member has a computer with internet access in her/his comfortable, private office,
along with a printer and access to the laser printers located on each floor and in Mrs. Croyle’s
office. Each faculty member has access to the library web catalog and the library’s online
databases in her/his office, which include, among other resources: Academic Search Premier,
JStor, Proquest Research Library, Sage, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library and WorldCat.
The College Technology Services (CTS) insures that each faculty member has functioning up-todate hardware and software on her/his office computer, and provides support staff to monitor and
service faculty computers. Every faculty member and student has an email account that can be
accessed remotely using Microsoft Outlook or through https://webmail.juniata.edu. Faculty
members can access many of the following Colleges online resources from an off campus
(home/public) internet connection:






http://www.juniata.edu - Juniata College Main Web Site
https://webmail.juniata.edu - Secure Web Access to Juniata Email
Account/Contacts/Calendar
https://arch.juniata.edu - Juniata College Web Portal/Intranet
https://moodle.juniata.edu - Juniata College Online Course Management System
http://webcat.juniata.edu - Beeghly Library Online Catalog
https://firepass.juniata.edu - ***INCLUDES OFF-CAMPUS VPN***
In addition, CTS prides itself on providing Faculty with top-notch instructional technology for
use in their classes. Nearly every classroom in Good Hall is equipped with an LCD projection
unit (or other large screen display device), audio equipment, and provides faculty with the ability
to connect her/his laptop to the classroom equipment and the internet. Additionally, many of the
rooms contain equipment such as document cameras, SmartBoards (electronic whiteboards),
DVD/VCRs and classroom performance systems.
The costs of the College’s computer and technological resources are without direct charge to the
Program and do not appear in the operating budget. The Program pays for office printers, ink
cartridges and paper out of the Instructional and Office Supplies line, which is more than
sufficient to cover these costs.
The College also maintains a Teaching and Learning Technology (TLT) Support Center, which
provides assistance and educational training to faculty and staff who want to develop and
enhance their computer related skills and their use of instructional technology, including
102
assistance and training in the design and maintenance of department, program and faculty web
pages. The TLT provides Help Desk Services to faculty and students who are experiencing
computer or technology related problems or concerns practically around the clock. The CTS and
TLT support staff are knowledgeable, efficient, helpful, and provide sufficient technological
support to Program faculty and students.
AS 3.5.4: THE PROGRAM SUBMITS THE LIBRARY FORM TO DEMONSTRATE COMPREHENSIVE
LIBRARY HOLDINGS AND/OR ELECTRONIC ACCESS AND OTHER INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL
RESOURCES NECESSARY FOR ACHIEVING ITS MISSION AND GOALS.
The library holdings and/or electronic access and other informational and educational resources
are sufficient to enable the Program to achieve its mission and goals. Library Director, John
Mumford, and Reference Librarian, Andrew Dudash, are knowledgeable about the Program’s
resource needs and work closely with the Program to ensure that our needs are sufficiently met.
Program and department faculty make extensive use of the library’s resources in carrying out the
mission and goals of the Program. Students must complete library research assignments in many
social work foundation courses to enable them to demonstrate mastery of the ten core
competencies of generalist social work. Please note in the Librarian’s Report, the Library
Director indicates that of the 6000 searches done on Proquest in 2010-11, approximately 600 of
them (ten percent) could be related to social work and sociology. Program faculty are pleased
that for a very small program, our students make such extensive use of the Library’s resources.
The Program is satisfied with the amount of money budgeted for the department and Program,
and believe that it is sufficient to provide the library resources necessary to carry out our mission
and goals. The Librarian’s Report follows:
Librarian’s Report
Council on Social Work Education
Committee on Accreditation
2008 EPAS
Submitted by John Mumford, Library Director
The Beeghly Library and the Social Work Department at Juniata College enjoy a productive
relationship. This is because there is an open communication line between the two. There is
evidence to support this which comes from discussion with the faculty, surveys and data. The
resources of the library have been greatly augmented in the last few years through electronic
resources, especially with a large influx of e-books (70,000 items), while the electronic journals
collection has steadily become larger. The addition of a librarian a few years ago has given the
Library an increase in resources to be able to more effectively work with the Social Work
Department. Usage of the collection, and sources the Library is able to obtain for students and
faculty, has always reflected a positive communication of needs, and continues to do so. The
Library must continue to look for more access to academic resources in order to be of greater
service to the department. A renovation of the Library to create more collaborative areas is also
necessary. Plans exist for both goals to become a reality.
Currently Professor Merriwether-DeVries is the Liaison from Social Work to the Library, and
Andrew Dudash, Librarian, is designated to work with that department. However other faculty
103
in the department; Professor Radis, Professor Reilly, and Professor Welliver, are in frequent
contact with the Library Staff in general about academic issues. Recently, the Library Director
conducted a structured interview with Professor Welliver as part of project to understand faculty
views on the future of the library. A Librarian, Mr. Dudash, meets with the Social Work
department as needed, and our Librarians as a group work with the department on instruction
needs. A recent Social Work survey of 2012, has supported that the faculty find library resources
sufficient for their work (100 percent at least agree), and that the Library Staff is helpful to them
(100 percent strongly agree). Several classes in the department per year are instructed in library
research, and while a majority of faculty, but not all, agree that their classes have received
enough library instruction so that their students feel comfortable with conducting research using
the library, several (50 percent) are not sure that research papers and projects of their students
reflect effective use of the library’s resources. The latter is a difficult evaluation to make, and the
former is a result that we will examine in greater detail, but both are results on which we would
like to improve by examining our instruction program again with Social Work. According to a
2012 department survey, social work students agree (100 percent), that most of the time they can
find the resources they need for research using the library and its online resources. A majority of
students also agree that they have received enough library instruction so that they feel
comfortable using the library (94 percent), and that the Library Staff is helpful to them (94
percent).
The Library staff attend conferences such as those hosted by the American Library Association,
ACRL, Associated College Libraries of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Academic Library
Consortium, Sirsi, and others each year, in order to increase knowledge of modern and useful
developments in libraries. The staff provide community outreach and work with alumni, high
schools, community colleges, retirement communities, and genealogists of all ages. Recently
during this academic year the Library received and displayed book collections from a Holocaust
survivor, and from the prestigious Nippon Foundation. The Library is considered to be an
important part of the Social Work curriculum. Reference desk coverage is provided about 60
hours a week, and through electronic means such as Google Voices, e-mail and Twitter librarians
are available for many more hours each day.
The Library collection has improved in recent years. Counting the electronic collection, the
Library has 20,000 books related to Social Work, many of recent publication. The serials
holdings contain 1,000 journals related to Social Work or roughly 10 percent of holdings. The
purchase of several more electronic packages of books and journals is presently being budgeted.
Through Interlibrary Services, Beeghly Library is connected to 25,000 institutions worldwide
from which it can borrow books. It belongs to three large consortiums; Associated College
Libraries of Central Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Academic Library Consortium, and Lyrasis.
The Library has ten electronic databases containing journals relevant to Social Work, and has an
online catalog of books through Sirsi Corporation. Book ordering or interlibrary services are
provided through the means that are requested, online or in print form. Social Work has a book
budget of $1,000 in print and $1,000 electronically each year, but the Library spends much more
than this as required based on various collection development tools such as OCLC and Books for
College Libraries. The journals budget is $5,000 per year. A New Books shelf is in the Library’s
Information Commons, and a list of new books is located electronically at the Library Web Page
so that faculty can keep informed of the latest purchases. The yearly book circulation figure in
104
social work reveals the collection is well used with about 1,000 circulations of the print
collection. Online database searching in sociology and social work is about 10 percent of the
college’s searches. For example, Proquest showed 6,000 total searches and 600 which could be
related to social work and sociology. In e-brary, which contains electronic books, 1,503 pages
were viewed related to social work in the past year. Overall, the collection maintains about 10 to
15 percent of holdings in items related to social work.
The Library is open till 1am, 5 days a week, with shorter hours on Friday and Saturday; the hours
are what has been determined to be reasonable and do not allow for all night studying in the
Library. A high speed printer, scanners, photocopiers, microfilm machines, many computers,
both desktop and laptop, are available at all times. A computer lab is located in the basement of
the Library along with a Writing Center. The location of the Library and the collection is at the
center of the campus.
The Library has been heavily assessed over the last ten years by the campus in general(annually)
through library surveys and focus groups (annually) and through outside assessment from
LibQUAL (2006, 2010), Higher Education Data Sharing consortium (annually), and IPEDS
(annually). The campus community has been generally satisfied with the Library according to
the results, however many results and comments suggest that the building itself needs to be
renovated, and the collection is always something in which improvement is desired. To address
this recently, more space was created on the first floor to follow the philosophy of the open and
welcoming Information Commons which was created several years ago, and which invites
collaboration. We are currently exploring numerous electronic book packages to make available
more recent research and the goal is to have a larger collection for Social Work in the next few
years. We look forward to further collaboration with this department and in continuing an
excellent relationship.
AS 3.5.5: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES AND DEMONSTRATES SUFFICIENT OFFICE AND CLASSROOM
SPACE AND/OR COMPUTER-MEDIATED ACCESS TO ACHIEVE ITS MISSION AND GOALS.
Every Program faculty member has her/his own office in Good Hall, equipped with a laptop
computer with up-to-date hardware and software, internet access and a color printer. Each
faculty member has her/his own phone with a separate phone number and access to the phone
mail system. Faculty offices in Good Hall were completely renovated in 2007, when every
office was painted, newly carpeted and equipped with new furniture in the configuration
requested by each faculty member to suit her/his needs. Program faculty offices are
conveniently located in close proximity to classrooms. At the same time that faculty offices
were renovated in 2007, computer access for the entire building was updated to provide for
wireless internet access in every office and classroom in Good Hall. Good Hall also houses a
student computer lab and a comfortable student lounge, which allows for informal student
socializing. Program faculty offices in Good Hall are well-equipped, comfortable, conveniently
located and sufficient to achieve the program’s mission and goals.
Virtually all of the classes offered by the Social Work Program are held in Good Hall, which is
one of four main classroom buildings on campus. The Registrar in consultation with the
Program Director/Chair allocates classroom space. Class schedules are developed at least a year
105
in advance and the Program Director/Chair gives faculty members the opportunity to request
specific classroom space when the department prepares its schedule of classes. For example, if a
program faculty member requires a high-tech classroom to meet the goals of a particular course,
she/he may request such a classroom at the time the department prepares its schedule. In the
experience of the Program Director, the Registrar’s Office tries very hard to accommodate each
faculty member’s and department’s requests for room assignments. The Registrar’s Office also
accommodates requests for changes in classroom assignments at the beginning of each semester,
if necessary. For example, there is no elevator in Good Hall, which makes it difficult for
disabled faculty and students to gain access to classrooms on the third and fourth floor. If a
faculty member or student is unable to get to the assigned classroom due to a disability the
Registrar’s Office will change the location of the class to accommodate the needs of the disabled
individual. As previously discussed, the College provides an extensive array of classroom
technology in its classroom buildings, including Good Hall where the Social Work Program is
housed, and where program faculty teach all of their courses. All of the classrooms in Good Hall
are equipped with internet access, ports to which faculty can connect their laptop computer, and
an audiovisual system on which faculty members can show videos and DVDs. Many classrooms
are equipped with Smart Boards and Classroom Performance Systems. The classrooms in Good
Hall are well equipped with classroom technology, conveniently located for program faculty and
students, and sufficient to achieve the program’s mission and goals.
AS 3.5.6: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES ITS ACCESS TO ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, INCLUDING
MATERIALS IN ALTERNATIVE FORMATS (E.G. BRAILLE, LARGE PRINT BOOKS, BOOKS ON TAPE,
ASSISTIVE LEARNING SYSTEMS).
Juniata College complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and makes appropriate
accommodations for students with disabilities, including documented learning disabilities. The
Social Work Program has access to learning materials such as Braille and large print books and
books on tape through the interlibrary loan system. While the Program has never had a social
work student who needed or requested these materials, the library staff is very willing to
accommodate such a request. Program faculty work closely with the Office of the Dean of
Students and the Director of Academic Support Services to accommodate social work students
with documented disabilities. The Dean of Students and the Director of Academic Support
Services are responsible for carrying out the policy regarding services to students with
disabilities. A student with a documented disability will be considered for reasonable
accommodations as outlined in their appropriate documentation, which must be provided to the
College by the student upon her/his request for such reasonable accommodations. The Program
and the College would make every reasonable effort to assist a social work student with a
documented disability who requests alternative learning materials and/or assistive technology to
access this material and technology. The College’s Policy on Student Accommodations is found
at http://www.juniata.edu/services/catalog/section.html?s1=appr&s2=accommodations.
106
ACCREDITATION STANDARD 4: ASSESSMENT
AS 4.0.1: THE PROGRAM PRESENTS ITS PLAN TO ASSESS THE ATTAINMENT OF ITS COMPETENCIES,
SPECIFYING PROCEDURES, MULTIPLE MEASURES, AND BENCHMARKS TO ASSESS THE ATTAINMENT
OF EACH OF THE PROGRAM’S COMPETENCIES.
The Program’s Assessment Plan is as follows:
Assessment Instruments. We use two different assessment instruments to evaluate competency
mastery. The first of these is the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (PSEI), a copy of
which is provided in Appendix 6. From 2005-2011 field instructors used the PSEI to indicate the
degree to which students have achieved mastery of the twelve BSW program/learning objectives,
each of which is based on the 2004 Educational Policy Accreditation Standards (EPAS). For
each objective, most of which have multiple parts, the field instructor rates the social work
student on a five-point scale whose values are anchored with regard to “readiness for entry-level
generalist practice.” Specifically, the anchors are 1—well below, 2—below, 3—meets, 4—
above, and 5—well above. A student demonstrates mastery of an objective by obtaining a score
of three or above on the five-point scale. The PSEI also provides a “cannot rate” option for each
objective. In addition, for each objective, students are required to identify in writing any specific
areas that require the student’s ongoing professional development attention. Beginning in April,
2012 we will collect and analyze assessment data at the end of the professional semester for all
of our graduates, using a revised version of the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument
(PSEI) based on the ten competencies identified in the 2008 Educational Policy Accreditation
Standards, as one of our two primary assessment instruments (See Appendix 5).
We also use the Self Rating Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS), a
copy of which is provided in Appendix 7. We developed this instrument from a template
provided by Dr. Charles Zastrow, Professor of Social Work at George Williams College of
Aurora University. The SRS contains 82 items, each of which is related to one of the ten
competencies specified in the 2008 EPAS. Students make ratings based on their perceptions of
the degree to which they meet, fail to meet, or exceed expectations for holders of a BSW degree.
Specifically, the scale anchors are 1—I believe I excel in this area. It is among my greatest SW
strengths., 2—I believe I exceed expectations for BSWs in this area., 3—I believe I meet
expectations in this area., 4—I believe I do not meet expectations in this area, but I believe I can
meet expectations with additional experience and supervision in the near future., and 5—I
believe I have not met expectations in this area, and I do not believe I can meet expectations in
this area in the near future. A student demonstrates mastery on an item by meeting or exceeding
the expectations for holders of a BSW. The SRS also includes a “Not applicable, I have not had
the opportunity to demonstrate competence in this area” rating for each item.
Data collection. We collected field instructor performance evaluations for all program graduates
(N = 30) for the years 2005 through 2011 using the PSEI. We also collected student performance
self-ratings for all 2010 and 2011 program graduates (N = 7) using the Self-Rating Scale for
Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation questionnaire.
Because we did not immediately switch to the competency-based 2008 version of the EPAS
when it became available (See discussion under AS 3.4.1 for more information.), it was
107
necessary to pair items on the PSEI to the 2008 EPAS version to provide a meaningful analysis
of our performance data given current assessment standards. Likewise, the Self-Rating Scale
items were not always a one-to-one match with the 2008 EPAS version, so we also needed to
match items on the Self-Rating Scale to corresponding items on the 2008 version of the EPAS.
The following tables list the 2008 EPAS competencies and their corresponding items on the 2004
EPAS and the Self-Rating Scale. The following table shows number of PSEI evaluations and the
number of SRS evaluations collected each year.
Number of PSEI Evaluations and SRS Evaluations Collected Per Year
Year PSEI SRS
2005
5
0
2006
3
0
2007 10
0
2008
3
0
2009
2
0
2010
4
4
2011
3
3
Conversion Table for Core Competency 1 (EP2.1.1): Identify as a Professional Social
Worker
Competency
1.1
1.2
1.3(a)
1.3(b)
1.4(a)
1.4(b)
1.4(c)
1.5
1.6
Practice Behavior
Advocate for client
access to social
work services
Personal reflection
and self-correction
Professional roles
Attends to
professional
boundaries
Professional
behavior
Professional
appearance
Professional
communication
Life-long learning
Use supervision
and consultation
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
3.3
1.5
2.1, 2.2, 9.2
1.6
11.3
1.7
11.3
1.7
11.3
1.3
11.3
1.8
10.1, 10.2
1.9
9.3
1.4
11.1, 11.2
1.10
108
Conversion Table for Core Competency 2 (EP2.1.2): Ethical Decision Making
Competency
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Practice Behavior
Manage personal
values
Apply NASW
Code of Ethics
Tolerate ambiguity
Apply strategies of
ethical reasoning
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
2.4
11.3
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
2.2
2.5
2.3, 6.7
2.6
Conversion Table for Core Competency 3 (EP2.1.3): Critical Thinking
Competency
3.1
3.2
3.3
Practice Behavior
Distinguish sources
of knowledge
Analyze models of
assessment
Effective
communication
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
9.1
3.6, 3.6, 3.8
1.2
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9
10.1, 10.2, 6.1
3.10, 3.11
Conversion Table for Core Competency 4 (EP 2.1.4): Diversity and Difference
Competency
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Practice Behavior
Recognize how
culture’s structure
and values impact
privilege and
power
Demonstrate selfawareness in work
with diverse groups
Recognize and
communicate
importance of
difference in
shaping life
experience
Views self as
learner and engages
those with whom
they work as
informants
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
3.2
4.3
10.1, 10.2
4.1, 4.2, 4.4
4, 7.1
4.5
10.1, 10.2, 11.2
4.6
109
Conversion Table for Core Competency 5 (EP 2.1.5): Advance Human Rights and Social
and Economic Justice
Competency
5.1
5.2
5.3
Practice Behavior
Identify and
articulate forms
and mechanisms of
oppression and
discrimination
Advocate for
human rights and
social and
economic justice
Engage in practices
that advance social
