"Arts, Faculty of"@en . "Social Work, School of"@en . "DSpace"@en . "UBCV"@en . "Carlton, Lois M."@en . "2011-08-06T17:41:00Z"@en . "1967"@en . "Master of Social Work - MSW"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "This study developed from results obtained in a recent MSW thesis entitled, \"Utilization of Manpower at Children\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Aid Society of Vancouver, B.C.\" by Adams, et. al. (U.B.C. School of Social Work, 1967).\r\nIn the main, our assignment was to select and rank a wide range of tasks performed by agency staff in the field of child welfare. Using the Adams et. al. recommendation regarding \"worker autonomy,\" we selected a panel of fifteen judges representing the three levels of employment - administrative, supervisory, and line worker, developed an adequate method of judging, and analysed the data. The Adams, et. al. study proved useful in our inquiry in providing clues to the various personal assignments we had set for our project group.\r\nThe entire project covered a period of less than three months and because of this comparatively short research period, we resorted to simplified techniques of judging.\r\nWe found a high percentage of agreement among the judges. This not only indicates that the tasks can be differentiated by social workers in the field of child welfare but also that the \"forced choice\" phase of the judging probably does not adversely affect reliability. Further, we suggested in the Adam's study, it would appear that \"worker autonomy\u00E2\u0080\u009D can usefully be used as a criterion in ranking tasks in a child welfare agency."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/36576?expand=metadata"@en . "PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY AS A CRITERION FOR \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL WORK TASKS IN A CHILD WELFARE SETTING by . L o i s M. Carlton Bette C. F l i n d a l l W.H. Marion Pedlingham Brian T.H. Robinson Mary A. Segal 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 thesis, 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 December, 1 9 6 7 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h.iis r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f S O C J a L W o r k . Lois M, Carlton. Bette C. Plindall. W.H. Marion Pedlingham. Brian T.H. Robinson. Mary A. Segal. The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada April 26th, 1968 ABSTRACT This study developed from r e s u l t s obtained i n a recent MSVJ t h e s i s e n t i t l e d , \" U t i l i z a t i o n of Manpower at Children*s Aid Society of Vancouver, B.C.\" by Adams, et. a l . (U.B.C. School of S o c i a l Work, 1 9 6 7 ) . In the main, our assignment was to s e l e c t and rank a wide range of tasks performed by agency s t a f f i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare. Using the Adams et. a l . recommendation regarding \"worker autonomy,\" we selected a panel of f i f t e e n judges representing the three l e v e l s of employment - administrative, supervisory, and l i n e worker, developed an adequate method of judging, and analysed the data. The Adams, et. a l . study proved u s e f u l i n our i n q u i r y i n providing clues to the various personal assignments we had set f o r our project group. The e n t i r e project covered a period of l e s s than three months and because of t h i s comparatively short research period, we resorted to s i m p l i f i e d techniques of judging. We found a high percentage of agreement among the judges. This not only i n d i c a t e s that the tasks can be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by s o c i a l workers i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare but also that the \"forced choice\" phase of the judging probably does not adversely a f f e c t r e l i a b i l i t y . Further, we suggested i n the Adam's study, i t would appear that \"worker autonomy can u s e f u l l y be used as a c r i t e r i o n i n ranking tasks i n a c h i l d welfare agency. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 : The o r e t i c a l Framework Summary Statement of the Problem P. 1 Reason f o r Choice of C r i t e r i o n used P. 1 Se l e c t i o n of Tasks . P. 2 C o l l e c t i o n of O r i g i n a l Data P. ' 4 Hypothesesto be tested P. 5 Chapter 1 1 : S e l e c t i o n of Judges and Task Rankings -Test of Hypotheses Se l e c t i o n of Judges P. 6 Task Rankings P. 7 Instructions to Judges.. P. 7 Instr u c t i o n s to' those administering Rating Scale P. 8 Ranking P. 8 Hypotheses Test P. 8 Chapter 1 1 1 : Data Analysis R e l i a b i l i t y P. 1 0 Hypotheses Tests P. 10 Bibliography P. 12 Appendices A. I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Judges P. 1 3 B. In s t r u c t i o n s to those Administering Rating Scale... P. 1 4 C. Form used i n Data C o l l e c t i o n P. 15 D. Form used i n Ranking P. 16 E. L i s t of Tasks Judged P. 1 7 F. Categories of Tasks f o r Autonomy using the three Point r a t i n g scale f o r each l e v e l of Agreement P. 24 G. Table - Per Cent Agreement P. 25 H. Histogram - Per Cent Agreement P. 25 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 .. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We w o u l d l i k e t o acknowledge t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n we r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e f i f t e e n j u d g e s . We a l s o a p p r e c i a t e t h e work o f t h e Adams e t . a l . t h e s i s . T h i s t h e s i s s e t t h e back g r o u n d f o r o u r p r o j e c t . We hope t h a t o u r e f f o r t s have i n some way s u p p o r t e d t h e i r f i n e work. S p e c i a l t h a n k s must go t o Mr. L o u i s R e i m e r and t o M i s s S h e i l a h S k e l t o n o f 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 who c e r t a i n l y h e l p e d us meet o u r d e a d l i n e . PROFESSIONAL AUTONOMY AS A CRITERION FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOCIAL WORK TASKS IN A CHILD WELFARE SETTING 1 CHAPTER 1 . 'THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK The Children's Aid Society of Vancouver was r e c e n t l y awarded a f e d e r a l grant to be used i n the i n i t i a l planning stages of a manpower u t i l i z a t i o n study w i t h i n that agency. Although t h i s study i s p r i m a r i l y concerned with the optimum u t i l i z a t i o n of welfare aides, the study i s expected to y i e l d more generalized information about u t i l i z a t i o n of s o c i a l workers i n s o c i a l agencies. In a p i l o t study (phase l ) completed i n the spring of 1 9 6 7 by Adams, et. a l . , i t was shown that s o c i a l work tasks i n the ' C h i l d i n Care' Unit could be u s e f u l l y ranked using 2 c r i t e r i a , \"task complexity\" and \"worker autonomy\"; u t i l i z i n g a panel of s o c i a l work judges. Our project (phase 2 ) plans to rank a l l remaining s o c i a l work tasks w i t h i n a c h i l d welfare s e t t i n g according to the degree of p r o f e s s i o n a l worker autonomy required i n the performance of the tasks. One of the important steps i n t h i s instrumentation phase i s to t e s t the r e l i a b i l i t y of ranking s o c i a l work tasks. . Adams, et. a l . found a high r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c r i t e r i a \"worker autonomy\" and \"task complexity\". We chose to use \"worker autonomy\" and adopted the Adams, et. a l . recommendation ( l , p . i i ) . Reworking of the s o c i a l work tasks and decisions concerning the panel of judges were dea l t with simultaneously by 2 members of our group. REASONS FOR CHOICE OF CRITERION USED From reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e , the worker autonomy dimension has many p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Worker autonomy as defined, by Richan i s \"the degree to which the worker i s c a l l e d upon to function autonomously depending on b u i l t - i n p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t r o l s \" ( 6 , p . i i ) . As described by Briggs, worker autonomy has 3 sub-variables operating which could include use of the p r o f e s s i o n a l and non-professional. I f the service to be rendered i s set out with s p e c i f i c guides i n the form of manuals and concrete procedures, the non-MSW could be used. I f the service to be performed i s done i n a not very v i s i b l e s i t -uation, then the MSW would be used. \"Too, i f any agency has goals and values which adhere to p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l work goals and values, then i t i s s a f e r to use the non-professional person\". ( 2 , p . 3 9 ) . Task complexity as a b a s i s f o r d i f f e r e n t i a l deployment f a l l s short of being the answer needed. A serious d e f i c i e n c y of t h i s c r i t e r i a i s that tasks do not remain s t a t i c , never varying i n complexity. In the actual performance of tasks, they do not appear i s o l a t e d , but often i n c l u s t e r s . I f some of these clusters, contain tasks rated as complex and others not so, the question a r i s e s as to who performs them. Briggs states that the weakest point i n t h i s approach i s that i t would tend to be repressive and more r i g i d . One\"important consideration f o r us i n choosing 7worker autonomy* was that i t could be defined more c l e a r l y andAless ambiquity than.*task com-p l e x i t y * and that there would be a greater p o s s i b i l i t y of the judges having a u n i f i e d concept of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . As a r e s u l t of personal experience, the judge*s a b i l i t y to conceptualize can be hampered. I f the judges c l e a r l y understand our c r i t e r i o n , t h e i r a b i l i t y to conceptualize may be helped by guiding them away from thinking i n terms of \"who w i l l do a p a r t i c u l a r task\". SELECTION OF TASKS A sequence of a c t i v i t i e s was recorded from each department at Children Aid Society. In reviewing the tasks, s p e c i a l consideration was given to avoid d u p l i c a t i o n s , ambiquity of wording and most important to avoid \"leading words\" 3 e..g. \" i n t e n s i v e \" , \"help s o c i a l Worker\". We recognize that tasks vary i n agencies, s p e c i a l e f f o r t was made to word these tasks as g e n e r i c a l l y as po s s i b l e . From over 4 0 0 tasks, we combined some, checked redundancies and concluded with 2 2 6 task items. Each task was typed on a card, the reasons f o r which w i l l be discussed under instrumentation. At the same time, we were concerned about s e l e c t i o n of judges. We decided to use a panel of judges c u r r e n t l y involved i n or having had con-s i d e r a b l e experience i n the f i e l d of c h i l d welfare. One of the main reasons f o r choosing these people i s that they would a l l be f a m i l i a r with the tasks that they would be asked to evaluate. I t i s hoped, therefore, that the con-cepts used w i l l be compatible with the understanding and experience of the judges. I t has been found that the higher degree of inference and the higher l e v e l of ab s t r a c t i o n required by the item to be judged, the greater the i n -t r u s i o n of the judge i n t o the s i t u a t i o n . I t was most important that t h i s be kept to a minimum i n order to decrease s u b j e c t i v i t y and increase r e l i a b i l i t y . ( 8 , pp. 4 6 - 4 7 ) . I t i s hoped that a p r o f e s s i o n a l person w i l l have s u f f i c i e n t o b j e c t i v i t y and p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l t o keep d i s t o r t i o n to a minimum when %he material i s screened through h i s personal value system. Bias w i l l inevitably- be apparent, and i t i s p r e c i s e l y that e n t i t y which we wish to know f o r i t w i l l be encountered during the implementation stage. The question a r i s e s \"to what degree i s our sample representative?