Gender Proportions by Race/Ethnicity of: Kids in Care, New MSW hires, New Supervisors
15
Gender Disproportionality among Social Workers: What are the Implications for Training? Susan Jacquet & Amy Benton CalSWEC With assistance from Cindy Parry Presented May 21, 2009 at the 12 th Annual National Human Services Training Evaluation Symposium, Berkeley, CA.
-
Upload
mikayla-valenzuela -
Category
Documents
-
view
14 -
download
2
description
Gender Disproportionality among Social Workers: What are the Implications for Training? Susan Jacquet & Amy Benton CalSWEC With assistance from Cindy Parry Presented May 21, 2009 at the 12 th Annual National Human Services Training Evaluation Symposium, Berkeley, CA. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Gender Proportions by Race/Ethnicity of: Kids in Care, New MSW hires, New Supervisors
Gender Disproportionality among Social Workers: What are the
Implications for Training?
Susan Jacquet & Amy BentonCalSWEC
With assistance from Cindy Parry
Presented May 21, 2009 at the 12th Annual National Human Services Training Evaluation Symposium, Berkeley, CA.
Gender Proportions by Race/Ethnicity of:Kids in Care, New MSW hires, New Supervisors
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups Kids
In
Care
MSWs Sups
Asian/ Pacific Is. Black Caucasian Hispanic/ Latino Nativ e American Total
MaleFemale
Retention Percentages of IV-E MSWsBy Gender and Race
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Female
n=282
Male
n=41
Female
n=41
Male
n=4
Female
n=144
Male
n=53
Female
n=553
Male
n=96
Female
n=459
Male
n=95
Female
n=92
Male
n=12
Female
n=1571
Male
n=301
African
American
n=323
American
Indian n=45
Asian
American**
n=197
Caucasian
n=649
Hispanic/
Latino*
n=554
Other/Mix ed
n=104
Total N=1872
LeaversStayers
*p < .10, **p < .05.
MSW Student Practice Preference Means by GenderN = 6056 (Female n = 5064, Male n = 992)
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Clinical * Management & Planning ** Direct Services **
Female
Male
* p < .05, ** p < .001
MSW Student Career Aspiration Means by GenderN = 6056 (Female n = 5064, Male n = 992)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Career Advancement ** Service to Others **
Female
Male
* p < .05, ** p < .001
Knowledge Pre & Post Test Mean Scores by Gender
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
Pre ** Post ** Pre ** Post ** Pre *** Post *** Post **
Placement andPermanency
Case Planning Child and YouthDevelopment
Assessment
Female
Male
** p < .01, ** p < .001
Kolb’s Model of Experiential LearningWith Gender Tendencies
Gendered Learning/Teaching Characteristics
Women MenIntuition Rationalism
Personal Knowledge ObjectivityConnectedness IndividuationContextualism Conceptualization
Inductive Deductive Mutual understanding ImpartialityResponsibility & Care FairnessConcrete Examples Abstraction
Rapport Report
Incongruous Findings
• On use of evidence, three studies indicated that males scored higher. Two studies showed no difference.
• Generally lower scores for women on the Abstract Conceptualization scale, however younger women were more abstract than younger men. (Age effect or cohort effect?)
Questions for Discussion
• How would we describe child welfare training curricula?
• Is it by nature more concrete than abstract?
Questions for Discussion (cont’d)
• We provided data on gender differences in training evaluation.
• Have other evaluators noticed similar or different results?
Questions for Discussion (cont’d)
• What do we think leads to these differences in training outcomes?
• Could there be affective reactions to gender of group majority and trainer that influence outcomes along with learning style preferences?
Questions for Discussion (cont’d)
• What should we (as training evaluators) look at next?
• What would we like to understand better in regards to gender and training?
• Any other thoughts?
Questions for Discussion (cont’d)
Contact Information
• Susan Jacquet – [email protected]
• Amy Benton – [email protected]
• Cindy Parry - [email protected]