and economic
justice
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
3.2
5.1, 5.2, 5.3
3.3
5.4
3.3
5.5
Conversion Table for Core Competency 6 ((EP2.1.6): Engage in Research-Informed
Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Competency
6.1
6.2
Practice Behavior
Use practice
experience to
inform scientific
inquiry
Use research to
inform practice
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
9.1
6.1, 6.3, 6.7
9.1
6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6
Conversion Table for Core Competency 7 (EP2.1.7): Apply Knowledge of Human
Behavior and the Social Environment
Competency
7.1
7.2
Practice Behavior
Use conceptual
frameworks to
guide assessment,
intervention, and
evaluation
Critique and apply
knowledge to
understand person
and environment
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
7.1
7.1, 7.4, 7.5
7.2
7.2, 7.3
110
Conversion Table for Core Competency 8 (EP 2.1.8): Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate
for Policies that Advance Social Well-Being
Competency
8.1
8.2
Practice Behavior
PSEI Item(s)
Analyze, formulate,
and advocate for
policies that
8.1, 12.2
advance social
well-being
Collaborate with
colleagues and
12.2
clients for effective
policy action
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6
8.2, 8.7
Conversion Table for Core Competency 9 (EP2.1.9): Respond to Contexts that Shape
Practice
Competency
9.1
9.2
Practice Behavior
Continuously
discover, appraise,
and attend to
changing locals,
populations,
scientific, and
technological
developments, and
societal trends to
provide relevant
services
Provide leadership
to improve the
quality of social
services
PSEI Item(s)
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
5.1, 5.2
9.1, 9.2, 9.3
12.2
9.4
111
Conversion Table for Core Competency 10 (EP2.1.10(a)-(d)): Engage, Assess, Intervene,
and Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
Competency
10(a): Engagement
10(a).1
10(a).2
10(a).3
Practice Behavior
Prepare for action
with individuals,
families, groups,
organizations, and
communities
Use empathy and
other inter-personal
skills
Develop mutually
agreed on focus of
work and desired
outcomes
PSEI Item(s)
6.2
Self-Rating Scale Item(s)
6.1
10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10,
10.11
2.3, 6.4
10.7
6.4
10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10,
10.11
6.3
10.1, 10.2, 10.3
6.3, 6.5
10.12, 10.13, 10.14, 10.15,
10.16
6.6
10.1
6.6
10.1
6.7
10.1, 10.5
6.7
10.17, 10.18, 10.19, 10.20,
10.21
1.2
10.1
6.7, 6.8
10.5
10(b): Assessment
10(b).1
10(b).2
10(b).3
10(b).4
Collect, organize,
and interpret client
data
Assess client
strengths and
weaknesses
Develop mutually
agreed-on
intervention goals
and objectives
Select appropriate
intervention
strategies
10(c): Intervention
10(c).1
10(c).2
10(c).3
10(c).4
Initiate action to
achieve
organizational
goals
Implement
prevention
interventions that
enhance client
capacities
Help client resolve
problems
Negotiate, mediate,
and advocate for
112
10(c).5
client
Facilitate
transitions and
endings
6.10
10.17, 10.18, 10.19, 10.20,
10.21
6.9
10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4
10(d): Evaluation
10(d).1
Analyze, monitor,
and evaluate
interventions
PSEI competency score calculations. Using the conversion tables provided above, for each
program graduate, we calculated a competency score for each of the ten competencies listed in
the 2008 EPAS. Each competency score was the mean of the non-missing field instructor’s
ratings for that student on the competency’s corresponding items on the PSEI. For example, a
student’s score on Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social Worker is the average of that
student’s ratings on items 2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 9.2, 9.3, 10.1, 10.2, and 11.3 of the PSEI. The following
table lists the PSEI items used to create each competency score.
2008 EPAS Competency Score Calculation Table
Competency
Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social
Worker
Competency 2: Ethical Decision Making
Competency 3: Critical Thinking
Competency 4: Diversity and Difference
Competency 5: Advance Human Rights and Social
and Economic Justice
Competency 6: Engage in Research-Informed
Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Competency 7: Apply Knowledge of Human
Behavior and the Social Environment
Competency 8: Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate
for Policies that Advance Social Well-Being
Competency 9: Respond to Contexts that Shape
Practice
Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and
Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups,
Organizations, and Communities
PSEI Items
2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 9.2, 9.3, 10.1, 10.2, 11.3
2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 6.7, 11.3
1.2, 6.1, 9.1, 10.1, 10.2
3.2, 4, 7.1, 10.1, 10.2, 11.2
3.2, 3.3
9.1
7.1, 7.2
8.1, 12.2
5.1, 5.2, 12.2
1.2, 2.3, 6.1 through 6.10
Self-Rating Scale competency score calculations. Using the conversion tables provided above,
for each program graduate, we calculated a competency score for each of the ten competencies
listed in the 2008 EPAS. Each competency score was the mean of the student’s non-missing
self-ratings on the competency’s corresponding items on the Self-Rating Scale. For example, a
student’s score on Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social Worker is the average of that
113
student’s ratings on items 1.3 through 1.10 of the Self-Rating Scale. The following table lists the
Self-Rating Scale items used to create each competency score.
Self-Rating Scale Competency Score Calculation Table
Competency
Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social Worker
Competency 2: Ethical Decision Making
Competency 3: Critical Thinking
Competency 4: Diversity and Difference
Competency 5: Advance Human Rights and Social and
Economic Justice
Competency 6: Engage in Research-Informed Practice and
Practice-Informed Research
Competency 7: Apply Knowledge of Human Behavior and the
Social Environment
Competency 8: Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate for Policies
that Advance Social Well-Being
Competency 9: Respond to Contexts that Shape Practice
Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and Evaluate
Individuals, Families, Groups, Organizations, and Communities
Self-Rating Scale Items
1.3 through 1.10
2.1 through 2.6
3.2 through 3.11
4.1 through 4.6
5.1 through 5.5
6.1 through 6.7
7.1 through 7.5
8.1 through 8.7
9.1 through 9.4
10.1 through 10.5,
10.7 through 10.21
Analysis of PSEI data. We calculated means and created frequency distributions (See Appendix
8) for each of the ten competency scores obtained from the PSEI data. As shown in the table
below, all of the means are at least one full point above the benchmark value of three. In
addition, all of the students performed at or above the benchmark value on all of the competency
scores.
114
Competency
Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social
Worker
Competency 2: Ethical Decision Making
Competency 3: Critical Thinking
Competency 4: Diversity and Difference
Competency 5: Advance Human Rights and Social
and Economic Justice
Competency 6: Engage in Research-Informed
Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Competency 7: Apply Knowledge of Human
Behavior and the Social Environment
Competency 8: Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate
for Policies that Advance Social Well-Being
Competency 9: Respond to Contexts that Shape
Practice
Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and
Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups,
Organizations, and Communities
PSEI Mean
Percent at or above
benchmark value of 3
4.431
100
4.405
4.420
4.424
100
100
100
4.317
100
4.500
100
4.300
100
4.350
100
4.211
100
4.300
100
Analysis of Self-Rating Scale data. We calculated means and created frequency distributions
(See Appendix 9) for each of the ten competency scores obtained from the Self-Rating Scale
data. To provide compatibility with the PSEI results, the means were reverse coded so that
higher scores indicate higher degrees of mastery. As shown in the table below, all of the means
are above the benchmark value of three. In addition, at least 70% of the students performed at or
above the benchmark value on all of the competency scores.
115
Competency
Competency 1: Identify as a Professional Social
Worker
Competency 2: Ethical Decision Making
Competency 3: Critical Thinking
Competency 4: Diversity and Difference
Competency 5: Advance Human Rights and Social
and Economic Justice
Competency 6: Engage in Research-Informed
Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Competency 7: Apply Knowledge of Human
Behavior and the Social Environment
Competency 8: Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate
for Policies that Advance Social Well-Being
Competency 9: Respond to Contexts that Shape
Practice
Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and
Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups,
Organizations, and Communities
SRS Mean
Percent at or above
benchmark value of 3
3.964
71.4
4.095
3.771
4.048
85.7
100.0
71.4
3.686
85.7
3.415
100.0
3.743
85.7
3.421
71.4
3.429
85.7
3.385
71.4
Plan for future yearly assessment. Beginning in April, 2012 we will collect and analyze
assessment data each year at the end of the professional semester for all of our graduates, using
revised versions of the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (PSEI) and Self Rating
Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) as our assessment instruments
(See Appendices 5 and 10). The benchmarks will remain a score of three or higher on each
competency on the PSEI, and a score of three or higher on the SRS. Because the revised
versions of the PSEI and SRS are based on the ten competencies identified in the 2008 EPAS, it
will no longer be necessary to use conversion tables as included above. In addition, we will
perform similar analyses as those presented above to assist us in documenting our program’s
strengths and areas for future work, and in charting a path for modifying and improving our
program as needed. Finally, as our program grows, we will maintain an assessment database so
that we can document performance changes from one year to the next. We anticipate that this
information will allow us to identify and implement the curricular changes necessary for us to
remain a strong, successful social work program.
116
AS 4.0.2: THE PROGRAM PROVIDES EVIDENCE OF ONGOING DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSES HOW IT USES ASSESSMENT DATA TO AFFIRM AND/OR MAKE CHANGES IN THE EXPLICIT
AND IMPLICIT CURRICULUM TO ENHANCE STUDENT PERFORMANCE.
From 2005-2011 the Program has collected data and continually assessed the achievement of
Program objectives primarily through the use of the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument
(PSEI). (See Appendix 6). The PSEI was specifically planned and designed to link the
Professional Semester objectives to the twelve objectives for undergraduate social work
education specified in the 2004 EPAS. In addition, the PSEI has been competency based since
Program faculty first developed it in 1995. Beginning in April, 2012 we will collect and analyze
assessment data each year at the end of the Professional Semester for all of our graduates, using
revised versions of the Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (PSEI) and the Self Rating
Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) as our assessment instruments
(See Appendices 5 and 10).
PSEI data collected from social work field instructors at the end of the Professional Semester for
the years 2005 through 2011 is included in the discussion under AS 4.0.1 above. We deemed it
inappropriate to perform tests of significance or other more sophisticated forms of statistical
analyses because of the small number of program graduates during these years. As our program
enrollment increases, we will once again consider employing more complex forms of statistical
analyses. We hope that these analyses will help us identify and implement any curricular
changes necessary for us to remain a strong, successful social work program.
Program faculty do make use of the qualitative information provided by the PSEI and SRS on an
annual basis to assess the extent to which our graduating social work students have mastered the
ten core competencies and 41 practice behaviors of generalist social work. Professors Radis and
Reilly engage in continuous efforts to monitor the student outcomes associated with the
Professional Semester through regular bi-weekly meetings with the student including regular
discussion of the student’s progress in mastering the ten competencies, consultation with the
agency field instructor over the telephone or in the agency and analysis of the student’s midterm
and final Professional Semester evaluations. Professional Semester students are required to meet
bi-weekly with either Professor Reilly or Professor Radis for individual consultation and
supervision. These meetings provide structured opportunities to identify and address any
concerns that may arise in the placement, consider research proposals and social plans, integrate
social work knowledge and theory with the student’s practical agency experience and review the
student’s progress in mastering the ten core competencies associated with the Professional
Semester. In their role as faculty field liaisons, Professors Radis and Reilly continually assess
each student’s progress in meeting each competency. Professional Semester students are
required to keep a daily journal of their fieldwork activities and to integrate social work theory
and practice knowledge learned throughout the foundation curriculum with their practical
experience in the field placement. Beginning in the third week of the semester students must
identify learning objectives for each week, which are intended to provide a rational guide for the
student’s progress through the Professional Semester, and which often become a good place for
the student and field liaison to begin their discussion in the biweekly supervisory meeting. The
faculty field liaisons encourage Professional Semester students to consider how mastery of their
weekly learning objectives will enable them to move toward mastery of one or more of the
117
competencies of the Professional Semester. Taking into consideration the needs and
expectations of the placement agency and their clients, students often plan their weekly learning
objectives to complement one or more of the Professional Semester competencies, so that as they
achieve their weekly learning objectives they are also demonstrating mastery of Professional
Semester competencies. Professional Semester students are also required to complete the
Professional Semester Evaluation as an ongoing learning assignment from the beginning of the
placement until the end. Students work on the Professional Semester Evaluation online so that
they can continually update their progress in demonstrating mastery of each Professional
Semester competency. Professors Radis and Reilly continually and regularly discuss each
student’s progress on the Professional Semester Evaluation learning assignment in the bi-weekly
meeting and provide ideas and suggestions for learning opportunities in the agency and
community that enable the student to move toward mastery of each Professional Semester
competency. Similarly, Professional Semester students discuss weekly learning objectives and
their progress in mastering the competencies associated with the Professional Semester with their
agency field instructor, who also frequently offers suggestions for learning opportunities that will
enable the student to move toward mastery of the competencies. The student, faculty field
liaison and field instructor work together to develop a plan to address any areas for professional
development identified in the biweekly meetings with the faculty liaison or during regular
supervisory meetings with their agency supervisor.
The faculty field liaison also discusses the progress the student is making toward mastering the
Professional Semester competencies for the final evaluation with the agency field instructor
either during the required agency visit or on the telephone. Thus continuous assessment of the
student’s progress in the Professional Semester and the implementation of strategies to enhance
the student’s ability to master the competencies of the Professional Semester is a joint effort of
the student, agency field instructor and faculty field liaison.
Each student submits her/his completed Professional Semester Evaluation to the agency field
instructor at the end of the Professional Semester. The student and field instructor discuss the
evaluation together prior to submitting it to the faculty field liaison, and the agency field
instructor has the opportunity to add to the student’s written assessment of the extent to which
she/he has achieved mastery of each competency. The field instructor then rates the student’s
progress in mastering each competency on a 5-point scale whose values are anchored with regard
to “readiness for entry-level generalist practice.” Specifically, the anchors are 1—well below,
2—below, 3—meets, 4—above, and 5—well above. A student demonstrates mastery of an
objective by obtaining a score of three or above on the five-point scale. The PSEI also provides
a “cannot rate” option for each objective. The student does not use the numerical rating scale.
The student then submits the completed final evaluation of the Professional Semester to the
faculty field liaison.
Upon receipt of the completed Field Evaluation that has been signed and dated by the student
and the agency-based field instructor, the faculty field liaison carefully reviews the evaluation,
enters applicable comments, and signs off on the evaluation. As part of the exit interview which
occurs during finals week after the completion of the field placement and before commencement,
the student reviews the faculty field liaison’s evaluative comments and the student and faculty
liaison discuss the evaluation, focusing primarily on an identification and exploration of the
118
student’s discernible professional strengths and the student’s needs and plans for ongoing
professional development. Through review and discussion of the PSEI with every graduating
social work student Professors Radis and Reilly know the extent to which each student has
mastered the ten core competencies each year. Every graduate of Juniata’s Social Work Program
between 2005 and 2011 mastered each competency of the Professional Semester based on the
student’s written description of how she/he has demonstrated mastery of each competency and
the numerical ratings of the field instructor. All of the students performed at or above the
benchmark value of three on all of the competency scores, which Program faculty interpret as an
affirmation of the strength of the explicit and implicit curriculum of the Social Work Program.
In addition to the use of the PSEI as an assessment tool, Program faculty administered the Self
Rating Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) to seven social work
students who completed their Professional Semester in 2010 and 2011. Program faculty
carefully reviewed the results of the SRS in 2010 and 2011 to determine the extent to which
graduating social work students self-report mastery of the ten competencies, and to assess any
areas in which student perceptions of their mastery of the ten core competencies might indicate
an area of the curriculum that may need improvement. A comparison of the results obtained
from the PSEI with the results obtained from the SRS revealed that some students rate their
mastery of some competencies lower than the field instructors do. Program faculty view this as
an issue for further discussion in exit interviews with students completing the Professional
Semester. Through discussion in the exit interview it may be possible to identify areas of the
curriculum that contribute to students’ lack of confidence or difficulty evaluating their level of
mastery of some competencies in a similar way to their field instructor.
AS 4.0.3: THE PROGRAM IDENTIFIES ANY CHANGES IN THE EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT CURRICULUM
BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF ASSESSMENT DATA.
Based on the analysis of the data gathered from the PSEI and the SRS, it is very tempting for
Program faculty to say “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” While to some extent that is true, and
Program faculty take great pride in the strength of the Program and the accomplishments of our
graduates. Program faculty are committed to continuous assessment and improvement that builds
on our already strong program and have made informed changes to the explicit and implicit
curriculum in response to changes in the Program’s educational and social environment.
For example, Professor Radis responded to the invitation from CSWE to submit a proposal for a
training grant to fund the participation of all Program faculty in the Curriculum Development
Institutes (CDI) sponsored by the Gero-ed Project. In response to the rapid aging of the US
population, the overall goal of the CDIs was to ensure that all graduates of accredited BSW and
MSW social work programs have mastered foundation competencies that enable them to work
effectively with older adults and their families. Over a three year period from 2005-2007,
Professors Radis and Reilly and Dr. Merriwether-deVries attended three CDIs and worked
together to infuse additional multigenerational content into our foundation social work courses
(part of the explicit curriculum) through the use of case studies and learning experiences that
affirm the positive, growth producing aspects of aging. This also included the development of
research projects in the policy courses and in selected field placements that encourage and
support collaboration and shared learning experiences between program faculty, students, senior
119
service agency personnel and aging clients/consumers. Professor Radis continues to work to
extend the Gero-ed Project into the community and enhance collaboration between our Social
Work Program and agencies in the community that provide services to our aging population.
Future plans include the possibility of a collaboration between Professor Radis and the
Huntingdon County Office of Aging Long Term Care Ombudsman to provide the PEER
Training (discussed in section AS 3.3.5) in the long term care facilities in Huntingdon. If that
collaboration becomes a reality, it may be possible to involve social work students in a related
field experience or service learning opportunity to work with the frail elderly population in
Huntingdon County, which could enhance both the explicit and implicit curriculum of the
Program.
In addition, as discussed under AS 3.1.1, over the past decade Program faculty have made
specific and continuous efforts to provide a learning environment in which respect for all
persons and understanding of diversity and difference are practiced. As members of the
Diversity Committee and the faculty at large, Program faculty helped to challenge
barriers that made recruitment of diverse students difficult. Program faculty were
instrumental in encouraging institutional commitments to diversity such as:

