UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Utilization of manpower at children's aid society of Vancouver, B.C. Adams, Robert L. 1967

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1967_A5 A3.pdf [ 5.49MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104414.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104414-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104414-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104414-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104414-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104414-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104414-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104414-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104414.ris

Full Text

UTILIZATION OF MANPOWER AT CHILDREN1S AID SOCIETY OF VANCOUVER, B.C. by Robert L. Adams Dianne G. Bunting 01 ga M. Dekler Linda R. Korbin John C. Snyder Fr a n c i s W. Winters Thesis submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of the Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK i n the School.of S o c i a l Work We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required, standard The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia - May, 1967 i i ABSTRACT This study was prompted by a s t a f f - s h o r t a g e c r i s i s i n S o c i a l Work. Because i t i s apparent that t h i s manpower c r i s i s cannot be a l l e v i a t e d by an increase i n p r o f e s s i o n a l recruitment, methods must be found by which to u t i l i z e e f f e c t i v e l y persons without p r o f e s s i o n a l stand-ing . Our assumptions i n t h i s study, t h e r e f o r e , are f i r s t l y , that tasks p r e s e n t l y performed by p r o f e s s i o n a l l y - t r a i n e d s o c i a l workers can be cat-egorized according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a and secondly, that these tasks can 'then be assigned to various l e v e l s of s t a f f , both p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l . This study deals w i t h the former assumption, the l a t t e r assumption w i l l be l e f t to f u r t h e r research. The agency from which our study was>idrawn was the Children's Ai d S o c i e t y of Vancouver, B.C. The s p e c i f i c area of study i n the agency was Services to C h i l d r e n - i n - C a r e . As c r i t e r i a f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g tasks we chose "worker autonomy" and. "task complexity". In essence these are, r e s p e c t i v e l y , the f u n c t i o n i n g of the worker i n r e l a t i o n to h i s i n t e r n a l -i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l standards, and the r e l a t i v e amount of a c t i v i t y inherent i n a task. We then devised a l i s t of tasks which we presented to a random sample of l i n e workers, with the major aim of determining whether or not the tasks were a c t u a l l y performed. The l i s t of tasks was r e v i s e d on suggestions from the respondents and presented a second time. This i n d i -cated the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e nature of the t a s k s . In order to r a t e each task as to i t s degree of complexity and the degree of autonomy required by a worker to perform i t , we s e l e c t e d twelve judges at random s i x from Children's A i d S o c i e t y S t a f f and s i x from a l i s t s upplied by the B r i t i s h Columbia A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers. The judges rated each task on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e f o r each of our two c r i t e r -In a n a l y z i n g the data we were concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h the degree of agreement among the judges as to t h e i r r a t i n g s of each task on the two c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". ( \ • Our f i n d i n g s showed a high percentage of agreement among judges) on both c r i t e r i a f o r most tasks. . This i n d i c a t e s that the m a j o r i t y of tasks can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d . The f i n d i n g s a l s o showed a high degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p between "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" -- that i s , i f a task was judged h i g h l y autonomous i t was u s u a l l y a l s o judged h i g h l y complex. This p o i n t s to the p o s s i b l e redundancy of the second c r i t e r i o n , "task complexity". In other woras, i t appears that "worker autonomy" may be the important measuring instrument by which tasks can be d i f f e r e n t -i a t e d i n order to be assigned to personnel of d i f f e r i n g competence. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: I n t r o d u c t i o n Summary Statement of the Problem P. 1 Persons or Groups Concerned w i t h the Problem . P. 2 A l t e r n a t i v e S o l u t i o n to the Problem.••. P. 4 Methods of Researching the-Problem • P. 6 The Purpose and Scope of the Research P. 8 O u t l i n e of the Study Report P. 9 Chapter I I : Review of the L i t e r a t u r e C r i t e r i a Provided f o r Task C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . . P. 11 Levels of P o s i t i o n s and Their D i s t i n g u i s h i n g Factors P. 17 a. Eight Levels of P o s i t i o n s P. 18 b. Non-professional Worker P. 19 c. Four Levels of P o s i t i o n s P. 20 d. Three Levels of P o s i t i o n s P. 22 e. Two Levels of P o s i t i o n s P. 22 Models of Work Assignment P. 24 a. Use of Less Q u a l i f i e d Person P. 24 b. Streaming P. 25 c. Team Approach P- 27 Methods of E v a l u a t i o n P. 30 Chapter I I I : Study Design Purpose of the Study P. 34 C r i t e r i a For C l a s s i f y i n g Tasks and Ra t i o n a l e f o r Choosing C r i t e r i a P. 36 Level of Research Design P. 39 Sampling Procedures P. 41 Data C o l l e c t i o n ... P. 44 Chapter IV: Study Findings I n t r o d u c t i o n P. 47 Problems i n Sampling and Data C o l l e c t i o n P. 47 Data A n a l y s i s P. 48 R e l a t i o n s h i p between Ratings of. Autonomy and Ratings of Complexity P . 55 Summary of Study Findings P. 60 i v Chapter V: I m p l i c a t i o n s , Proposals and Summary I m p l i c a t i o n s of the Study P. 62 Proposals f o r Further Research P. 63 Summary of the Study . ..." P. 65 B i b l i o g r a p h y P. 73 Appendices: A. Summary of Experience Survey P. 76 B. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Workers P. 77 C. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Judges P. 78 D. L i s t of tasks w i t h Judges' r a t i n g s on Autonomy and Complexity P. 7 9 E. Comparison of Modal Agreements on a F i v e - P o i n t Scale P. 89 F. Comparison of Modal Agreements on a Three-Point Scale P. 91 G. Categories of Tasks f o r Autonomy and Complexity Using the Three-Point R a t i n g Scale f o r Each Level of Agreement P. 93 H. Tasks Showing Percent Agreement f o r Selected Combinations of Autonomy and Complexity Ratings P. 95 J . Percent Agreement, Using a Three-Point Scale Formed by Combining R a t i n g Levels 2, 3 and 4, f o r those Tasks which Rated<607<> on the Three-Point Scale Formed by Combining Levels 1 and 2 and Levels 4 and 5 P. 96 K. Percent Agreement, Using a Three-Point Scale Formed by Combining R a t i n g Levels 2, 3 and 4, f o r those Tasks which Rated<607„ on the Three-Point Scale Formed by Combining Levels 1 and 2 and Levels 4 and 5 P. 97 LIST OF TABLES ' Table I Percent Agreement on Autonomy and Complexity of Tasks Using F i v e - P o i n t Scale and Three-Point Scale. P. 50 Table I I Percent Agreement f o r Selected Combinations of Autonomy and Complexity Ratings P. 57 Table I I I R a t i n g Level and Percent Agreement f o r Tasks wit h no Appreciable Degree of R e l a t i o n s h i p P. 59 LIST OF GRAPHS Graph I Histogram I l l u s t r a t i n g Percent Agreement on Autonomy and Complexity Using F i v e - P o i n t Scale P. 51 Graph 2 Histogram I l l u s t r a t i n g Percent Agreement on Autonomy and Complexity using Three-Point Scale P. 51 Graph 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Modal Ratings f o r Tasks w i t h High R e l a t i o n s h i p P. 56 V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would l i k e to acknowledge the co-operation we received from the s t a f f of The Children's A i d S o c i e t y who a s s i s t e d i n h e l p i n g us formulate our task schedules. We appreciate the help given us by the judges chosen f o r our study, who w i l l i n g l y gave of t h e i r time to r a t e our tasks. S p e c i a l g r a t i t u d e i s due to Mrs. I . Smith of the Children's A i d S o c i e t y , whose splendid co-operation i s g r e a t l y appreciated and to Mrs. M. Jones of Vancouver C i t y College f o r her kind a s s i s t a n c e . To Dr. John Crane, our Research A d v i s e r , we are indeed indebted f o r h i s i n v a l u a b l e guidance, h i s enthusiasm and h i s sense of humour, which gave us the impetus to see our p r o j e c t through. UTILIZATION OF MANPOWER AT CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF VANCOUVER, B.C. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION SUMMARY STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM One of the major problems in the f i e l d of social welfare is the acute shortage of personnel to adequately carry out the functions of the profession as they are being recognized and put into practice at the present time. This is not a problem of recent origin. However, i t has currently reached new heights as a result of several factors, including the develop-ment of new programs (such as the war on poverty),, an increasing awareness of gaps in services,and a growing recognition that a l l tasks presently being performed by social workers do not require professional education. Since i t has become obvious that the manpower gap cannot be met in the foreseeable future by any increase in professional recruitment, a new method of u t i l i z i n g the available personnel must be found. At the present time, many agencies find they are having to use staff who lack professional education in the capacity of diagnostic and intensive treatment workers. At the other end of the continuum, in these same agencies, professionally educated people are often being utilized for such tasks as driving children to and from medical appointments, in addition to their intensive casework interviews. Thus, there is a definite need for a more adequate differentiation of tasks in terms of the qualifications of those performing them. Such an allocation should serve to insure maximum benefits to the client and minimum cost to the agency. The Vancouver Children's Aid Society is currently facing this dilemma - of how to most effectively use the number of both professional and non-professional personnel they have in their employ. With the recent addition of eight welfare aides to this agency, the problem of task a l l o c a t i o n has become a c r u c i a l issue to the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the p r a c t i -t i o n e r s . At present there appear to be no c r i t e r i a f o r u t i l i z i n g the welfare aides to t h e i r maximum p o t e n t i a l . I t i s a l s o evident that there has been no adequate c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the tasks to be performed. PERSONS OR GROUPS CONCERNED WITH THE PROBLEM The p o l i c y makers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are very much a f f e c t e d by the shortage of workers f o r they must not only determine the community's needs and s e r v i c e s but they must a l s o estimate a c c u r a t e l y the number of personnel needed. They are r e q u i r e d to do more than f i l l each vacant p o s i t i o n - they must make v a l i d job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . There i s an i n t e r r e l a t e d connection between p o l i c y making and manpower problems f o r the main de t e r r e n t to development of new s o c i a l programs i s o f t e n the lack of personnel. As Schwartz (32) and Meyer (20) argue, there i s a need f o r c o n t i n u a l feedback of research on manpower to p o l i c y makers. Ho p e f u l l y , the r e s u l t s of t h i s t h e s i s w i l l o f f e r guidance to those at an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l w i t h regard to how the p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional worker can be most advantageously used i n s u p p lying agency s e r v i c e s . The p r a c t i t i o n e r s of c l i e n t s e r v i c e methods, ( i . e . the workers) at the C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y are e q u a l l y concerned about the shortage of manpower. The workers p e r c e i v e themselves as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the agency and look to the agency to set up a system whereby they know q u i t e c l e a r l y what d u t i e s they are to perform w i t h regard to t h e i r v a r i o u s l e v e l s of competence. On the whole, they appear concerned that they are not making maximum use of s t a f f time i n productive d i r e c t work with c l i e n t e l e which they f e e l should occupy top p r i o r i t y . F r u s t r a t i o n and confusion a r i s e as a r e s u l t of heavy caseloads (averaging between 125-130; on a general caseload) and the worker having to decide as to whether q u a n t i t y or q u a l i t y should be s t r e s s e d w i t h respect to performing t h e i r d u t i e s . I f e i t h e r of these f a c t o r s i s emphasized at the expense of the other then the r e c i p i e n t s of s e r v i c e s u f f e r . Having these problems i n mind, we a n t i c i p a t e that t h i s study w i l l produce f i n d i n g s which may be a p p l i c a b l e to the problems of the workers and that some of the f r u s t r a t i o n and confusion might be e l i m i n a t e d . The u l t i m a t e goal of s o c i a l work i s to enable the c l i e n t , through one technique and/or another to discover and u t i l i z e h i s p o t e n t i a l s t r e n g t h . While the c l i e n t e l e might not always f u l l y recognize the c o n t r i b u t i o n of a caseworker, so long as they are able to a t t a i n the s e r v i c e s of e f f i c i e n t workers to help them i n t h i s process, they d e f i n i t e l y become aware of problems when s e r v i c e s which they seek are not being met f o r one reason or another. As a r e s u l t of the shortage of workers, the f a s t turnover of s t a f f , or the u t i l i z a t i o n of undertrained workers, the c l i e n t s can be l e f t v u l n e r a b l e and could very w e l l s u f f e r . Therefore, i t i s to t h e i r advantage, and the b e n e f i t of the agency image, that c o n s i d e r a t i o n be given and study be embarked upon as to how d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s t a f f can best be u t i l i z e d . The p u b l i c at l a r g e s u f f e r when f o r one reason or another adequate welfare s e r v i c e s are not being rendered to p a r t i c u l a r segments of t h e i r p o p u l a t i o n . I n d i r e c t l y , the p u b l i c pays f o r both adequate and inadequate s e r v i c e s as w e l l as f o r the r e s u l t s of inadequate s e r v i c e s . To pay f o r adequate s e r v i c e i s by f a r the most b e n e f i c i a l f o r a l l concerned, both to the p u b l i c i n general and the c l i e n t e l e i n p a r t i c u l a r . The l a c k of coverage of s e r v i c e s cannot be ignored f o r with the i n c r e a s i n g demand f o r welfare s e r v i c e s and wit h t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g cost, the p u b l i c i s concerned that the best p o s s i b l e s e r v i c e s be a v a i l a b l e . F i n a l l y , the problem of the manpower shortage i s a l s o of concern to researchers f o r at present they are being c a l l e d upon to provide answers to the problem. This p r o j e c t i s expected to produce f i n d i n g s which w i l l determine the amount of judgment and autonomy required of a worker to f u l f i l l p a r t i c u l a r t a s k s . These f i n d i n g s should be u s e f u l i n the planning of t r a i n i n g programs f o r welfare aides, such as programs at Vancouver C i t y C o l l e g e , Vancouver; Brandon College, Brandon, Manitoba; Nova S c o t i a I n s t i t u t e of Technology, H a l i f a x , Nova S c o t i a ; and, Ryerson Technical I n s t i t u t e , Toronto, O n t a r i o . The f i n d i n g s should a l s o be of i n t e r e s t to undergraduate departments and graduate schools of s o c i a l work i n s e t t i n g up t h e i r courses, and f o r c h i l d w e l f are s e t t i n g s s i m i l a r to the Children's A i d S o c i e t y . I f a common c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme of tasks i s workable at the Children's A i d S o c i e t y , then s i m i l a r ones might very w e l l be formulated at other welfare agencies and t h i s would f a c i l i t a t e interagency c o o r d i n a t i o n of the use of welfare aides. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM I t would appear that there may be s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s to the manpower problem other than o b t a i n i n g more p r o f e s s i o n a l l y educated i n d i v i -d uals. While a more extensive recruitment f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g i s one d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y , i t seems obvious that the demand f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel already exceeds the number that can be t r a i n e d w i t h i n the present school s t r u c t u r e s . I f i t i s not f e a s i b l e to expect s u f f i c i e n t numbers of p r o f e s s i o n -a l l y t r a i n e d personnel to be a v a i l a b l e , one a l t e r n a t i v e , as i n d i c a t e d above, would seem to be the use of non-professional s t a f f i n some tasks p r e s e n t l y performed by those w i t h graduate s o c i a l work education. In t h i s area three methods become obvious. At the present time, a l l three of these methods are being employed i n v a r y i n g p a r t s of North America. The f i r s t , that of i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , seems to be the most e x t e n s i v e l y used by v a r i o u s agencies and Departments of Welfare. This method however, i s l i k e l y to be i n e f f e c t i v e unless r e l a t e d to c l e a r l y defined l e v e l s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . A l s o i t i s open to a great deal of c r i t i c i s m s i n c e i t o f f e r s l i t t l e more than a p e r i o d of o r i e n t a t i o n . The i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n e d personnel are o f t e n given caseloads equivalent to those of the p r o f e s s i o n a l l y educated s t a f f , which can r e s u l t i n a tendency to d r i v e out the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f who are seeking agencies that w i l l give r e c o g n i t i o n to t h e i r q u a l i f i c a -t i o n s . The second method of u t i l i z i n g non-professional s t a f f i s that of employing i n d i v i d u a l s who have completed a v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g course that would provide them w i t h the competence required f o r performing tasks at a l e v e l d i f f e r e n t from that of the p r o f e s s i o n a l l y educated workers. Under these c o n d i t i o n s i t would seem that a w e l l defined r o l e should e x i s t f o r such job p o s i t i o n s . However, at the present time, there does not seem to be any such d e f i n i t i o n . A major question a r i s e s here - what i s the l e v e l of competency f o r which t h i s group i s being trained? The t h i r d method i s an undergraduate sequence i n s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g . This type of non-professional c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r a i s e s the same question - what p a r t i c u l a r tasks are these i n d i v i d u a l s competent to perform. A second p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n to the manpower shortage i s s o c i a l a c t i o n i n terms of i n i t i a t i n g p o l i t i c a l and economic reform that w i l l reduce the number of c l i e n t s now being served. T h i s , however, i s a long range plan that w i l l l i k e l y only occur on a "piece-meal" b a s i s . Because such a plan can only take place over a long period of time, and because the manpower problem has reached a c r i s i s l e v e l , t h i s s o l u t i o n would not a l l e v i a t e the immediate need. I t i s a l s o a d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t y that t h i s type of reform would serve to f u r t h e r a r t i c u l a t e the needs of s o c i e t y , thus i n c r e a s i n g the manpower problem, r a t h e r than a l l e v i a t i n g i t . A t h i r d p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n would e n t a i l a more extensive use of v o l u n t e e r s . T h i s , however, r a i s e s such p r a c t i c a l questions as where a s u f f i c i e n t number of volunteers could be obtained. A l s o the l e v e l of competence of these i n d i v i d u a l s would once again become an important issue f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A f o u r t h p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n would be a re-examination of current s o c i a l work p r a c t i c e s to determine the v a l i d i t y of the r o l e as i t i s present-l y being c a r r i e d out. Under such a r e - e v a l u a t i o n i t may be discovered that much of what i s c u r r e n t l y being done, could more adequately be c a r r i e d out by another p r o f e s s i o n or p o s s i b l y even e l i m i n a t e d . However, as with the second suggested s o l u t i o n , i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e that such a re-examination may lead to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p r e v i o u s l y unrecognised needs and con-sequently new tasks f o r s o c i a l workers to perform. METHODS OF RESEARCHING THE PROBLEM From the foregoing, i t i s evident that the most e f f i c i e n t method of a l l e v i a t i n g the manpower problem would be that of u t i l i z i n g the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l worker at h i s own l e v e l of competence. However, as pointed out e a r l i e r , very l i t t l e has been done i n terms of d e f i n i n g the functions of the n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l . I t i s then, i n t h i s frame of reference that research must be i n i t i a t e d . I n order to adequately research t h i s problem, a d e c i s i o n must be made as to whether the major focus w i l l be on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme r e l a t i n g to cases or the i n d i v i d u a l tasks that comprise the cases. Focus-ing, on i n d i v i d u a l cases or "case streaming" has r e c e n t l y been attempted i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme would n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e an extremely thorough assessment and diagnosis of each case p r i o r to a s s i g n -i n g i t to.a worker. Consequently, researching such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n method would i n v o l v e o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n f o r a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of every conceivable type of case. These cases would then, have to be rated according to. a predetermined c r i t e r i a of "case type". With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n the cases could then be assigned to workers of various l e v e l s of competence. 