Social Work Education and Research: Are Undergraduate Programs Meeting Standards?

Background and Purpose: The Council on Social Work Education's Accreditation Standards (EPAS 2008) have been criticized for their failure to foster the advancement of social work research (Stoesz & Karger, 2009; Sowers & Dulmus, 2009; Feldman, 2009). Critics have alleged that minimal standards result in lower quality programs (Feldman, 2009) and that low numbers of faculty in baccalaureate programs contributes to poor quality of social work education (Thyer, 2009) and a failure to develop necessary research skills among social work graduates. Efforts to establish consistent and reliable achievement of outcomes remains a challenge in the accreditation process. The inclusion of significant content on Research was specified under EPAS 2001. An analysis of social work educational programs' accreditation determinations reviewed the final three years of Commission on Accreditation (COA) actions under EPAS 2001. Educational Policy 4.6 (Research) and Accreditation Standards 8.0 and 8.1 (Program Assessment and Continuous Improvement) were selected as key indicators of program compliance with the presence of research content in the curriculum and the use of assessment data to improve programs. If criticisms are accurate, then baccalaureate programs would be more likely to receive negative decisions in these areas, and small programs with only two full time faculty would be more likely to receive citations related to those standards.

Methods: A systematic review examined redacted data for all 188 COA decisions made between February, 2007 and October, 2009. Program information included program level (baccalaureate, master's, or both baccalaureate and master's), program size, and the specific standards cited for non-compliance. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis of the key variables (program level, size, and accreditation decisions based on 3 key standards) were used to illustrate an elaboration model.

Results: The study period included 126 baccalaureate, 30 master's and 33 combined (both baccalaureate and master's) programs. Non-compliance related to standard 4.6 (Research) was evident for 27% of the programs reviewed (N=51), including 33% of all baccalaureate programs (N=42), 16% of all master's programs (N=5) and 12% of all combined programs (N=4). In the combined programs, non-compliance was noted in both program levels. 77% of all programs (N=144) were cited for non-compliance with the standard 8.1 on assessment, and 60% of programs (N=113) were cited for non-compliance with standard 8.0. Mulitvariate analysis using an elaboration model illustrates that baccalaureate programs were more often cited for non-compliance related to research content, yet in repeat adverse decisions, only 3 programs were cited for non-compliance related to research: 1 baccalaureate and 2 master's programs. Program size was not significant.

Conclusions and Implications: Baccalaureate programs were less able to articulate their delivery of required Research content; however, baccalaureate, master's and combined programs have been equally deficient in meeting standards related to program evaluation and assessment of outcomes. Baccalaureate programs were relatively more successful in meeting standards for program evaluation, and program size was not a significant indicator, suggesting that even when resources are limited, baccalaureate faculty are engaged in using evidence to inform and improve program outcomes. Implications for program assessment under EPAS 2008 are suggested.