including Diversity and Inclusion in the College’s Strategic Plan;

establishing the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and hiring a Special Assistant to
the President for Diversity and Inclusion;

implementing educational, interactive Beyond Tolerance programs; and
supporting additional conferences, clubs and projects on campus.

adding more inclusive language and images to our marketing literature;

encouraging collaboration between and among various constituencies of the
College to ensure community commitment and development, and to improve the
climate for diverse students, faculty and staff;

strengthening and expanding international studies abroad and exchange programs,
and establishing a “Global Village” option for students; and

shifting our enrollment strategies to attract more minority populations.
Working to enhance the learning environment for all members of the Juniata community, Social
Work faculty have clearly and consistently advocated for a more diverse faculty, staff and
administration on campus. These efforts in combination with the efforts of the Office of
Diversity and Inclusion, the Diversity Committee and Human Resources have resulted in
changes in recruiting policies at Juniata College. In 2011, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion,
with the assistance of Human Resources, started a new group on campus, called the Stewards of
Diversity. Stewards participated in diversity employment training in the fall if 2011 so that
beginning in the spring of 2012, at least one Steward will participate on each selection committee
formed. Two faculty from the Sociology, Social Work and Anthropology Department, Dr.
Cynthia Merriwether-deVries and Dr. Daniel Welliver, participated in the Stewards of Diversity
training, and will participate on selection committees across campus departments as needed.
Please see Appendix 1 for the Juniata College Search Committee Guidelines for Diversity
Employment prepared by the Diversity Committee and the Stewards of Diversity.
Program faculty have made further contributions to the continual enhancement of the learning
environment and implicit curriculum through their work with the Enrollment Office. Within the
120
past three years, Dr. Merriwether-deVries has worked closely with the Enrollment Office and
key alumni to institute new enrollment initiatives in order to affirm and support students with
diverse identities, whom we are working very hard to recruit. These initiatives include:

The Enrollment Office sends a letter to all accepted ALANA students specifically
addressing concerns about the degree to which diversity is represented in the campus
community, and the supports that are available on campus for diverse students.

The College pays for charter buses to transport potential ALANA applicants from
Philadelphia, Baltimore, Manhattan and the five boroughs surrounding New York City to
and from the Juniata campus.

In the 2011-12 academic year, the Enrollment Office hired a student multicultural
admissions counselor to address student and parent concerns about the presence or
absence of diversity on campus.

In the spring semester the Enrollment Office sponsors a “multicultural admitted students
weekend,” during which admitted ALANA students are paired with an ALANA Juniata
student, whose POE is in the area of interest expressed by the visiting student. Students
attend classes on Friday and are involved in social activities on campus throughout the
weekend. In addition, the prospective ALANA student attends one workshop on a topic
related to adjustment to college.

Juniata College has specific liaisons working with a primarily minority serving high
school in Baltimore, Maryland. Based on the connections forged through the liaisons,
Juniata College sponsors a joint Alumni and Enrollment Event that brings students and
their guidance counselors from the minority serving high school in Baltimore to campus
via a charter bus. Students and counselors arrive on campus on Sunday and attend two
workshops: a workshop on adjustment to a predominantly white college campus; and a
workshop on financial planning for college and how to pay for a Juniata education.
Students attend classes and meet faculty on Monday, and are then transported home by
charter bus.
In 2012-13 the Plexus Inbound Freshman Orientation Program will implement a new peer
mentor program for ALANA students. Two student interns will work with the Plexus
Inbound Program to recruit student mentors from the Plexus Multicultural Awareness
Committee, each of whom will be assigned to mentor a freshman ALANA student.
The specific and continuous efforts of Program faculty to advocate for a more diverse
faculty, staff and administration on campus have resulted in positive changes that
enhance the learning environment for everyone.
In conclusion, the examples provided above describe specific changes made to the explicit and
implicit curriculum in response to the Program’s shifting educational and social environment.
These examples demonstrate that Program faculty are committed to continuous assessment and
improvement that builds on our already strong program.
121
AS 4.04: THE PROGRAM DESCRIBES HOW IT MAKES ITS CONSTITUENCIES AWARE OF ITS
ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES.
Assessment of Program competencies is accomplished through the administration of the
Professional Semester Evaluation Instrument (PSEI) and the Self Rating Scale for Social Work
Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) as discussed in AS 4.0.1. As discussed in AS 4.0.2,
continuous assessment of the student’s progress in the Professional Semester and the
implementation of strategies to enhance the student’s ability to master the competencies of the
Professional Semester is a joint effort of the student, agency field instructor and faculty field
liaison. Following the procedure discussed in AS 4.0.2, each student submits her/his completed
Professional Semester Evaluation to the agency field instructor at the end of the Professional
Semester. The student and field instructor discuss the evaluation together prior to submitting it
to the faculty field liaison, and the agency field instructor has the opportunity to add to the
student’s written assessment of the extent to which she/he has achieved mastery of each
competency. The field instructor then rates the student’s progress in mastering each competency
on a 5-point scale whose values are anchored with regard to “readiness for entry-level generalist
practice.” Specifically, the anchors are 1—well below, 2—below, 3—meets, 4—above, and 5—
well above. A student demonstrates mastery of an objective by obtaining a score of three or
lower on the five-point scale. The PSEI also provides a “cannot rate” option for each objective.
The student does not use the numerical rating scale. Thus, both the student and the field
instructor know how each of them assessed the student’s mastery of the ten competencies of
generalist practice. The student then submits the completed final evaluation of the Professional
Semester to the faculty field liaison. Through review and discussion of the PSEI with every
graduating social work student Professors Radis and Reilly know the extent to which each
student has mastered the ten core competencies each year.
In addition to the use of the PSEI as an assessment tool, Program faculty administered the Self
Rating Scale for Social Work Practice at the Time of Graduation (SRS) to seven social work
students who completed their Professional Semester in 2010 and 2011. Program faculty
carefully reviewed the results of the SRS in 2010 and 2011 to determine the extent to which
graduating social work students self-report mastery of the ten competencies, and to assess any
areas in which student perceptions of their mastery of the ten core competencies might indicate
an area of the curriculum that may need improvement. However, the SRS was administered to
students anonymously, and Program faculty did not discuss the results with the student or field
instructor. Beginning in April, 2012, the Field Director will ask students to identify themselves
on the SRS, and will discuss the results of the SRS with each graduating student in the exit
interview.
In addition, beginning in 2012, the Field Director will provide a written summary of the
aggregate data from the PSEI and SRS as described in AS 4.0.1 to all field instructors.
122
AS 4.0.5: THE PROGRAM APPENDS THE SUMMARY DATA FOR EACH MEASURE USED TO ASSESS THE
ATTAINMENT OF EACH COMPETENCY FOR AT LEAST ONE ACADEMIC YEAR PRIOR TO THE
SUBMISSION OF THE SELF-STUDY.
The summary data for the assessment of each competency are included in Appendices 8 and 9.
Summary data for the PSEI includes data from 2005-2011. Summary data from the SRS
includes data from 2010 and 2011.
123
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – SEARCH COMMITTEE GUIDELINES FOR DIVERSITY EMPLOYMENT
Juniata College
Search Committee Guidelines for Diversity Employment
Approved by President Tom Kepple
Issued by Dr. Grace Fala
Office of Diversity & Inclusion, in conjunction with Human Resources
Prepared by the Diversity Committee & the Stewards of Diversity
Established fall 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
BACKGROUND
GOALS
123
124
MEMBERSHIP
125
PROCEDURE 4
EEO/Job Statements .......................................................................................................................................... 127
Guidelines for Stewards ......................................................................................................................................... 7
BACKGROUND:
Over the last twenty years Juniata College has been slowly and steadily diversifying its student
population. We have grown from 4% domestic minorities in 1992 to 12% African, Latino, Asian
and Native American (ALANA) students in 2012. We have also increased our international
student population from 6% to 10%. Juniata College has successfully changed its composition
and complexion, especially with regard to the cultural and racial backgrounds of 22% of our
1600+ students.
There were understandable reasons why ALANA students did not attend Juniata in the past but,
through the efforts of an evolving community, we challenged those barriers and, in spite of them,
we continue all-the-more, to diversify.
124
Percentage of Incoming Students
Diversity Among Incoming Students
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Incoming Year
Domestic ALANA Students
International Students
Unfortunately, we have not yet witnessed similar results with regard to diversity employment.
We have made some improvements, however, at a more gradual growth with: 8% for faculty,
2% for staff, and 4% for administration. Our overall average for diversity employment is
currently at 5% of 438 employees. We are mandated by the EEOC to report employment of
domestic minorities to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). When
individuals are hired, we ask them to self-identify as first, whether Hispanic or non- Hispanic
and then, as American/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander, White, International and Multiracial individuals. With regard to employment, the term
“domestic minority” is applied to all populations other than white and international. We also ask
individuals to self-identify as Vietnam veteran, veteran with disability, or individual with
disability.
Of our 151 members of the faculty, ten have a domestic minority identity and three have an
international identity. Of the 127 members of our staff and facilities, one has a domestic
minority identity and one has an international identity. Of the 164 members of our
administration, seven have a domestic minority identity and one has an international identity.
GOALS:
Over the next decade, we hope to reap results similar to our present student population, and
more. With at least a dozen or more retirements expected in the next three years alone, the
present is the best time to rekindle our community-based efforts and commitments to diversify
our staff, faculty and administration.
Research shows the values gained and correlations made between diversity and learning. By
diversifying our employee population, we hope to inspire and enhance Juniata’s quality of living
and learning through: the cultivation of social skills; the awakening/sustenance of global
citizenry and rhetorical civility; the nourishing of values intrinsic to human relationships; the
broadening of scholarly activity and community service; the networking potentials for student
125
career and advance degree options; deepening our moral and/or spiritual sensibilities; and the
emboldening of our creativity.
Diversity employment is now an institutional initiative approved by President Kepple, to be
implemented campus-wide beginning November 2011.
Many of us rely on the traditions and procedures of the past when recruiting new candidates for
employment. Most of these traditions will remain intact. The guidelines herein are aimed to
strengthen, improve and modernize what we already do.
MEMBERSHIP:
All members of the Juniata community need to become a part of the shared effort,
consciousness, creativity and commitment to our campus-wide initiative: To work together
toward increasing diversity employment (and, eventually, diversity retention) at Juniata. How?
Here are some suggestions:







