A National Survey of Efforts to Promote Evidence-Based Social Work Practice through Partnerships Between Universities and Community-Based Agencies

Background and Purpose: Evidence-based practice (EBP) and empirically supported interventions (ESI) have received widespread endorsement of their value and potential to improve social work practice. Nevertheless, the gap between research and practice has proven so stubbornly persistent that the Institute of Medicine (2006) has characterized it as a chasm. As a result, most social work clients are unlikely to benefit from research knowledge or best available practices in a timely manner, which translates into a costly burden for individuals, families, and communities (Mechanic & Bidler, 2004; Michaud, Murray, & Bloom, 2001). Partnerships between schools of social work and community agencies to promote EBP/ESI offer a promising solution to this problem. Although partnerships between schools and agencies to support EBP have been implemented (McCracken & Corrigan, 2004; Bellamy, & Bledsoe, Mullen et al, 2008), little is known about these efforts, including barriers to and promoters of successful EBP partnership models. To address this gap we sought to answer the following question: What is the frequency, variety, and nature of partnerships between schools of social work and agencies to promote EBP in social work practice?

Methods: We conducted an exploratory national web-based survey of CSWE-accredited schools of social work (N=196; response rate > 70%). Survey development was based on preliminary findings from an extensive literature review and guided content analysis of a random sample of 40 school websites. Deans and directors of all CSWE-accredited schools of social work received email invitations to participate in the survey, along with a link and password for the survey website. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted using SPSS 18.

Results: The most common EBP partnership efforts included individual faculty members conducting EBP research in partnership with agencies (82.11%); partnerships with field placement agencies to provide student training in EBP (77.42%); and school export of EBP-related resources (71.54%). Only 40% of schools endorsed school-wide coordinated EBP partnership efforts. Obstacles to university-agency EBP partnerships included: time (70.25%); funding (80.67%); and limited agency resources (85.71%). Schools with doctoral programs were more likely to endorse having school-wide coordinated partnership efforts to promote EBP [Wald F(1,8)=6.983, p<.01] and ESI [Wald F (1,8)=5.210, p<.05]. The odds that schools with doctoral programs would endorse school-wide EBP partnership efforts were 3.79 times higher than schools without doctoral programs. The odds that schools with doctoral programs would endorse school-wide ESI partnership efforts were 3.24 times higher than schools without doctoral programs.

Conclusion and Implications: Schools are endorsing efforts to engaging in EBP partnerships with agencies, but encounter stubborn barriers that influence the scope and nature of these efforts. Having a doctoral program is strongly correlated with endorsing school wide efforts to promote EBP and ESI through university-agency partnerships. Having a doctoral program may indicate increased access to resources critical for supporting school-wide EBP-related efforts. Future research should explore the nature of resources that having a doctoral program may represent. Addressing barriers and building on schools' current efforts may lead to stronger university-agency EBP partnerships in and ultimately to better client outcomes.