7. Case streaming, to be e f f e c t i v e i mplies c l a s s i f i c a t i o n according to many v a r i a b l e s . Because these v a r i a b l e s themselves, have not been d e f i n i t e l y i s o l a t e d , problems could be a n t i c i p a t e d i n terms of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of very s u b t l e p o i n t s . Other problems that could be expected would i n v o l v e the r e l i a b i l i t y of the d i a g n o s t i c t o o l employed. The r e p o r t e d l y unimpressive r e s u l t s i n B r i t i s h Columbia's attempt at case streaming, may i n p a r t , be due to these very important f a c t s . A l s o B r i t i s h Columbia's r e s u l t s may be a f f e c t e d by the l a r g e caseloads that are c a r r i e d by most workers. Because "A" cases r e q u i r e i n t e n s i v e treatment, the caseloads must be l i m i t e d to permit each worker adequate time w i t h the c l i e n t s he has. Because there i s no c o n t r o l on intake t h i s i s not always p o s s i b l e , thus l i m i t i n g the e f f e c t s of the case streaming method. C u r r e n t l y then, i n c o r r e c t d i a g n o s i s , i n a d d i t i o n to heavy caseloads, are o f t e n r e s u l t i n g i n the i n a p p r o p r i a t e assignment of cases. In a d d i t i o n , as the p r e s e n t i n g problem i s being "worked on", i t may become obvious that there are other, more deeply rooted problems that would have a f f e c t e d the diagnosis and consequently the assignment of the case had they been known at the time of the assessment. A l s o i t should be pointed out that cases do not remain s t a t i c . What appeared appropriate f o r one l e v e l of competence at the time of assessment, may, at a l a t e r date r e q u i r e s e r v i c e s from another l e v e l of worker. The other a l t e r n a t i v e , that of "task streaming", would appear to e l i m i n a t e many of these problems and a l l o w the assignment of the v a r i o u s tasks w i t h i n the case, to personnel competent to perform them. With such a scheme f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , once a task has been c l a s s i f i e d , an appropriate person could be designated, according to h i s l e v e l of competence, to c a r r y out t h i s type of task f o r many cases. To adequately carry out t h i s type of research, a l l tasks to be performed would have to be i d e n t i f i e d and d e f i n e d , then d i f f e r e n t i a t e d 8. according to the c r i t e r i a , and on the b a s i s of t h i s r a t i n g could be assigned to e i t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l or non-professional s t a f f . I t would appear that t h i s would be the most expedient method of r e s e a r c h i n g the use of non-professional personnel i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l w e l f a r e , and could r e s u l t i n the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of the present task a l l o c a -t i o n i n the f i e l d i n general, and at Vancouver Children's A i d s p e c i f i c a l l y . THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH The purpose of t h i s research study i s to determine the extent to which tasks can be c l a s s i f i e d by using the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme r e l a t e d to "task streaming" as was discussed above. In order to achieve our goal we f i r s t developed a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the f u n c t i o n s of the agency caseworkers. The p a r t i c u l a r area upon which the study w i l l focus i s that of the tasks performed r e l a t i n g to c h i l d r e n , both ward and non-ward, who are i n f o s t e r homes. We r e a l i z e that t h i s i s one very small segment as compared to the whole area of c h i l d care, however time does not permit a f u l l study of the general caseload. We chose t h i s p a r t i c u l a r segment because we f e l t i t i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of areas where workers of a l l l e v e l s of competence can be used. We compiled a l i s t of tasks performed by the workers, had i t tested f o r one week by f i f t e e n workers of v a r i o u s l e v e l s of competence who were picked by random sample. F o l l o w i n g t h i s , a f t e r c l a r i f y i n g the tasks and r e v i s i n g our instrument, by i n c o r p o r a t -in g the workers' suggestions, i t was once more tested f o r one week. Again the instrument was r e v i s e d p r i o r to being given to the judges f o r ranking. These tasks were ranked according to task complexity and the degree of worker autonomy required i n performance of the t a s k s . For the purposes of the reader, task complexity r e f e r s to the number of operations ( d i v e r s e a c t i v i t i e s or types of information required i n performing a task) inherent i n the s i n g l e task, ranging from l e a s t complex (a s i n g l e operation) to most 9. complex (many o p e r a t i o n s ) , and worker autonomy r e f e r s to the r e l a t i v e l ack of ex t e r n a l guides and e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s upon the behaviour of the worker, who fun c t i o n s according to h i s i n t e r n a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l standards, derived from p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, e t h i c s and c o n t r o l s . For f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n on these two c r i t e r i a , please see Chapter I I I . These rankings w i l l be defined at two or more l e v e l s of r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y which may be assumed by we l f a r e aides. E v e n t u a l l y , the whole program w i l l be assessed w i t h the e f f e c t s of the assignment of welfare aide to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of agency s e r v i c e to the i n d i v i d u a l cases. While there are many areas the study could have explored i n terms of c l i e n t s e r v i c e and a c t i v i t y , and/or worker a c t i v i t y , we chose the l a t t e r , f o r e v a l u a t i n g j o i n t l y both the c l i e n t and the worker would not be productive at t h i s time, owing to the f a c t that they would not only need to be studied s e p a r a t e l y (7) but the time involved i n doing so would be beyond the scope of t h i s group. The approach of t h i s group then i s to i d e n t i f y and evaluate the s o c i a l work tasks p e r t a i n i n g to ward or non-ward care i n f o s t e r homes. These tasks w i l l be rated both as to t h e i r complexity and the degree of worker autonomy re q u i r e d to perform them. This t h e s i s w i l l be completed i n two phases. In t h i s , the f i r s t phase of the study, we w i l l l i m i t ourselves to the l i s t i n g and r a t i n g of the tasks i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to the two c r i t e r i a : complexity and autonomy. In the second phase, studies w i l l center on how d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of personnel can best be used with the Children's A i d Soc i e t y to ca r r y out the d i f f e r e n t t a s k s . OUTLINE OF THE STUDY REPORT This research study has been organized i n the f o l l o w i n g way: Chapter I I , e n t i t l e d , "Review of the L i t e r a t u r e " , i s a d i s c u s s i o n of previous 10. research r e l a t i v e to the u t i l i z a t i o n of manpower as i t p e r t a i n s to our p a r t i c u l a r study. The w r i t i n g s and a r t i c l e s are p r i m a r i l y d e s c r i p t i v e w i t h respect to t h i s t o p i c and only a l i m i t e d amount i s w r i t t e n regarding a c t u a l research r e s u l t s (see Chapter I I , "Methods of E v a l u a t i o n " ) . Chapter I I I , e n t i t l e d "Study Design" describes the framework employed i n the study, the assumption, the l e v e l of design, sampling procedures and methods of gathering data. Chapter IV, e n t i t l e d "Study F i n d i n g s " deals w i t h d e s c r i p t i v e data on the study sample, the problems encountered i n sampling and data c o l l e c t i o n , the m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n study design and the f i n d i n g s on study questions. In Chapter V, e n t i t l e d , "Summary and Conclusions", i s contained the summary of the major f i n d i n g s of the study f o r those concerned w i t h the problem plus the recommendations f o r u s i n g the f i n d i n g s as w e l l as the proposals f o r f u r t h e r research i n the f i e l d of p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional workers. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE As a r e s u l t of the shortage of t r a i n e d personnel w i t h i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l work, numerous a r t i c l e s have been w r i t t e n f o r m u l a t i n g plans to improve the present s i t u a t i o n . Considering the p a r t i c u l a r problems f a c i n g agencies w i t h regard to optimum use of a v a i l a b l e manpower, i t i s the purpose of t h i s chapter to review the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t to t h i s t o p i c . This w i l l be approached i n terms of l o o k i n g at ( 1 ) what c r i t e r i a are provided f o r task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , (2) what l e v e l s of s o c i a l work tasks are designated, (3) what are the a l t e r n a t i v e models of work assignment, and (4) e v a l u a t i o n procedures. CRITERIA PROVIDED FOR TASK CLASSIFICATION In d i s c u s s i n g the c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f y i n g the tasks that are performed w i t h i n the realm of s o c i a l work, there appear to be s i x general categories discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e . While the major d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s concerned w i t h those tasks that can most a p p r o p r i a t e l y be designated to non-p r o f e s s i o n a l there i s some d i s c u s s i o n , i n a very general way, of those tasks that can most a p p r o p r i a t e l y be designated to p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l workers. Fact F i n d i n g Versus Decision Making The f i r s t category, of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s that of b a s i c f a c t f i n d i n g as opposed to d e c i s i o n making. Dorothy Daly ( 1 1 ) has i n d i c a t e d t h i s as one method of i t e m i z i n g the tasks that must be performed. She implies that the d e c i s i o n making involved i n assessment and treatment i s a h i g h l y complex task to be performed w h i l e the inf o r m a t i o n and observations necessary f o r such d e c i s i o n s are l e s s complex tasks i n a separate category. B r i e l a n d , another advocate of t h i s method, s t a t e s that "one 12. approach i s to d i f f e r e n t i a t e f a c t f i n d i n g tasks from other c h i l d welfare f u n c t i o n s " , (8, p.93) but does not c a r r y t h i s any f u r t h e r . . There are no c r i t e r i a g i ven f o r tasks that c o n s t i t u t e f a c t f i n d i n g , and i n a d d i t i o n he does not d i s c u s s the other c h i l d welfare functions of which he speaks. Brieland,does, however, f e e l that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n of f a c t f i n d i n g versus d e c i s i o n making should not be r i g i d , because i f the c r i t e r i a f o r d e c i s i o n \ making are l a i d out by,agency p o l i c y , the a b i l i t y to c a r r y out the tasks i n v o l v e d can be made at any l e v e l . Beck (4) a l s o b r i e f l y mentions t h i s method of c a t e g o r i z i n g tasks and s t a t e s that one category of tasks i s gathering f a c t s and imparting i n f o r m a t i o n . However,, as w i t h B r i e l a n d and Daly, Beck does not pursue t h i s p o i n t . Such a c r i t e r i o n f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of tasks seems to be extremely vague and ambiguous, and do not lend themselves to p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . C l i e n t V u l n e r a b i l i t y , And Worker Autonomy Another c r i t e r i o n f o r c l a s s i f y i n g tasks i s that of c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y and worker autonomy. The former i s viewed by many w r i t e r s as the c l i e n t ' s s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to p s y c h o l o g i c a l or emotional damage, or e x p l o i t a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from incompetent or u n e t h i c a l behavior on the p a r t of the worker. Worker autonomy i s determined by the degree to which the worker has i n t e r n a l i z e d the p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, e t h i c s , and c o n t r o l s and h i s c a p a c i t y to u t i l i z e them. Russel (31) recognizes the concepts of c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y and worker autonomy, and consequently hypothesizes a dichotomy according to t h i s c r i t e r i a f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t a s k s . However, such a dichotomy excludes the complexity of the task and produces, f o r one category of tasks, those that are purely mechanical and r o u t i n e i n nature. I t seems p l a u s i b l e to assume that there are some complex tasks that could be performed f o r h i g h l y v u l n e r a b l e c l i e n t s by workers with low autonomy. 13. I t i s i n t h i s v e i n of t h i n k i n g that Richan (26) proposed a trichotomy. Richan, who u t i l i z e s the concept of task complexity i n h i s c r i t e r i o n f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , recognized s p e c i a l complex tasks to be performed, but by workers who have low autonomy f o r c l i e n t s who are h i g h l y v u l n e r a b l e . E p s t e i n (12), while phrasing the problem d i f f e r e n t l y , a l s o sees the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of tasks i n terms of v u l n e r a b i l i t y and autonomy. In t h i s context, tasks are seen as those that u t i l i z e concrete resources as a s o l u t i o n to the problem and those that r e l y on p r e c i s e knowledge of human behavior f o r useable diagnosis and a l s o where r e l a t i o n s h i p management i s a major f a c t o r i n diagnosis and treatment. Such a d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of tasks n e c e s s a r i l y implies the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of complexity. In t h e i r study of manpower u t i l i z a t i o n , the Na t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers (4) a l s o considered c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y and worker autonomy. These v a r i a b l e s were f u r t h e r subdivided, w i t h c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y being seen i n terms of (1) the nature of the c l i e n t s i t u a t i o n and (2) the nature of s e r v i c e to the c l i e n t . Both of these w i l l be determining f a c t o r s i n the c l i e n t ' s v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The concept of worker autonomy was seen as being influenced by (1) the e x p l i c i t guides to the worker, (2) v i s i b i l i t y of p r a c t i c e , and (3) o r g a n i z a t i o n a l support f o r s o c i a l work standards. The former was seen with reference to the r o u t i n i z a t i o n of many agency functi o n s that tend to insure standards of performance. The second sub-d i v i s i o n , that of v i s i b i l i t y of p r a c t i c e , was'viewed i n terms of the degree to which others are aware of what the worker i s doing i n h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l p r a c t i c e . The t h i r d of the i n f l u e n t i a l f a c t o r s was seen as the degree to 1 4 . which the agency and consequently the worker is accepted and understood by the community. These subdivisions can be seen as contributing factors in determining both client vulnerability and worker autonomy. However, those influencing worker autonomy tend to be relatively stable and w i l l remain constant with the worker, but those affecting client vulnerability vary with the client and, therefore, have to be determined for each client. Such a criterion for classification of tasks is not only highly subjective but poses other problems as well. Both of these concepts are extremely d i f f i c u l t to measure in terms of objective c r i t e r i a and conse-quently can result in much confusion in task classification. In addition to this, client vulnerability varies with the client rather than with the task that is involved. Worker autonomy, on the other hand, should remain constant with each client served. Client Needs A third category of classification found in the literature is that of differentiating the tasks, not according to an arbitrary agency itemiza-tion of the role of the social worker, but rather in line with the needs of the client. Both David Gil (13) and Arthur Blum (5) propose such a scheme. However, neither of these writers develops any criteria, for differentiating client needs. Blum implies that client vulnerability must be considered a key issue when differentiating tasks in terms of client needs, but does not discuss this. The worker's autonomy in terms of meeting the client's needs is another issue that is not explored by Blum. The thesis put forward by Blum is "any plan for the uti l i z a t i o n of manpower must begin with the needs of the client and progress in relation to how best to meet these needs". (5,p.18). Such classification of tasks would then depend on the configura-tion of needs to determine individual or family vulnerability. 15. G i l , i n suggesting that c l a s s i f i c a t i o n should be determined by c l i e n t needs, brings i n the complexity of the task. There i s some i n d i c a t i o n , however, that the untrained worker may become involved i n d e c i s i o n s regarding diagnosis and treatment p r o v i d i n g they are made i n conjunction w i t h the p r o f e s s i o n a l worker. T h i s , then, would be somewhat i n o p p o s i t i o n to the idea of g i v i n g the l e s s complex task to the untrained worker. As w i t h Blum, G i l does not put forward any c r i t e r i a f o r task d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , but simply states " i t seems important to develop c r i t e r i a f o r task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to s e r v i c e needs of i n d i v i d u a l c l i e n t s ' u n i t s " (13,p.444). Worker Autonomy And Task Complexity The Bridges Report (7) on task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n proposes another set of c r i t e r i a f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of t a s k s . While r e c o g n i z i n g the i n t e r -dependence of c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y , worker autonomy, and task complexity, i t was f e l t that the concept of c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y was inoperable f o r t h e i r purposes. Tasks were designated i n terms of worker autonomy and complexity of the task only, and then placed i n four general c a t e g o r i e s . The f i r s t grouping of tasks were those that were simple and concrete, and involved l i t t l e worker autonomy. Many of these tasks are on a f a c t f i n d i n g l e v e l such as the dichotomy proposed by Daly (11), B r i e l a n d and Beck. The second grouping of tasks were those that c a l l e d f o r a higher degree of worker autonomy and somewhat more complexity. The t h i r d group involved complex tasks which required a f a i r l y high degree of autonomy. This c o n f i g u r a t i o n of tasks would u t i l i z e the concept proposed by both Beck and Blum, that of the conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p , which w i l l be discussed l a t e r , i n a d d i t i o n to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n proposed by E p s t e i n (12), that of using knowledge of human behavior i n o b t a i n i n g the assessment. The f o u r t h group of tasks are the h i g h l y complex ones that r e q u i r e complete worker autonomy and could be c l a s s i f i e d as " i n t e n s i v e casework". 16. While the system of task c l a s s i f i c a t i o n appears to i n c l u d e , i n an i n d i r e c t manner, most of those that have been proposed i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i t does present a problem which i s not unique to t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . The degree to which tasks can be p a r t i a l i z e d w i l l be the determining f a c t o r of how e f f e c t i v e l y the concept of complexity can be u t i l i z e d . I f tasks cannot be p r a c t i c a l l y p a r t i a l i z e d i n terms of a workable scheme of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , then the concept of complexity w i l l l o s e a great deal of i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . S o c i a l Work And Non-Social Work Tasks The f i f t h and l a s t category of task c r i t e r i a to be discussed e x t e n s i v e l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e i s Jones' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (17) according to whether the tasks are designated s o c i a l work or n o n - s o c i a l work. In t h i s context, tasks are d i v i d e d i n t o four separate categories and then determined to be e i t h e r of a s o c i a l work or n o n - s o c i a l work nature. I t must be added, however, that Jones considered only tasks that were being performed by non-p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel i n the agencies she s t u d i e d . The four categories of tasks she d i f f e r e n t i a t e d were: (1) f r i e n d l y v i s i t i n g , (2) o f f i c e management, (3) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t to the caseworker, and (4) r e c r e a t i o n a l - e n r i c h i n g t a s k s . The l a t t e r three of these are n o n - s o c i a l work tasks w h i l e the former f a l l s i n t o the s o c i a l work category. Jones appears to inc l u d e i n the s o c i a l work category d i r e c t involvement w i t h the c l i e n t that can be considered as on-going contact. Conscious Use Of R e l a t i o n s h i p This s i x t h category does not appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e to any great degree. Both Blum (5) and Beck (3) make reference to the f a c t that some tasks i n s o c i a l work i n v o l v e the conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p as a means of 17 . inducing change i n the c l i e n t ' s l i f e . However, n e i t h e r expand t h i s to produce any workable c r i t e r i a f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Jones i m p l i e s t h i s c r i t e r i o n i n her d i s c u s s i o n and makes reference to Beck's statement that the non-professional "would not be expected to use h i s personal s e l f to intervene i n the l i f e of the c l i e n t and induce change thereby" (17,p.319). Because there i s no extensive d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n and because i t i s i mplied i n the m a j o r i t y of the foregoing, such a concept i s of l i m i t e d v a l u e i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of tasks i n the manpower u t i l i z a t i o n problem. The Bridges Report (7) a l s o gives some r e c o g n i t i o n to the concept of tasks that i n v o l v e the purposeful use of r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the area of s o c i a l work i n t e r v e n t i o n . T h i s , however, i s not developed any f u r t h e r s i n c e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e p o r t i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with the c r i t e r i a of complexity of the task autonomy of the worker. From the foregoing i t appears there are s i x methods of c l a s s i f y i n g the tasks that must be performed i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l w e l f a r e . However, the m a j o r i t y of these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes are interdependent and w h i l e a major concept i s proposed there are others that are n e c e s s a r i l y involved i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of tasks. In the m a j o r i t y of these, no r e c o g n i t i o n i s given to these other v a r i a b l e s , thus p o s s i b l y r e s t r i c t i n g the value of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme. In the t h i r t y - s e v e n a r t i c l e s reviewed, there were only e i g h t w r i t e r s who made an attempt to propose any type of task l i s t . These l i s t s were p r i m a r i l y i n terms of which l e v e l of s t a f f p o s i t i o n was competent to perform which tasks. The Bridges Report was the only r e a l attempt to i s o l a t e and itemize the tasks needing to be performed i n the area s t u d i e d , without reference to who should be performing them. LEVELS OF POSITIONS AND THEIR DISTINGUISHING FACTORS The establishment of l e v e l s of p o s i t i o n s i n order to determine the 18. u t i l i z a t i o n of manpower i n s o c i a l work agencies has r e s u l t e d i n a v a r i e d number of approaches being taken by d i f f e r e n t researchers. Of the a r t i c l e s reviewed, nine (2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, 38) l i s t e d d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p o s i t i o n s which ran the gamut from eight categories to the very general two categories of p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional worker, while four a d d i t i o n a l a r t i c l e s (17, 19, 31, 39) look more s p e c i f i c a l l y at the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the non-professional worker. Eight Levels Of P o s i t i o n s