When attending conferences/workshops, consider talking about job openings (or future
job openings) to qualified candidates, especially those among ALANA populations.
If you meet ALANA students in advanced degree programs, discuss potential
employment opportunities at Juniata.
Address some of the real drawbacks to living in the area but also highlight reasons why
you live here and why you decided to stay.
Imagine and discuss diversity employment to be a real possibility for Juniata College.
(Until we think/speak it, we won’t be able to live it.)
Be creative, inclusive and welcoming in your job announcements and flyers (An example
is provided below)
Please compose a selection committee that is as diverse as possible, and encourage an
open tone of inquiry in the deliberations.
Work collaboratively and openly with the Stewards. (Please refer to the Procedure
section below)
Some members of the Juniata community, known as Stewards, have been trained specifically to
help. At least one Steward of Diversity will sit on each selection committee that forms over the
next three years, from November 2011 until May 2015. (After that time, we will revisit the idea
of the Stewards and decide whether to continue.) Stewards are Juniata employees who have
undergone training in diversity employment. There are twenty-three stewards in all. Stewards
126
aim to assist members of the committee in their search, selection, and retention of qualified
candidates, especially those from ALANA/international populations.
Currently, the twenty-three Stewards of Diversity are:
Nathan Anderson (andersn)
Michelle Bartol (bartolm)
James Borgardt (borgardt)
Celia Cook-Huffman (cookhu)
Kati Csoman (csomank)
Jenifer Cushman (cushmaj)
Cynthia Merriwether deVries (devries)
Grace Fala (fala)
Athena Frederick (fredera)
David Fusco (fusco)
Cindy Gibboney (gibbonci)
Chad Herzog (herzogc)
Cady Kyle (kylec)
James Lakso (lakso)
David Meadows (meadowd)
Neil Pelkey (pelkey)
Rosalie Rodriguez
Deborah Roney (roneyd)
Paul Schettler (schettler)
Luke Thompson ’13 (thomplm09)
Gail Ulrich (ulrichg)
Daniel Welliver (welliver)
David Witkovsky (witkovl)
127
PROCEDURE:
1. Stewards will meet with the Chair/Program Director of the search committee to discuss
procedural options.
2. *In collaboration with Human Resources, the Steward will also assist in the review of the
job description and offer advice on relevant classified sites when placing the ad.
3. Stewards will meet with the search committee to facilitate a preliminary discussion of
institutional goals and inquiries regarding diversity employment. (Guidelines are below)
4. Stewards will participate in the review, selection and voting process of candidates for the
specified position. Stewards will also be involved in the interview processes.
5. Stewards will make relevant connections with volunteers on campus who are willing to
invest time to make the candidate’s site visit and interview more welcoming and
meaningful.
6. Stewards will follow-up with the committee and the candidate for relevant & useful
feedback.
7. Mindful of confidentiality, the Steward will then share his/her observations with the other
Stewards.
8. In an effort to assess the strength of this initiative, Stewards of Diversity who participated
in search committees in any given academic year will give a report to the College. (The
timing for this report will be decided by the ODI and Human Resources)
9. Diversity Employment training will continue and evolve as we learn from one another so
that more emphasis can be placed on Diversity Retention.
10. If your department seeks additional information/training regarding diversity employment,
please feel free to request it through the ODI.
Stewards are volunteers with a shared vision, working toward a common goal. We welcome
your heartfelt insights and helpful suggestions. We are fully aware of the many challenges we
might face. Thank you, ahead of time, for not reminding us of how difficult this might be and
for, instead, forging ahead with us in our evolution.
The ODI, in conjunction with Human Resources, plans to make it possible for each Steward to
participate on at least one selection committee before allowing any one Steward to participate in
two or more.
EEO/JOB STATEMENTS:
Juniata College’s current EEO statement, job announcement, and non-discrimination policy
state:
Juniata College, a highly ranked, national liberal arts college of 1,600 students located in
the scenic Allegheny Mountains of central Pennsylvania…
128
Juniata College will take positive steps to enhance the ethnic and gender diversity on its
campus. The College commits to this policy not only because of legal obligations, but
because it believes that such practices are basic to human dignity. AA/EEO
Our College is committed to maintaining a work environment that is free of
discrimination … based on an individual's race, color, religion, gender, national origin,
age, disability, ancestry, marital status, veteran status, citizenship status, sexual
orientation, or any other protected status of an individual or that individual's associates or
relatives.
Our new job announcement gives five options to the selection committees. Drafted by the ODI,
HR, members of the Diversity Committee and Stewards, each search committee is asked to
choose the option that they believe will attract a diverse range of qualified applicants to their
respective search:
1. Creatively, ethically, and intrinsically committed to community-based, whole-person
education, Juniata College seeks applications from diverse candidates and from
candidates who support diversity. In all institutional practices, the Juniata community
aims to embrace diverse individuals, fully inclusive of and valued for their uniqueness.
2. Juniata College aspires to become a leader among its peer institutions in making
meaningful and lasting progress in responding to the needs of minorities and women. In
all institutional practices, the Juniata community aims to embrace diverse individuals,
fully inclusive of and valued for their race, color, sex, gender identity and/or expression,
religion, national and/or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, age, marital status, veteran
status, disability, and uniqueness.
3. Creatively, ethically, and intrinsically committed to community-based, whole-person
education, members of the Juniata community realize that a diverse workforce makes us
stronger and better. We actively seek an applicant pool that is richly diverse. In every
institutional practice, the Juniata community aims to embrace diversity in all individuals,
fully inclusive of and valued for their uniqueness.
4. Juniata College is fully committed to increasing diversity in both its community and its
curriculum. Candidates who can contribute to this goal are strongly encouraged to apply.
5. Juniata College will take positive steps to enhance diversity on its campus. The College
commits itself to this policy because it fully believes that such practices are basic to
human dignity, and not because of legal obligations. AA/EOE (With a slight “tweak” #5
mimics the current announcement)
The Office of the President, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Human Resources, the
Diversity Committee and the Stewards of Diversity are grateful for your investment of time and
for your commitment to our shared vision. Please contact the ODI with questions, concerns or
insights.
129
GUIDELINES FOR STEWARDS:
Stewards are encouraged to:
1. Model what we seek from other members of the Juniata community with regard to
diversity employment
2. Follow the steps outlined in these Guidelines.
3. Assist the selection committee with choosing the job announcement option. Use this
process to prompt a discussion of our shared goals.
4. Seek assistance from other Stewards when doubtful or confused.
5. Report back to the ODI
6. Be willing to share relevant (and non-confidential) information with other members of
the campus community
7. Consider using questions like these as guideposts when working with search committees:
*