\". \"To what degree does the sample resemble the population out of which i t has been drawn?\". Since we do have a balance among administrators, supervisors and l i n e workers, we may be able to obtain c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h i n the 3 d i v i s i o n s . Cer-t a i n l y , i f we have contacted the wrong people, the study w i l l be d i s t o r t e d . COLLECTING ORIGINAL DATA Considerable thought was given to the management of d a t e ^ c o l l e c t i o n . Polansky states that, i f judging i s overly long, there i s a normal amount of digression. One hour seems to be an acceptable time span f o r adults. I t i s also mentioned that a place conducive to concentration be u t i l i z e d , ( 5 , pp. H 5 - 1 4 6 ) . Concerning the matter of pre-testing, i t i s often a great temp-t a t i o n to. have over confidence i n the device one has constructed. Unfor-tunately, we pre-tested only w i t h i n our research group and so d i d not r e -a l i z e the value of objective c r i t i c i s m . One of the key issues throughout t h i s project i s that a u n i f i e d con-cept concerning the c r i t e r i o n be held. To ensure reasonable s i m i l a r i t y , the p r e s i d i n g researchers were schooled i n the manner i n which questions should be answered and how p o s s i b l e problem areas could be handled without con-veying too much information. In order to help c l a r i f y the judges* duties, t h e ' i n s t r u c t i o n to the judges\" was given considerable a t t e n t i o n . There was opinion i n our group that the i n s t r u c t i o n s used i n the Adams study was confusing. In order to avoid t h i s , we t r i e d to make the i n s t r u c t i o n s as succinct and c l e a r as p o s s i b l e . INSTRUMENTATION \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A f t e r having compiled a l i s t of various tasks i n a c h i l d welfare s e t t i n g , we proposed to have each task typed on a sturdy card. Perhaps there may be psychological f a c t o r s at play i n that t h i s i s a novel idea. Th i n d i v i d u a l card assures that the task i s i s o l a t e d p h y s i c a l l y from the others and perhaps may be b e n e f i c i a l i n helping the judge to concentrate s o l e l y on the task i n hand. S h u f f l i n g of these cards assures us of obtaining a random order. One of the foremost reasons f o r u t i l i z i n g these cards i s to f a c i l i t a t e the management of forced choice. HYPOTHESES TO BE TESTED The following hypotheses were chosen by the project team i n speculating about p o s s i b l e v a r i a t i o n s i n task rankings: HYPOTHESIS # 1 There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the degree of autonomy * ascribed to c h i l d welfare tasks by l i n e workers, and the degree of autonomy by the other judges (Administrators and Supervisors). HYPOTHESIS #2 There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the degree of autonomy ascribed to the adoption tasks by judges with 2 or more years ex-perience i n adoption work, and the degree of autonomy by judges who have hot had such experience. * Degree of autonomy r e f e r s to the proportion of tasks placed i n the low or high autonomy category. 6 CHAPTER 2 SELECTION OF JUDGES AND TASK RANKINGS - TEST OF HYPOTHESES SELECTION OF JUDGES The following c r i t e r i a were agreed upon: 1 . E l i g i b i l i t y of membership i n B.C. Association of S o c i a l workers. 2. A minimum of two years experience i n c h i l d welfare. 3 . An equal number of judges ( 5 ) i n each of the three l e v e l s of S o c i a l work p r a c t i c e (administration, supervision, l i n e work). 4 . At each l e v e l of p r a c t i c e , there should be included workers with ex-tensive c h i l d welfare experience and those with a varied experience i n c l u d i n g two years i n c h i l d welfare. The focus i n choosing these c r i t e r i a was to enhance the r e l i a b i l i t y of the task r a t i n g s . I t was deemed e s s e n t i a l f o r a l l judges to be profes-s i o n a l S o c i a l workers and to t h i s end the frame of reference decided upon was e l i g i b i l i t y f o r membership i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l association. I t was f e l t that only those persons vrith c h i l d welfare experience would be f a m i l i a r with the task d e s c r i p t i o n s and that i t was e s s e n t i a l to include t h i s requirement. To obtain as wide an opinion as possible, i t seemed d e s i r a b l e to include a l l l e v e l s of p r a c t i c e , and fur t h e r include S o c i a l workers who have p r a c t i c e d i n other f i e l d s of S o c i a l Work. The suggested number of f i f t e e n judges was divided equally i n t o three groups of f i v e to maintain a balance between the l e v e l s of p r a c t i c e . Names were suggested by members of the group and checked with B.C. A s s o c i a t i o n of S o c i a l workers membership l i s t s . During t h i s process, as i n -t e r e s t i n g f a c t came to l i g h t i n that an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of l i n e workers were a c t i v e members and the l i s t had to be completed from the personal 7 .knowledge of the project, group members about the e l i g i b i l i t y f o r member-ship i n the B.C. Assoc i a t i o n of S o c i a l workers. TASK RANKINGS. . 