Donald B r i e l a n d (8) p o i n t s out that the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of manpower should f r e e the p r o f e s s i o n a l to use h i s s p e c i f i c s k i l l s more widely. He suggests there should be at l e a s t e i g h t categories f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the purposes of manpower research. These eig h t categories are: (1) caseworkers w i t h a master's degree i n s o c i a l work as a minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n , (2) persons w i t h a master's degree (or higher) i n r e l a t e d f i e l d s , (3) c o l l e g e graduates with casework experience, (4) c o l l e g e graduates w i t h no experience but w i t h an i n t e r e s t i n c h i l d w e l fare and perhaps i n graduate s o c i a l work education, (5) f o s t e r parents and others from whom the agency may purchase s e r v i c e , (6) c l e r i c a l employees, g e n e r a l l y w i t h a high school education or ab ov e, (7) v o l u n t e e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g wide v a r i a t i o n s i n i n t e r e s t s , education and s k i l l s , (8) former p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e or c h i l d welfare c l i e n t s (8, p.92). B r i e l a n d c l a s s i f i e s the l e v e l s of p o s i t i o n s very c a r e f u l l y but does not e x p l a i n how the d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d . I t i s obvious that h i s l i s t of p o s i t i o n s could be d i v i d e d i n t o two areas, that of the p r o f e s s i o n a l 19. (a graduate of the School of S o c i a l Work) and the non-professional (a person employed i n the s o c i a l work f i e l d but without s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g ) . Several authors have looked at these two main categories separately and p a r t i c u l a r emphasis has been placed on the non-professional c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Non-Professional Worker Levinson and S c h i l l e r (19), i n w r i t i n g on the r o l e a n a l y s i s of the indigenous worker s t a t e that the non-professional tasks assigned are g e n e r a l l y those which are more standardized and i n v o l v e s i t u a t i o n s i n which concrete needs must be met. They b e l i e v e the indigenous non-professional should be c l a s s i f i e d i n a new p o s i t i o n and propose a t h r e e f o l d d i v i s i o n , namely: (1) The indigenous p r e - p r o f e s s i o n a l who would be s e r v i n g as an apprentice i n an a u x i l i a r y s o c i a l work personnel p o s i t i o n , p r i o r to completion of h i s education. (2) The indigenous s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l who works c l o s e l y w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f and who r e q u i r e s fewer s k i l l s than those required by the p r e - p r o f e s s i o n a l . The only d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f a c t o r would be that the pre-p r o f e s s i o n a l hopes to achieve a master's degree i n s o c i a l work w h i l e the s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l does not claim t h i s as a career g o a l . Such jobs included i n the semi-professional r o l e would includ e homemaker ai d e s , day care s e r v i c e a i d e s , or h e a l t h and homework aides. (3) The indigenous s u b - p r o f e s s i o n a l whose employment i s outside the agency, i s l e a s t concerned with any p r o f e s s i o n a l standard but instead provides mechanical, c l e r i c a l or maintenance s e r v i c e s when r e q u i r e d . Betty L. Jones (17), i n l o o k i n g at new job c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s f o r the n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l , l i s t s four kinds of supportive jobs, each of which r e q u i r e t r a i n i n g which i s a p p l i c a b l e to that p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n . Only one of these, the " F r i e n d l y V i s i t o r " or s o c i a l work technician,, who r e q u i r e s a bachelor's degree, would be f i l l i n g a s o c i a l work p o s i t i o n w h i l e the other three, 20. namely: the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a s s i s t a n t to caseworkers, o f f i c e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s and the workers performing e n r i c h i n g tasks of a non-ongoing nature, would be no n - s o c i a l work p o s i t i o n s . Four Levels Of P o s i t i o n s Richan (26) combines the two major v a r i a b l e s of worker autonomy and c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h four d i s t i n c t worker r o l e s which are categorized as the P r o f e s s i o n a l , the S p e c i a l i s t , the Sub-Professional and the Aide. The p r o f e s s i o n a l i s a person w i t h a high degree of autonomy who has receiv e d f u l l p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g i n a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g and i s capable of working i n a s i t u a t i o n where there i s high c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y . The s p e c i a l i s t i s one who receives t e c h n i c a l education at e i t h e r agency operated schools or co l l e g e s which are geared to the s p e c i f i c s k i l l s and knowledge he w i l l need. He has a low degree of autonomy and performs tasks "which can be r o u t i n i z e d and c o n t r o l l e d without d i s t r a c t i n g from the s e r v i c e to the c l i e n t but may work with h i g h l y v u l n e r a b l e c l i e n t e l e " (26, pp. 72-73). The p o s i t i o n of s p e c i a l i s t i s seen as a career i n i t s e l f and not as a stepping stone to f u l l p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a t u s . The sub - p r o f e s s i o n a l i s one who has received an undergraduate education which i s broadly focused on " s o c i a l w e l fare p r i n c i p l e s " which prepares him f o r h i s r o l e . His job would be of l i m i t e d tenure because h i s t r a i n i n g i s considered incomplete and he would be encouraged to complete graduate t r a i n i n g . This s u b - p r o f e s s i o n a l would perform the same tasks as the p r o f e s s i o n a l but with l e s s v u l n e r a b l e c l i e n t s . The aide i s t r a i n e d q u i c k l y through b r i e f i n - s e r v i c e o r i e n t a t i o n courses. This person, who i s l e a s t autonomous and who works with the l e a s t v u l n e r a b l e c l i e n t s , would be given very l i m i t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and i s seen as performing a v a l i d r o l e i n a team where he i s r e s p o n s i b l e to an experienced worker. The volunteer would be included w i t h i n the r o l e of aide. Somewhat a l i k e i n t h e i r approach to c l a s s i f y i n g four l e v e l s of s t a f f are Heyman (15, 16) and Daly (11). Heyman categorizes the four as 21. senior caseworker, caseworker, case aide and secretary while Daly has two positions of s o c i a l worker, welfare worker and a n c i l l a r y and/or administra-t i v e service p o s i t i o n s . While Heyman does not state s p e c i f i c a l l y the requirements for each p o s i t i o n , Daly states that the "superior" s o c i a l worker must have a master of s o c i a l work degree ( f u l l professionalism) while the other s o c i a l worker i s required to have a baccalaureate degree and would be prepared for work within a p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d of p r a c t i c e through in-service t r a i n i n g . The welfare technician i s prepared through vocational and technical t r a i n i n g at a high school or community college l e v e l for a "limited range of s p e c i f i c tasks i n services to people". In addition to these three, there would be a n c i l l a r y and administrative service p o s i t i o n s . Daly sees the two categories of s o c i a l worker involved in tasks of assessment and diagnosis and emphasizes not only adequate supervision but the p r o v i s i o n of services to meet t h e i r needs. Heyman distinguishes the tasks of the senior caseworker and caseworker by s t a t i n g the former requires advanced casework s k i l l s to be u t i l i z e d i n independent on-the-spot casework treatment, while the caseworker requires knowledge of casework s k i l l s which are u t i l i z e d when facing diagnostic considerations. The welfare technician and the case aide are expected to perform s p e c i f i c assignments i n e l i g i b i l i t y studies, treatment plans or other concrete tasks under the d i r e c t i o n of a s o c i a l worker. Daly divides the fourth category into two parts: the a n c i l l a r y worker, who f u l f i l l e d such functions as homemaker, foster parent, counsellor, custodial personnel i n c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t e s , who required technical knowledge and a s k i l l with lesser education; and the administrative s t a f f who had a technical s k i l l i n other aspects of the " s o c i a l welfare function" such as reporting and record keeping. For Heyman, the secretary does not require casework s k i l l s but was involved in making appointments, gathering data and information and doing general i n t e r p r e t a t i o n work. 22. Three Levels Of P o s i t i o n s While E p s t e i n (12) sees a core " u n i t " c o n s i s t i n g of a s u p e r v i s o r , one caseworker and two case aides (casework a s s i s t a n t s ) , she does not c l a r i f y the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the s u p e r v i s o r . The caseworker i s used e x c l u s i v e l y where p r e c i s e knowledge of human behavior and p s y c h o s o c i a l pathology i s needed to make a useable diagnosis and where r e l a t i o n s h i p management i s the predominant f a c t o r i n diagnosis and treatment. The casework a s s i s t a n t s are "expected to become experts at e v a l u a t i n g concrete problems and s o l v i n g them with concrete s e r v i c e s " (12, p.7). Two Levels Of P o s i t i o n s I t i s evident i n reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e that the manpower problem i s most o f t e n considered at two very general l e v e l s , namely the p r o f e s s i o n a l and the n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l . A study done by the Advisory Committee on S o c i a l Welfare Education (as abstracted i n 4, p.5), categorizes and d i s t i n g u i s h e s the two p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n s as the p r o f e s s i o n a l l y t r a i n e d worker who i s involved i n tasks c e n t e r i n g around p s y c h o s o c i a l diagnosis and the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l worker, who i s required to have a bachelor's degree plus some s o r t of s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g , and who performs concrete tasks under close s u p e r v i s i o n . The f u n c t i o n s and presumably the t r a i n i n g of the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l worker are h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d . A study of a s i m i l a r nature made on the u t i l i z a t i o n of s o c i a l work s t a f f i n the Bureau of Family Services and the D i v i s i o n of State M e r i t Systems (38) a l s o proposes two p o s i t i o n s , that of the s o c i a l worker, a person w i t h a minimum of a bachelor's degree and s p e c i a l i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g and whose s e r v i c e s to a p p l i c a n t s and r e c i p i e n t s center around the c l i e n t ' s personal and f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n and the graduate s o c i a l worker, one w i t h a master's degree i n s o c i a l work whose s e r v i c e s to a p p l i c a n t s and r e c i p i e n t s centers around the p e r s o n a l , h e a l t h , and emotional problems of i n d i v i d u a l s and f a m i l i e s . 23. F a r r a r and Hemmy (14), who r e p o r t on a p a r t i c u l a r p r o j e c t done with regard to the aged, d i s t i n g u i s h between the p r o f e s s i o n a l worker, who has a minimum of two years of graduate p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g and the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l worker, i . e . s o c i a l s e r v i c e a s s i s t a n t , who i s required to be a recent graduate of an a c c r e d i t e d c o l l e g e with a major i n s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and possessing p a r t i c u l a r personal q u a l i t i e s . They too d i s t i n g u i s h the d u t i e s of the workers by s t a t i n g that the a s s i s t a n t performs simple and concrete s e r v i c e d u t i e s which augment the work of the p r o f e s s i o n a l worker who i s "to define the s e r v i c e goals and to e x e r c i s e p r o f e s s i o n a l judgment regardless of whether the a s s i s t a n t i s working along w i t h the c l i e n t at a given.point or whether she i s a s s i s t i n g i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which the worker c a r r i e s major a c t i v i t y " (14, p.46). The worker i s a l s o expected to represent the agency at case conferences, medical s t a f f meetings and i n other s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s . Baker (2) proposes a p o s i t i o n s i m i l a r to other f i e l d s such as d e n t i s t r y , n u r s i n g and teaching,, where many people without s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g as such may c a r r y on c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s w i t h i n a s o c i a l work agency. She sees the d i s t i n c t i o n between a case aide and caseworker as e s s e n t i a l l y the d i s t i n c t i o n between apprenticeship t r a i n i n g and p r o f e s s i o n a l education. The case aide or apprentice i s taught to c a r r y on c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s through s u p e r v i s i o n without any mediating use of theory. A p r o f e s s i o n a l worker le a r n s the use of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s based on a body of theory, that he a p p l i e s to s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s i n order to solve the problem presented. B a s i c a l l y the above s t u d i e s , when l o o k i n g at the ' p r o f e s s i o n a l -n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l ' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , r e q u i r e the p r o f e s s i o n a l person to have a master's degree i n s o c i a l work while the non-professional i s required to have at l e a s t a bachelor's degree plus i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . The former i s involved i n the more complex problems c e n t e r i n g around the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of c l i e n t s w h i l e the l a t t e r i s g e n e r a l l y expected to perform more 24. concrete tasks under the c a r e f u l s u p e r v i s i o n of a. f u l l y q u a l i f i e d p r o f e s s i o n a l . Daly (11) i n her four l e v e l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n suggested the use of a we l f a r e t e c h n i c i a n who received p a r t i c u l a r t e c h n i c a l t r a i n i n g at a community c o l l e g e a f t e r high school graduation as an added asset to any team i n performing a l i m i t e d range of s p e c i f i c tasks. Both the S o c i a l Welfare Department of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Children's A i d Soc i e t y of Vancouver are using combinations of p r o f e s s i o n a l workers and non-professional workers, that i s , graduates w i t h a baccalaureate degree and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g , w e l f are o f f i c e r s , w e l fare aides and s p e c i a l i s t s . However, l i t t l e has been done to c l a r i f y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of each p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l and the workers appear i n most cases to be used interchangeably on the v a r i o u s caseloads. MODELS OF WORK ASSIGNMENT In studying the manpower s i t u a t i o n , the question i n v a r i a b l y a r i s e s as to what models of work are provided. While some researchers have chosen to only acknowledge the area others have looked at i t more c a r e f u l l y . In her a r t i c l e , Mary Baker (2) does not ignore the f a c t that as a r e s u l t of h i r i n g n o n-professional s t a f f , the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e might very w e l l be lowered. In f a c t she f e e l s i t i s almost i n e v i t a b l e that t h i s w i l l happen, however, the f i n a l answer w i l l be dependent upon the "extent to which the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l worker remains in. c o n t r o l of the d i a g n o s t i c process and the course of treatment" (2, p.230). Use Of Less Q u a l i f i e d Person Baker s t a t e s there are a c t u a l l y two major ways to approach the use of s t a f f members without p r o f e s s i o n a l education. The f i r s t i n v o l v e s using a l e s s q u a l i f i e d person i n l i e u of a caseworker when a f u l l y q u a l i f i e d person i s u n a v a i l a b l e - that i s , a, " s u b s t i t u t e " caseworker who c a r r i e s a sel e c t e d caseload under much c l o s e r s u p e r v i s i o n than a t r a i n e d worker and her second suggestion would be that of the s o c i a l work team approach which w i l l be 25. discussed l a t e r . There are p a r t i c u l a r problems c e n t e r i n g around the use of a " s u b s t i t u t e " non-professional worker i n a " s e l e c t e d " caseload f o r the caseload g e n e r a l l y does not stay s e l e c t e d at the l e v e l of the worker's c a p a c i t y , supervisory time o f t e n becomes l e s s l i m i t e d or e l s e too time consuming and there i s the danger of inadequate s e r v i c e being rendered when the c l i e n t i s never seen d i r e c t l y by a p r o f e s s i o n a l . These p o i n t s would suggest the danger of substandard s e r v i c e being given to a c l i e n t because v u l n e r a b i l i t y u s u a l l y does not remain constant. On the other hand, i f a p r o f e s s i o n a l i s used i n every case, i t has been found that they have had to perform s e r v i c e s f o r which they are over educated. Streaming The aforementioned problem opens up a new area r e f e r r e d to as streaming where l e v e l s of career l i n e s are used and e i t h e r tasks or cases are assigned i n such a way that workers are used to t h e i r f u l l e s t c a p a c i t y . Task streaming was d e a l t w i t h e x t e n s i v e l y by the Bridges Report (7) which looked at worker autonomy and complexity of task i n r e l a t i o n to a work model. In combining these two concepts i t was found that there were p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i o u s l e v e l s of approach to the c l i e n t . Four task l e v e l s were suggested i n regard to p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional personnel and c e r t a i n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s were made about each. The Committee l a b e l e d these fu n c t i o n s as: f a c i l i t a t i v e , maintenance, the supportive and i n t e g r a t i v e . The c h i e f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the f a c i l i t a t i v e f u n c t i o n , which i s the equiva-l e n t of the case-aide p o s i t i o n , would be "the lack of involvement with the c l i e n t , the very s p e c i f i c concrete nature of the tasks and t h e i r performance only at the request and d i r e c t i o n of the caseworker" (7, p.8). The worker who performs the maintenance f u n c t i o n operates more broadly and independently than the a i d and the e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h i s f u n c t i o n would be the e x e r c i s e of l i m i t s and c o n t r o l over the c l i e n t , tasks of a non-treatment 26. nature, and the judgement and a c t i o n s r e q u i r e d concerning the p h y s i c a l needs of c l i e n t s " ( 7 , p. 8 ) . While the supportive f u n c t i o n i s c l e a r l y on the l e v e l of treatment and the tasks i t contains are complex, such as, enabling the c l i e n t to respond c o n s t r u c t i v e l y to r e a l i t y demands and c o n d i t i o n s f a c i n g him, w i t h focus upon concrete problems, the worker does not n e c e s s a r i l y need to have graduate education although a considerable amount of t r a i n i n g i s r e q u i r e d . The i n t e g r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , which i s h i g h l y autonomous and complex, e n t a i l s the understanding of the problems, a t t i t u d e s and f e e l i n g s which are operating beneath the surface i n the present s i t u a t i o n as w e l l as those that are d i r e c t l y expressed or apparent. B r i e f l y then, i n s e t t i n g up t h e i r model, t h i s committee has ranked i n degree of complex-i t y , the tasks performed by workers w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r agency and has assigned tasks i n r e l a t i o n to the degree of autonomy of each i n d i v i d u a l worker w i t h the most complex tasks going to the h i g h l y t r a i n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l . The second and more f a m i l i a r type of streaming has to do with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of cases. Most of the i n f o r m a l e f f o r t s being made i n p u b l i c agencies, toward the d i f f e r e n t i a l use of manpower are based on the t r a d i t i o n a l model of a primary casework r e l a t i o n s h i p between one worker and an i n d i v i d u a l or f a m i l y . At times the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l i s given a smaller number of cases while i n other instances the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n comes i n assignment of the cases according to the degree of complexity of the client.'sneeds ( f o r an example of each type see Weed and Denham). The more complex cases go to the p r o f e s s i o n a l worker, the l e s s complex cases to the non-p r o f e s s i o n a l . For example, t e c h n i c a l l y the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia uses the case streaming method of work assignment i n i t s 'A', 'B' and 'C' caseloads - the 'A' caseload contains the most complex cases and the worker should be a p r o f e s s i o n a l or an experienced worker with i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g who has a high degree of autonomy, while on the other end of the continuum the 'C caseload which contains the l e a s t complex cases, has the worker (the nonprofessional) w i t h the lowest degree of autonomy. However, t h i s would appear to be h i g h l y inoperable because of l a c k of q u a l i f i e d s t a f f and the heavy caseloads. In Heyman's stud i e s (15, 16), on the a l l o c a t i o n of cases, assignment was made on the bas i s df defined c r i t e r i a r a t h e r than on the b a s i s of the o r i g i n of the case i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e r v i c e and the case was c a r r i e d on the lowest p o s s i b l e l e v e l of re q u i r e d s k i l l . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study the e n t i r e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a case could be given to any l e v e l of s t a f f , that i s s e n i o r caseworker, caseworker or caseaide, with the exception of the s e c r e t a r i e s , however p a r t i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y could be delegated on the bas i s of the defined c r i t e r i a by both l e v e l s of caseworkers to e i t h e r caseaides or s e c r e t a r i e s . I t i s al s o apparent i n Richan's study (26) that there was case streaming i n the top three c a t e g o r i e s - that of p r o f e s s i o n a l , s u b p r o f e s s i o n a l and s p e c i a l i s t , while the case aide a s s i s t e d the other workers. For e f f e c t i v e casework to take place i n regard to the above forms of streaming i t i s important that there be adequate s u p e r v i s i o n from.a q u a l i f i e d , observant and experienced p r o f e s s -i o n a l i f e i t h e r of these methods i s to prove at a l l b e n e f i c i a l . Team Approach . Another work model which has been discussed f u l l y throughout the l i t e r a t u r e i s the team approach. G i l (13) s t a t e s , " j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a caseload i s a b a s i c feature of the team p l a n and one that d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i t from s t a f f i n g patterns i n which each s t a f f member, p r o f e s s i o n a l or nonprofessional a l i k e , c a r r i e s by 28. h i m s e l f , r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a separate caseload" (13, p. 443). G i l * . , who adapts the idea of the team approach from the f i e l d of education, sees the s o c i a l work team c o n s i s t i n g of a team leader with f u l l p r o f e s s i o n a l education•and one or more team members whose l e v e l of education may vary but who should be below f u l l p r o f e s s i o n a l education. The s i z e of the teams can be adjusted f l e x i b l y and w i l l depend on such f a c t o r s as k i n d of s e r v i c e , nature of c l i e n t p o p u l a t i o n , a v a i l a b i l i t y of p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel, a d m i n i s t r a t i v e need of an agency and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s and s k i l l s of a v a i l a b l e team l e a d e r s . B r i e l a n d i s of the impression that the "team approach provides f o r c l o s e working together of p r o f e s s i o n a l l y t r a i n e d and s u b p r o f e s s i o n a l workers with r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to each c l e a r l y defined by the agency" (8, p. 93). He emphasizes that a p r e r e q u i s i t e of t h i s approach i s a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of the tasks involved i n the agencies s e r v i c e s , followed by a c o n t i n u i n g s t a f f development program f o r a l l agency personnel. Richan (26), Daly (11), F a r r a r and Hemmy (14), and Baker (2) v i s u a l i z e a s o c i a l work team as one where the n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l , caseaide, s o c i a l welfare t e c h n i c i a n or s o c i a l s e r v i c e a s s i s t a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e to an experienced worker. The n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c a r r y i n g out of s p e c i f i c concrete assignments i n the e l i g i b i l i t y study or treatment p l a n under the d i r e c t i o n of a s o c i a l worker. Baker f e e l s the caseworker who supervises a case aide w i t h a streamed caseload i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d more markedly from the caseworker who, as leader of a s o c i a l work team, c a r r i e s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r diagnosis and t r e a t -ment. She perceives every caseworker with a team which can be m o b i l i z e d on behalf of a l l c l i e n t s , " i n whatever combination i s i n d i c a t e d by the range of s e r v i c e s r e q u i r e d to accomplish appropriate treatment g o a l s " (2, p. 233). 29. As was mentioned above, a v a r i e d number of nonprofessionals can be used on a s o c i a l work team. B r i e l a n d (8) l i s t s e i g h t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of p o s i t i o n s f o r the c h i l d w e l f are s e r v i c e s and i t can be seen that these could d e f i n i t e l y be u t i l i z e d on.a team, however t h e i r d i f f e r e n t r o l e s would need to be defined very e x p l i c i t l y , otherwise the m u l t i f u n c t i o n a l arrangement might very w e l l confuse the c l i e n t . Blum (5) suggests an i n s t i t u t i o n a l team.approach where a s i n g l e worker would have major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the case but whose job a l s o includes the c o o r d i n a t i o n and use of a team of s p e c i a l i s t s . In a s i t u a t i o n such as t h i s , the needs of the c l i e n t are assessed and the e n t i r e range of manpower resources are a v a i l a b l e to m i n i s t e r and administer f o r the welfare of the c l i e n t . Thus, f o r example i n the Children's A i d S o c i e t y , i t would be p o s s i b l e to d e f i n e the f u n c t i o n of the f o s t e r parents, the nurse, the doctor, the caseworker, the caseaide and any other needed s t a f f as they r e l a t e to a p a r t i c u l a r c l i e n t . Since the team concepts, not only w i t h i n the s o c i a l work f i e l d , but a l s o w i t h i n the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y f i e l d (21), i s a r e l a t i v e l y new one, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to answer questions which center around whether i t i s p o s s i b l e to reduce fragmentation :and gaps i n s e r v i c e i n d i f f e r e n t agencies or whether a broader scope of s e r v i c e can be provided over an i n d e f i n i t e p eriod of time, however, i t i s f e l t that a w e l l coordinated team approach can o f f e r some p o s i t i v e aspects. With the u t i l i z a t i o n of a team of p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l workers, nonprofessionals such as aides, f o s t e r parents and homemakers,. and/or a combination of s p e c i a l i s t s such as nurses, doctors and teachers, who are m o b i l i z e d on behalf of the c l i e n t to a i d him achieve h i s goals, the c l i e n t i s more l i k e l y to i d e n t i f y with the agency than i n the one-to-one r e l a t i o n s h i p of c l i e n t - w o r k e r which could be d e t r i m e n t a l when there i s a high s t a f f 30. turn over. I t should be c a r e f u l l y noted that a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r t h i s approach i s a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of the tasks involved i n the agencies s e r v i c e s and an on-going s t a f f development program f o r a l l agency personnel i f the team i s to be a c l o s e l y k n i t group of workers w i t h a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to each other, to the agency and to the w e l l being of the c l i e n t e l e . METHODS OF EVALUATION While there has been a great d e a l w r i t t e n regarding the problems involved i n the manpower shortage s i t u a t i o n , there has been very l i t t l e done i n the area of a c t u a l research. The m a j o r i t y of the l i t e r a t u r e i s concerned w i t h i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c analyses or d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s , and the problem of e v a l u a t i o n of the concepts and proposed hypotheses are not considered. Of the a r t i c l e s reviewed, only three d e a l t w i t h the process of e v a l u a t i o n . The Bridges Report (.7) u t i l i z e d the s e r v i c e s of twelve judges to r a t e t h e i r 163 items i n terms of complexity and autonomy. The predetermined c r i t e r i a f or accepting an item was set at e i g h t out of twelve of the judges ranking an item w i t h i n two adjacent p o i n t s on the f i v e p o i n t s c a l e that was used. The only items that were r e t a i n e d were those that were rated the same f o r both autonomy and complexity. These 63 items were then c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the four groups of tasks that were discussed above. While such,a method of e v a l u a t i o n deals w i t h the problem of r e l i a b i l i t y , the area of v a l i d i t y , i n terms of the items themselves, i s l e f t open to some question. Although those items i n the f i r s t two cat e g o r i e s are r e l a t i v e l y concrete and o b j e c t i v e , those included i n cat e g o r i e s three and four are e l u s i v e and s u b j e c t i v e . Because the l a t t e r two categ o r i e s are of t h i s type v a l i d i t y would be d i f f i c u l t to a s c e r t a i n . The study i t s e l f s t a t e s that other than,anchoring s t a t e -ments provided on the item schedule, no other d e f i n i t i o n of complexity 31. was given, as i t was f e l t t h i s was a s e l f d e s c r i p t i v e concept. The purpose of t h i s evaluation, was p r i m a r i l y to determine the degree of autonomy and complexity of the tasks under examination, and i n no way attempted to a s s i g n these tasks to any s p e c i f i e d l e v e l s of work as s i g n -ment. C o s t i n (9) u t i l i z e d the r a t i n g s c a l e and the o p i n i o n of judges i n e v a l u a t i n g the assignment.of tasks to c e r t a i n p o s i t i o n s or l e v e l s of s t a f f . The tasks were f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d i n terms of t h e i r importance to the job at hand. They were then rated by two independent panels, one c o n s i s t i n g of 21 experts and the other composed of 92 s o c i a l workers who had been designated by supervisors of i n t e r e s t e d agencies. The study i n d i c a t e s that there was e s s e n t i a l agreement between the two panels, but d i d not give the c r i t e r i a f o r determining t h i s agreement. The e v a l u a t i o n was p r i m a r i l y e s t a b l i s h e d to determine whether minimal standards of competence were being met by those performing the tasks. A f t e r the job assignments were made a supervisory r a t i n g s c a l e was e s t a b l i s h e d . The r e s u l t s of t h i s r a t i n g i n d i c a t e d that most tasks were performed at an acceptable l e v e l of competence, with the exception, of r e c o r d i n g . This p a r t i c u l a r e v a l u a t i o n does not give adequate informa t i o n to determine whether i t would be u s e f u l i n other studies or not. With the exception of s t a t i n g that two independent panels were u t i l i z e d , presumably to deal w i t h the r e l i a b i l i t y f a c t o r , no d e t a i l s are a v a i l a b l e . The t h i r d study i n v o l v i n g e v a l u a t i o n , methods, was that reported by Margaret Heyman (16). This study i n v o l v e d an extensive analyses of the assignments i n terms of q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e o f f e r e d , and a l s o of s t a f f r e a c t i o n s to the new assignment system. The e v a l u a t i o n took i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the problems involved in.determining "good" or "bad" casework p r a c t i c e and to e l i m i n a t e t h i s problem based 32. t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n on "change" i n casework p r a c t i c e over a period of time. This appears to be an i n t e l l i g e n t approach, to a problem that i s extremely s u b j e c t i v e and upon which v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y would l i k e l y he low. In terms of qua n t i t y of s e r v i c e , the prime i n t e r e s t was whether, under the new method of task assignment, there would be more time a v a i l a b l e f o r d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t c l i e n t contact, w i t h no r e s u l t -ing l o s s i n other supporting a c t i v i t i e s such,as recording and s u p e r v i s i o n . The method of e v a l u a t i o n i n t h i s case was four time s t u d i e s , each being c a r r i e d out f o r f i v e consecutive days. I t was hypothesized that t h i s would i n d i c a t e the change i n the use of time by the new assignment method. With reference to the q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e o f f e r e d , the c r i t e r i a f o r determination was a Case Reader Schedule which included items under the f o l l o w i n g four headings: (1) i f in f o r m a t i o n f o r judging the item was i n the r e c o r d i n g , (2) i f both good and bad per-formance could be a n t i c i p a t e d , (3) i f the item was r e l e v a n t to the s e t t i n g , and (4) i f the item could be p r e c i s e l y formulated and uni f o r m l y understood by experienced case readers. In a d d i t i o n to these c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n , , a c l e a r frame-work, was provided f o r the judges by p l a c i n g a l l the items under two headings: (1) diagnosis and plan, and (2) treatment. Three samples, each of 100 case records, were read and the schedule completed according to a three p o i n t s c a l e . Cases f a l l i n g below a p r e s c r i b e d l e v e l of agreement were excluded. C r i t e r i a f or agreement was set at a r a t i n g by the two readers of not more than one adjacent p o i n t apart, on the three p o i n t s c a l e . To determine or evaluate s t a f f r e a c t i o n to the new method 33. of job assignment, anonymous questionnaires were completed by the staff, in terms of their perception and reactions to (1) the activities of the department, (2) the effectiveness with which the activities were carried out, and (3) the use of case work s k i l l made by various services. This evaluation method seems to be rather complete and one that could be applied to another setting with minor modifications. The study i t s e l f points out that there was no inter-judge r e l i a b i l i t y tests, however to compensate, only those items that had a predetermined degree of validity were included. These three evaluations can be broken down into two basic methods: (1) those relying on inter-judge agreement for ranking items, and (2) those relying on supervisors opinion in terms of specified c r i t e r i a , as to whether the tasks were being adequately carried out at the assigned levels. For such evaluations, either in terms of task classification or how competently the task assignments are being carried out, r e l i a b i l i t y does not seem to be a problem area. However, validity is one factor with which these studies did not adequately deal. 34. CHAPTER I I I STUDY DESIGN PURPOSE OF THE STUDY W i t h t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l i s a n a n s w e r t o m e e t i n g s o c i a l w o r k ' s s t a f f - s h o r t a g e c r i s i s , t h e p r o b l e m t h a t a r i s e s i s how t o u t i l i z e m o s t e f f e c t i v e l y p e r s o n s l a c k i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . I t was p r o p o s e d i n C h a p t e r I t h a t t h e " t e a m a p p r o a c h " w o u l d p r o v i d e a s o l u t i o n . T h a t i s , t h e v a r i o u s o p e r a t i o n s t o be p e r f o r m e d w i t h r e g a r d t o a c a s e a r e a s s i g n e d t o d i f f e r e n t s t a f f members, a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r l e v e l o f c o m p e t e n c e , d e r i v e d f r o m t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r t r a i n i n g . I n t h i s way, more t h a n o n e s t a f f member w o u l d b e i n v o l v e d w i t h a n i n d i v i d u a l o r f a m i l y . O u r a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t t h e t a s k s p e r f o r m e d b y s o c i a l w o r k p e r s o n n e l c a n be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a a n d a s s i g n m e n t s o f t a s k s made c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h t h e d e g r e e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m p e t e n c e r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m them. A s a b e g i n n i n g s t e p i n e x a m i n i n g t h i s a s s u m p t i o n , o u r s t u d y c o n s t i t u t e d a n a t t e m p t t o d e v e l o p a m e a s u r -i n g i n s t r u m e n t f o r t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t a s k s . O u r m e t h o d i n v o l v e d c h o o s i n g a n a r e a o f s t u d y , c h o o s i n g c r i t e r i a f o r t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t a s k s , d e l i n e a t i o n o f t a s k s , s a m p l i n g , d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , a n d a n a l y s i s , a s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h e s t u d y . One a g e n c y w h i c h i s a d d r e s s i n g i t s e l f t o t h e manpower p r o b l e m i s t h e C h i l d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y o f V a n c o u v e r , B. C , a n d i t i s o n t h i s a g e n c y t h a t o u r s t u d y was c o n c e n t r a t e d . A n " e x p e r i e n c e s u r v e y " was u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e a u t h o r s , a l l o f whom h a v e b e e n e m p l o y e d a s c a s e -w o r k e r s i n t h i s a g e n c y . T h i s s u r v e y c o n s i s t e d o f t h e a u t h o r s ' w r i t t e n i m p r e s s i o n s o f t h e manpower p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d b y t h e a g e n c y , t h e i r scope and importance, and the current practices i n dealing with them. The survey revealed the following impressions as to what the problems were: 1 . I n s u f f i c i e n t numbers of professional personnel r e s u l t -ing i n heavy caseloads; 2. The recent introduction of case aides and welfare aides (persons with a B.A. and no s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g , and people with a s p e c i a l one-year course following high school, respectively) to a s s i s t p r o f e s s i o n a l workers, with inadequate guidelines for t h e i r use, and a r e s u l t i n g i n e f f i c i e n t use of them; 3. A number of persons employed as s o c i a l workers with less than p r o f e s s ional education, assigned the same tasks as graduate s o c i a l workers. From this survey i t was agreed that the main decisions to be made centered around f i r s t , a precise d e f i n i t i o n of c h i l d welfare tasks then decisions as to assignment of tasks to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of personnel. This study deals with the former; the l a t t e r w i l l be l e f t to further research. Therefore, we attempted to discover whether c h i l d welfare tasks, as performed by the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver, B, C , could be defined and c l a s s i f i e d so that they could be assigned accord-ing to varying l e v e l s of competence among c h i l d welfare s t a f f . The area i n the agency from which tasks were chosen was Services to Children i n Foster-Care, as we f e l t t his u n i t encompassed a great v a r i e t y of tasks and constituted the core of the generalized f i e l d - u n i t caseload. Once a l i s t of tasks was developed which described the work done by personnel i n this area, i t was given to a sample of s o c i a l workers from the Children's Aid Society who,were asked to assess the c l a r i t y of wording and exhaustiveness of the l i s t of tasks. The refined l i s t was then given to judges to rate according to our chosen c r i t e r i a (to be discussed in the next section). CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING TASKS AND RATIONALE FOR CHOOSING CRITERIA We propose the c r i t e r i a of Task Complexity and Worker Autonomy for differentiating child welfare tasks. Terms are defined as follows: "Task" is defined as an operation performed by a worker provided in the main phases of child care. A task is part of a work unit which, in turn, is part of an.agency programme (in this case, child welfare services). "Worker autonomy" refers to the relative lack of external guides and external controls upon the behaviour of the worker, who functions according to his internalized professional standards, derived from professional knowledge, ethics and controls. Tasks which require a high degree of autonomy on the part of the worker are those which are not amenable to explicit rules or generalized routines. Another aspect of worker autonomy is v i s i b i l i t y . The less visible the worker-client contact, the less subject to external scrutiny is the worker1s performance. In situations in which tasks are performed in private, in accordance with the confidential services offered by social agencies, i t is essential that internal controls be operative. A third factor influencing worker autonomy is the degree of organizational support for social work standards, which enables the worker co u t i l i z e properly his knowledge, values and s k i l l s ( 4 ) . "Task complexity": The study from which this concept was derived, the Minnesota N.A.S.W. study ( 7 ) , did not.attempt to define this criterion, as the authors considered i t sufficiently descriptive. It was our opinion that "task complexity" required an operational 37. definition, and we concluded that i t could best be described as the requirement of integrating a large number of activities or quantity of information in performing a task. A task with, low complexity would be single-faceted,, whereas a task with high complexity, would be multi-faceted. It is believed by, some that a social work task can be complex also in terms of its objectivity (dealing in tangibles) or subjectivity (dealing in intangibles). That is, a subjective task (such as one involving the conscious use of the client-worker relationship) might be considered complex, whereas an objective task (such as completing forms according to regulations) might not be considered as complex. While we acknowledged the validity of this proposition, we could not assume a correlation between subjectivity-objectivity and the number of activities inherent in the task, so that we could not measure complexity with regard to both elements simultaneously. Because our definition of worker autonomy did embody the elements of subjectivity and objectivity, we limited our definition of task complexity to that described above. We realize that this process of criteria analysis is not ideally complete because we have left out a most.important element -namely, the client. The concept of "client vulnerability" as a criterion of task classification has been;widely, proposed in.the literature, and our position on i t is discussed in the following paragraph. We agree with the decision of the Minnesota N.A.S.W. (7) reject-ing the use of "client vulnerability" as a criterion. "Client vulnerability" is defined as the degree to which the client is vulnerable to harm resulting from the fact that the worker may not have "built-in" social work values, knowledge and skills that are the sine qua non of professional performance ( 4 ) . Because of the observation (outlined 38. i n Chapter I I ) that " c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y " i s r e l a t e d to the i n d i v i d u a l c l i e n t and not to the task performed, the study of " c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y " r e q u i r e s the use of value judgments so that a d e f i n i t i o n , s c a l i n g and assessment of t h i s c r i t e r i o n would present a number of d i f f i c u l t i e s . Nevertheless, the c l i e n t i s not being ignored i n our c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , as the concept of "worker autonomy" i s based i n p a r t on the worker's i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l norms, values and e t h i c s , which serve to p r o t e c t the c l i e n t . A long-range goal r e l a t e d to t h i s study i s the development of problem c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which p r e s c r i b e treatment f o r the c l i e n t . At present, however, we have but l i m i t e d g u i d e l i n e s . Consequently, we b e l i e v e that the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity", as defined, served our purposes best w i t h i n our l i m i t e d framework, and thus the i n t e n t of our study was to focus on the worker and the task he performs, independent of the c l i e n t served. Other c r i t e r i a proposed i n the l i t e r a t u r e , and o u t l i n e d i n Chapter I I , were not considered u s e f u l . "Basic f a c t - f i n d i n g " as opposed to "decision-making" was r e j e c t e d because we f e l t that such-a d i v i s i o n of tasks d i d not a l l o w f or s u f f i c i e n t independent observation by researchers. F a c t - f i n d i n g can be considered a less-complex area of tasks than decision-making, but unless one were more s p e c i f i c regarding c r i t e r i a f o r tasks that c o n s t i t u t e f a c t - f i n d i n g then the concept i s too vague. Furthermore, although these c r i t e r i a have been proposed i n the l i t e r a t u r e , there has been l i t t l e d e t a i l e d examination: Daly (11) mentions the complexity f a c t o r between " f a c t - f i n d i n g " and " d e c i s i o n -making" but does not attempt to e l a b o r a t e . The c r i t e r i a of " s o c i a l work" vs. "n o n - s o c i a l work" tasks were not considered u s e f u l p r i m a r i l y because of d i f f i c u l t y i n d e f i n i t i o n s , and we f e l t that any attempt would evoke considerable controversy, due 3 9 . to the scope of the s o c i a l work job. In t h i s regard, Beck (4) p o i n t s out the need f o r a d e f i n i t i o n of s o c i a l work tasks, which i s p r e s e n t l y l a c k i n g . Jones' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (17) presents the same d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h respect to d e f i n i t i o n s . She i n c l u d e s i n the " s o c i a l work" category of tasks d i r e c t involvement w i t h the c l i e n t that can be considered as ongoing contact. This i s too broad f o r our purposes since i n c h i l d welfare there i s a great deal of "on-going" contact - such concrete s e r v i c e s as arranging medical appointments and a l l o c a t i o n of c h i l d r e n ' s allowances that may not come under the banner of S o c i a l Work. We b e l i e v e our c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" covered t h i s concept i n a l e s s r e s t r i c t i v e f a s h i o n . "Conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p " vs. "non-conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p " were not adopted as c r i t e r i a because we f e l t , f i r s t l y , that these are of too s u b j e c t i v e a nature to measure. Use of r e l a t i o n -ship i m p l i e s worker's use of personal s e l f i n h e l p i n g the c l i e n t , which would mean an understanding of the i n d i v i d u a l worker's degree of s e l f -awareness and a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e t h i s i n a c o n s t r u c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the c l i e n t . Needless to say, such knowledge i s w e l l beyond the scope of our study. A second reason f o r r e j e c t i n g these c r i t e r i a i s that there i s no extensive d i s c u s s i o n of them i n the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed f o r t h i s study. In a d d i t i o n , the concept of "conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p " i s i m p l i e d i n a l l previous c r i t e r i a and, due to the v i r t u a l i m p o s s i b i l i t y of c a p t u r i n g such a vague ( a l b e i t important) phenomenon, we f e l t i t would best be l e f t as i m p l i e d i n our c r i t e r i a of worker autonomy and task complexity. LEVEL OF RESEARCH DESIGN Our d e c i s i o n to d e l i n e a t e s o c i a l work tasks according to the c r i t e r i a of "task complexity" and "worker autonomy" n e c e s s i t a t e d a f u r t h e r d e c i s i o n regarding the l e v e l of research design. On the b a s i s of the l i m i t e d amount of e v a l u a t i v e research a v a i l a b l e which u t i l i z e d our approach, the l i m i t e d amount of time a v a i l a b l e to complete the p r o j e c t , and the extensive scope of s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by the Children's A i d S o c i e t y (Vancouver); we e l e c t e d to develop a " p i l o t p r o j e c t " . This approach, we b e l i e v e , i s of s u f f i c i e n t scope to i n d i c a t e whether or not i t i s f e a s i b l e to d e l i n e a t e the various tasks performed by agency personnel as the beginning p o i n t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a more e f f e c t i v e model f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n of s o c i a l work personnel. As w e l l , the cost of a p i l o t p r o j e c t as opposed to a more extensive study would be held to a minimum l e v e l w h i l e p r o v i d i n g i n d i c a t i o n s as to whether or not i t could be a p p l i e d to other programs both w i t h i n the agency and i n other agencies. "Se r v i c e s to Unmarried Parents", "Services to Adopting Parents", "Services to Children-In--;Care", and " C h i l d P r o t e c t i o n S e r v i c e s " was a v a i l a b l e f o r s e l e c t i o n as the focus of our p r o j e c t . Our d e c i s i o n to s e l e c t the "Services to Children-In-Care" program was based upon the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : Each of the programs o f f e r e d by the C.A.S. (Vancouver), i . e . 