Why do people want to come to Juniata? (By focusing on why they don’t want to
come, we lose sight of our mission)
What makes Juniata College exciting to people?
Why did you come to Juniata?
What makes you want to stay here?
What do you value about this geographic area?
What do we mean by that notion of “fit”?
What do we mean by “experience?”
What do we value in terms of “research?” Why?
What does “quality” mean in terms of hiring the most qualified candidate?
What is your experience working with diversity? Working with ALANA
communities? Give an example. (While this question is not only useful to ask the
job candidates, it might also be useful to ask the search committee)
*Adapted from the research of Dr. Tiffenia Archie, Temple University, who consulted with
Stewards of Diversity at Juniata College in the fall, 2011.
130
APPENDIX 2 – SOCIAL WORK FOCUSES
Are you passionate about making a difference?
Do you want to help people help themselves?
Are you looking for a POE and career that allows you to be creative
and flexible?
Explore Social Work
Combine the BSW with an optional focus area
Look what’s new in Social Work!!
3 New Focuses in Social Work
Social Work with a Focus on Justice
Combine your interest in social justice, criminal justice systems, adult and juvenile
offenders and criminology with Social Work
Social Work with a Focus on Children and
Multigenerational Families
Combine your interest in counseling children, adolescents and families; children
and youth in schools; and work with aging adults with Social Work
Social Work with a Focus on Medicine and Behavioral
Health
Combine your interest in work with patients, families and health care professionals
in health and behavioral health settings including hospitals, nursing homes, child
life programs, drug and alcohol treatment facilities and behavioral health treatment
facilities with Social Work
For more information contact:
Professor Susan Radis: radis@juniata.edu or 641-3674
3 New Focus Areas in Social Work
131
Complete the designated POE in Social Work and add one of the
following focuses:
Social Work: Focus on Justice
Students must take SO 260, Intro to Criminal Justice and SO 302, Social Deviance and
Criminology, and choose 6 additional credits from the following list:
SO 260, Intro to Criminal Justice
SO 244, Drugs and Society
SO 241, Child and Family Services
SO 302, Social Deviance and Criminology
SO 335, Social Change
SO 320, Wealth, Power and Society
PY 411, Psychology and the Law
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work Professional Semester will be
in an approved agency related to Social Work and Justice.
Social Work: Focus on Children and Multigenerational Families
Students must take either SO 241, Child and Family Services or SO 204, American Families
and SO 242, Aging and Society, and choose 6 additional credits from the following list:
SO 241, Child and Family Services
SO 305, Gender and Society
SO 204, American Families
ED 130, Adolescent Development
PY 207, Human Sexuality
PY 404, Ed and School Psychology
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work Professional Semester will be
in an approved agency related to Social Work with Children and/or Multigenerational
Families.
Social Work: Focus on Medicine/Behavioral Health
Students must take SO 242, Aging and Society and SO 243, Death and Dying and choose 6
additional credits from the following list:
PY 207, Human Sexuality
PY 321, Health Psychology
SO 244, Drugs and Society
PY 203, Abnormal Psychology
PL 235, Ethics of Health Care
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work Professional Semester will be
in an approved agency related to Medical Social Work or Behavioral Health.
For more information contact: Professor Susan Radis
radis@juniata.edu
132
APPENDIX 3 – THE FUTURE OF THE ACCREDITED SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dr. James Lakso, Provost
FROM: Susan T. Radis, ACSW, LSW
F. Robert Reilly, ACSW, LSW
RE:
Future of the Accredited Social Work Program
DATE: October 3, 2010
I.
Immediate Concerns
A. Low Enrollment
Over the past five years relatively few students (N = 30) have chosen Social Work as their POE,
and as a consequence we have experienced low enrollment in our SW courses, particularly at the
300 and 400 level. This situation is part of a pattern of up and down enrollment in the Social
Work Program that has existed for over thirty years. However, over the past five years the
program has experienced a more persistent dip in enrollment, which now appears to threaten the
continued existence of the BSW Program. Provost Lakso indicated in a meeting with Bob Reilly
and me on September 8, 2010 that the Social Work Program is in grave danger of being
eliminated. He directed us to prepare a document by September 17, 2010, justifying the
continued existence of the Social Work Program and to include the department’s plan to increase
enrollment in the Social Work POE. Dr. Lakso also said that he and Dr. Kepple wish to make a
decision about the continuation of the Social Work Program “sooner rather than later.”
B. Rush to Judgment
We are troubled by the apparent “rush to judgment” on the continued existence of the BSW
Program. In part, this perceived “rush to judgment” may be related to our recent request for
confirmation that Drs. Lakso and Kepple support the BSW Program in proceeding with the
upcoming Reaffirmation of Accreditation Review, which is scheduled to occur in 2011-2012.
We indicated our wish to begin working on the curricular changes necessitated by the CSWE
2008 EPAS (Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards) in the very near future. Given the
current threat to the continuation of the program, I am requesting a postponement of the
reaffirmation of accreditation review from the CSWE Commission on Accreditation (COA) for
one year, until 2012-13. COA guidelines permit the postponement of the reaffirmation process
for one year under certain circumstances, including “unusual conditions requiring faculty
attention.” We ask that Drs. Lakso and Kepple postpone the decision on the continuation of the
Social Work Program until January 31, 2011, which will allow the Program to put changes into
effect that we believe will result in increased interest in the Social Work POE and increased
enrollment in our SW courses. Before a decision is made we need to see the preregistration
numbers for SW 230 after the preregistration for Spring Semester has closed, and what the actual
enrollment is in SW 230 after the drop/add period closes in Spring Semester.
C. Factors Contributing to Low Enrollment in Social Work
1. Ineffective Marketing of the Program to Current and Prospective Students
We believe that the low numbers in Social Work are related to two primary factors. One
factor is the historic lack of attention to effective marketing of the program, both to
prospective students and to students already enrolled at Juniata who are exploring alternative
133
POEs. While we plan to work with Enrollment on a more focused approach to marketing the
social work program to prospective students, our immediate concern is marketing the BSW
Program to freshman and sophomore students at Juniata who want to explore human service
related POEs, but are unfamiliar with the profession of social work and the BSW Program.
In an effort to make the Social Work Program more attractive to both current and prospective
students we have developed three focuses, not secondary emphases, that students may choose
to pursue in combination with the designated Social Work POE. (The focuses are described
below under our Plan in Section II.3.c.)
2. Problematic Prerequisite Stacking Policy
The second factor contributing to low enrollment in the Social Work Program relates to a
problematic prerequisite stacking policy that places SW 231, Social Problems and Social
Welfare, which itself carries a prerequisite of SO 101, as a prerequisite on SW 230,
Introduction to Social Work Practice. Because SW 230 is the gateway course to the Social
Work POE, stacking the prerequisites this way keeps prospective social work students out of
the course until their sophomore year, since SW 231 is only offered in the Fall Semester. We
believe that we are losing students who would consider social work as a POE to other POEs
before they have the opportunity to take our entry level social work course. The solution to
this problem is to remove SW 231 as the prerequisite to SW 230, which opens the door to
freshmen taking SW 230, in addition to other students who have not yet taken SW 231. We
believe, after thoughtful consideration, that changing the prerequisite will not compromise the
educational experience in SW 230. Social Work students who have not taken SW 231 prior
to taking SW 230 will take SW 231 in the fall semester following the semester in which they
took SW 230. Removing SW 231 as the prerequisite to SW 230 opens up the possibility for
significantly increased enrollment in SW 230, as well as the possibility of increased numbers
of students who choose Social Work as their POE.
II.
Plan to Increase Number of Social Work POEs and Enrollment in Social Work Courses
A. Short Term Plan
1. Postpone Reaffirmation of Accreditation for One Year
a. The BSW Program Director will request permission from COA to postpone the
reaffirmation of accreditation review until 2012-13.
2. Remove SW 231 as the Prerequisite to SW 230
a. The Chair will submit a request to remove SW 231 as the prerequisite to SW 230 to
Curriculum Committee ASAP.
b. The Chair will email all advisors to inform them of the change of prerequisite for SW 230
prior to the spring preregistration period.
3. Market Three Social Work Focuses to Current Juniata Students
a. The Chair and Department faculty will inform current students at Juniata about 3 new
focus areas in Social Work through targeted emails and brief in-class presentations in SO
101 and SO 260 prior to preregistration for Spring Semester.
b. Students may choose a focus, but are not required to do so. The focuses include courses
that already exist in the Sociology/Social Work Department or in other related
disciplines, and do not require the development of new courses. We believe that these
three focus areas will attract more current Juniata students to the Social Work Program.
c. Students who choose to pursue a focus will complete the designated POE in Social Work
and add one of the following focuses:
i.
Social Work with a Focus in Justice
134
ii.
iii.
Students must take SO 260, Intro to Criminal Justice and SO 302,
Social Deviance and Criminology, and choose 6 additional credits from
the following list:
SO 244, Drugs and Society
SO 241, Child and Family Services
SO 335, Social Change
SO 320, Wealth, Power and Society
PY 411, Psychology and the Law
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work
Professional Semester will be in an approved agency related to Social
Work and Justice.
Social Work with a Focus in Children and Multigenerational Families
Students must take either SO 241, Child and Family Services or SO 204,
American Families and SO 242, Aging and Society, and choose 6
additional credits from the following list:
SO 241, Child and Family Services
SO 305, Gender and Society
SO 204, American Families
ED 130, Adolescent Development
PY 207, Human Sexuality
PY 404, Ed and School Psychology
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work
Professional Semester will be in an approved agency related to Social
Work with Children and/or Multigenerational Families.
Social Work with a Focus in Medicine/Behavioral Health
Students must take SO 242, Aging and Society and SO 243, Death and
Dying and choose 6 additional credits from the following list:
PY 207, Human Sexuality
PY 321, Health Psychology
SO 244, Drugs and Society
PY 203, Abnormal Psychology
PL 235, Ethics of Health Care
In addition, either the mini-field experience or Social Work
Professional Semester will be in an approved agency related to Medical
Social Work or Behavioral Health.
4. Work with the Vice President for Enrollment, Vice President for Marketing and
Development and Enrollment Staff on Marketing the Social Work Program to
Prospective Students
a. Provide Enrollment staff with information on the new Focuses in Social Work.
b. Work with Marketing staff to develop a more attractive brochure focused on Social
Work.
c. Consult with Marketing to develop more effective strategies for marketing the Social
Work Program.
i.
The number of prospective students appears to be on the increase. At the July
Enrollment Event Professor Radis spoke to 5 high school juniors who are
specifically interested in Social Work at Juniata College.
5. Update our Department Webpage and Facebook Page
135
a. Hire a student assistant immediately to work with Social Work Faculty on updating the
Department webpage and our Facebook page.
6. Social Work faculty will request the opportunity to present information about the Social
Work Program and the new focus areas as a Topic of the Day at the October Faculty
Meeting.
III.
Reasons to Maintain the BSW Program at Juniata College
A. The BSW Program is the Kind of Program We Want at Juniata College. We
provide the “value added” indicators for which Juniata strives.
B.
C.
D.
E.
1. The Social Work Program emphasizes the importance of the Problem Solving Process in
professional practice and in life. Our graduates emerge as good problem solvers and
analytical thinkers.
2. The Social Work Program produces students who are global citizens. They understand the
person in his/her situation in relation to their environment; and the interconnectedness of
social systems, including individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities and
societies.
3. The signature pedagogy of the Social Work Program is experiential learning. Social Work
students are required to engage in experiential learning and practice related research
throughout the curriculum.
Our BSW Graduates Obtain Jobs in Social Work
1. Twenty-one (72.4%) of the 30 graduates of the BSW Program from 2005-2010 are employed
in social work positions, with behavioral health reported as the most common field.
2. One (3.5%) is a homemaker.
3. We were unable to contact seven (24.1%) graduates from 2005-2010, but anecdotal evidence
suggests that most of these students are also employed in the social work field.
The Employment Outlook for Social Workers is Very Good Through 2016.
1. The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that the outlook for social work jobs is very good
nationally and in Pennsylvania. (See Appendix I)
Our BSW Graduates Are Accepted at Well Respected Graduate Schools of Social Work
with Advanced Standing
1. Twelve (41.4%) of our 2005-10 graduates have earned/or are earning their MSW at seven
universities
2. All (100%) received “advanced standing”
3. One (3.5%) is currently applying to MSW programs, having previously been accepted at
Smith College with advanced standing
4. One (3.5%) reports being in the process of applying to grad school, but did not specify the
area
Our BSW Graduates Contribute to their Communities and the Academy and Change Lives.
A few examples are:
1. Emily McCave, BSW ’01, MSW with advanced standing, University of Washington in
St. Louis, Ph.D., University of Kansas, is a professor at West Virginia University whose
research focuses on adolescent sexual behavior.
2. Dana Nelson, BSW ’07, MSW with advanced standing from Monmouth University,
worked as a behavior specialist for adults with learning disabilities. She is currently in
the Peace Corps in Ukraine fulfilling her passion for international social work.
136
3. Jessica Antonik, BSW ’07 worked with women experiencing partner violence in
Australia. She is currently applying to MSW programs in the U.S.
4. Amanda Partington, BSW ’08, MSW with advanced standing, University of Maryland
at Baltimore was employed as a constituent services social worker for Congresswoman
Edwards, US House of Representatives. Now a licensed social worker she is moving to
England where she has been approved to practice.
5. Sarah Weick, BSW ’10, is a social worker at Mainstream Counseling, serving clients
with behavioral and substance abuse problems. She is also pursuing her MSW at
Temple University, Harrisburg with advanced standing.
137
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I. SW labor market/most recent projections available
National projections: From 2006 to 2016 social work jobs are expected to increase faster that
average, meaning a decade growth rate of between 14% to 19%. Job prospects are characterized as
favorable, meaning there should be a “good balance” between job seekers and job openings. [Source:
Bureau of Labor Statistics]
Job growth rates in the mental health/substance abuse sector and medical/public health sectors are
greatest at 20% and 22% respectively. [Note: There is no aging or gerontological sector; that said, the
rapidity of growth and volume of America’s aging population are expected to support ongoing levels
of significant growth in the aforementioned sectors beyond 2016.]
PA Projections: see below [source: Center for Workforce Information and Analysis]
Community and Social Services Occupations
Counselors, Social Workers, and Other Community and
Social Service Specialists
Substance Abuse and Behavioral Disorder Counselors
Educational, Vocational, and School Counselors
Marriage and Family Therapists
Mental Health Counselors
Rehabilitation Counselors
Counselors, All Other
Child, Family, and School Social Workers
Medical and Public Health Social Workers
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers
Social Workers, All Other
Health Educators
Probation Officers and Correctional Treatment Specialists
Social and Human Service Assistants
Community and Social Service Specialists, All Other
A
130,410
B
150,170
C
15.2
112,400
133,380
18.7
7,510
14,840
1,140
15,150
5,900
430
18,620
9,920
10,010
1,400
2,060
4,210
18,290
2,920
9,510
15,450
1,370
18,620
6,490
530
22,020
11,400
12,530
1,550
2,540
4,500
23,410
3,470
26.6
4.1
20.2
22.9
10.0
23.3
18.3
14.9
25.2
10.7
23.3
6.9
28.0
18.8
Notes: A= Number of Jobs in 2006
B= Number of Projected Jobs in 2016
C= Projected Growth Rate 2006 to 2016
II. Recent history of Juniata Social Work POE graduates by year/number of POEs
 2005 = 10
 2006 = 3
 2007 = 12
 2008 = 6
 2009 = 2
 2010 = 4
 2011 = 3 in the pipeline
 2012 = 8 in the pipeline
138
III. PA Legislative/Political Matters
A. House Bill 1250
House Bill 1250 is a social work Practice Protection Act which will regulate the practice of social
work, provide qualifications for social work licensure, restrict who can claim to provide social
work services, clinical social work services, marriage and family therapy services, and
professional counseling. This bill is very important to ensuring that Pennsylvanians who deliver
social work services are licensed and well-qualified to do so. It is also important we protect the
public by ensuring that those individuals claiming to deliver professional services are competent
to provide these services. This bill passed the PA House on March 9, 2010 and is now in PA
Senate.
B. Senate Bill 629/House Bill 1090
Senate Bill 629/House Bill 1090 creates a certification for school social workers. Currently, there
is no such thing as a school social worker in the PA school code. Senate Bill 629 passed the
Senate 49-0 on May 5, 2010 but is currently in the PA House. For years school social workers
have been required to function under the home and school visitor certification which prohibits the
delivery of mental health services. Among other things, this bill will permit the delivery of mental
health services by certified school social workers.
Taken together, if both pieces of legislation pass, the effect should expanded opportunities for
social workers across the state.
IV. Juniata Social Work Grads Since 2005 [n=29] (See detail in table below.)
A. Employment
1. Twenty-one [72.4%] are employed in social worker positions with behavioral health [n=6]
being the most common field
2. Seven [24.1%] are unknown although anecdotal evidence suggests most are employed in
social work
3. One [3.5%] is a homemaker
B. Graduate School
1. Twelve [41.4%] have earned/or are earning their MSW at seven different universities; of
these 100% received “advanced standing,” which has the effect of allowing them to complete
their MSWs in about half the time and for half the money it would otherwise take without a
BSW
2. One [3.5%] is currently applying to MSW programs, having previously been accepted at
Smith College with advanced standing
3. One [3.5%] reports being in the process of applying to grad school, but did not specify the
area
139
C. Graduates since 2005 (Note: ?? = unknown)
Name
2005
Jessica Antonik
Emily Blejwas
Valarie Brand
Lauren Chiapetta
Diana Frazier
Jean Hemberger
Lacey Painter
Tracy Verrill
Stephanie Wasylyk
Kira Troutman
2006
Athena Gibble
Melanie Shumaker
Jenna Webber
2007
Christy Shawley
Chris Grove
Amber Myers
Stacy Bashore
Dana Nelson
2008
Tiffany Fortson
Ali Meckey
Amanda Partington
Gloria Ann Seal
Marissa Vlasach
2009
Leah Myers
Sharlene Daugherty
2010
Alison Banks
Denalyn Spratt
Alicia Szarmach
Sarah Weick
MSW
Most Recent SW
Employment/Field
Applying to Barry U for Jan start
and Boston U for Fall ’11 start;
accepted Smith College w/ adv
stand but decided not to enroll
No
No
No
U of Pitt w/ adv stand
??
Returning to grad school/not sure
what for
Yes, w/ adv stand [but where?]
Marywood Univ w/ adv stand
??
Domestic violence [Australia]
No
Shippensburg w/ adv stand
No
Casework/New Hope Ministries
??
Family services
Unsure/Don’t think so
U of Pitt w/ adv stand
U of Mich w/ adv stand
Unsure/Don’t think so
Monmouth U w/ad stand
Hospice
??
Behavioral health
Family services/Foster care
International SW w/ Peace Corps
SUNY Binghamton w/ adv stand
No
U of MD at Baltimore w/ adv
stand
No
??
Geriatrics
Behavioral health
Constituent Serv. [US House
Rep]
Behavioral health
??
Temple w/ adv stand
Temple w/ adv stand
Developmental disability
Behavioral health
No
No
??
Temple w/ adv stand
Geriatrics
Behavioral health
??
Behavioral health
Developmental disability
No/Homemaker
??
Behavioral health
Behavioral health
Employed, but doing what??
Medical SW
Developmental disability
??
140
APPENDIX 4 – APAC MEMO REGARDING FUTURE OF THE SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM
TO:
Academic Planning and Assessment Committee
FROM: Susan T. Radis, ACSW, LSW
F. Robert Reilly, ACSW, LSW
RE:
Future of the Social Work Program
DATE: October 13, 2010
The Social Work Program at Juniata College is at a difficult crossroad. As the BSW Program is
poised to begin a two year process of preparing for our reaffirmation of accreditation review,
which will occur during the 2011-12 academic year, we have been asked by the Provost to justify
the continued existence of the program.
While the BSW program has been blessed with the support of the Provost, President and Board
of Trustees in the past, the Provost has indicated that he now questions whether we should begin
the reaffirmation of accreditation process. His concern stems from the historically small number
of students who choose a Program of Emphasis in Social Work (6-7 per year), and the projected
phased retirement of Professor Bob Reilly, which he anticipates will occur during the next 3
years. The CSWE accreditation standards require that every BSW program has a minimum of
two full-time faculty who possess the MSW degree. With the projected retirement of Bob
Reilly, Provost Lakso, Vice President for Enrollment, John Hille and President Kepple now
question whether we should replace Bob with another faculty member with an MSW, which we
must do in order to maintain our accreditation. The administration requested a brief “state of the
social work program” report along with recommendations to increase student interest in the
program. We submitted our report and a plan to increase enrollment in our social work courses
to the Provost on September 17. It is our understanding that APAC has been asked to
“determine what should be done with Bob Reilly’s position when he retires.” We currently have
9 sophomores and 2 freshmen who have indicated to the Registrar that their POE is Social Work.
Provost Lakso has stated on several occasions that he believes Juniata has a moral obligation to
provide students who entered Juniata with an expectation that they could pursue a POE in Social
Work with the opportunity to do so. Therefore, we believe that the question before APAC is not
“Should we replace Bob Reilly with an MSW?”, but rather “What kind of position will be
offered to his MSW replacement?” In order for students who are currently enrolled at Juniata
with a POE in Social Work to finish the BSW Program, we must complete the reaffirmation of
accreditation review. This requires that we have a minimum of two full time faculty members
who possess the MSW degree. Bob Reilly has not indicated when he will begin phased
retirement, but should he choose to do so within the next three years, Juniata must replace Bob
with an MSW, either in a full time tenure track position, or in a 3 year full time fixed term
position.
We believe that a POE in Social Work, which we can only offer if we maintain our accredited
BSW Program, should continue to be an option for Juniata students. Our numbers are small, but
the Social Work Program offers an educational experience that no other POE can provide, as
explained below.
Social Work is the only POE at Juniata for students interested in counseling, social and human
services, and social work that:
141