290 cards representing s o c i a l work tasks performed at the Children* s Aid Society ( o r i g i n a l l y used i n the Adams' study) were revised and du p l i c a t i o n s eliminated. Of the remaining 2 2 6 tasks, approximately 50% of these were r e -worded to avoid ambiguity and a l l the tasks were pre-tested by two members of the Research group, two s o c i a l workers, and a s o c i a l work student. I t was f e l t that c l a r i t y i n the wording of these tasks was e s s e n t i a l and p o s s i b l y t h i s was achieved to some degree since there was a f a i r l y high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y i n the f i n a l r e s u l t s of the study. One observation made con-cerned the compilation of these tasks i n that the o r i g i n a l wording tended to vary according to the p o s i t i o n of the s t a f f member preparing the task i . e . , supervisors tended to use \" i n t e r p r e t \" while l i n e workers would use the term \"e x p l a i n \" . INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES This form, based on a s i m i l a r one contained i n the Adams' study, was s i m p l i f i e d and the d e f i n i t i o n of worker autonomy changed to prevent confusion on the part of the judges. Examples of the various r a t i n g s were drawn from a s o c i a l welfare agency s e t t i n g . I n s t r u c t i o n s were given i n w r i t t e n form to the judges but no mention was made of the forced choice as i t was f e l t t h i s would prejudice the judges i n t h e i r i n i t i a l choice. No mention was made of case aids or s o c i a l workers since i t was f e l t that these terms would tend to make the judges think i n terms o f tasks which could be done by case aids rather than use the d e f i n i t i o n of worker autonomy. A three point r a t i n g scale was used as i t was f e l t that the f i v e point one used i n the Adams* study could be s i m p l i f i e d since judges tend to ignore both the high and medium categories i n a f i v e point r a t i n g scale. We f e l t that i f the i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the judges were s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e a r there would be l e s s c a l l on those administering the t e s t s . In t h i s way we hope to avoid having the a t t i t u d e or p o s s i b l e prejudices of the t e s t administrator a f f e c t the judging of the tasks. INSTRUCTIONS TO THOSE ADMINISTERING THE RATING SCALE Since the judges were to be tested by a l l members of the group, i t was agreed that a uniform method of handling p o s s i b l e problems would be out-l i n e d i n w r i t i n g . These d i r e c t i o n s were made quite e x p l i c i t and each member of the Research project had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a t r i a l run-through so that there was. very l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y of s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s i n the method of adminis t e r i n g the r a t i n g scale. RANKING-A l l members of the pr o j e c t team were involved i n the administering of the project; each member being responsible f o r three judges. When the judges f i n i s h e d t h e i r f i r s t \"run-through\" by so r t i n g the cards i n t o three separate p i l e s , according to written i n s t r u c t i o n s (appendix A), they were then asked to help tabulate t h e i r responses by noting the number of each card they had just ranked, (see appendix C). Then the second phase of the judging began with the \"forced choice\". Here, the judges were asked to d i s t r i b u t e t h e i r previous responses by having the same number of cards in. each p i l e (appendix B). Once again, t h e i r decisions were noted on the work sheet. The t o t a l time spent i n ranking a l l 226 tasks averaged on hour and t h i r t y minutes. Each task was ranked i n d i v i d u a l l y on separate work sheets by c l e r i c a l help provided by the Children's Aid Society. 9 In order to t e s t the hypotheses postulated i n t h i s study, the Mann-Whitney U t e s t ( 7 ) was used to determine the s i g n i f i c a n c e of v a r i -ations i n the degrees of autonomy ascribed by d i f f e r e n t groups of judges to the d i f f e r e n t tasks. Because of time l i m i t a t i o n s , a random sample of the tasks were chosen. Thus, i n t e s t i n g hypothesis # 1 , dealing with the r e l a t i v e autonomy ascribed to a l l tasks by administrative and supervisory personnel, and by l i n e workers, a random sample of 5 0 tasks were chosen from the t o t a l of 2 2 6 by means of a t a b l e of random numbers. S i m i l a r l y , i n t e s t i n g hypothesis # 2 , i n v o l v i n g the 3 5 tasks d e a l i n g with adoption procedures, a random sample of 2 0 was chosen. Composite scores f o r each ijudge on a l l tasks i n the sample were c a l -culated, using the i n i t i a l choice i n instances where forced choice had pro-duced a change i n the autonomy r a t i n g . Then, f o r each hypothesis, the scores of both groups being compared were ranked, the lowest numerically, ( i . e . the highest i n autonomy) being assigned a rank of 1 . The Mann-Whitney t e s t involves the use of the following formula to c a l c u l a t e the s t a t i s t i c U: \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 U = n, n + n,(n l ) - R 1 2 ' 2 2 . 2 where n^ the number of judges i n the smaller group n^ the number of judges i n the l a r g e r group R^ the sum of the ranks of the l a r g e r group The value of U c a l c u l a t e d i n each case was compared with the c r i t i c a l value of U as i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e K ( 7 , p. 2 7 7 ) , and the hypotheses were accepted or rejected on t h i s b a s i s . 