1. The program provided a broad scope of s e r v i c e s and comprised the core of a g e n e r a l i z e d f i e l d - u n i t caseload. 2. The s e r v i c e s are provided by f i v e semi-autonomous work u n i t s . 3. The s e r v i c e s are provided by s t a f f members who have various l e v e l s of t r a i n i n g and education. 4. G u i d e l i n e s f o r the r o l e performance of s t a f f are not r i g i d l y defined and vary between work u n i t s . 5. The previous d e l i n e a t i o n of tasks by the Children's Bureau Study (37) i n t h i s area was perceived as p r o v i d i n g a core to developing a l i s t of t a s k s . 41. Upon f u r t h e r examination of the s e r v i c e s to " c h i l d r e n - i n - c a r e " program, i t became apparent that i t was composed of two areas or sub-programs i . e . s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d to f o s t e r homes and s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d to group homes. Because, on p r e l i m i n a r y examination these s e r v i c e s d i f f e r e d to a large degree and because the group home sub-program was i n a period of change, we decided to l i m i t the scope of our p i l o t p r o j e c t to " s e r v i c e s to c h i l d r e n i n f o s t e r home care". SAMPLING PROCEDURES A f t e r the focus f o r our p r o j e c t had been determined, i t became necessary to s e l e c t the optimum method of d e l i n e a t i n g the various tasks performed w i t h i n the area of s e r v i c e s to c h i l d r e n i n f o s t e r homes. We decided to develop a schedule of itemized tasks which would be pre-sented to a sample of workers i n our s e l e c t e d area. A f t e r t h e i r c l a r i -f i c a t i o n of the items and assessment of the comprehensiveness of the tasks, the r e v i s e d schedule would be presented to a panel of judges who would r a t e the tasks according to the "complexity" of the task and the degree of "worker autonomy" involved i n performing the task. Our d e c i s i o n to u t i l i z e the method was based upon the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : 1. The time a v a i l a b l e to both the research group and the workers at C.A.S. (Vancouver); 2. the degree of o b j e c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d i n the method chosen; 3. the cost of the method chosen; 4. the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of the method; 5. the amount of t r a i n i n g r e quired by the judges, s t a f f , and research members; 6. the estimated degree of r e s i s t a n c e expected from the workers; 42. 7. the degree to which the research group's knowledge and experience could be u t i l i z e d , and 8. the g u i d e l i n e provided i n the l i t e r a t u r e . The a l t e r n a t i v e methods of d e l i n e a t i n g tasks which were examined and the reasons f o r t h e i r r e j e c t i o n , are l i s t e d below: 1. Personal Observation - A method of personal observation of worker a c t i v i t i e s would n e c e s s i t a t e the t r a i n i n g of the observers to ensure r e l i a b l e and v a l i d data c o l l e c t i o n . The time i n v o l v e d i n t r a i n i n g and observation would be p r o h i b i t i v e i n terms of demands on the p r o j e c t members and the s t a f f of C.A.S. (Vancouver). As w e l l , some s t a f f members i n casua l c o n v e r s a t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h e i r r e s i s t a n c e to t h i s approach because of the e f f e c t upon c l i e n t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . 2. P a r t i c i p a n t Observation -The method of the p r o j e c t members assuming the workers' r o l e s was not considered s a t i s f a c t o r y because of the e f f e c t on the w o r k e r - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p and the amount of time involved i n t r a i n i n g and obs e r v a t i o n . However, si n c e a l l the members of the p r o j e c t had at l e a s t four months work experience at C.A.S. (Vancouver), t h e i r experience was u t i l i z e d i n the approach s e l e c t e d . 3. I n t e r v i e w i n g Workers - Any method of i n t e r v i e w i n g workers i n an e f f o r t to e s t a b l i s h the tasks they performed was deemed u n r e l i a b l e due to the high r e l i a n c e on t h e i r a b i l i t y to r e c a l l . 4. Interviewing.Supervisors - S i m i l a r to the above method, i n t e r v i e w s w i t h supervisors would be subject to the same r e s t r i c t i o n s . As w e l l , the " s o c i a l d i s t a n c e " between the supervisors and the workers which removes the former from the immediacy of the tasks performed would tend to decrease r e l i a b i l i t y . . 5. E x t r a p o l a t i o n from Job D e s c r i p t i o n s - As job d e s c r i p t i o n s are g l o b a l and not w e l l d e f i n e d , the method of e x t r a p o l a t i n g tasks from 43. them was not considered v a l i d by the researchers. 6. Use of Agency Records - From personal experience, the research group discounted the use of recording as i t i s not comprehen-s i v e enough to provide an adequate l i s t of tasks. 7. Use of Tape Recorders - This method d i d not appear to be appropriate due to the time involved i n e x t r a c t i n g items and the t r a i n i n g i n v o l v e d i n developing r e l i a b l e and v a l i d data. 8. W r i t e - i n Schedules - Use of w r i t e - i n schedules by workers and/or supervisors would make heavy demands on s t a f f time and would probably create unnecessary d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e l i n e a t i n g items. As p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d , i t was necessary to s e l e c t two samples; one sample to p r e - t e s t the l i s t of items, and the other to r a t e the items according to the- c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d . The f i r s t sample was drawn from the e i g h t y - e i g h t workers (Nov./ 1966) employed by C.A.S. (Vancouver). The workers in v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s to c h i l d r e n i n f o s t e r home care had three l e v e l s of education and t r a i n i n g . These are 1.) those w i t h an undergraduate degree and one year of p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g (B.S.W.'s); 2.) those w i t h an undergraduate degree without p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l work t r a i n i n g but u s u a l l y w i t h some experience i n s o c i a l work or r e l a t e d areas (B.A.'s); and 3.) those with one year of post-secondary school t r a i n i n g ( w e l f a r e - a i d e s ) . The s e r v i c e to c h i l d r e n . i n f o s t e r home care i s provided by the workers i n f i v e u n i t s ; East, F r a s e r , South, Centre and West. Each u n i t i s comprised of one welf a r e ^ a i d e and a number of "B.A." and "B.S.W." workers, plus a supervisor and a s s i s t a n t s u p e r v i s o r . With the exception of the l a t t e r two p o s i t i o n s , omitted from our s e l e c t i o n . a s they-are not d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n f i e l d work, the p o p u l a t i o n from which our sample was drawn c o n s i s t e d of the welfare-aides and the "B.A." and "B.S.W." workers 4 4 . w i t h i n the f i v e work u n i t s who had been employed with the agency for a pe r i o d of at l e a s t three months. Our sample, randomly s e l e c t e d , c o n s i s t e d of one "B.A." worker and one "B.S.W." worker as w e l l as the "we l f a r e - a i d e " from each u n i t . That i s to say the sample included one worker at each l e v e l of education and t r a i n i n g from each of the f i v e work u n i t s - a t o t a l of f i f t e e n workers. The second sample to o b t a i n was that of the judges who would r a t e the items according to our c r i t e r i a . We a r b i t r a r i l y decided to s e l e c t a sample of twelve, d i v i d e d i n t o two groups of s i x s t a f f members of C.A.S. (Vancouver) and s i x members of other agencies. We e s t a b l i s h e d the minimum of a "B.S.W." l e v e l of t r a i n i n g and two years experience as the c r i t e r i a f o r the C.A.S. (Vancouver). s t a f f . This provided a po p u l a t i o n of forty-one s t a f f members from which to draw our sample; four from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e v e l , twelve from the supervisory, l e v e l , and twenty-five from workers at the l i n e l e v e l . On the b a s i s of a rough p r o p o r t i o n , one s t a f f member from a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , two su p e r v i s o r s , and three workers were randomly s e l e c t e d . The other s i x members of the judging panel were randomly s e l e c t e d from a l i s t of seventy-six members supplied by the Vancouver Branch of the B.C.A.S.W. (1966) who met the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a . They had worked i n C h i l d Welfare at l e a s t two of the past f i v e years, were not employed by C.A.S. (Vancouver), and had at l e a s t a "B.S.W." l e v e l of t r a i n i n g . I n both groups of judges, e x t r a members were randomly s e l e c t e d to p r o t e c t against the event that those i n i t i a l l y s e l e c t e d would be unable to p a r t i c i p a t e . DATA COLLECTION Concomitantly with the s e l e c t i o n of judges, two members of the research p r o j e c t developed a l i s t of tasks using t h e i r own work experience, the Bridges Report (7), and the Childrens Bureau Study (37) to formulate the schedule. S i m i l a r to the Bridges Report, i n i t i a l d i f f i c u l t y was encountered at d e l i n e a t i n g the tasks, but by e s t a b l i s h i n g ten categ o r i e s under which to d e l i n e a t e the tasks, our job was f a c i l i t a t e d . The ca t e g o r i e s are: 1. Placement i n Foster Home; 2. Medical Resources; 3. C l o t h i n g and Allowance; 4. Court; 5. School; 6. Recreation; 7. Family V i s i t s ; 8. Work with Family; 9. Termination of Placement; and 10. Mi s c e l l a n e o u s . The i n i t i a l d r a f t of the itemize d tasks was then r e f e r r e d to the t o t a l research group f o r r e v i s i o n s , c l a r i f i c a t i o n s and the i n c o r p o r a t i o n of omissions. A t o t a l of 121 tasks were d e l i n e a t e d . F o l l o w i n g t h i s , the l i s t of tasks was incorporated i n t o the schedule to be presented to the workers. I t included an i n s t r u c t i o n page, a g r i d f o r t a l l y i n g worker a c t i v i t i e s , and space f o r comments and omitted items. During the time the schedule was being developed a meeting was held w i t h the research l i a i s o n person at C.A.S. (Vancouver). At t h i s meeting i t was agreed that a meeting would be held with the sample of workers and the u n i t supervisors to d i s c u s s the purpose of the study, t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s , to answer questions, and c l a r i f y the operations involved i n completing the schedule. The week f o l l o w i n g the meeting was u t i l i z e d f o r the i n i t i a l t e s t run of the schedule. On the basis of workers' comments, questions, and i n d i c a t i o n s of omissions, a r e v i s e d schedule was developed by the research group. A t o t a l of twenty items was r e v i s e d to enhance c l a r i t y and twenty-three items were added. As no items were deleted a t o t a l of 144 items was l i s t e d . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were a l s o r e v i s e d as there apparently was some misunderstanding i n t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 46 . F o l l o w i n g the r e v i s i o n of the schedule, i t was again administered to the same sample of workers for another weekly p e r i o d . Upon completion, the l i m i t e d number of comments by workers were again considered but the research group decided that f u r t h e r r e v i s i o n s were unnecessary. As the task schedule was now completed, arrangements were made fo r the judges to r a t e the items according to the c r i t e r i a of "complexity" and "worker autonomy". A set of i n s t r u c t i o n s was provided f o r the judges. P r i o r to the r a t i n g , three members of the research p r o j e c t met with the sample of judges to i n t e r p r e t the scope of the p r o j e c t , to discuss the r o l e and operations of the judges, and to answer and c l a r i f y any questions that arose. The schedules f o r "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" were administered c o n s e c u t i v e l y , and the judging was completed i n one s e s s i o n . CHAPTER IV STUDY FINDINGS INTRODUCTION The chapter on "Study Findings" deals with the descriptive data on the study sample, problems in data collection, modification in study design and findings on the study questions. The format of this chapter is outlined below. In the f i r s t part of the chapter we describe d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered with the judging and the rating scale. Following this, we present the frequency distribution on the judges' ratings of "task complexity" and "worker autonomy" using model agreements. We then describe the modifications made in the rating scale and in the number of judges used. In the analysis of data, we show the relation-ship between "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" and we examine those tasks for which the ratings were problematic. The findings as they relate to the basic assumptions of the study are discussed at the conslusion. PROBLEMS IN SAMPLING AND DATA COLLECTION Our data collection was completed with the judging of the tasks that took place in one two-hour session. One of the twelve judges did not attend the session and, because he gave no prior notification, we were unable to acquire a replacement. Each judge was given an instruction sheet (see Appendix C) with an explanation of c r i t e r i a and rating procedure. Following the judging i t was discovered that two of the judges, who identified their schedules, had had d i f f i c u l t y in interpretation of our definition of "worker autonomy" 48. They i n t e r p r e t e d "worker autonomy" as r e f e r r i n g to the l a c k of e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s upon the o v e r a l l behaviour of the worker ra t h e r than to only that behaviour r e l a t e d to the worker's i n t e r n a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l standards. For example, task no. 139, "Store personal e f f e c t s " , was rated by these two judges as r e q u i r i n g the highest degree of "worker autonomy" whereas a l l the other judges rated t h i s task at the lowest l e v e l of "worker autonomy". As a r e s u l t , the r a t i n g s of these two judges i n d i c a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n from those of the other nine judges. Another problem encountered i n data c o l l e c t i o n i n v o l v e d our r a t i n g s c a l e . A m a j o r i t y of the judges expressed d i f f i c u l t y i n r a t i n g the tasks on our 5-point s c a l e . For example, some stated they, had d i f f i c u l t y d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between l e v e l s 1 and 2 and between l e v e l s 4 and 5. These were the only s i g n i f i c a n t problems we encountered i n sampling and data c o l l e c t i o n which had to be d e a l t w i t h i n . a n a l y z i n g the data. DATA ANALYSIS I t was decided i n a meeting held by the researchers that should there be a s i g n i f i c a n t discrepancy, between the r a t i n g s of the two judges who m i s i n t e r p r e t e d our d e f i n i t i o n of autonomy, and the r a t i n g s of the other judges, we would e l i m i n a t e the schedules of the two judges. We a l s o discussed the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o l l a p s i n g the f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e i n t o a t h r e e - p o i n t s c a l e c o n s i d e r i n g two a l t e r n a t i v e means of achieving t h i s . The f i r s t was to combine l e v e l s 2, 3 and 4, to form a s i n g l e l e v e l ; the second, to combine l e v e l s 1 and 2 and l e v e l s 4 and 5. I t was tenta-t i v e l y decided to use the l a t t e r method on the b a s i s of the comments made by s e v e r a l judges on the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between l e v e l s 1 and 2 and between l e v e l s 4 and 5 i n r a t i n g both "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". I t was f u r t h e r decided to d i v i d e the tasks i n t o three cate-g o r i e s dependent upon the l e v e l s of agreement i n the r a t i n g s of the judges. We a r b i t r a r i l y • c l a s s i f i e d those tasks which had above 757. l e v e l of agreement as having a high l e v e l of agreement, those between 60-757o as having a medium l e v e l of agreement and those below 607, as having a low l e v e l of agreement. The f i r s t step i n a n a l y s i s of the data was to c a l c u l a t e the modal agreements f o r each task for "worker autonomy" and "task complexity", on both a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e and a three-point s c a l e , (see Appendices E and F) That i s , f o r each task we c a l c u l a t e d the number of judges who rated each task at various l e v e l s - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e , and 1, 2 and 3 on the three-point s c a l e , using eleven judges f o r "task complexity", eleven judges f o r "worker autonomy" and nine judges f o r "worker autonomy". From the t a b l e and graphs f o l l o w i n g , i t can be seen that there was an observable d i f f e r e n c e on the "worker autonomy" r a t i n g s between nine judges and eleven judges. We found a l s o that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between l e v e l s of agreement using the f i v e -p o i n t s c a l e and the three-point s c a l e . The f i n d i n g s were as f o l l o w s : TABLE I PER CENT AGREEMENT ON AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY OF TASKS USING FIVE-POINT SCALE AND THREE-POINT SCALE FIVE-POINT SCALE AUTONOMY -(a) 23 tasks >75% agreement (b) 26 tasks ^ 6 0 % agreement (c) 95 tasks <C60% agreement COMPLEXITY (a) 22 tasks > 75% agreement (b) 43 tasks 53-60% agreement (c) 79 tasks < 60% agreement THREE-POINT SCALE AUTONOMY - 11 judges: (a) 37 tasks > 75% agreement (b) 27 tasks Ss* 70% agreement (c) 32 tasks -5^60% agreement ( d ) 48 tasks -« 60% agreement AUTONOMY - 9 judges: (a) 7fe tasks > 75% agreement (b) 30 tasks ^ 60% agreement (c) 38 tasks <T 60% agreement COMPLEXITY (a) 76 tasks > 75% agreement (b) 18 tasks 5 r 70% agreement (c) 11 tasks ^ 60% agreement (d) 39 tasks < 60% agreement 5 1 . 