Prepares students for professional employment at the undergraduate level
Assures students access to significant job opportunities above the entry level

Allows students to secure professional clinical licensure with one year of graduate
school via advanced standing in top ranked MSW programs
Permits students to fine tune their professional interests in one of three focus areas:
 Social Work in Justice
 Social Work with Children and Multigenerational Families
 Social Work in Medicine and Behavioral Health
Integrates hands-on experiential, active field education throughout the curriculum,
which allows students to develop the skills to practice social work.
 Provides over 600 hours of field education from sophomore to senior year
 Integrates opportunities for service learning into almost every course


Our BSW graduates have an excellent record of acceptance to MSW Programs with advanced
standing, including some of the best programs in the country such as the University of Michigan
and the University of Pennsylvania. Most importantly, our graduates secure excellent jobs upon
graduation, a trend that is likely to continue. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
outlook for social work jobs is very good both nationally and in Pennsylvania through 2016. In
addition, CNNMoney.com recently ranked social work at #71 among the top 100 US careers
characterized by “great pay and great job prospects.” The study considered thousands of
possible careers that require an undergraduate education as the professional school and career
launch point.
We strongly encourage APAC to support the continuation of the Social Work Program at
Juniata College for the following reasons:



The BSW Program is the Kind of Program We Want at Juniata College. We
provide the “value added” indicators for which Juniata strives. The following
competencies, which closely relate to the ‘value added” indicators, are required
by the CSWE Accreditation Standards.
 The Social Work Program emphasizes the importance of the Problem Solving
Process in professional practice and in life. Our graduates emerge as good
problem solvers and analytical thinkers.
 The Social Work Program produces students who are global citizens. They
understand the person in his/her situation in relation to their environment; and
the interconnections of social systems, including individuals, families, groups,
organizations, communities and societies.
 The signature pedagogy of the Social Work Program is experiential learning.
Social Work students are required to engage in experiential learning and
practice related research throughout the curriculum.
Our BSW Graduates Obtain Jobs in Social Work
The Employment Outlook for Social Workers is Very Good Through 2016.
142