10 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS' RELIABILITY , ' ' 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 75$ l e v e l of agreement as having a high l e v e l of agreement, those between 60 - 70$ as having a medium l e v e l of agreement and those below 60$ as having a low l e v e l of agreement. When the tabulat i o n was completed we discovered that there was a h i g h l e v e l agreement between the judges - only 18$ of the tasks rankings obtained l e s s than 60$ agreement (See appendix F & G). HYPOTHESES TESTS HYPOTHESIS #1: For hypothesis #1, i n v o l v i n g l i n e workers and the other judges, the U value was c a l c u l a t e d as 16.5. For a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of 0.05, (two t a i l e d t e s t ) , t h i s U value was considerably higher than the c r i t i c a l * value of. '6 i n d i c a t e d i n Table K; therefore the n u l l hypothesis was accepted. Because the U value was much higher than the c r i t i c a l value given, i t was decided not to apply the t e s t at a higher l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . HYPOTHESIS #2 For t h i s hypothesis, i n v o l v i n g workers with adoption experience, a U value of 38.5 was calcu l a t e d . Thus, as with hypothesis #1, the n u l l hypothesis was accepted, and again, we d i d not t e s t f o r a higher l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . COMMENTS ON HYPOTHESES TESTED In d i s cussing the judges* reactions to the te s t i n g , the research group was of the opinion that the administrators i n p a r t i c u l a r viewed the tasks as a l i n e worker would. Comments concerning the well-being of the c l i e n t were more frequent than thoughts of de c i s i o n and p o l i c y making. In choosing a panel of judges, perhaps i t i s not e s s e n t i a l to have a balance among the various r o l e s i n d i v i d u a l s have i n an agency, as they may tend i n t h e i r judgements to a l i g n themselves with the c l i e n t , these judgements being independent of agency function or r o l e . B I B L I O G R A P H Y 1. Adams, et. a l . 2. Barker, Briggs. 3 . Heyman, Margaret M. 4. National Association of S o c i a l Workers (Southern Minnesota Chapter) 5. Polansky, Norman A. 6. Richan, W i l l i a m C , 7. S e i g e l , Sidney. 8. Shyne, Anne W. \" U t i l i z a t i o n of Manpower at Children's Aid Society\". MSW Thesis, U.B.C. 1967. \" U t i l i z a t i o n of S o c i a l Work Personnel i n Mental Hospital Project\". NASW, 2 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., 1966. \"A Study of E f f e c t i v e U t i l i z a t i o n of S o c i a l Works i n a Hospital Setting\", NASW, Vo l . 6, No. 2, A p r i l , 1961, pp. 36-43 \"An approach to Evaluating S o c i a l Work Tasks, 1964. So c i a l Work Research, ( E d i t o r ) . Chicago Press, I960. \"A Th e o r e t i c a l Scheme f o r Determining Roles of Pro f e s s i o n a l and Non-Professional Personnel\", Social.Work. V o l . 6, No. 4, October, 1961 Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 1956. pp. 116-125- . \"Use of Judgements as Data i n S o c i a l Work, Research\". NASW, 2 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y., 1959. \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 9. Schwartz, Edward E. \"A Strategy of Research on the Manpower Problem\". Manpower i n S o c i a l Welfare. Edward E. Schwartz. ( E d i t o r ) , New York, National Association of S o c i a l Workers, pp. 145-158 APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS FOR JUDGES Cards w i l l be given to you representing tasks performed i n a c h i l d welfare s e t t i n g . These tasks are to be judged by one c r i t e r i o n ; that of worker autonomy. D e f i n i t i o n of Worker Autonomy - Refers to the degree, to which a worker, i n a given s i t u a t i o n , must use h i s inner p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge, ethics and controls. For each task we want your opinion as to the degree of xrorker autonomy required by the worker i n performing the task.- The fo l l o w i n g r a t i n g scale w i l l be used: 1) High 2) Medium 3 ) Low Please sort the cards given you i n t o three p i l e s designated High, Medium and Low. Further i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l be given v e r b a l l y . Hypothetical examples of the various degrees of autonomy are: 1) High Autonomy - recommend committal of c h i l d to c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n 2) Medium Autonomy - a s s i s t c l i e n t i n determining need f o r s u i t a b l r e c r e a t i o n a l resources 3 ) Low Autonomy - n o t i f y c l i e n t of change i n appointment time f o r interview APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS TO THOSE ADMINSTERING RATING SCALE 14 Judges should not be t o l d that we are in t e r e s t e d i n evaluating tasks f o r purpose of u t i l i z i n g case a i d s . I f explanation required study can be described as A- \"Manpower Research P r o j e c t \" . Cards should be thoroughly s h u f f l e d each time before being given to judges. Each judge should be given three boxes marked 1. High 2. Medium 3\u00C2\u00BB Low. Then give written i n s t r u c t i o n s to judges. Explanation of task ambiguities should be avoided as much as p o s s i b l e . At conclusion of i n i t i a l s o r t i n g , the cards should be t a l l i e d on forms provided, g i v i n g numbers of card assigned to each p i l e . T o t a l number of cards i n each p i l e should be added. Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s to judges are then given on the basis of the format of t h e i r o r i g i n a l s e l e c t i o n . There are three p o s s i b i l i t i e s although i n p r a c t i c e a v a r i e t y of these examples w i l l probably occur: A) Centre p i l e i s highest B) End p i l e i s higher than centre C) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2. One end highest, opposite end next, centre p i l e lowest A) Have judge go through p i l e 2 again, picking out enough cards t o complete required numbers i n p i l e s 1 and 3. B) Have judge go through p i l e 1, s e l e c t i n g enough cards to place i n p i l e 2 so that only required number of cards are l e f t i n 1. Have judge go through p i l e 2 and place s u f f i c i e n t number of cards i n p i l e 3> C) Have judge p i c k out excess numbers of cards i n p i l e s 1 and 3 and add t o p i l e 2. Note numbers o f cards selected on forced choice and enter on t a l l y sheets i n red pen. APPENDIX C 1 5 T A S K N O . 1 . , 2 3 4 5 6 7 J U D G E 8 9 10 11 12 . 13 14 15 APPENDIX D R A N K I N G 1 2 APPENDIX E 17 1. Interview transient under 13 and a s s i s t with plans. 2 . Deal with emergency c a l l s regarding a c t i v e CAS cases when workers involved are not ava i l a b l e . J \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Make decision to place under-age unmarried mother i n non-ward care. Assess home s i t u a t i o n of c h i l d f o r Supreme Court Custody reports. Interpret decisions of court.to c h i l d and/ or f a m i l i e s and s i b l i n g s . Prepare s o c i a l h i s t o r y (report) f o r s p e c i a l counsellors at ch i l d ' s school. Discuss f o s t e r home placement with f o s t e r parents. P a r t i c i p a t e i n unit meetings to discuss c h i l d r e n needing placement and placement p o l i c y . 9. Arrange to take under-age unmarried mother i n t o non-ward care, obtaining maternal grandparent's consent,, superintendant of 9 C h i l d Welfare's non-ward consent. 1 0 . Help unmarried mother prepare f o r the emotional impact of c h i l d b i r t h . 1 1 . Prepare evidence f o r court i n apprehension cases. 1 2 . C l a r i f y Agency's r o l e i n a s s i s t i n g un-married mother. 1 3 . Obtain maternal grandparent's cooperation, n o t i f y i n g p o l i c e f o r possible a c t i o n against putative father. 1 4 . Begin action to obtain putative father's f i n a n c i a l contribution. 1 5 . Determine placement needs of unmarried mother. 1 6 . A s s i s t with post-release planning of chi l d r e n i n i n s t i t u t i o n s , determine needs and evaluate q u a l i t y of c h i l d ' s own planning. 1 7 . Interview f o s t e r parent or adoption home references. 13. Interview former wards of CAS ans-weri i g questions (re status, b i r t h information and providing background information as appropriate. 1 9 . Discuss plans f o r s p e c i a l care f o r . c h i l d with medical doctor, agency or non-agency p s y c h i a t r i s t . 2 0 . Discussion with maternal grandparents, putative father, or any other primary people who have investment i n mother's plan. 2 1 . Discussions with unmarried mother around her own future plans. 2 2 . Obtain r e l i g i o u s releases from un-married mother re adoption of her c h i l e 2 3 . Determine need f o r s p e c i a l treatment centre f o r c h i l d . 2 4 . Complete written report on progress of c h i l d i n i n s t i t u t i o n . 2 5 - Discuss cases with probation o f f i c e r . 2 6 . Record comments on intake s l i p s f o l l o wing f o s t e r parent meeting. 2 7 . Correlate r e p l i e s to f o s t e r parent advertisements and p u b l i c i t y . 28. F i l e f o s t e r parent i n q u i r i e s i n alphab e t i c a l index. 2 9 . Discussion of medical problems of adopting and f o s t e r home applicants itfith applicants doctor and s t a f f :\u00E2\u0080\u00A2\u00E2\u0080\u00A2.. consultants. 3 0 . P a r t i c i p a t e i n adoption or fo s t e r Home conferences with other agencies and s o c i a l workers. 3 1 . Obtain admission of paternity. 3 2 . Obtain agreement from putative*father to support mother during confinement and/or c h i l d a f t e r b i r t h by Three Party agreement. 3 3 - Request approval from s o c i a l VJelfare branch to interview putative father, when non-resident. 34- J o i n t interviews with unmarried mother and putative father 3 5 - Casework with putative father 3 6 . 3 7 . 3 8 . 3 9 . 4 0 . 4 1 . 4 2 . 4 3 . 4 4 . 4 5 . 4 6 . 4 7 . 4 3 . 4 9 . 5 0 . Mote d i s p o s i t i o n of f o s t e r parent i n q u i r i e s i n inquiry cards and intake s l i p Obtaining information from other workers 5 7 . regarding children' committed to c o r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s , i . e . reason f o r committal, family h i s t o r y , school record. 53. Arrange to pay rent when c h i l d moves out of group home. 18 54 . Discuss health and housekeeping problems vdth family service c l i e n t . 5 5 . Offer help to family towards a l l e v i a t i n g problems g i v i n g r i s e to neglect or abuse complaints. 5 6 . Make decisions regarding type and amount of spending of Agency preventive funds f o r emergency funds, i . e . basic e s s e n t i a l s , homemaicing service. Interpret c h i l d ' s and family's r e a c t i o n to v i s i t with natural parents, to agency personnel. Supervise f o s t e r c h i l d v i s i t with natural parents. Arrange to issue food vouchers when c h i l d moves out of group home. Allocate money to youth i n group home f o r bus transportation. Arrange f o r payment of spending allowance to c h i l d outside of group home Transfer c h i l d and personal e f f e c t s . Drive c h i l d to v i s i t with natural parents. Discuss r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s with c h i l d Advise unmarried mother of her c h i l d ' s placement, g i v i n g information to mother about adoptive family. Assess need f o r supervision of under-age unmarried mother a f t e r h o s p i t a l confinement 59- Recreation orientated group sessions witr. members of group home. 6 0 . Discuss f o s t e r c h i l d with p p l i c e . 