1 0 0 • -7 5 • -No. of tasks 5 0 -2 5 -1 0 0 - -GRAPH 1 HISTOGRAM ILLUSTRATING PER CENT AGREEMENT ON AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY USING FIVE-POINT SCALE Vs < 6 0 7 , (7 [ | Complexity ^ Autonomy 6 0 - 7 5 7 o Per Cent Agreement V2 >75% GRAPH 2 HISTOGRAM ILLUSTRATING PER CENT AGREEMENT ON AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY USING CTREE-POINT SCALE | [ Complexity ^ Autonomy 7 5 • - -No. of tasks 5 0 - -2 5 • - 1 < 6 0 7 o Vs 6 0 - 7 5 7 , Per Cent Agreement > 7 5 7 „ On the b a s i s of these f i n d i n g s i t was decided to e l i m i n a t e the r a t i n g s on "worker autonomy" by the two judges mentioned p r e v i o u s l y . I t was al s o decided to use a three-point s c a l e throughout the remainder of t h i s study. U t i l i z i n g the three-point s c a l e f o r l e v e l s of "worker autonomy", the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were obtained: ( 1 ) At a l e v e l of agreement greater than 7 5 7 o , t h i r t y tasks were rated at l e v e l 1 , no tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 , and f o r t y - s i x tasks were rated at l e v e l 3 . ( 2 ) At a l e v e l of agreement between 6 0 and 7 5 7 . . , twelve tasks were rated at l e v e l 1 , two tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 , and s i x -teen tasks were rated at l e v e l 3 . ( 3 ) At a l e v e l of agreement of l e s s than 6 0 7 » , s i x t e e n tasks were rated a t l e v e l 1 , e i g h t tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 , and nine tasks were r a t e d at l e v e l 3 . In t h i s category, f o r f i v e tasks the modes were located at two or three l e v e l s . U t i l i z i n g the three-point s c a l e f o r l e v e l s of "task complexity' the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were obtained: ( 1 ) At a l e v e l of agreement greater than 757<>, t h i r t y tasks were rated at l e v e l 1 , two tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 and f o r t y - f o u r tasks were rated at l e v e l 3 . ( 2 ) At a l e v e l of agreement between 6 0 and 7 5 % , f i f t e e n tasks were rated at l e v e l 1 , three tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 , and ten tasks were rated at l e v e l 3 . ( 3 ) At a l e v e l of agreement of l e s s than 6 0 % , , e i g h t tasks were rated at l e v e l 1 , eleven tasks were rated at l e v e l 2 , and ten tasks were rated at l e v e l 3 . I n t h i s category, f o r ten tasks the modes were loc a t e d at two or three l e v e l s . (See Appendix G) Our concern focused upon the tasks which rated below a 60% l e v e l of. agreement on the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". Three p o s s i b l e problem areas were suggested f o r examin-a t i o n by the research group. These were (1) d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n the f i v e - p o i n t r a t h e r than a three-point r a t i n g s c a l e ; (2) ambiguity i n the wording of the tasks; and (3) d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n the i n s t r u c t i o n s to and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by the judges. Contrary to the tendency toward grouping at the end-points of the s c a l e i n the tasks which reached a l e v e l of agreement above 607,, we n o t i c e d a tendency toward c e n t r a l grouping of the tasks which f e l l below a 607, l e v e l of agreement. F o l l o w i n g upon t h i s , we decided to combine l e v e l s 2, 3, and 4 of the s c a l e on these tasks. Of the t h i r t y - n i n e tasks rated on the c r i t e r i o n of "task complexity", twenty-eight tasks had an agreement of greater than 757,, eleven f e l l between 60-757, and no tasks had l e s s than 607, l e v e l of agreement when the s c a l e was combined. S i m i l a r l y , f o r the t h i r t y - e i g h t tasks rated on the c r i t e r i o n of "worker autonomy", twenty-eight tasks had. an ; agreement of greater than 757,, seven had between 60-757, and three £nos. 55, 63 and 95) had l e s s t h a ^ a 607, l e v e l of agreement. (See Appendices J, and K) Furthermore, when the tasks which y i e l d e d l e s s than a 607, l e v e l of agreement on the i n i t i a l t hree-point s c a l e were considered by combining l e v e l s 2 and 3 or l e v e l s 3 and 4, depending on which category the greatest number of items were ra t e d , the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were observed. On.the c r i t e r i o n of "task complexity", s i x t e e n items had an agreement greater than .757,. Sixt e e n items were between 60-757, and seven items were l e s s than 607,. On the c r i t e r i o n of "worker autonomy", fourteen items had an, agreement greater than .757,, eleven. items were between 60-757, and t h i r t e e n items were l e s s than 607=,. Although a t o t a l 5 4 . of twenty-two items were rated at l e s s than a 6 0 % , l e v e l of agreement on both c r i t e r i a on the three-point s c a l e , only four (nos. 4 8 , 7 6 , 1 1 4 and 1 4 4 ) had l e s s than a 6 0 7 o l e v e l of agreement on the s c a l e c o l l a p s e d by the l a t t e r method. This tendency toward c l u s t e r i n g again i n d i c a t e s the d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by the judges i n d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between adjacent points on the s c a l e both at the end points (with those items with a l e v e l of agreement greater than 6 0 % , ) and i n the c e n t r a l area (with those items with, a l e v e l of agreement l e s s than 6 0 % , ) . The r a m i f i c a t i o n s of t h i s problem w i l l be discussed i n Chapter V. The second f a c t o r we examined was the a c t u a l wording of the tasks. As examples, the reader i s r e f e r r e d to task nos. 4 8 , 7 6 , 1 1 4 and 1 4 4 . We wanted to determine i f the wording of the tasks accounted f o r the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r a t i n g by the judges. The r a t i n g of task n o . 4 8 (Arrange f o r f u n e r a l s ) p o s s i b l y created d i f f i c u l t i e s because i t i s a r e l a t i v e l y uncommon task and i t was not described i n any d e t a i l . Task no. 7 6 (Obtain,and/or process court documents) included two operations. Task no. 1 1 4 (Obtain "Permission to Marry") n e c e s s i t a t e s the pr e p a r a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of a report which i s probably f a m i l i a r only to employees of the Children's A i d S o c i e t y . The process i s i d e n t i c a l to that i n task no. I l l , which had a high l e v e l of agreement on "task complexity" and a high l e v e l of agreement on "worker autonomy" when two adjacent c a t e g o r i e s were considered. The l a s t item, no. 1 4 4 , (Present c h i l d at Adoption Conference) was not e x p l i c i t i n the op e r a t i o n r e q u i r e d . We f e e l that with greater c l a r i t y of wording, the l e v e l of agreement i n the judges' r a t i n g s could have been increased. The t h i r d area concerns the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t i o n s to the judges. As the i n s t r u c t i o n s were presented both v e r b a l l y and i n w r i t t e n form,, and three members of the research group were a v a i l a b l e throughout the judging to answer any questions, we f e l t we had handled t h i s procedure adequately. Upon re-examining some of the tasks, we speculated that t h e i r r a t i n g s may have been dependent upon the r a t e r ' s s u b j e c t i v e p e r c e p t i o n of them. For example, task no. 55 (Take c h i l d shopping) and task no. 63 ( S t a t i s t i c s ) have d i f f e r e n t i a l meanings to va r i o u s workers. Monthly s t a t i s t i c s are viewed with great t r e p i d a t i o n by some! These v a r i a b l e s cannot be c o n t r o l l e d . RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RATINGS OF AUTONOMY AND RATINGS OF COMPLEXITY Using the three l e v e l s of our r a t i n g s c a l e - i . e . , l e v e l 1 (low r a t i n g ) , l e v e l 2 (medium r a t i n g ) and l e v e l 3 (high r a t i n g ) - as c r i t e r i a to measure the r e l a t i o n s h i p between "worker autonomy" and "task complexity", a n a l y s i s of f i n d i n g s revealed that of the 144 tasks 118 had the same modal r a t i n g s between autonomy, and complexity.* Of the remaining twenty-six tasks, eleven f e l l w i t h i n adjacent r a t i n g l e v e l s (e.g., task no. 88 included r a t i n g l e v e l s 2 and 3) and f i f t e e n showed no appreciable r e l a t i o n s h i p (e.g., a comparison of modal agree-ments on task no. 46 included three r a t i n g l e v e l s : , l e v e l 1 regarding autonomy and l e v e l s 2 and 3 regarding complexity). Of the 118 tasks that had the same modal r a t i n g s , f i f t y were i n l e v e l 1, f i v e were i n . l e v e l 2 and s i x t y - t h r e e i n l e v e l 3: A l l tasks whose modal agreement f e l l w i t h i n any one scal e were considered to have a high r e l a t i o n s h i p . 56. GRAPH 3 DISTRIBUTION,OF MODAL RATINGS FOR TASKS WITH HIGH RELATIONSHIP 75 -Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 (LOW) (MEDIUM) (HIGH) RATING LEVELS A breakdown of f i n d i n g s on the 118 tasks i s shown.in the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e : TABLE I I PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR SELECTED COMBINATIONS OF OF AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY RATINGS 7= AGREEMENT . Level 1 L e v e l 2 L e v e l 3 ~> 757, agreement on. autonomy ^ Q 28 s* 757, agreement on complexity , ^ 7 5 7 , agreement on autonomy 6 0 3 6 0 - 7 5 7 . agreement on complexity 7>757c agreement on autonomy ^ 0 3 •*£607o agreement on complexity 6 0 - 7 5 7 , agreement on autonomy 4 0 4 ~>7b% agreement on complexity 6 0 - 7 5 7 , agreement on. autonomy 5 0 6 6 0 - 7 5 7 , agreement on complexity 60-757 , agreement on. autonomy 1 1 5 < 607, agreement on complexity < 607, agreement on autonomy 3 1 2 >15°L agreement on complexity ^607o. agreement on. autonomy 4 2 1 60-757o agreement on complexity ^ 6 0 7 , agreement on autonomy ^ ^ ^ <607, agreement on complexity T o t a l 50 5 63 Please r e f e r to Appendix H f o r the a c t u a l tasks i n v o l v e d . From the t a b l e the f o l l o w i n g observations are made: (1) There i s a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r a t i n g s of "worker autonomy" and r a t i n g s of "task complexity" i n 118 out of 144 tasks (the remaining twenty-six tasks were not c l o s e l y r e l a t e d and w i l l be discussed i n the next paragraph (2) There i s a d e f i n i t e tendency f o r grouping a t the high and low ends of the r a t i n g s c a l e ( i . e . , l e v e l s 1 and 3 ) , (3) Low agreement i s seen at the middle l e v e l of the r a t i n g s c a l e , and (4) There i s a p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y 58 greater number of tasks w i t h the highest (I?\757o) degree of agreement f o r both autonomy and complexity i n l e v e l s 1 and 3 . These observations p o i n t to the general accuracy and non-ambiguous nature of the tasks. I t i s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d by these observations that d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of tasks i n t o c a t e g o r i e s r e q u i r i n g various l e v e l s of p r o f e s s i o n a l competence appears f e a s i b l e . Regarding the eleven tasks that f e l l w i t h i n adjacent r a t i n g l e v e l s , the breakdown i s as f o l l o w s : F i v e tasks f e l l w i t h i n l e v e l 2 on complexity and l e v e l 3 on au tonomy: task no. l e v e l 2 on complexity l e v e l 3 on autonomy 13 607o agreement ^ 6 0 7 . agreement ^5 I I I I it I I 64 11 " " " 88 11 " p>757o agreement 116 " " " " Three tasks f e l l w i t h i n l e v e l 2 on autonomy and l e v e l 3 on complexity: task no. l e v e l 3 on complexity l e v e l 2 on autonomy 36 60-757, agreement ^.607 o agreement 137 <. 607o agreement 60-757. agreement 107 < 607» agreement <607o agreement Two tasks f e l l w i t h i n l e v e l 1 on.autonomy and l e v e l 2 on complexity: task no. l e v e l 2 on complexity l e v e l 1 on autonomy 111 >757o agreement ^ 6 0 7 . agreement 114 -C607, agreement <607> agreement One task f e l l w i t h i n l e v e l 2 on autonomy and l e v e l 1 on complexi This task no. 69 , showed <| 607> agreement on both autonomy and complexity. Because each of these eleven tasks f e l l w i t h i n two r a t i n g scales a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between autonomy and complexity cannot be assumed. However, i t seems that some of these tasks could c o n f i d e n t l y be assigned to personnel at various l e v e l s of p r o f e s s i o n a l competence. For example, task no. 8 8 , w i t h a >757, agreement on autonomy at l e v e l 3 could no doubt be assigned to a worker of high p r o f e s s i o n a l a b i l i t y , w h i l e task no. 107 , w i t h <C607> agreement on autonomy at l e v e l 2 and <607o agreement on complexity at l e v e l 3 , might be d i f f i c u l t to a s s i g n . The remaining f i f t e e n tasks a l l showed no appreciable degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p , since each included three r a t i n g l e v e l s . Please r e f e r to Table I I I below. TABLE I I I RATING LEVEL AND PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR TASKS WITH NO APPRECIABLE DEGREE OF RELATIONSHIP task no. r a t i n g l e v e l 7. agreement autonomy complexity autonomy complexity 127 1 1 & 2 <607, <607o 28 1 1 & 3 60-757, <607, 41 1 1 & 2 60-757, 46 1 2 & 3 <607, " 48 1 1 & 3 " 96 1 1 & 2 " " 117 2 1 & 3 11 " 44 3 2 & 3 60-757, 70 3 1 & 3 <£607, 144 3 1 & : 3 " 37 1 & 2 2 " " 56 2 & 3 2 " 60-757, 63 1 & 3 1 " . .£607, 113 1 &,2 .1 " " 51 1 & 2 2 " " In ; a d d i t i o n to the l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p i t can be seen that most of the above tasks have modal agreement of l e s s than 607, and none greater than 60 -757, . This p o i n t s to the d i f f i c u l t i e s o u t l i n e d p r e v i o u s l y -namely, p o s s i b l e ambiguity of wording of tasks, d i f f i c u l t i e s regarding i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to and by judges and d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h respect to the r a t i n g s c a l e . SUMMARY OF STUDY FINDINGS This study constituted an attempt to discover whether a comprehensive l i s t of tasks could be compiled which described the work done by employees of the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver, B.C., in the area of Services to Children in Foster-Care. If this were possible, we wanted to know i f such a l i s t of tasks could be differentiated according to the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and."task complexity" by a group of judges. We wanted to discover, too, the degree of correlation between these two c r i t e r i a . The following is a summary of our findings: (1) We concluded that i t is possible to develop a l i s t of tasks which accurately describes the services provided to Children in Foster-Care. Our i n i t i a l schedule of 121 tasks was administered to a sample of workers from the Children's Aid society who were asked to place a t a l l y mark by a task every time i t was performed over a five-day period. If a task was not carried out within this period, but had been performed in the past, the worker was asked to indicate this. Additions and comments were incorporated into a revised schedule with 144 tasks, which was administered for another five-day period. Again, workers were asked to point out omissions and to provide comments. Each of the tasks listed was marked at least once as having been performed. This provided a verification for every item on the schedule. Our sample of workers therefore concurred with our l i s t of tasks. (2) We concluded that tasks performed in providing services to Children in Foster-Care could be differentiated according to the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". Our evidence was derived from an analysis of the data, which indicated that there was a greater than 75% l e v e l of agreement i n the r a t i n g of over 507» of the t a s k s . Only 207. of the tasks had a l e s s than 607.. l e v e l of agreement. We speculated that the l e v e l of agreement f o r some tasks may, have been higher had the wording of the tasks been more e x p l i c i t or d e s c r i p t i v e . Furthermore, our a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d that the l e v e l of agreement f o r c e r t a i n tasks would have been increased had the o r i g i n a l s c a l e contained fewer choices. (3) A n a l y s i s of the data revealed that items tended to be dichotomized, at l e v e l s 1 and.3. This f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e s that c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s could be made by the judges i n r a t i n g tasks which,require a high or low degree of autonomy, and tasks which have a high or low degree of complexity. Such d i s t i n c t i o n s would f a c i l i t a t e the p o t e n t i a l assignment of tasks to personnel w i t h v a r y i n g educational back-grounds . (4) A comparison.of the data on "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" revealed a very c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these c r i t e r i a . This f i n d i n g suggests that i n subsequent studies,• both c r i t e r i a need not be u t i l i z e d i n the r a t i n g of tasks. Our study f i n d i n g s supported our i n i t i a l assumptions, demon-s t r a t i n g that tasks can be c l a s s i f i e d , and d i f f e r e n t i a t e d according to "task complexity" and "worker autonomy". Based upon these c o n c l u s i o n s , the f o l l o w i n g chapter focuses on the i m p l i c a t i o n s of our data, recommend-at i o n s for u t i l i z i n g i t , and proposals f o r f u r t h e r research. 62. CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS, PROPOSALS, AND SUMMARY IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Several i m p l i c a t i o n s followed from the study f i n d i n g s , both f o r task assignment to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s t a f f and f o r fu t u r e research. The f i n d i n g s showed that i t i s p o s s i b l e to develop a l i s t of tasks which a c c u r a t e l y describes the s e r v i c e s provided to " C h i l d r e n i n Foster Care". We a l s o found that i t i s p o s s i b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e these tasks according to the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". Consequently, i t may be assumed that s i m i l a r s tudies could be conducted i n other areas w i t h i n the agency. As there was a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" i n the m a j o r i t y of the tasks, i t was f e l t that i t would be p o s s i b l e to assign, t a s k s , u t i l i z i n g only one c r i t e r i o n , to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of workers. In t h i s case i t would be necessary f o r the c r i t e r i o n which was se l e c t e d to take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n those tasks i n which there was a discrepancy between worker autonomy and "task complexity". In that a task r e q u i r i n g a high degree of worker autonomy regard-l e s s of the l e v e l of "task complexity" can be e f f e c t i v e l y c a r r i e d out only by a h i g h l y educated worker, and that a task r e q u i r i n g l i t t l e worker autonomy, no matter how complex can be e f f e c t i v e l y c a r r i e d out by a worker w i t h a lower l e v e l of education, we suggest that the c r i t e r i o n of "worker autonomy" be used i n d e l i n e a t i n g tasks to d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s t a f f , and i n f u r t h e r studies of t h i s nature. The tasks tended to be dichotomized at high/low l e v e l s on the r a t i n g s c a l e . This dichotomy would appear to i n d i c a t e that tasks could be assigned to at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of workers w i t h l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . Several variables must, however, be taken into account. Personality factors, adequate staffing and the task order sequence play an important role in task assignment. We also observed that many interrelated tasks differed in their levels of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". This, once again, points out the real need for the team work approach in order to effect better services to the client. The five-point scale was found to be inadequate due to the d i f f i -culties of the majority.of judges in discriminaticfig between the levels on the end points of the rating|.scale. A modification of the five-point scale would therefore be desirable in further studies of this kind. The use of a four or three point scale would hopefully reduce the problems which we encountered. This study has looked at tasks primarily from one perspective -what the worker does, rather than what the client needs. The latter pers-pective i s , however, of prime importance for a comprehensive approach to man power studies, and should be considered in future research. PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This project represented a beginning point in studying the u t i l i -zation of manpower at the Children's Aid Society of Vancouver, B.C. The problems encountered in attempting to study as complex an area as the differential use of personnel are reflected in the integration of l i t e r -ature on this subject, Chapter II. Because of the numerous variables that must be taken into account, considerably more research must be carried out in this area before any definitive conclusions can be made. It is suggested that other areas of service at: the Children's Aid Society should be examined in a way similar to that of this study. 64. With the resultant data, we suggest that one unit of the agency be select-ed for a pilot project in which staff would u t i l i z e the "task-streaming" approach to work assignment. Other units would continue to use the "case-streaming" approach. Tasks which are rated at a high level could be assigned to a graduate social worker and tasks which are rated at a low level could be assigned to a welfare aide. Tasks rated at a. medium level could be assigned at the discretion of the supervisor. An alternative would be to assign medium-level tasks to both social worker and welfare-aide and attempt to evaluate in whose sphere this task could best be hand-led. This procedure would necessitate the development of a scale which could accurately measure competence in*doing a particular job. No such method of evaluation is to be found in the literature, and we would consider this a d i f f i c u l t instrument to design. Associated with this problem is the notable lack of agreement as to the delineation of staff levels according to professional competence. The reader is again referred to Chapter II for a discussion of this issue. It is evident that no research has been carried out to relate levels of professional training to competence in performing certain tasks. For example, what is a person with an M.S.W. equipped to do that a person with a B.A. or B.S.W. is not? No decisions can accurately be made in the assignment of tasks until we have some adequate guidelines. There is a necessity for detailed examination of the curricula of undergraduate in service and graduate training programs to aid in the development of such guidelines. One other aspect which must be considered is that of client involvement. Although our frame of reference indirectly considered the client, we would suggest that in subsequent studies the client be directly involved. The only way one can be assured that the agency is f u l f i l l i n g 65. i t s f u n c t i o n i s through communication w i t h those i n r e c e i p t of i t s s e r v i c e s . Such feedback would be i n v a l u a b l e i n as s e s s i n g and for m u l a t i n g agency p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s . For example, we would be i n t e r e s t e d to know the responses of the agency's c l i e n t e l e to "task-streamed" s e r v i c e s , i n which more than one person from the agency would be involved i n p r o v i d i n g the s e r v i c e . Although there remains i^uch ground to cover, i t i s apparent that the d i f f e r e n t i a l assignment of tasks to v a r i o u s l e v e l s of personnel holds much promise f o r a rapidly-growing f i e l d i n which the need f o r s t a f f i s s p i r a l l i n g . The u t i l i z a t i o n of personnel w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of education, however, w i l l enhance s e r v i c e s only when there are p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n s as to who can best do what. This i s the goal toward which s o c i a l work researchers must work to r a i s e the standard of our s o c i a l w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s . SUMMARY OF THE STUDY This study o r i g i n a t e d as a response to the e v e r i n c r e a s i n g concern voiced w i t h i n s o c i a l work l i t e r a t u r e about the c r i t i c a l shortage of man-power w i t h i n the p r o f e s s i o n . Although the problem i s not of recent o r i g i n , l a t e l y there has been a re-examination of methods of d e l i v e r i n g s e r v i c e s r e s u l t i n g i n many adaptions w i t h i n the f i e l d . For example, there has been a re-assessment of the use of non-professional and volunteer personnel, development of v o c a t i o n a l and undergraduate t r a i n i n g programs as w e l l as more comprehensive i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g . At the same time new innovations i n s o c i a l p o l i c y have developed and s o c i a l a c t i o n movements have gained momentum. Wi t h i n many agencies, the u t i l i z a t i o n of personnel w i t h l e s s than a post-graduate l e v e l of education has r e s u l t e d i n an i n a p p r o p r i a t e a l l o c a -t i o n of s t a f f . In some s i t u a t i o n s , s t a f f without adequate p r o f e s s i o n a l education are being used i n a c a p a c i t y which would r e a l i s t i c a l l y r e q u i r e 66. h i g h l y s k i l l e d workers. At the same time, p r o f e s s i o n a l l y educated s t a f f are performing some tasks that could e a s i l y be performed by those w i t h a lower l e v e l of education. Two s o l u t i o n s to t h i s misuse are presented i n the l i t e r a t u r e and i n p r a c t i c e . The f i r s t , "case-streaming", i s a method whereby cases are assigned according to type, a f t e r diagnosis and assess-ment, to workers of various l e v e l s of competence. I t i s our contention that t h i s method of assignment i s not the most e f f e c t i v e because i t i s based on a s t a t i c diagnosis and assessment at one poi n t i n time and there-for e predetermines the l e v e l of s e r v i c e that w i l l be o f f e r e d . Other v a r i a b l e s which a f f e c t t h i s method of assignment include the r e l i a b i l i t y of d i a g n o s t i c t o o l s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems, and the i n a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l intake and ther e f o r e assignment of cases i n p u b l i c agencies. The second s o l u t i o n , that of "task-streaming", i n v o l v e s the assignment of va r i o u s tasks w i t h i n each case to personnel who are competent to perform them. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s method of assignment i s th a t a l l tasks performed by a p r a c t i t i o n e r i n d e l i v e r i n g s e r v i c e to c l i e n t s can be d e l i n e -ated according to c e r t a i n c r i t e r i a and then assigned to va r i o u s workers according to the l e v e l of competence required i n performing the tasks. The purpose of t h i s research study i s to determine the extent to which tasks can be d e l i n e a t e d , then c l a s s i f i e d according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a -- the i n i t i a l phase i n developing a system of s e r v i c e d e l i v e r y based upon "task streaming". We expect a subsequent p r o j e c t which w i l l a ssign tasks and assess the competence of various l e v e l s of workers i n performing them and then devise a method of task assignment based upon c o l l a b o r a t i v e f i n d i n g s . The agency to which we l i m i t e d our study, the Children's A id Soc i e t y of Vancouver, i s not without the st r e s s e s induced by the present c r i s i s i n manpower r e f e r r e d to p r e v i o u s l y . A survey of the members of the research group, based upon t h e i r work experience at the agency, revealed 67 . the f o l l o w i n g impressions: (1) there i s an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of personnel r e s u l t i n g i n heavy caseloads; (2) there are inadequate g u i d e l i n e s f o r personnel with l e s s than p r o f e s s i o n a l t r a i n i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h e i r i n e f f i c -i e n t use; and (3) the same tasks are assigned to personnel with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of t r a i n i n g . These impressions, together w i t h the request of the agency's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel, provided i n i t i a l impetus f o r the study. The beginning stages of the p r o j e c t centered around a review of p e r t i n e n t s o c i a l work l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the manpower s i t u a t i o n . I t was considered under the r u b r i c s of (1) c r i t e r i a provided f o r task c l a s s -i f i c a t i o n ; (2) l e v e l s ofypersonnel p o s i t i o n s ; (3) models of work assignment; and (4) methods of e v a l u a t i o n u t i l i z e d i n p e r t i n e n t research on the subject. Si x general categories of c r i t e r i a f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of tasks were discussed i n the l i t e r a t u r e . They are (1) b a s i c f a c t f i n d i n g and d e c i s i o n making; (2) c l i e n t v u l n e r a b i l i t y and worker autonomy; (3) c l i e n t needs; (4) worker autonomy and task complexity; (5) s o c i a l work and n o n - s o c i a l work tasks; and (6) the degree of conscious use of r e l a t i o n s h i p . The proposed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes were, i n many cases, interdependent and o f t e n implied the importance of c o n s i d e r i n g the other v a r i a b l e s . Only a small m i n o r i t y of the w r i t e r s made an attempt to propose a l i s t of tasks The second area, r e l a t e d to the l e v e l s of personnel p o s i t i o n s , revealed a wide discrepancy between the various w r i t e r s . Their d i v i s i o n s ranged from eight h i g h l y d e f i n i t i v e l e v e l s ghrough a continuum to a d i v i s i o n between p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional workers. In general, a d i v i s i o n based upon the l e v e l of educational q u a l i f i c a t i o n s appeared most s u i t a b l e . The models of work assignment to v a r i o u s l e v e l s of personnel examined i n the l i t e r a t u r e were d i v i d e d between concepts of "task streaming" and. "case streaming" which have p r e v i o u s l y been discussed. The former method was expanded upon by some authors to i n c l u d e proposals f o r a 68. "team approach" method to d e l i v e r the s e r v i c e s . The f i n a l area considered i n the l i t e r a t u r e was concerned with e v a l u a t i v e research methods. Although research i n t h i s area i s minimal, two methods of e v a l u a t i o n were proposed. The f i r s t r e l i e d upon i n t e r - j u d g e agreement f o r r a t i n g tasks according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a and the second r e l i e d upon s u p e r v i s o r s ' opinions as to whether or not the tasks were being adequately performed at the assigned l e v e l s . With a background from the l i t e r a t u r e and the experience survey, g u i d e l i n e s f o r the purpose of the study were developed. From the pre-s u p p o s i t i o n that the a c q u i s i t i o n of non-profession personnel i s one method to meet the c r i t i c a l shortage of manpower, we assumed that tasks performed by s o c i a l work personnel could be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d according to s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a , so that they could be assigned commensurate with the degree of p r o f e s s i o n a l competence required to perform them. As a beginning step i n examining t h i s assumption, our study i s an attempt to develop a measuring instrument f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of tasks. Because of the l i m i t e d time a v a i l a b l e , we decided to l i m i t our study to a p i l o t p r o j e c t invthe area of "Services to C h i l d r e n i n Foster-Care". This area encompasses a great v a r i e t y of t a s k s , c o n s t i t u t e s the core of a generalized f i e l d - u n i t caseload, and employs a l l l e v e l s of s t a f f a v a i l a b l e at the agency i n f i v e semi-autonomous work u n i t s . Our approach, we b e l i e v e , i s of s u f f i c i e n t scope to i n d i c a t e whether or not i t i s f e a s i b l e to d e l i n e a t e tasks performed by agency personnel as the beginning p o i n t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a more e f f e c t i v e model f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n of manpower as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g i n d i c a t i o n s to i t s a p p l i c a b i l i t y to other programs and agencies. For the purpose of t h i s study we chose the c r i t e r i a of "task complexity" and "worker autonomy" f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c h i l d w e l f a r e tasks. The terms are defined as f o l l o w s : Task: an operation performed by a. worker provided i n the main phases of c h i l d care. A task i s p a r t of a work u n i t which, i n t u r n , i s p a r t of an agency programme ( i n t h i s case, c h i l d w e l fare s e r v i c e s ) . Worker Autonomy: r e f e r s to the r e l a t i v e l ack of e x t e r n a l guides and e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s upon the behavior of the worker, who f u n c t i o n s according to h i s i n t e r n a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l standards, derived from p r o f e s s -i o n a l knowledge, e t h i c s and c o n t r o l s . Tasks which r e q u i r e a high degree of autonomy on the part of the worker are those which are not amenable to e x p l i c i t r u l e s or generalized r o u t i n e s . Another aspect of worker autonomy i s v i s i b i l i t y . The l e s s v i s i b l e the w o r k e r - c l i e n t contact, the l e s s subject to e x t e r n a l s c r u t i n y i s the worker's performance. In s i t u a t i o n s i n which tasks are performed i n p r i v a t e , i n accordance with the c o n f i d e n t i a l s e r v i c e s o f f e r e d by s o c i a l agencies, i t i s e s s e n t i a l that i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l s be o p e r a t i v e . A t h i r d f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g worker autonomy i s the degree of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l support f o r s o c i a l work standards, which enables the worker to u t i l i z e p r o p e r l y h i s knowledge, values and s k i l l s . (4 ) Task Complexity: The number of operations ( d i v e r s e a c t i v i t i e s or types of inf o r m a t i o n required i n performing a task) inherent i n the s i n g l e task, ranging from.least comple^ (a s i n g l e operation) to most complex (many o p e r a t i o n s ) . Other c r i t e r i a proposed i n the l i t e r a t u r e were r e j e c t e d because of t h e i r u n s u i t a b i l i t y . The procedures followed f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of data are o u t l i n e d below. A l i s t of 121 tasks was developed by the researchers and i n c o r -porated i n t o a schedule which was presented to a random sample of agency personnel involved i n the s e l e c t e d area of study. U t i l i z i n g t h e i r comments, questions, and i n d i c a t e d omissions, the schedule was r e v i s e d and then 70 . presented again to the same sample f o r a f i n a l check. The completed l i s t of 144 tasks was then presented to a random sample of agency workers and other personnel involved i n c h i l d welfare programs outside the agency. They rated each task on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e according to the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy"and"task complexity". F o l l o w i n g the s e s s i o n , a m a j o r i t y of the judges i n d i c a t e d d i f f i c u l t y i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between the l e v e l s at the end-points of the r a t i n g s c a l e . I t was a l s o discovered that two judges had m i s i n t e r p r e t e d the d e f i n i t i o n of "worker autonomy". We decided, i f i t was i n d i c a t e d by the data, to combine l e v e l s 1 and 2 , and l e v e l s 4 and 5 - r e s u l t i n g i n a three-point s c a l e . As w e l l , we decided to e l i m i n a t e the two judges' r a t i n g s on "worker autonomy" i f necessary. At t h i s time we decided to categorize the modal l e v e l of agreement between the judges' r a t i n g s of the tasks. We a r b i t r a r i l y c l a s s i f i e d those tasks i n which there was concurr-ence i n the r a t i n g s of greater than 757„ as having a high l e v e l of agreement, those between 607o and 15% as having a medium l e v e l of agreement, and those below 607o as having a low l e v e l of agreement. A p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s of data j u s t i f i e d our concerns about the judging and a d e c i s i o n was made to u t i l i z e the three-point s c a l e and e l i m i n -ate two r a t i n g schedules as was suggested above. Our a n a l y s i s of the data on both c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n over 507> of the ta s k s , a high l e v e l of agreement was obtained between judges on the r a t i n g s c a l e . In only 207o of the task r a t i n g s was there a low l e v e l of agreement. Further a n a l y s i s of these tasks suggests that the d i f f i c u l t y i n r a t i n g was presented mainly by the r a t i n g s c a l e and that i f the choices a v a i l a b l e were decreased t h i s d i f f i c u l t y would be e l i m i n a t e d . The a n a l y s i s of problematic items suggested that i n only four cases could the r a t i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s be a t t r i b u t e d to a lack of c l a r i t y i n wording or to s u b j e c t i v e 71. perceptions of the tasks by the judges. As w e l l , i t was noticed that a great m a j o r i t y of tasks were rated at the end-points of the s c a l e . This dichotomy could f a c i l i t a t e the assignment of tasks to personnel with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of competence. A n a l y s i s of the data a l s o revealed a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity". A t o t a l of 118 out of 144 tasks had the same modal agreement on the two c r i t e r i a . Of these, f i f t y items received a low r a t i n g and s i x t y - t h r e e received a high r a t i n g . Of these, a t o t a l of sixty-one tasks had a high r a t i n g l e v e l on both c r i t e r i a . Of the remaining twenty-six t a s k s , eleven had r a t i n g s at adjacent l e v e l s , but these and the other f i f t e e n tasks could not be considered to have an appreciable degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p . Notwithstanding the above, i t appears that i t i s f e a s i b l e to a s s i g n the tasks on the b a s i s of t h e i r r a t i n g on the c r i t e r i o n of "worker autonomy". In concluding the d i s c u s s i o n on study f i n d i n g s i t i s apparent that: (1) i t i s p o s s i b l e to develop a l i s t of tasks which a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b -es the s e r v i c e s provided to C h i l d r e n i n Foster-Care; (2) that these tasks can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d according to the c r i t e r i a of "worker autonomy" and "task complexity"; (3) that items tend to be dichotomized at high/low l e v e l s on the r a t i n g s c a l e ; (4) there i s a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c r i t e r i a chosen f o r the study; and (5) i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s necessary on a f i v e - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e . From the preceding f i n d i n g s we have drawn the f o l l o w i n g i m p l i c -a t i o n s . The r e l a t i v e ease with which a l i s t of tasks was developed i n one area of s e r v i c e provided by C.A.S. (Vancouver) suggests that i t i s f e a s i b l e to attempt to d e l i n e a t e the tasks w i t h i n a l l of the agency's programmes as the beginning stage i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a more e f f e c t i v e model f o r s t a f f deployment. Secondly, the high degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p between "worker autonomy" and "task complexity" i n d i c a t e s the former v a r i a b l e i s a s u f f i c i e n t c r i t e r i o n to d i f f e r e n t i a t e tasks when viewed from the standpoint of workers' a c t i v i t i e s . This does not, however, preclude the importance of a s s e s s i n g the tasks from the c l i e n t s ' viewpoint. T h i r d l y , the high/low dichotomy i n the r a t i n g of the tasks permits r e l a t i v e ease i n t h e i r assignment to s t a f f w i t h d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of competence. Other f a c t o r s , such as the task order sequence, adequate s t a f f i n g , and p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s w i l l , of n e c e s s i t y , have to be considered. We suggest that i n t e r r e l a t e d -ness of tasks intimates the use of the team approach f o r t h e i r performance. F i n a l l y , the d i f f i c u l t i e s inherent i n the rating.f.scale suggest i t s modif-i c a t i o n i n f u t u r e studies to one w i t h fewer choices. In concluding, we propose that f u r t h e r research should continue by developing a p i l o t p r o j e c t which would assign d i f f e r e n t i a t e d tasks to v a r i o u s l e v e l s of personnel and assess t h e i r l e v e l of competence i n perform-i n g them. The r e s u l t s would i n d i c a t e the manner i n which rated tasks could be assigned to and performed by d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s t a f f . The r e s u l t s may have major i m p l i c a t i o n s i n regard to the s t r u c t u r e f o r d e l i v e r i n g s e r v i c e s to c l i e n t s . 73. B I B L. I 0 G R A P H Y 1. 4. 6. 8. 10. 11 12. 13. A l l e r h a n d , M e l v i n E. Baker, Mary R. Beck, Bertram M. Beck, Bertram M. Blum, Arthur Brager, George Bridges, James B r i e l a n d , Donald C o s t i n , L e l a Costin,. L e l a , and Gruener, Jennette Daly, Dorothy B i r d E p s t e i n , Laura G i l , David G. " S e l e c t i o n of Cottage Personnel", C h i l d  Welfare, V o l . XXXVII, No. 9, pp. 14-18. "Approaches to a D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of S t a f f " , S o c i a l Casework, V o l . XLVII, No. 4, pp. 228-233. "Wanted Now S o c i a l Work A s s o c i a t e s " , S o c i a l Welfare Forum, N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, Inc., 1963, pp. 195-205. U t i l i z a t i o n of Personnel i n S o c i a l Work: Those With F u l l P r o f e s s i o n a l Education and  Those Without. New York: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, Inc. 1962. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of Manpower i n P u b l i c Welfare", S o c i a l Work, V o l . 11, No. 1, pp. 16-21. "The Indigenous Worker: A New Approach to the S o c i a l Work Technician", S o c i a l Work, V o l . 10, No. 2, pp. 33-40. An Approach to E v a l u a t i n g S o c i a l Work Tasks, Committee on P r a c t i c e and Knowledge, Southern Minnesota Chapter, N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, 1964. " T h e - E f f i c i e n t Use of C h i l d Welfare Personnel", C h i l d r e n , V o l . 12, No. 3, pp.91-96. " T r a i n i n g Non-Professionals For a C h i l d Welfare S e r v i c e " , C h i l d r e n , V o l . 13, No. 2, pp. 63-68. "A.Project For T r a i n i n g Personnel i n C h i l d Welfare", C h i l d Welfare, V o l . X L I I I , No. 4, pp. 175-181. "Personnel i n P u b l i c Welfare", P u b l i c  Welfare, V o l . X X I I I , No. 3, pp. 177-187. " D i f f e r e n t i a l Use of S t a f f : A Method to Expand S o c i a l S e r v i c e s " , S o c i a l Work, V o l . 7, No. 4, pp. 66-72. " S o c i a l Work Teams - A Device f o r Increased U t i l i z a t i o n of A v a i l a b l e P r o f e s s i o n a l l y Educated S o c i a l Welfare Personnel", C h i l d  Welfare, V o l . XLIV, No. 8, pp. 442-446. 74. 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. F a r r a r , M a r c e l l a , and Hemtny, Mary L. Heyman, Margaret Heyman, Margaret Jones, Betty Lacey Levine, Morton "Use of Nonprofessional S t a f f i n Work With the Aged", S o c i a l Work, V o l . 8, No. 3, pp. 44-50. " C r i t e r i a For A l l o c a t i o n of Cases According to Levels of S t a f f S k i l l " , S o c i a l Casework, V o l . X L I I , No. 7, pp. 325-331. "A.Study of E f f e c t i v e Use of S o c i a l Workers i n a H o s p i t a l : Selected F i n d i n g s And Conclusions", S o c i a l Service Review, V o l . LXXXV, No. 4; pp. 414-429. "Non P r o f e s s i o n a l Workers i n P r o f e s s i o n a l F o s ter Family Agencies", C h i l d Welfare, V o l . XLV, No. 6, pp. 315-325. "Trends i n P r o f e s s i o n a l Employment", Manpower  i n S o c i a l Welfare, Edited by Edward E. Schwartz. New York: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, pp. 9-16. 19. Levinson, Perry, and S c h i l l e r , J e f f r y "Role Analyses of the Indigenous Non-P r o f e s s i o n a l " , S o c i a l Work, V o l . 11, No. pp. 95-101. 3, 20. 21. Meyer, Henry J . Monahan, Fergus T. "The E f f e c t of. S o c i a l Work Prof essional^-zation on Manpower",• Manpower i n S o c i a l Welfare, Edward E. Schwartz ( E d i t o r ) . New York: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, 1966, pp. 43-56. "A Study of Non-Professional Personnel i n S o c i a l Work - The Army, S o c i a l Work S p e c i a l i s t " , Doctoral D i s s e r t a t i o n , C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y , 1960. 22. Olson, Irene 23. Perlmutter, F e l i c e , and Durham, Dorothy 24. Polansky, Norman A. ( E d i t o r ) 25. Richan, W i l l i a m C. " C h i l d Welfare Workers Without P r o f e s s i o n a l Education I n A P u b l i c Welfare Agency", C h i l d Welfare, V o l . XLV, No. 4, pp. 199-201. "Using Teenagers to Supplement Casework S e r v i c e " , S o c i a l Work, V o l . 10, No. 2, 1965, pp. 41-46. S o c i a l Work Research, Chicago: The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1960. "Occupational Re-constructing: A Challenge To S o c i a l Work Research", Manpower I n S o c i a l  Welfare, Edward E. Schwartz ( E d i t o r ) , New York: N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l Workers, pp. 43-56. 75. 26. Richan, William C. "A Theoretical Scheme for Determining Roles of Professional and Non-Professional Personnel", Social Work, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 22-28. 27. Riessman, Frank "The 'Helper' Therapy Principle", Social  Work, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 27-32. 28. Riessman, Frank "Self-Help Among the Poor", Transaction, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 32-36, 29. Rosen, Alex. "The Pervasive Shortage of Professional Personnel", Children, Vol." 7, No. 2, p. 72. 30. Russell, Ellery "Case Aides Free Casework Time", Child  Welfare, Vol. XXXVII, No. 4, pp. 22-25. 31. Russell, Ellery "The Real Case Aid is Standing Up", Child  Welfare, Vol. XLV, No. 4, 'pp;. 202-205. 32. Schwartz, Edward E. "A Strategy of Research on the Manpower Problem", Manpower in Social Welfare, Edward E. Schwartz (Editor), New York: National Association of Social Workers, pp. 145-158. 33. Shea, Margaret "Specialized Workers", Child Welfare, Vol. XLV, No. 4, pp. 205-208. 34. Siegel, Sidney Non-Parametric Statistics Fd^ Behavioral  Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1956. 35. Thompson, Jane, and Riley, Donald P. "Use of Professionals in Public Welfare", Social Work, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 16-21. 36. Turabian, Kate L. 37. United States Depart-ment of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare. A Manual For Writers, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19!55. The Use of Case Aides in Child Welfare. A Meeting on the Appropriate and Selective Use of Personnel in Child Welfare - June, 1959. 38. United States Depart-ment of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare. Utilization of Social Work Staff with  Different Levels of Education. December, 1965. 39. Weed, Verne, and Denham, William H. "Toward More Effective Use of the Non-professional Worker: A Recent Experiment':', Social Work, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 29-35. 40. Younghusband, Eileen "A Comparative View of Manpower Problems: The British Approach",, Social Service Review, Vol. XXXIX, No. 4, pp. 454-456. 76. APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF - EXPERIENCE SURVEY The f o l l o w i n g r e v e a l s some perceptions of what has been seen as problem areas w i t h regard to the optimum use of workers i n the Vancouver Chil d r e n ' s A i d S o c i e t y . These remarks* have r e s u l t e d from our summer.'s experience (1966) as caseworkers i n the above agency. (a) At present there i s a shortage of p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l workers i n agencies w i t h i n the Vancouver area and i n the m a j o r i t y of cases the workers who are a v a i l a b l e are not u t i l i z e d to the utmost of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l . This i s nonetheless true at the Vancouver Children's A i d S o c i e t y . The p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f at t h i s agency, with the exception of a few instances when case aides are a v a i l a b l e , perform a l l tasks which, run the gamut from completing placement s l i p s and camp forms or d r i v i n g c h i l d r e n to d i f f e r e n t appointments to i n t e n s i v e casework such as h e l p i n g a c h i l d adjust to the f a c t that h i s parents no longer want him or h e l p i n g an unwed mother come to make a d e c i s i o n as to what she w i l l do about her unborn c h i l d . Because of the shortage of workers, p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f are f i n d i n g i t f r u s t r a t i n g i n terms of f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r p o t e n t i a l and working toward t h e i r goals w i t h reference to p r e v e n t i v e treatment and t h i s i s p a r t l y due to the f a c t that many v a l u a b l e hours are spent on l e s s important tasks which could be done by non-professional workers, such as case aides or welfare a i d e s . (b) There were a l i m i t e d number of case aides at C.A.S. and the agency employed a few welfare aides during the summer. However, i t was our f e e l i n g that t h e i r r o l e s were somewhat p o o r l y defined and the degree to which these personnel were used depended upon the p e r s o n a l i t y of the i n d i v i d -u al and the a t t i t u d e of each supervisor toward the u t i l i z a t i o n of the serv-ice s of a non-professional worker. In some cases the supervisors and l i n e workers were very r e c e p t i v e toward the aides, while i n other cases the case aides were not encouraged to f u l f i l l a purposeful r o l e . (c) Decisions must be made as to what can be done to improve the s i t u a t i o n regarding heavy caseloads w i t h i n which are found many time consum-in g tasks that are nevertheless necessary. I t w i l l be necessary f o r the agency, i f i t i s c o n s i d e r i n g u t i l i z i n g the s e r v i c e s of i t s s t a f f to f u l l advantage, to d e f i n e the r o l e s that each worker, whether p r o f e s s i o n a l or n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l , i s required to perform. This n e c e s s i t a t e s assessment of education of personnel and l o o k i n g at the tasks to be performed and the development of c r i t e r i a whereby the complexity of the task together w i t h the a b i l i t y of the worker might be judged. In the d e f i n i n g of tasks i t w i l l be necessary to consider how much each task can be p a r t i a l i z e d . S u p e r v i s i o n of n o n - p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f a l s o needs to be considered. (d) Data needed to make d e c i s i o n s regarding the optimum use of s t a f f would includ e the review of s o c i a l work l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the u t i l i z a t i o n of s t a f f w i t h s p e c i a l references to a c h i l d w e l f are s e t t i n g , agency case r e c o r d s , tapes of recorded i n t e r v i e w s , interviews w i t h workers to f i n d out what they see as t h e i r r o l e , ; job s p e c i f i c a t i o n s or d e s c r i p t i o n s and p o s s i b l y c l i e n t i n t e r v i e w s . (e) Data would be a v a i l a b l e from the Vancouver Children's A i d Soc-i e t y i n general and from s p e c i f i c departments w i t h i n the agency i n p a r t i c u l a r . APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS The following is a l i s t of tasks which have been delineated in the area of child care specifically in foster homes. We want to know how many times each task is performed daily during the week. Please place a tal l y mark in the appropriate column beside each task after i t has been performed. If a task is of a seasonal nature (e.g. Christmas, camping, etc.), please place a tal l y mark in the seasonal column. If you perform tasks that are not listed, please incorporate them under "Omissions". • If you have criticisms, questions or comments to make, place them under "Comments". If problems are encountered, cal l Bob Adams at 733-9726 during the evening. As i t is essential for research purposes that this record be as accurate as possible, please ensure the form is completed daily. Thank you for your cooperation. N.B. IN THE FINAL COLUMN, PLEASE CHECK ANY TASK YOU HAVE PERFORMED IN THE PAST BUT NOT DURING THIS WEEK. PLEASE NOTE THAT "TASKS PERFORMED" APPLY TO BOTH WARDS AND NON-WARDS IN FOSTER HOMES. PLEASE PUT "OMISSIONS" AND "COMMENTS" ON THE BACK OF THE RESPECTIVE PAGES. 78. APPENDIX C INSTRUCTION FOR JUDGES The tasks are to be judged by two c r i t e r i a - Task Complexity and Worker Autonomy, which are defined as f o l l o w s : Task Complexity. The number of operations inherent i n a s i n g l e task, v a r y i n g from l e a s t complex ( s i n g l e operation) to most complex (many o p e r a t i o n s ) . Worker Autonomy. The r e l a t i v e l a c k of e x t e r n a l guides and e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s upon the behaviour of the worker, who f u n c t i o n s accord-ing to h i s i n t e r n a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l standards, derived from p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, e t h i c s and c o n t r o l s . For each task we want your o p i n i o n as to the degree of complexity of the task and the autonomy required by the worker i n performing the task. This w i l l be done by the use of the f o l l o w i n g r a t i n g s c a l e : 1. Very low 2. Low 3. Medium 4. High 5. Very high You w i l l be given two i d e n t i c a l l i s t s of task and the f i r s t one i s to be rated w i t h regard to Task Complexity. Please place a check mark under the number you choose f o r each task on the l i s t . A f t e r completion and c o l l e c t i o n of t h i s f i r s t l i s t the second i d e n t i c a l l i s t w i l l then be d i s t r i b u t e d and you w i l l be asked to r a t e i t , i n the same way, w i t h respect to Worker Autonomy. We have taken examples from;:the l i t e r a t u r e . The s e t t i n g i s a f a m i l y court agency. Here i s an example of a task of very low complexity; . "Check d r i v i n g records when there are questions". F o l l o w i n g i s an example of a task of very high complexity: "Help c l i e n t to understand f a c t o r s u n d e r l y i n g h i s behaviour during v i s i t a t i o n " . An example of a task of very low Worker Autonomy i s : "Transport c l i e n t s " . An example of a task of very high Worker Autonomy i s : "Help c l i e n t to understand h i s h o s t i l e behaviour toward spouse". I f there are any questions, please f e e l f r e e to ask any of the students present. 7 9 . APPENDIX D LIST OF TASKS WITH JUDGES' RATINGS ON AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY Complexity/^ /Autonomy TASKS 3 % 3 agreement -point s c a l e A. PLACEMENT IN FOSTER HOME 1 2 3 = low<607o =medium 60 .757 o =high>757o 1 . Worker's assessment and dec-i s i o n to place c h i l d i n f o s t e r home V /o X X x 3 . 2 . C o n s u l t a t i o n regarding dec-i s i o n w i t h supervisor V Vo X X X 3 . P r e p a r a t i o n f o r "permanent p l a n n i n g " conference \ X X X 4 . "Notice to Homefinder" X X X X X 5 . "Permanent Pl a n n i n g " conference v , X X X X 6 . D i s c u s s i o n with p r o s p e c t i v e f o s t e r parents re f e a s i b i l i t y of placement °/0 Vo X X X X 7 . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c h i l d ' s h i s t o r y to pr o s p e c t i v e f o s t e r parents V 0 / 0 X X X X 8. E v a l u a t i o n of f o s t e r home f o r c h i l d to be placed V X X X X 9 . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of placement / to c h i l d V /o V X X X X 1 0 . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of placement to n a t u r a l parents and/or r e l a t i v e s V x 0 °/„ X V ' 6 V 5 X 1 1 . Pre-placement v i s i t X X V 5 V 0 X 1 2 . Placement of c h i l d i n f o s t e r home V X 0 X X X X X TASKS 13. Observation of child's relation-ship to foster parents and foster siblings X X X X X X 14. Evaluating child's adjustment to foster home X X X X v 3 X 15. Diagnosis of adjustment problems to foster home V /o X X X X 16. Treatment of adjustment problems to foster home V 0 X X X X X 17 . Discussion of child's needs with foster parents V '0 X X X X x2 18. Determining needs of child in foster home (physical & psycho-social) X X X X X 19. Providing needs of child in foster home related to above X X V X X X 20. V i s i t foster home Vi V X X X 21. Discuss foster home rates & payment with foster parents X x1 X X 22. Discuss with foster parents their proposed adoption of foster child % X X X X X 23. Submit placement slip X X X X X 'X B. MEDICAL RESOURCES 24. Arranging medical appointments with doctors and dentists X X X X V X 25. Arranging medical appointments with foster parents X X X X V X 26. Driving foster parents and/or child to or from appointment X X X X X X 27. Arranging for medical sheet to be sent to doctors X X X X X X 81. TASKS 28. Obtain child's medical history from natural and foster parents, Public Health Department v 2 v V v 2 29. Compile information for (pink) medical sheet \ % 30. Ensure that child's innocu-lations are up to date v 5 v „ \ % v 3 31. Interpret medical information to natural parents and/or relatives \ \ v t v ; 32. Interpret medical information to foster parents \ v 3 v 5 33. Interpret medical information to child \ 3/ 3 v V 2 34. Work through medical problems with child \ Vo V ' 0 \ \ 3 / 3 35. Psychiatric consultation \ °/„ v 2 v 6 v 3 36. Compile Social History of child \ Vo v 3 2/> 37. Referral of child to other agencies (e.g. Burnaby Mental Health) % % v , 38. Drive child to and/or from hospital v 7 Vo \ V v 3 39. Admit child to hospital v 5 5/2 \ \ \ v 3 40. Discharge child from hospital v 6 Vo v 3 41. V i s i t child in hospital V v 5 v 3 x 0 v 2 42. Ensure medical records are v 5 °/ °/ up-to-date 43. Explain child's symptoms to doctor 7/ 3 v 3 °/ 0 44. Prepare Medical and Social History for Child Welfare Division V 0 X v 2 X X • v 2 45. Interpret medical information to other agency personnel °/„ V 2 v2 X X X 46. Arrange for extra services for foster parents with sick child (e.g. Homemaker, financial services) X v 3 v 3 X Vo V, 47. Prepare written report request-ing special dental care (e.g. Orthodontia) X V V, v 2 X v 2 48. Arrange for funerals X 2 X v 3 Vo c. CLOTHING AND ALLOWANCE 49. F i l l out clothing voucher 1 0/ 7 '0 X X X 50. Send clothing voucher to foster parents % X X X v 3 51. Interpret clothing policy to foster parents v 2 v 2 v 3 Vo X X 52. Interpret clothing policy to child % V 2 X X X X 53. Arrange miscellaneous services (e.g. shoe repairs, haircuts, hairdo 1 s) lX X X X X 54. Request for additional clothing X X V Vo X X 55. Take child shopping 5/2 2/2 v3 X X X 56. U t i l i z i n g shopping as constructive experience in handling money X X X X X 57. Obtain allowance for child V 6 \ Vo Vo \ X 58. Plan constructive use of allowance with child X \ v2 X X v2 83. TASKS  59. Transfer Family or Youth Allowance 60. I n t e r p r e t Youth and Family Allowance to f o s t e r parents 61. Help youth o b t a i n employment (part-time, f u l l - t i m e ) V 6 V 2 V °/ X X 2/o X X v X X °/„ X X X X D. MISCELLANEOUS 62. Recording X X X X 63. S t a t i s t i c s X X X X X 64. Compost;letters and memo's X X X X X 65. Reimbursements from "Petty Cash" \ X X X 66. Obtain car allowance lX X X X 67 . Record car mileage 'X X X X X V 3 68. Write Summary of f i l e % X X X X X 69. C l o s i n g and/or Transfer of f i l e X X X X v „ X 70. Read m a i l and f i l e s X 4/ 2 X X X : X 71. Take snapshots of c h i l d r e n \ X X \ V 72. Purchase g i f t s or cards f o r f o s t e r c h i l d r e n X 2/ 2 X X X X 73. Arrangement f o r t a x i X X X X X 74. V i s i t c h i l d at J u v e n i l e Dentention Home 7 ' 0 X X X X X 84. TASKS 75. Send or serve n o t i c e of hearing to n a t u r a l parents v 2 X 2 / 2 X X X 76. Obtain and/or process court documents (e.g. a f f i d a v i t s , a d v e r t i s i n g , v i t a l s t a t i s t i c s ) X X Vo X 77 . Arrange t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to court f o r n a t u r a l parents X X 2 4 Vo X 78. Arrange t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to and from court f o r c h i l d and f o s t e r parents X X <Y 1 X 79. Prepare statement f o r court X % 2 / 3 X v 2 V 1 80. T e s t i f y i n court X »/ 0 X X X X 81. Conference w i t h court worker or" s u p e r visor V X X X X X 82. Prepare d i a g n o s t i c statement f o r f i l e x 0 X X X 83. I n t e r p r e t court procedure to c h i l d V 0 v X X 84. I n t e r p r e t court procedure to n a t u r a l parents or r e l a t i v e s A). X V 5 X X 85. I n t e r p r e t court procedure to f o s t e r parents 0/ 70 / 0 X X X X 86. Casework w i t h c h i l d about s i t u a t i o n which r e s u l t e d i n court / 0 7 X '% % 87 . Casework w i t h parents about s i t u a t i o n which r e s u l t e d i n court V '0 % 7 0 X X 88. Discuss case w i t h p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r 7 X X X 89. Casework w i t h f o s t e r parents about s i t u a t i o n which r e s u l t e d i n court X % Vo X \ v 3 90. Acknowledge p o l i c e r e p o r t X X X X X 91. Discuss s i t u a t i o n w i t h p o l i c e % % X X X X 92. I n t e r p r e t court procedure and p l a n to another agency i n contact w i t h n a t u r a l parents X X X X X X E. SCHOOL 93. Prepare f o r school conference X X X X X X 94. Attend school conference X X X X 2 / l X 95. Complete school forms 5 4 X X X X X 96. Arrange f o r c h i l d to attend school or continue i n school X X v , X X X 97 . Transfer c h i l d to school X X X X X 98. A s s i s t f o s t e r parents w i t h '• c h i l d ' s enrollment X 2 4 X X v „ v2 99. Read and record school reports 5X X X X X X 100. Discuss c h i l d ' s s i t u a t i o n w i t h school personnel V X X X X X 101. A s s i s t c h i l d w i t h problems i n school areas X °/l X X 102. Help w i t h v o c a t i o n a l planning X X X 7/ 6 X X F. RECREATION 103. Contact camp resource personnel X X X X X X 1QA. Complete camp forms X X X X X X TASKS  105. Discuss camp w i t h c h i l d 106. Discuss camp w i t h f o s t e r parents 107. Discuss camp with n a t u r a l parents 108. Arrange t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to camp 109. Arrange f o r s p e c i a l c l o t h i n g and equipment f o r camp 110. Obtain and d i s t r i b u t e t i c k e t s f o r s p e c i a l f u n c t i o n s 111. Prepare and present report to Youth Case Committee ( f o r d r i \ l i c e n c e , v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g , etc.) 112. Enrol c h i l d i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s (eg. Boys Clubs, YMCA) 113. Arrange f o r s p e c i a l lessons and courses 114. Obtain "Permission to Marry" 115. Arrange outings (park, beach) 116. Casework regarding r e c r e -a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h c h i l d /o X x5 x2 X / 0 X X X x 0 X v 2 X i X X V X X X X 7 '0 X V X V '6 X V X V 0 X s / 0 X V X V 1 X / 0 X X X °/ 0 X X X X X V o l • X X X X X : X X X X X V /o X X X X 5/„ 7 /o X G. FAMILY VISITS 117. Coordinate f a m i l y v i s i t X0 X X X X X 118. Drive c h i l d to v i s i t V '2 X X X X X 119. Prepare c h i l d f o r v i s i t °/ '0 X X X X '" X c 87 . 120. Prepare parents or r e l a t i v e s f o r v i s i t 121. Supervise v i s i t 122. I n t e r p r e t r e a c t i o n of c h i l d ' s v i s i t to f o s t e r parents 123. Help f o s t e r parent deal w i t h c h i l d ' s r e a c t i o n to v i s i t 124. I n t e r p r e t to agency personnel to c h i l d ' s and family's r e a c t i o n to v i s i t V V X X v, v3 °/ ' 0 °/ ' 0 X X 1 / r v, V 0 / 0 V„ X ., X f 0 % v0 X X • 3 / 3 /o Vo X X 1 X v3 H. WORK WITH FAMILY 125. - Discuss and decide upon long-term goals with f a m i l y 126. Casework s e r v i c e toward goals 127. Halp f a m i l y f i n d accommodation 128. Apply f o r l o w - r e n t a l housing 129. Continual assessment of famil y ' s a b i l i t y to care f o r c h i l d 130. P r e p a r i n g f a m i l y f o r c h i l d ' s r e t u r n 131. P r e p a r i n g f a m i l y f o r permanent or temporary s e p a r a t i o n from c h i l d 132. A s s i s t i n g f a m i l y to prepare f o r court concerning r e t u r n of t h e i r c h i l d . V / 0 X X X v6: 3/3 V /o X X X 1 0/ 7 v3 v2 X X X V 0 v, X X X v3 V X X X v5 v3 V '0 X ' 0 X v3 V X % X ; V 3 V 'o X X X V X 88. TASKS I . TERMINATION OF PLACEMENT 133 Assessment of and d e c i s i o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of placement X 7 / 0 X X X X 134 C o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h supervisor re t e r m i n a t i o n X V X X X X 135 Arranging f o r new resource (new f o s t e r home, own home, i n s t i t u t i o n , adoption home) X V X X X X 136 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n regarding t e r m i n a t i o n to new resource °/ X X X X X 137 Organize t r a n s f e r of c h i l d to new resource % X X X X X 138 Transfer c h i l d and personal e f f e c t s X 7/4 X X X X 139 Store personal e f f e c t s 10/7 X % X X x3 140 I n t e r p r e t new resource to c h i l d ./o "/ '0 X X X 141 I n t e r p r e t new resource to parents or r e l a t i v e s 7 X X X X 142 I n t e r p r e t new resource to f o s t e r parents Vo X X X X X 143 Transport c h i l d to Adoption Conference X X X X 144 Present c h i l d at Adoption Conference X X X X v X 89. APPENDIX E COMPARED MODES (% AGREEMENT) ON A 5 POINT SCALE Complexity Autonomy Complexity Autonomy 1. 81.8 55.5 47:-, 54.5 33.3 2. 36.3 77.7 48. 27.2 22.2 3. 63.6 55.5 4. 45.4 66.6 49. 90.9 77.7 5. 54.5 44.4 50. 100.0 77.7 6. 45.4 44.4 51. 45.4 44.4 7. 63.6 33.3 52. 54.5 55.5 8. 72.7 44.4 53. 90.9 77.7 9. 70.0 33.3 54. 45.4 77.7 10. 63.6 33.3 55. 45.4 33.3 11. 72.7 55.5 56. 63.6 44.4 12. 60.0 66.6 57. 72.7 66.6 13. 54.5 33.3 58. 72.7 44.4 14. 63.6 33.3 59. 81.8 66.6 15. 81.8 66.6 60. 36.3 33.3 16. 72.7 55.5 61. 36.3 44.4 17. 45.4 55.5 18. 54.5 44.4 62. 36.3 77.7 19. 45.4 55.5 63. 36.3 11.1 20. 36.3 22.2 64. 54.5 33.3 21. 36.3 33.3 65. 81.8 66.6 22. 72.7 55.5 66. 100.0" 88.8 23. 81.8 77.7 67. 100.0 77.7 68. 36.3 55.5 24. 45.4 55.5 69. 36.3 44.4 25. 45.4 55.5 70. 36.3 22.2 26. 54.5 66.6 71. 72.7 66.6 27. • 81.8 66.6 72. 72.7 55.5 28. 36.3 22.2 73. 100.0 88.8 29. 54.5 22.2 30. 63.6 22.2 74. 36.3 22.2 31. ' 54.5 22.2 75. 45.4 22.2 32. 45.4 55.5 76. 27.2 44.4 33. 40.0 22.2 77. 72.7 55.5 34. 72.7 44.4 78. 72.7 55.5 35. 63.6 66.6 79. 54.5 33.3 36. 54.5 11.1 80. 45.4 55.5 37. 45.4 22.2 81. 72.7 66.6 38. 63.6 77.7 82. 81.8 88.8 39. 45.4 22.2 83. 63.6 66.6 40. 45.4 22.2 84. 63.6 55.5 41. 45.4 33.3 85. 63.6 55.5 42. 45.4 22.2 86. 90.9 88.8 43. 63.6 44.4 87. 81.8 88.8 44. 45.4 55.5 88. 54.5 22.2 45. 45.4. 22.2 89. 54.5 33.3 46. 45.4 33.3 90. 54.5 55.5 Complexity Autonomy 91. 54.5 33.3 92. 54.5 55.5 93. 36.3 55.5 94. .27.2 66.6 95. 45.4 44.4 96. 45.4 33.3 97. 45.4 33.3 98. 45.4 22.2 99. 45.4 44.4 100. 63.6 77.7 101. 63.6 44.4 102. 63.6 66.6 103. 45.4 33.3 104. 72.7 66.6 105. 72.7 55.5 106. 54.5 66.6 107. 45.4 22.2 108. 72.7 66.6 109. • 45.4 77.7 110. 81.8 66.6 111. 81.8 44.4 112. 27.2 55.5 113. 45.4 44.4 114. 50.0 22.2 115. 63.6 44.4 116. 45.4 77.7 Complexity Autonomy 117. 45.4 22.2 118. 72.7 22.2 119. 72.7 77.7 120. 72.7 77.7 121. 80.0 55.5 122. 50.0 44.4 123. 72.7 77.7 124. 45.4 44.4 125. 81.8 66.6 126. 90.9 77.7 127. 36.3 44.4 128. 40.0 55.5 129. 54.5 55.5 130. 54.5 55.5 131. 1.00.0 88.8 132. 54.5 55.5 133. 72.7 66.6 134. 54.5 55.5 135. 63.6 44.4 136. 63.6 66.6 137. 45.4 66.6 138. 63.6 44.4 139. 90.9 77.7 140. 45.4 55.5 141. 54.5 44.4 142. 63.6 55.5 143. 72.7 55.5 144. 27.2 33.3 APPENDIX F COMPARED MODES (% AGREEMENT) ON A 3 POINT SCALE Complexity Autonomy Complexity Autonomy 1. 90.9 100.0 47. 63.6 66.6 2. 72.7 88.8 48. 36.3 55.5 3. 72.7 77.7 4, 72.7 66.6 49. 90.9 77.7 5. 81.8 66.6 50. 100.0 77.7 6. 90.9 88.8 51. 45.4 44.4 7. 90.9 100.0 52. 54.5 55.5 8. 90.9 88.8 53. 90.9 88.8 9. 90.9 100.0 54. 81.8 88.8 10. 100.0 100.0 55. 63.6 44.4 11. 81.8 55,5 56. 63.6 44.4 12. 70.0 66.6 57. 72.7 88.8 13. 54.5 33.3 58. 81.8 66.6 14. 90.9 77.7 59. 100.0 88.8 15. 100.0 100.0 60. 45.4 55.5 16. 100.0 88.8 61. 72.7 55.5 17. 72.7 66.6 18. 81.8 88.8 62. 54.5 88.8 19. 45.4 66.6 63. •54.5 44.4 20. 45.4 44.4 64. 54.5 33.3 21. 54.5 77.7 65. 100.0 87.5 22. 100.0 88.8 66. 100.0 88.8 23. 100.0 77.7 67. 100.0 77.7 68. 54.5 66.6 24. 72.7 77.7 69. 45.4 44.4 25. 72.7 66.6 70. 36.3 55.5 26. 90.9 77.7 71. 100.0 77.7 27. 90.9 77.7 72. 90.9 77.7 28. 36.3 66.6 73. 100.0 88.8 29. 63.6 66.6 30. 90.9 87.5 74. 63.6 66.6 31. 45.4 62.5 75. 63.6 55.5 32. 5415 55;5 76. 45.4 55.5 33. 70.0 66.6 77. 81.8 66.6 34. 100.0 88.8 78. 81.8 77.7 35. 91.8 88.8X 79. 81.8 55.5 36. 72.6 55.5 80. 72.7 88.8 37. 45.4 33.3 81. 90.9 88.8 38. 90.9 77.7 82. 90.9 100.0 39. 63.6 77.7 83. 100.0 88.8 40. 72.7 88.8 84. 100.0 88.8 41. 45.4 66.6 85. 90.9 88.8 42. 72.7 77.7 86. 100.0 100.0 43. 63.6 44.4 87. 100.0 100.0 44. 45.4 66.6 88. 45.4 77.7 45. 36.3 55.5 89. 90.9 100.0 46. 45.4 33.3 90. 90.9 66.6 Complexity Autonomy Complexity Autonomy 91. 45.4 66.6 117. 45.4 33.3 92. 72.7 66.6 118. 90.9 44.4 119. 81.8 100.0 93. 45.4 66.6 120. 81.8 88.8 94. 45.4 77.7 121. 80.0 55.5 95. 90.9 55.5 122. 90.0 100.0 96. 45.4 55.5 123. 100.0 100.0 97. 72.7 66.6 124. 54.5 77.7 98. 54.5 66.6 99. 81.8 66.6 125. 100.0 77.7 100. 81.8 88.8 126. 100.0 88.8 101. 90.9 88.8 127. 36.3 55.5 102. 81.8 66.6 128. 70.0 88.8 103. 81.8 55.5 129. 90.9 77.7 104. 100.0 11 n 130. 100.0 100.0 105. 72.7 55.5 131. 100.0 88.8 106. 54.5 66.6 132. 90.9 77.7 107. 45.4 33.3 108. 100.0 88.8 133. 90.9 77.7 109. 100.0 88.8 134. 63.6 66.6 110. 100.0 88.8 135. 100.0 66.6 111. 81.8 44.4 136. 90.9 88.8 112. 63.6 55.5 137. 45.4 66.6 113. 54.5 44.4 138. 72.7 55.5 114. 50.0 22.2 139. 100.0 88.8 115. 90.9 66.6 140. 90.9 100.0 116. 45.4 77.7 141. 90.9 88.8 142. 81.8 88.8 143. 100.0 77.7 144. 36.3 44.4 APPENDIX G CATEGORIES OF TASKS FOR AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY USING THE 3-POINT RATING SCALE FOR EACH LEVEL OF AGREEMENT AUTONOMY >75% 60 - 75% <60% Levels of Autonomy ( l o - h£ 21,23, 24,26, 27,30, 38,39,40, 42,49,50, 53,54,57, 59,65,66,67, 71,72,73,78, 104,108,109, 110,128,139,143, 1,2,3,6,7, 8,9,10,14,15, 16,18,22,34, 35,62,80,81, 82,83,84,85,86, 87,88,89,94, 100,101,116,119, 120,122,123,124, 125,126,129,130, 131,132,133,136, 140,141,142, 4,25, 28,29, 41,47, 77,90, 97,98, 99,115, 106, 137, 5,12,17, 19,31,33, 44,58,68, 74,91,92,93, 102,134,135, 20,46, 36,43, 11,13,32, 48,55, 52,69, 45,61,64, 60,75, 105,107, 70,79,144, 76,95, 117,121, 96,103, 63-1,3, 111,112, 37-1,2,3, 113-1,2, 114,118, 51-1,2, 127,138, 56-2,3, COMPLEXITY ,>75% 60 - 75% <60% 23,26,27, 111, 1,5,6,7,8,9, 4,24, 43,56, 2,3,12, 20,21, 13,31, 19,32,37 , 30,38,49, 121, 10,11,14,15,16, 25,29, 105, 17,33,36, 60,63, 45,51, 62,68,93, 50,53,54, 18,22,34,35, 39,40,42, 61,74,80, 69,76, 52,64, 94,107, 59,65,66, 58,79,81,82, 47,55,57, 92,134, 98,113, 88,91, 124,137, 67,71,72,73, 83,84,85,86, 75,97,112, 106,114, 77,78,90,95, 87,89,100,101, 128,138, 116, 127-1,2, 99,103,104, 102,119,120, 144-1,3, 108,109,110, 122,123,125,126, 28-1,3, 115,118,139, 129,130,131,132, 41-1,2, 143, 133,135,136,140, 141,142, 44-2,3, 46-2,3, 48-1,3, 70-1,3, 96-1,2, 117-1,3, 9 5 . APPENDIX H TASKS SHOWING:PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR SELECTED COMBINATIONS OF AUTONOMY AND COMPLEXITY RATINGS Percent Agreement (a) >75% agreement on autonomy >757o agreement on complexity Level 1 2 3 , 2 6 , 2 7 , 3 0 , 3 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 , 5 3 , 5 4 , 5 9 , 6 5 , 6 6 , 6 7 , 7 1 , 7 2 , 7 3 , 7 8 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 0 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 3 , .j (b) >757» agreement on autonomy 60-757<> agreement on complexity 2 8 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 4 2 , 5 7 , 1 2 8 ; (c) >757» agreement on autonomy 2 1 , <607o agreement on complexity (d) 60-75% agreement on autonomy 7 7 , 9 0 , 9 9 , 1 1 5 , >757<> agreement on complexity (e) 60-757o agreement on autonomy 4 , 2 5 , 2 9 , 4 7 , 9 7 , 60-757o agreement on complexity (f) 60-757o agreement on autonomy 98 , <607o agreement on complexity (g) <607„ agreement on autonomy 9 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 1 8 , >7 57o agreement on complexity (h) £607„ agreement on autonomy 5 5 , 7 5 , 1 1 2 , 1 3 8 60-757o agreement on complexity (i) <607o agreement on autonomy 2 0 , 6 0 , 7 6, <607o agreement on complexity Level 2 106, 121 . 4 3 , 1 0 5 , 5 2 , Level 3 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 2 2 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 5 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 8 9 , 1 0 0 , y - 1 0 1 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 2 , 3 , 8 0 , 6 2 , 9 4 , 1 2 4 , 5 , 5 8 , 1 0 2 , 1 3 5 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 3 3 , 7 4 , 9 2 , 134 , 1 9 , 3 1 , 6 8 , 9 1 , 9 3 , 1 1 , 7 9 , 6 1 , 3 2 , 96. APPENDIX J AUTONOMY 7o agreement, using a 3-point s c a l e formed by combining r a t i n g l e v e l s 2, 3 & 4, f o r those tasks which rated<607> on the 3-point s c a l e formed by combining l e v e l s 1 & 2 and 4 & 5. Task No. 7> Agreement Task No. 7 . Agreement 11 99, .9 75 77 .7 13 77 , .7 76 88.8 20 77 , .7 7 9 66.6 32 100, .0 95 44.4 36 88, .8 96 77 .7 37 88, .8 103 66.6 43 88, .8 105 88.8 45 88, .8 107 88.8 46 88, .8 111 100.0 48 66, .6 112 100.0 51 66, .6 113 77 .7 52 88, .8 114 66.6 55 55, .5 117 100.0 56 77 .7 118 66.6 60 88 .8 121 88.8 61 88, .8 127 77 .7 63 55 .5 138 77 .7 64 88, .8 144 66.6 69 88, .8 70 77 , .7 >757> agreement - 28 tasks 60-757. agreement - 7 tasks <"607> agreement - 3 tasks 97 . APPENDIX K COMPLEXITY % agreement, using a 3-point s c a l e formed by combining r a t i n g l e v e l s 2, 3 & 4, f o r those tasks which rated<607> on the 3-point s c a l e formed by combining l e v e l s 1 & 2 and 4 & 5. Task No. 7. Agreement Task No. 7> Agreement 19 81.8 88 90.9 20 72.7 91 81.8 28 90.9 94 72.7 32 90.9 96 81.8 37 100.0 98 63.6 41 72.2 106 100.0 44 90.9 107 100.0 45 90.9 113 72,7 46 81.8 114 7 0.0 48 ' 72.7 116 100.0 51 100.0 117 81.8 52 90.9 124 90.9 60 81.8 127 63.6 62 81.8 137 100.0 63 81.8 144 63.6 64 90.9 13 81.8 68 81.8 21 63.6 69 81.8 31 90.9 70 90.9 93 90.9 76 72.7 >757, agreement - 28 tasks 60-757. agreement - 11 tasks <607. agreement - 0 tasks 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104414/manifest

Comment

Related Items