Our BSW Graduates Are Accepted at Well Respected Graduate Schools of
Social Work with Advanced Standing
Our BSW Graduates Contribute to their Communities and the Academy and Change
Lives. A few examples are:
5. Emily McCave, BSW ’01, MSW with advanced standing, University of Washington in
St. Louis, Ph.D., University of Kansas, is a professor at West Virginia University whose
research focuses on adolescent sexual behavior.
6. Dana Nelson, BSW ’07, MSW with advanced standing from Monmouth University,
worked as a behavior specialist for adults with learning disabilities. She is currently in
the Peace Corps in Ukraine fulfilling her passion for international social work.
7. Jessica Antonik, BSW ’07 worked with a child and family services agency in England
and then with women experiencing partner violence in Australia. She is currently
applying to MSW programs in the U.S.
8. Amanda Partington, BSW ’08, MSW with advanced standing, University of Maryland at
Baltimore was employed as a constituent services social worker for Congresswoman
Edwards, US House of Representatives. Now a licensed social worker she is moving to
England where she has been approved to practice.
9. Sharlene ClearBear Daugherty BSW‘09 is employed as a Huntingdon County
Mobile Crisis Worker at Universal Community Behavioral Health, Inc. She is
also pursuing her master’s degree from Temple University and completing a yearlong internship at Juniata Health & Wellness Center.
10. Leah Myers BSW ’09, MSW with advanced standing from Temple ‘10 is
currently employed as a clinical supervisor with SKILLS of Central, PA.
11. Sarah Weick, BSW ’10, is a social worker at Mainstream Counseling, serving
clients with behavioral and substance abuse problems. She is also pursuing her
MSW at Temple University, Harrisburg with advanced standing.
In conclusion, we respectfully ask that APAC support the continuation of the BSW
Program by taking the following actions:
1. Strongly recommend to the Provost that no final decision on the future of the Social
Work Program be made until May 31, 2011 or later, so that program faculty can
determine if the plan to increase enrollment is working.
2. Strongly recommend to the Provost that the BSW Program complete the
reaffirmation of accreditation review in 2011-12.
3. Strongly recommend to the Provost that when Bob Reilly enters phased retirement
the College will replace him with an MSW, either in a full-time tenure track position
or with a three year full-time fixed term non-tenure track position.
4. Strongly encourage the Provost, Vice President for Enrollment and Vice President
for Marketing to provide the Social Work Program with the resources and support
to aggressively market the Social Work Program in order to increase enrollment in
the program.
Thank you for your fair and careful consideration of this matter which is of crucial concern to the
Social Work Program and the Sociology Department.
143
APPENDIX 5 – REVISED PROFESSIONAL SEMESTER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (PSEI)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester (2012 Revision)
Juniata College
Fieldwork Evaluation
Student’s Name:
Agency:
Agency Field Instructor:
Faculty Field Liaison:
Date:
9
144
Core Competency 1 (EP2.1.1):
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.1: The student advocates for client access to the services of social work.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
145
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.2: The student practices personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual professional
development.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency1.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
146
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency1.3(a): The student attends to professional roles.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.3(a) has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency1.3(a). (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
147
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency1.3(b): The student attends to professional boundaries.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency1.3(b) has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency1.3(b). (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
148
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.4(a): The student demonstrates professional demeanor in behavior.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.4(a) has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.4(a). (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
149
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.4(b): The student demonstrates professional demeanor in appearance.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.4(b) has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.3b. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
150
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.4(c): The student demonstrates professional demeanor in communication.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.4(c) has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.4(c). (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
151
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.5: The student expresses an interest in and an understanding of the necessity to pursue careerlong learning.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.5 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.5. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
152
Core Competency 1:
The student demonstrates a capacity to identify as a professional social worker and to conduct her/himself
accordingly.
Competency 1.6: The student uses supervision and consultation.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 1.6 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 1.6. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
153
Core Competency 2(EP2.1.2):
The student applies social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in professional practice.
Competency 2.1: The student recognizes and manages personal values in a way that allows professional values
to guide practice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 2.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 2.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
154
Core Competency 2(EP2.1.2):
The student applies social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in professional practice.
Competency 2.2: The student makes ethical decisions by applying standards of the NASW Code of Ethics and, as
applicable, of the IFSW/IASSW Ethics in Social Work Statement of Principles.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 2.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 2.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
155
Core Competency 2(EP2.1.2):
The student applies social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in professional practice.
Competency 2.3: The student tolerates ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 2.3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 2.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
156
Core Competency 2(EP2.1.2):
The student applies social work ethical principles to guide ethical decision making in professional practice.
Competency 2.4: The student applies strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled decisions.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 2.4 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 2.4. (Note: 500 characters maximum. )
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
157
Core Competency 3(EP2.1.3):
The student demonstrates application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.
Competency 3.1: The student distinguishes, appraises, and integrates multiple sources of knowledge, including
research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 3.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 3.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
158
Core Competency 3(EP2.1.3):
The student demonstrates application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.
Competency 3.2: The student analyzes models of assessment, prevention, intervention, and evaluation.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 3.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 3.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
159
Core Competency 3(EP2.1.3):
The student demonstrates application of critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.
Competency 3.3: The student demonstrates effective oral and written communication in working with
individuals, families, groups, organizations and communities.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 3.3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 3.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
160
Core Competency 4(EP2.1.4):
The student engages diversity and difference in practice.
Competency 4.1: The student recognizes the extent to which a culture’s structures and values may oppose,
marginalize, alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 4.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 4.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum.
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
161
Core Competency 4(EP2.1.4):
The student engages diversity and difference in practice.
Competency 4.2: The student demonstrates sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal
biases and values in working with diverse groups.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 4.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 4.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum.
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
162
Core Competency 4(EP2.1.4):
The student engages diversity and difference in practice.
Competency 4.3: The student recognizes and communicates an understanding of the importance of difference in
shaping life experiences.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 4.3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 4.3 (Note: 500 characters maximum.
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
163
Core Competency 4(EP2.1.4):
The student engages diversity and difference in practice.
Competency 4.4: The student views her/himself as learner and engages those with whom they work as
informants.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 4.4 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 4.4 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
164
Core Competency 5(EP2.1.5):
The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.
Competency 5.1: The student can identify and articulate the forms and mechanisms of oppression and
discrimination.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 5.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 5.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
165
Core Competency 5(EP2.1.5):
The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.
Competency 5.2: The student advocates for human rights and social and economic justice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 5.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 5.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
166
Core Competency 5(EP2.1.5):
The student demonstrates ability to advance human rights and social and economic justice.
Competency 5.3: The student engages in practices that advance social and economic justice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 5.3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 5.3 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
167
Core Competency 6(EP2.1.6):
The student engages in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
Competency 6.1: The student uses practice experience to inform scientific inquiry.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 6.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 6.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
168
Core Competency 6(EP2.1.6):
The student engages in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
Competency 6.2: The student uses research evidence to inform practice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 6.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 6.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
169
Core Competency 7(EP2.1.7):
The student applies knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.
Competency 7.1: The student uses conceptual frameworks to guide the processes of assessment, intervention and
evaluation.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 7.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 7.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
170
Core Competency 7(EP2.1.7):
The student applies knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.
Competency 7.2: The student demonstrates ability to critique and apply knowledge to understand the person and
environment.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 7.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 7.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
171
Core Competency 8(EP2.1.8):
The student analyzes, formulates and advocates for policies that advance social well-being.
Competency 8.1: The student analyzes, formulates and advocates for policies that advance social well-being.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 8.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 8.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
172
Core Competency 8(EP2.1.8):
The student analyzes, formulates and advocates for policies that advance social well-being.
Competency 8.2: The student collaborates with colleagues and clients for effective policy action.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 8.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 8.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
173
Core Competency 9(EP2.1.9):
The student responds to contexts that shape practice.
Competency 9.1: The student continuously discovers, appraises and attends to changing locales, populations,
scientific and technological developments, and emerging societal trends to provide relevant services.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 9.1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 9.1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
174
Core Competency 9(EP2.1.9):
The student responds to contexts that shape practice.
Competency 9.2: The student provides leadership in promoting sustainable changes in service delivery and
practice to improve the quality of social services.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 9.2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 9.2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
175
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(a): Engagement
Competency 10(a).1: The student substantively and affectively prepares for action with individuals, families,
groups, organizations and communities.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(a).1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(a).1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
176
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(a): Engagement
Competency 10(a).2: The student uses empathy and other interpersonal skill.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(a).2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(a).2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
177
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(a): Engagement
Competency 10(a).3: The student develops a mutually agreed-on focus of work and desired outcomes.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(a).3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(a).3 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
178
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(b): Assessment
Competency 10(b).1: The student collects, organizes and interprets client data.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(b).1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(b).1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
179
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(b): Assessment
Competency 10(b).2: The student assesses client strengths and limitations.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(b).2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(b).2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
180
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(b): Assessment
Competency 10(b).3: The student develops mutually agreed-on intervention goals and objectives.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(b).3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(b).3 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
181
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(b): Assessment
Competency 10(b).4: The student selects appropriate intervention strategies.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(b).4 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(b).4 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
182
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(c): Intervention
Competency 10(c).1: The student initiates action to achieve organizational goals.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(c).1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(c).1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
183
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(c): Intervention
Competency 10(c).2: The student implements prevention interventions that enhance client capacities.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(c).2 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(c).2 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
184
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(c): Intervention
Competency 10(c).3: The student helps clients resolve problems.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(c).3 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(c).3 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
185
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(c): Intervention
Competency 10(c).4: The student negotiates, mediates and advocates for clients.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(c).4 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(c).4 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
186
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(c): Intervention
Competency 10(c).5: The student facilitates transitions and endings.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(c).5 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(c).5 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
187
Core Competency 10(EP2.1.10(a)-(d):
The student demonstrates ability to engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families, groups,
organizations and communities.
Competency 2.1.10(d): Evaluation
Competency 10(d).1: The student critically analyzes, monitors and evaluates interventions.
Students—In the box below, describe how Competency 10(d).1 has been mastered. (Note: 1300 characters
maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Competency 10(d).1 (Note: 500 characters maximum).
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student’s mastery of the core competency, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
188
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Summary Comments by Field Instructor – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued
learning:
Summary Comments by Student – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued learning:
(Note: 1000 characters maximum)
189
Summary Comments by Field Liaison – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued
learning: (Note: 1000 characters maximum)
Recommendation by Field Instructor:
Would you recommend the student for a position in Social Work which requires Bachelor’s level
preparation?
______ Yes; strong recommendation without reservation
______ Yes; because ___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______ Unsure recommendation because _________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Student’s Signature
Date
Field Instructor’s Signature
Date
190
Faculty Liaison’s Signature
Date
Please return by: ______________________________________________________________________________
Return to: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Revised January 2012
191
APPENDIX 6 – PROFESSIONAL SEMESTER EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (2004 VERSION)
SW 490 Social Work: Professional Semester
Juniata College
Fieldwork Evaluation
Student’s Name:
Agency:
Agency Field Instructor:
Faculty Field Liaison:
Mid-term or Final Evaluation (select one)
Mid-term Evaluation
Date:
192
Learning Objective 1:
The student demonstrates the application of critical thinking skills characterized by rational, systematic modes of
inquiry, grounded decision making, and skepticism in her/his approach to social work practice.
Objective 1.1: The student demonstrates the ability to integrate social work knowledge, values, and skills learned
in prior coursework with the practical experiences in the agency placement.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 1.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 1.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
193
Learning Objective 1:
The student demonstrates the application of critical thinking skills characterized by rational, systematic modes of
inquiry, grounded decision making, and skepticism in her/his approach to social work practice.
Objective 1.2: The student demonstrates a functional understanding of the problem solving process as a logical,
rational approach to social work practice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 1.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 1.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
194
Learning Objective 1:
The student demonstrates the application of critical thinking skills characterized by rational, systematic modes of
inquiry, grounded decision making, and skepticism in her/his approach to social work practice.
Objective 1.3: The student demonstrates an effective capacity to analyze the interactions within and between
systems with which social workers and their clients/consumers typically come in contact.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 1.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 1.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
195
Learning Objective 2:
The student demonstrates a capacity to execute professional responsibilities using methods grounded in the
values and ethics of the profession, including an abiding appreciation for the value of human diversity in its
myriad forms.
Objective 2.1: The student demonstrates the ability to recognize the impact of personal behaviors and values on
others.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 2.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 2.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
196
Learning Objective 2:
The student demonstrates a capacity to execute professional responsibilities using methods grounded in the
values and ethics of the profession, including an abiding appreciation for the value of human diversity in its
myriad forms.
Objective 2.2: The student demonstrates the ability to identify areas within his/her own practice in which
conflicting values and ethical dilemmas exist.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 2.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 2.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
197
Learning Objective 2:
The student demonstrates a capacity to execute professional responsibilities using methods grounded in the
values and ethics of the profession, including an abiding appreciation for the value of human diversity in its
myriad forms.
Objective 2.3: The student demonstrates respect for and acceptance of the unique characteristics of diverse
populations and further demonstrates cultural competence in her/his work with clients/consumer systems.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 2.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 2.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
198
Learning Objective 3:
The student demonstrates a functional understanding of human oppression and discrimination, their various
forms and the structured mechanisms that make them possible, and the strategies and tactics for social change
that promote social and economic justice in society.
Objective 3.1: The student demonstrates the ability to identify populations in the community and the society that
are especially at risk due to the extent of social problems, discrimination, and/or limited coping skills and social
resources.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 3.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 3.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
199
Learning Objective 3:
The student demonstrates a functional understanding of human oppression and discrimination, their various
forms and the structured mechanisms that make them possible, and the strategies and tactics for social change
that promote social and economic justice in society.
Objective 3.2: The student demonstrates an understanding of the forms and mechanisms of oppression and
discrimination that affects the clients/consumers served by the agency in which the student is placed.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 3.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 3.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
200
Learning Objective 3:
The student demonstrates a functional understanding of human oppression and discrimination, their various
forms and the structured mechanisms that make them possible, and the strategies and tactics for social change
that promote social and economic justice in society.
Objective 3.3: The student demonstrates an understanding of and ability to implement a range of interventions
that advance the achievement of social and economic justice for clients/consumers served by the placement
agency.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 3.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 3.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
201
Learning Objective 4:
The student demonstrates a culturally competent approach to social work practice that is nondiscriminatory and
takes account of and is respectful and accepting towards clients’ and consumers’ unique individual and group
differences, including age, sex, sexual preference, social class, marital status, family structure, culture, ethnicity,
national origin, color, race, religion, and disability.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 4 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 4. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
202
Learning Objective 5:
The student demonstrates an understanding of the impact of social work’s history and philosophy on the
profession’s contemporary structure and critical issues facing social workers and the systems with which they
interact in practice.
Objective 5.1: The student demonstrates an understanding of the impact of the history and philosophy of the
social work profession on the development, structure, and current issues facing the placement agency.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 5.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 5.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
203
Learning Objective 5:
The student demonstrates an understanding of the impact of social work’s history and philosophy on the
profession’s contemporary structure and critical issues facing social workers and the systems with which they
interact in practice.
Objective 5.2: The student demonstrates an understanding of the impact of the history and philosophy of the
social work profession on the critical issues facing social workers and the social systems with which they interact
in practice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 5.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 5.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
204
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.1: The student demonstrates an understanding of the “ecological perspective” as it relates to social
work practice with systems of various sizes within the context of the placement agency.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
205
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.2: The student demonstrates the ability to engage the client/consumer system and others in a
professional relationship and to identify problems, needs, concerns, or issues.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
206
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.3: The student demonstrates the ability to identify the necessary data required for the assessment of
problems, needs, concerns, or issues and collects that data from appropriate sources, including an assessment of
client/consumer strengths.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
207
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.4: The student demonstrates the ability to develop and maintain professional helping relationships
with client/consumer systems, including clarifying role and purpose and establishing a mutual contract.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.4 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.4. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
208
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.5: The student demonstrates the ability to articulate an accurate, well-founded assessment regarding
the client/consumer system’s problem, need, concern, or issue.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.5 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.5. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
209
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.6: The student demonstrates the ability to develop a focused, purposeful plan for intervention based
on the assessment.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.6 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.6. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
210
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.7: The student demonstrates the ability to identify, select, and apply appropriate methods of
intervention required to accomplish the intervention plan.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.7 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.7. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
211
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.8: The student demonstrates the ability to identify, assess, and link available resources and
opportunities to meet the needs of client/consumer systems.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.8 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.8. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
212
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.9: The student demonstrates the ability to use appropriate methods for monitoring and evaluating the
extent to which the objectives of the intervention plan are being/have been accomplished in consultation with the
client/consumer.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.9 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.9. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
213
Learning Objective 6:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply empirically grounded, evidence based knowledge and skills of
generalist social work practice with systems of various sizes.
Objective 6.10: The student demonstrates the ability to terminate relationships with clients/consumers
constructively with appropriate follow-up and/or referral.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 6.10 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 6.10. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
214
Learning Objective 7:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply the empirical based knowledge of bio-psycho-social variables that
influence individual development and behavior, and to use applicable conceptual and theoretical frameworks to
understand the interactions among individuals and between individuals as larger systems, including families,
groups, organizations, and communities.
Objective 7.1: The student demonstrates the ability to apply knowledge of bio-psycho-social variables that affect
human development and behavior in her/his professional social work practice.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 7.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 7.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
215
Learning Objective 7:
The student demonstrates the ability to apply the empirical based knowledge of bio-psycho-social variables that
influence individual development and behavior, and to use applicable conceptual and theoretical frameworks to
understand the interactions among individuals and between individuals as larger systems, including families,
groups, organizations, and communities.
Objective 7.2: The student demonstrates the ability to use applicable conceptual and theoretical frameworks to
understand the interactions among individuals and between individuals and larger social systems.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 7.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 7.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
216
Learning Objective 8:
The student demonstrates the ability to analyze the impact of social policies on client/consumer systems and
agencies, including their employees.
Objective 8.1: The student demonstrates the ability to describe and analyze the relationship between agency
policies and its delivery of social services.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 8.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 8.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
217
Learning Objective 8:
The student demonstrates the ability to analyze the impact of social policies on client/consumer systems and
agencies, including their employees.