6 1 . Obtain and/or process court documents (a f f a d a v i t s , advertising, v i t a l s t a t i s t i c 6 2 . Send or serve notice of hearing to natural parents. 6 3 . Provide substitute parents (group home, fos t e r ) with information re background of c h i l d to be placed. 6 4 . Observation of c h i l d ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p to substitute parents (C-ropp, f o s t e r ) and s i b l i n g s . 6 5 . Pre-placement v i s i t to evaluate home (adoption, f o s t e r or group) and poten-t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r s p e c i f i c c h i l d . Decide on whether the c h i l d of an unmarried mother i s to be a ward or non-ward based on a conference on mother. Apprehension of c h i l d of unmarried mother. Enr o l c h i l d i n organizations (Cubs etc.) Contact camp resourse personnel on behalf of f o s t e r c h i l d . \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 5 1 . A s s i s t c l i e n t i n course t r a i n i n g enrolment. 5 2 . Assess need f o r homemaking services or preventive funds. Arrange and supervise v i s i t s between prospective parents and a.doptive c h i l d 6 7 . Follow-up consultations vdth a view to helping adopting parents who have given up c h i l d . 6 8 . Evaluate need f o r p s y c h i a t r i c treatment of c l i e n t . 6 9 . Write summary of f i l e . 7 0 . R e f e r r a l of unmarried mother to family Planning C l i n i c . 5 3 . Provide Homemaker s e r v i c e s . Advise putative father of l e g a l implications of interview re admission of paternity. Help c h i l d obtain employment. Arrange f o r funerals. Submit notice to Homefinder, o u t l i n i n g s p e c i a l needs of c h i l d i n need of home. . CAS l i a s o n with i n s t i t u t i o n (e.g. p o l i c y , i n d i v i d u a l problems)' Prepare court notices f o r apprehension Refer case to P r o v i n c i a l Government f o r U.P.A. Court action. Refer unmarried mother to Agency group of unmarried mothers keeping c h i l d r e n . A s s i s t unmarried mother i n completing b i r t h r e g i s t r a t i o n f o r her c h i l d . Acquaint unmarried mother with r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s . Assess unmarried mother's medical and h o s p i t a l coverage. Make arrangements f o r a work home placement f o r unmarried mother, using Agency index. Arrange accomodation f o r -unmarried mother at maternity home. Assess mother' plan f o r me\u00C2\u00B1Lcal coverage and medical care following h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . A s s i s t i n arranging housing or day care f o r unmarried mother and baby. A s s i s t i n plans f o r care of previous c h i l d r e n of unmarried mother during confinement N o t i f y h o s p i t a l s o c i a l worker of plan f o r baby of unmarried mother. Make arrangements (time, mailing i n v i t a t i o n s ) \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 to regular group meetings of prospective adoption or f o s t e r home applicants. Read and assess report from Inspector of Environmental Sanitation re f o s t e r home applicants. y.end form l e t t e r to I n m \u00E2\u0080\u009E + -rr \u00C2\u00B1 n uo -i-nsp ec-tor of Environmental S a n i t a t i o n re f o s t e r home applicants. 19 . 9 1 . Arranging natural family to v i s i t f o s t e r c h i l d . 92. R e f e r r a l of c h i l d i n group home to other agencies (e.g. Burnaby I-lental Health, Youth Counselling) 9 3 - Handle requests f o r information.from agencies re movement of adopting parents i n and out of area. 9 4 . Refer adoption applicants to other s o c i a l agencies when applicants move before adoption i s completed. 9 5 . Arrange admission v i s i t s to public or priva t e schools with c h i l d . 9 6 . Interpret apprehension and guardian-ship to unmarried mother. 97- Determine sp e c i a l needs of c h i l d of unmarried mother. BS. A s s i s t f o s t e r or houseparents with c h i l d f s school enrollment. 9 9 . Discussion with prospective adoption parents regarding d e c i s i o n to adopt a s p e c i f i c c h i l d . 1 0 0 . Arrange f o r c h i l d to attend o r continui i n school 1 0 1 . Report progress o f ' c h i l d i n i n s t i t u t i o i to other agency personnel. 1 0 2 . Read and assess_ new fo s t e r home a p p l i c a t i o n before making i n i t i a l de-c i s i o n to proceed. 1 0 3 . Confer with treatment, s t a f f , i . e . doctors, workers, nurses, regarding c l i e n t i n mental hospit a l s or prisons. 1 0 4 . P a r t i c i p a t e i n conferences with other s o c i a l agencies-regarding c l i e n t problems. 1 0 5 . 1 n t e r v i e v a n g with c h i l d r e n i n correc-t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s regarding psycho-s o c i a l needs.' 1 0 6 . Plan f o r placement cf c h i l d i n tempora home. 1 0 7 . Meeting ph y s i c a l and psycho-social nee of c h i l d i n group home or i n s t i t u t i o n . 108. A s s i s t unmarried mother i n making a p p l i c a t i o n to court for return of guardianship. 1 0 9 . P a r t i c i p a t e i n community conferences pe r t a i n i n g to unmarried mothers. 1 1 0 . Consult with-hospital s o c i a l worker regarding unmarried moth er' s , c h i l d ' s progress i n h o s p i t a l . 111 . Assess f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n of unmarried mother 'keeping child.. 