Objective 8.2: The student demonstrates the ability to work appropriately within and interpret agency policy,
structure and function to clients/consumers and other relevant audiences.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 8.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 8.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
218
Learning Objective 9:
The student demonstrates the ability to evaluate research, to apply findings to practice, and, under supervision, to
evaluate his/her own practice interventions and those of other relevant systems.
Objective 9.1: The student demonstrates the ability to apply well-grounded scientific knowledge, including best
practice wisdom, gained through an analysis of current social work research in her/his practice within the
agency.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 9.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 9.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
219
Learning Objective 9:
The student demonstrates the ability to evaluate research, to apply findings to practice, and, under supervision, to
evaluate his/her own practice interventions and those of other relevant systems.
Objective 9.2: The student demonstrates, under supervision, the ability to accurately evaluate the level of
competence and effectiveness of her/his own practice interventions and those of other relevant systems.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 9.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 9.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
220
Learning Objective 9:
The student demonstrates the ability to evaluate research, to apply findings to practice, and, under supervision, to
evaluate his/her own practice interventions and those of other relevant systems.
Objective 9.3: The student demonstrates the ability to appropriately evaluate the professional semester
experience.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 9.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 9.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
221
Learning Objective 10:
The student demonstrates the ability to use communication skills differently and effectively with a variety of
client/consumer populations, colleagues, and members of the community.
Objective 10.1: The student demonstrates the ability to effectively interview clients, colleagues, and members of
the community who have diverse backgrounds and ways of communicating.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 10.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 10.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
222
Learning Objective 10:
The student demonstrates the ability to use communication skills differently and effectively with a variety of
client/consumer populations, colleagues, and members of the community.
Objective 10.2: The student demonstrates the ability to vary and adapt his/her style of communication with
clients/consumers, colleagues, and members of the community based on their culture, background, language,
dialect, or other aspects of diversity.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 10.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 10.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
223
Learning Objective 11:
The student demonstrates the ability to use supervision and consultation appropriate to generalist practice so as
to foster greater opportunities for professional growth and development.
Objective 11.1: The student demonstrates the ability to receive, understand, and consider feedback from the field
instructor and the social work faculty regarding her/his professional performance in the role of social worker.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 11.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 11.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
224
Learning Objective 11:
The student demonstrates the ability to use supervision and consultation appropriate to generalist practice so as
to foster greater opportunities for professional growth and development.
Objective 11.2: The student demonstrates the ability to take initiative toward increasing knowledge and skills
relevant to performance demands, based on feedback from the supervisor, other appropriate agency personnel
and program faculty.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 11.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 11.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
225
Learning Objective 11:
The student demonstrates the ability to use supervision and consultation appropriate to generalist practice so as
to foster greater opportunities for professional growth and development.
Objective 11.3: The student demonstrates the ability to meet the performance requirements in the agency field
instruction setting, including appropriate professional demeanor, punctuality, and productivity.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 11.3 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 11.3. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
226
Learning Objective 12:
The student demonstrates the ability to function within the structure of organizations and service delivery
systems, and under supervision, to seek necessary organizational change.
Objective 12.1: The student demonstrates the ability to understand broad social issues facing the agency.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 12.1 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 12.1. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
227
Learning Objective 12:
The student demonstrates the ability to function within the structure of organizations and service delivery
systems, and under supervision, to seek necessary organizational change.
Objective 12.2: The student demonstrates the ability and willingness to generate ideas on the improvement of
agency functioning, and under supervision, to actively participate in efforts to bring about necessary
organizational change.
Students—In the box below, describe how Objective 12.2 has been satisfied. (Note: 1300 characters maximum)
Students—In the box below, identify any specific areas that require your ongoing professional
development attention pertaining to Objective 12.2. (Note: 500 characters maximum. This
section is to be completed for the midterm and final evaluation.)
Field Instructors—On the scale below, rate the social work student in relation to the learning objective, using
standards associated with “readiness for entry level generalist social work practice” as the benchmark. Make your
rating by circling the appropriate number.
1
2
3
4
5
□
Well below
Below
Meets
Above
Well above
Cannot rate
Field Instructors—For a “below” or “well below” standards associated with “readiness for
entry level generalist practice” rating, specify what tasks and/or behaviors the student needs to
demonstrate to improve the above rating.
228
EVALUATION SUMMARY
Summary Comments by Field Instructor – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued
learning:
Summary Comments by Student – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued learning:
(Note: 1000 characters maximum)
Summary Comments by Field Liaison – include areas of strength, any concerns, and focus for continued
learning: (Note: 1000 characters maximum)
229
Recommendation by Field Instructor:
Would you recommend the student for a position in Social Work which requires Bachelor’s level
preparation?
______ Yes; strong recommendation without reservation
______ Yes; because ___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______ Unsure recommendation because _________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Student’s Signature
Date
Field Instructor’s Signature
Date
Faculty Liaison’s Signature
Date
Please return by: ______________________________________________________________________________
Return to: ___________________________________________________________________________________
Revised Fall, 2003
230
APPENDIX 7 – SELF RATING SCALE FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF
GRADUATION (SRS)
Instructions for Self Rating on the 10 Competencies Associated with BSW Practice
Please read carefully.
Having successfully completed the requirements of Juniata’s Social Work Program, including all
assignments and practical experiences [i.e., the SWP: I, F & SG lab and SWP:LG, O & C
project], as well as the Social Work Professional Semester in which you have had considerable
opportunity to apply previously learned social work knowledge, skills, and values, we ask that
you engage in honest personal reflection about your readiness to discharge your professional
social work responsibilities.
The 10 competencies that are specified in this evaluation are those established by our national
accrediting organization, the Council on Social Work Education. Under each competency
statement are a number of more discrete items that we ask that you rate according to the
following criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
n/a
I believe I excel in this area. It is among my greatest SW strengths.
I believe I exceed expectations for BSWs in this area
I believe I meet expectations for BSWs in this area
I believe I do not meet expectations in this area, but I believe I can meet expectations with additional
experience and supervision in the near future.
I believe I have not met expectations in this area, and I do not believe I can to meet expectations in this area
in the near future.
Not applicable, I have not had the opportunity to demonstrate competence in this area.
Comments may be made under any competency statement, if desired.
Important: Your self assessment on this evaluation is meant to provide outcomes information to
the Social Work Program. The assessment will not be reviewed until after you graduate and will
in no way influence your grade in the Social Work Professional Semester.
Competence #1: I identify as a professional social worker and conduct myself
accordingly.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
I know the profession’s history
I have a commitment to enhancing the profession
I have a commitment to conducting myself as a professional
social worker
I have a commitment to career-long learning and growth
I advocate effectively for client access to the services of social work
I practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual
professional development
I attend well to professional roles and boundaries
I demonstrate professional demeanor in appearance
I demonstrate professional demeanor in communication
I use supervision and consultation effectively
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
231
Competence #2: I apply social work ethical principles to guide my professional practice.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
I am knowledgeable about the value base of the profession
I am knowledgeable of and abide by the ethical standards of
the profession
I am knowledgeable of and abide by laws relevant to social work
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
I recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows
my professional values to guide my practice (e.g., on such issues as
abortion and gay rights)
I tolerate well ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts
I am able to apply strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled
decisions
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
Competence #3: I apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional
judgments.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
I am knowledgeable about the principles of logic and scientific inquiry
I am able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure
I am skilled in using critical thinking augmented by creativity and curiosity
I have good assessment skills
I have good problem-solving skills
I have good data gathering skills
I can analyze complex material well
I am skilled at appraising and integrating multiple sources of knowledge;
including research-based knowledge and practice wisdom
I am skilled at analyzing models of assessment, prevention, intervention,
and evaluation
I demonstrate effective oral communication in working with individuals,
families, groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues
I demonstrate effective written communication in working with
individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues
Competence #4:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
I take diversity and difference into account in practice.
I treat diverse clients with dignity and respect
I am knowledgeable and respectful of clients who differ by such factors as
age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and
expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and
sexual orientation
I recognize the extent to which a culture’s structures and values may
oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power
I have sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal
biases and values in working with diverse groups
I recognize and communicate my understanding of the importance of
difference in shaping life experiences
I view myself as a learner and engage those with whom I work [i.e., clients,
colleagues, etc.] as informants
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
232
Competence #5:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
I advance human rights and social and economic justice.
I recognize that each person, regardless of position in society, has basic
human rights, such as freedom, safety, privacy, an adequate standard of
living, health care, and education
I recognize the global interconnections of oppression and am
knowledgeable about theories of justice and strategies to promote human
and civil rights
I understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination
I am skilled at advocating for human rights and social and economic justice
I am skilled at engaging in practices that advance social and economic
justice
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
Competence #6 : I engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
I am skilled at using practice experience to inform research
I am skilled at employing evidence-based interventions
I am skilled at evaluating my practice
I am skilled at using research findings to improve practice, policy, and
social service delivery
I comprehend quantitative research
I comprehend qualitative research
I understand scientific and ethical approaches to building knowledge
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
Competence #7: I apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
I am knowledgeable about human behavior across the life course
I am knowledgeable about the range of social systems in which people live
I am knowledgeable about the ways social systems promote or deter people
in maintaining or achieving health and well-being
I am skilled at applying theories and knowledge about biological variables,
social variables, cultural variables, psychological variables, and spiritual
development
I am skilled at utilizing conceptual frameworks to guide the processes of
assessment, intervention, and evaluation
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Competence #8: I engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and
to deliver effective social work services.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
I understand that policy affects service delivery
I actively engage in policy practice
I am knowledgeable about the history of social policies and services
I am knowledgeable about current social policies and services
I am knowledgeable about the role of practice in policy development
I am skilled at analyzing, formulating, and advocating for policies that
advance social well-being
I am skilled at collaborating with colleagues and clients for effective
policy action
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
233
Competence #9: I respond to contexts that shape practice.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
I am informed, resourceful, and proactive in responding to evolving
organizational, community, and societal contexts across all levels of
practice
I recognize that the context of practice is dynamic, and I have the
knowledge and skills to respond proactively
I am skilled at continuously discovering, appraising, and attending to
changing locales, populations, scientific and technological developments,
and emerging societal trends in order to provide relevant services
I am skilled at providing leadership in promoting sustainable changes in
service delivery and practice to improve the quality of social services
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Competence #10: I engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families,
groups, organizations, and communities.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
10.21
I am skilled at identifying, analyzing, and implementing evidence-based
interventions designed to achieve client goals
I am skilled at using research and technological advances
I am skilled at evaluating program outcomes
I am skilled at evaluating the effectiveness of my social work practice
I am skilled at developing, analyzing, advocating, and providing
leadership for policies and services
I am skilled at promoting social and economic justice
I am skilled at engaging (developing a positive relationship) with
individuals
I am skilled at engaging families
I am skilled at engaging groups
I am skilled at engaging organizations
I am skilled at engaging communities
I am skilled at assessing individuals
I am skilled at assessing families
I am skilled at assessing groups
I am skilled at assessing organizations
I am skilled at assessing communities
I am skilled at providing effective services to individuals
I am skilled at providing effective services to families
I am skilled at providing effective services to groups
I am skilled at providing effective services to organizations
I am skilled at providing effective services to communities
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Acknowledgement: With many thanks to our colleague Charles Zastrow, Ph.D., Professor of Social Work at George Williams College of Aurora
University for developing the template from which this evaluation is derived.
234
APPENDIX 8 - SUMMARY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR PSEI RATINGS
Competency 1:
Score
5.00
4.88
4.75
4.67
4.63
4.50
4.25
4.00
3.88
3.75
3.63
3.50
3.38
Identify as a Professional Social Worker
Frequency
Percent
5
16.7
5
16.7
3
10.0
1
3.3
2
6.7
2
6.7
3
10.0
2
6.7
2
6.7
1
3.3
2
6.7
1
3.3
1
3.3
Cumulative Percent
16.7
33.3
43.3
46.7
53.3
60.0
70.0
76.7
83.3
86.7
93.3
96.7
100.0
Competency 2:
Score
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.50
4.40
4.25
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
Ethical Decision Making
Frequency
4
8
4
1
4
1
1
2
2
3
Percent
13.3
26.7
13.3
3.3
13.3
3.3
3.3
6.7
6.7
10
Cumulative Percent
13.3
40.0
53.3
56.7
70.0
73.3
76.7
83.3
90.0
100.0
Competency 3:
Score
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
3.80
3.60
3.40
3.20
Critical Thinking
Frequency
8
6
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
Percent
26.7
20.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
10.0
6.7
3.3
3.3
3.7
Cumulative Percent
26.7
46.7
53.3
63.3
70.0
80.0
86.7
90.0
93.3
100.0
235
Competency 4:
Score
5.00
4.83
4.80
4.67
4.50
4.40
4.33
4.20
4.17
4.00
3.83
3.33
3.17
Diversity and Difference
Frequency
4
6
1
3
2
1
2
1
3
3
2
1
1
Competency 5:
Score
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Advance Human Rights and Social and Economic Justice
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
9
30.0
30.0
7
23.3
53.3
9
30.0
83.3
4
13.3
96.7
1
3.3
100.0
Competency 6:
Score
5.00
4.00
3.00
Engage in Research-Informed Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
16
53.3
53.3
13
43.3
96.7
1
3.3
100.0
Competency 7:
Score
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Apply Knowledge of Human Behavior and the Social Environment
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
10
33.3
33.3
6
20.0
53.3
8
26.7
80.0
4
13.3
93.3
2
6.7
100.0
Competency 8:
Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate for Policies that Advance Social WellBeing
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
12
40.0
40.0
5
16.7
56.7
6
20.0
76.7
Score
5.00
4.50
4.00
Percent
13.3
20.0
3.3
10.0
6.7
3.3
6.7
3.3
10.0
10.0
6.7
3.3
3.3
Cumulative Percent
13.3
33.3
36.7
46.7
53.3
56.7
63.3
66.7
76.7
86.7
93.3
96.7
100.0
236
3.50
3.00
Competency 9:
Score
5.00
4.67
4.33
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
6
1
20.0
3.3
Respond to Contexts that Shape Practice
Frequency
Percent
9
30.0
2
6.7
4
13.3
6
20.0
5
16.7
1
3.3
3
10.0
96.7
100.0
Cumulative Percent
30.0
36.7
50.0
70.0
86.7
90.0
100.0
Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and Evaluate Individuals, Families, Groups,
Organizations and Communities
Score
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
5.00
4
13.3
13.3
4.92
1
3.3
16.7
4.83
2
6.7
23.3
4.75
2
6.7
30.0
4.67
1
3.3
33.3
4.58
2
6.7
40.0
4.50
2
6.7
46.7
4.42
1
3.3
50.0
4.33
2
6.7
56.7
4.25
3
10.0
66.7
4.10
1
3.3
70.0
4.08
1
3.3
73.3
3.91
1
3.3
76.7
3.83
1
3.3
80.0
3.63
1
3.3
83.3
3.42
1
3.3
86.7
3.33
3
10.0
96.7
3.25
1
3.3
100.0
237
APPENDIX 9 - SUMMARY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR SRS RATINGS
Competency 1:
Score
4.750
4.500
4.375
4.250
2.875
2.625
Identify as a Professional Social Worker
Frequency
Percent
1
14.3
1
14.3
2
28.6
1
14.3
1
14.3
1
14.3
Cumulative Percent
14.3
28.6
57.1
71.4
85.7
100.0
Competency 2:
Score
4.83
4.67
4.17
3.33
2.83
Ethical Decision Making
Frequency
1
2
2
1
1
Percent
14.3
28.6
28.6
14.3
14.3
Cumulative Percent
14.3
42.9
71.4
85.7
100.0
Competency 3:
Score
4.50
4.30
4.00
3.90
3.40
3.20
3.10
Critical Thinking
Frequency
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Percent
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.3
Cumulative Percent
14.3
28.6
42.9
57.1
71.4
85.7
100.0
Competency 4:
Score
5.00
4.67
4.00
2.83
2.50
Diversity and Difference
Frequency
1
3
1
1
1
Percent
14.3
42.9
14.3
14.3
14.3
Cumulative Percent
14.3
57.1
71.4
85.7
100.0
Competency 5:
Score
4.80
4.00
3.80
3.40
2.60
Advance Human Rights and Social and Economic Justice
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
14.3
14.3
1
14.3
28.6
2
28.6
57.1
2
28.6
85.7
1
14.3
100.0
238
Competency 6:
Score
4.33
4.00
3.43
3.14
3.00
Competency 7:
Score
5.00
4.20
4.00
3.60
3.00
2.80
Competency 8:
Score
4.86
3.83
3.40
3.29
3.00
2.86
2.71
Competency 9:
Score
4.25
3.50
3.25
3.00
2.25
Engage in Research-Informed Practice and Practice-Informed Research
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
14.3
14.3
1
14.3
28.6
1
14.3
42.9
1
14.3
57.1
3
42.9
`100.0
Apply Knowledge of Human Behavior and the Social Environment
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
14.3
14.3
1
14.3
28.6
1
14.3
42.9
2
28.6
71.4
1
14.3
85.7
1
14.3
100.0
Analyze, Formulate, and Advocate for Policies that Advance Social WellBeing
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
1
14.3
14.3
1
14.3
28.6
1
14.3
42.9
1
14.3
57.1
1
14.3
71.4
1
14.3
85.7
1
14.3
100.0
Respond to Contexts that Shape Practice
Frequency
Percent
2
28.6
2
28.6
1
14.3
1
14.3
1
14.3
Cumulative Percent
28.6
57.1
71.4
85.7
100.0
Competency 10: Competency 10: Engage, Assess, Intervene, and Evaluate Individuals,
Families, Groups, Organizations and Communities
Score
Frequency
Percent
Cumulative Percent
4.41
1
14.3
14.3
3.95
1
14.3
28.6
3.53
1
14.3
42.9
3.25
1
14.3
57.1
239
3.15
2.80
2.60
1
1
1
14.3
14.3
14.3
71.4
85.7
100.0
240
APPENDIX 10 – REVISED SELF RATING SCALE FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF
GRADUATION (SRS)
Instructions for Self Rating on the 10 Competencies Associated with BSW Practice
(2012 Revision)
Please read carefully.
Having successfully completed the requirements of Juniata’s Social Work Program, including all
assignments and practical experiences [i.e., the SWP: I, F & SG lab and SWP:LG, O & C
project], as well as the Social Work Professional Semester in which you have had considerable
opportunity to apply previously learned social work knowledge, skills, and values, we ask that
you engage in honest personal reflection about your readiness to discharge your professional
social work responsibilities.
The 10 competencies that are specified in this evaluation are those established by our national
accrediting organization, the Council on Social Work Education. Under each competency
statement are a number of more discrete items that we ask that you rate according to the
following criteria:
5
4
3
2
1
n/a
I believe I excel in this area. It is among my greatest SW strengths.
I believe I exceed expectations for BSWs in this area
I believe I meet expectations for BSWs in this area
I believe I do not meet expectations in this area, but I believe I can meet expectations with additional
experience and supervision in the near future.
I believe I have not met expectations in this area, and I do not believe I can to meet expectations in this area
in the near future.
Not applicable, I have not had the opportunity to demonstrate competence in this area.
Comments may be made under any competency statement, if desired.
Important: Your self assessment on this evaluation is meant to provide outcomes information to
the Social Work Program. The assessment will in no way influence your grade in the Social
Work Professional Semester.
Competence #1: I identify as a professional social worker and conduct myself
accordingly.
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
I know the profession’s history
I have a commitment to enhancing the profession
I have a commitment to conducting myself as a professional
social worker
I have a commitment to career-long learning and growth
I advocate effectively for client access to the services of social work
I practice personal reflection and self-correction to assure continual
professional development
I attend well to professional roles and boundaries
I demonstrate professional demeanor in appearance
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
241
1.9
1.10
I demonstrate professional demeanor in communication
I use supervision and consultation effectively
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
Competence #2: I apply social work ethical principles to guide my professional practice.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
I am knowledgeable about the value base of the profession
I am knowledgeable of and abide by the ethical standards of
the profession
I am knowledgeable of and abide by laws relevant to social work
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
I recognize and manage personal values in a way that allows
my professional values to guide my practice (e.g., on such issues as
abortion and gay rights)
I tolerate well ambiguity in resolving ethical conflicts
I am able to apply strategies of ethical reasoning to arrive at principled
decisions
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
Competence #3: I apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional
judgments.
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
I am knowledgeable about the principles of logic and scientific inquiry
I am able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure
I am skilled in using critical thinking augmented by creativity and curiosity
I have good assessment skills
I have good problem-solving skills
I have good data gathering skills
I can analyze complex material well
I am skilled at appraising and integrating multiple sources of knowledge;
including research-based knowledge and practice wisdom
I am skilled at analyzing models of assessment, prevention, intervention,
and evaluation
I demonstrate effective oral communication in working with individuals,
families, groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues
I demonstrate effective written communication in working with
individuals, families, groups, organizations, communities, and colleagues
Competence #4:
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
I take diversity and difference into account in practice.
I treat diverse clients with dignity and respect
I am knowledgeable and respectful of clients who differ by such factors as
age, class, color, culture, disability, ethnicity, gender identity and
expression, immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and
sexual orientation
I recognize the extent to which a culture’s structures and values may
oppress, marginalize, alienate, or create or enhance privilege and power
I have sufficient self-awareness to eliminate the influence of personal
biases and values in working with diverse groups
I recognize and communicate my understanding of the importance of
difference in shaping life experiences
I view myself as a learner and engage those with whom I work [i.e., clients,
colleagues, etc.] as informants
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
242
Competence #5:
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
I advance human rights and social and economic justice.
I recognize that each person, regardless of position in society, has basic
human rights, such as freedom, safety, privacy, an adequate standard of
living, health care, and education
I recognize the global interconnections of oppression and am
knowledgeable about theories of justice and strategies to promote human
and civil rights
I understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination
I am skilled at advocating for human rights and social and economic justice
I am skilled at engaging in practices that advance social and economic
justice
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
Competence #6 : I engage in research-informed practice and practice-informed research.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
I am skilled at using practice experience to inform research
I am skilled at employing evidence-based interventions
I am skilled at evaluating my practice
I am skilled at using research findings to improve practice, policy, and
social service delivery
I comprehend quantitative research
I comprehend qualitative research
I understand scientific and ethical approaches to building knowledge
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
Competence #7: I apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment.
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
I am knowledgeable about human behavior across the life course
I am knowledgeable about the range of social systems in which people live
I am knowledgeable about the ways social systems promote or deter people
in maintaining or achieving health and well-being
I am skilled at applying theories and knowledge about biological variables,
social variables, cultural variables, psychological variables, and spiritual
development
I am skilled at utilizing conceptual frameworks to guide the processes of
assessment, intervention, and evaluation
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
na
na
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Competence #8: I engage in policy practice to advance social and economic well-being and
to deliver effective social work services.
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
I understand that policy affects service delivery
I actively engage in policy practice
I am knowledgeable about the history of social policies and services
I am knowledgeable about current social policies and services
I am knowledgeable about the role of practice in policy development
I am skilled at analyzing, formulating, and advocating for policies that
advance social well-being
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
243
8.7
I am skilled at collaborating with colleagues and clients for effective
policy action
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
2
3
4
5
na
Competence #9: I respond to contexts that shape practice.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
I am informed, resourceful, and proactive in responding to evolving
organizational, community, and societal contexts across all levels of
practice
I recognize that the context of practice is dynamic, and I have the
knowledge and skills to respond proactively
I am skilled at continuously discovering, appraising, and attending to
changing locales, populations, scientific and technological developments,
and emerging societal trends in order to provide relevant services
I am skilled at providing leadership in promoting sustainable changes in
service delivery and practice to improve the quality of social services
Competence #10: I engage, assess, intervene and evaluate with individuals, families,
groups, organizations, and communities.
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.10
10.11
10.12
10.13
10.14
10.15
10.16
10.17
10.18
10.19
10.20
10.21
I am skilled at identifying, analyzing, and implementing evidence-based
interventions designed to achieve client goals
I am skilled at using research and technological advances
I am skilled at evaluating program outcomes
I am skilled at evaluating the effectiveness of my social work practice
I am skilled at developing, analyzing, advocating, and providing
leadership for policies and services
I am skilled at promoting social and economic justice
I am skilled at engaging (developing a positive relationship) with
individuals
I am skilled at engaging families
I am skilled at engaging groups
I am skilled at engaging organizations
I am skilled at engaging communities
I am skilled at assessing individuals
I am skilled at assessing families
I am skilled at assessing groups
I am skilled at assessing organizations
I am skilled at assessing communities
I am skilled at providing effective services to individuals
I am skilled at providing effective services to families
I am skilled at providing effective services to groups
I am skilled at providing effective services to organizations
I am skilled at providing effective services to communities
1
2
3
4
5
na
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
na
na
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Acknowledgement: With many thanks to our colleague Charles Zastrow, Ph.D., Professor of Social Work at George Williams College of Aurora
University for developing the template from which this evaluation is derived.