1 1 2 . Give i n i t i a l information and d i r e c t i o n to adoption and fos t e r home applicants i n q u i r i n g at the o f f i c e . 113 . Job counselling 114 . . Give information and d i r e c t i o n i n rep l y to telephone i n q u i r i e s from prospective adoption and fo s t e r home applicants. 1 1 5 . Arrange f o r f o s t e r mother to a i d unmarried mother i n c h i l d care during i n f a n t ' s temporary stay i n care. 1 1 6 . Confer with adoption workers, advising of c h i l d ' s development, presenting pictures and/ or baby at conference. 117 ; \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Ongoing contact with temporary f o s t e r home by telephone or v i s i t . 11S. Give information about agency p o l i c y and procedures r e l a t i n g to f o s t e r c h i l d r e n to publ i c . 1 1 9 . Decision to discharge c h i l d from care. 1 2 0 k .Read and Assess medical reports of prospective adoption or fo s t e r home parents. 1 2 1 . A s s i s t c l i e n t i n obtaining s p e c i a l funds f o r emergent needs, e.g. home r e p a i r s , school fees. 1 2 2 . A s s i s t c l i e n t i n home budgeting. 1 2 3 . Explain Youth and Family Allowance to f o s t e r parents. 1 2 4 . Discuss f o s t e r home rates and payment with f o s t e r parents. 1 2 5 . Arrange f o r s p e c i a l lessons and courses f o r c h i l d i n care. 1 2 6 . Complete school forms f o r c h i l d i n care. 1 2 7 . Compose l e t t e r s ' t o other p r o f e s s i o n a l s or agencies asking f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l information. 128. Teifrphone c a l l s to other professionals or agencies asking f o r c o n f i d e n t i a l information. 129. Consultations with school nurse and/or teacher, regarding the adjustment of other c h i l d r e n i n prospective adopting family. 1 3 0 . Compose l e t t e r s to other agencii and prepare s p e c i a l reports to Chil d Welfare D i v i s i o n where waiving of parent*s consent to adoption i s necessary. 1 3 1 . Compose l e t t e r s of reference of a.doptive ; c h i l d r e n to s p e c i a l treatment c entres. 1 3 2 . Prepare form report f o r Ex-ecutive of CAS, requesting s p e c i a l consent to adoption f o r wards of the society. 1 3 3 . Recording c l o s i n g and/or t r a n s -f e r of f i l e . 1 3 4 . Complete aonthly s t a t i s t i c s . 1 3 5 . Explain c l o t h i n g p o l i c y to c h i l d i n care. 1 3 6 . . V i s i t c h i l d i n h o s p i t a l to maintain contact. 1 3 7 . Compile s o c i a l h i s t o r y . 138. Obtain medical, h i s t o r y from natural or houseparents, public health Department, family doctor 1 3 9 . Place adoptive c h i l d i n tem-porary foster, home with ongoing i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of placement plan to f o s t e r parents. 1 4 0 . Arrange d e t a i l s of adoption placement with other workers involved. 1 4 1 . Receive incoming routine c a l l s .for p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , when c a l l e r does not know whom to ask f o r a.nd r e f e r to appropriate -agency personnel. 142. Obtain adoption or f o s t e r home references. 1 4 3 - Assist foster parents with c h i l d ' school enrollment. 1 4 4 . Take c h i l d shopping. 1 4 5 . Prepare consents for unmarried mother and putative father. . 1 4 6 . Assist mother who i s keeping baby to obtain b i r t h c e r t i f i c a t e and Family Allowance. 1 4 7 . Assist unmarried mother i n care to obtain necessary clothing and personal items. 148. Arrange f o r admission of c h i l d to vocational school. 149- Prepare advertisements for natural parents (so children to be placed f o r adoption) with whom contact has been lost..-1 5 0 . Contact community resources to obtain additional help for c l i e n t . 1 5 1 . Refer c l i e n t to l e g a l aid.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 1 5 2 . Discuss camp with foster, house, or natural parents. 1 5 3 . Discuss camp with c h i l d . 1 5 4 . Participate with other s t a f f i n increasing foster home rate or recommending household help allowance. 1 5 5 . 156. 1 5 7 . 158. 1 5 9 . 1 6 0 . Assist c l i e n t i n laying charges at court. Read and assess foster home or adoption home references. Receive and assess mail (incoming) constituting requests f o r service. Teletype or phone B..C. Social Welfare o f f i c e re presence i n town of transient under 18 years and ask that parent or guardian to be interviewed re plans and repatriation. Interpret unmarried mother's planning with mother's physician. Offer temporary non-ward care fo r mother (unmarried) and c h i l d , while mother prepares home. 21 1 6 2 . Interpret medical information to other agency personnel. 1 6 3 . Prepare and forward placement s l i p s and documents of adoption placement to V i c t o r i a . 1 6 4 . Obtain permission to marry (prepare statement and par t i c i p a t e i n Youth Conference. 1 6 5 . Delivery,'by hand, of l e t t e r s concerning Federal Government ' rulings on children with Indian status. 1 6 6 . Assess future sit u a t i o n i n home where c h i l d to be adopted has been relinquished, regarding other children that could be i n the home. 1 6 7 . Assist c l i e n t i n obtaining housing,. 1 6 8 . Send Adaption consents and support-ing papers to Child Welfare D i v i s i c 1 6 9 . Obtain child's care schedule (feedings, sleeping) and descriptic . of special needs from foster mothei 1 7 0 . Obtain information from 111-t i t u t i o n a l staff about child's program and post-release planning. 1 7 1 . Send background summary of c h i l d to adoption u n i t , when c h i l d available f o r adoption. 1 7 2 . Assist i n obtaining clothing and baby furniture for unmarried \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 mother keeping c h i l d . 1 7 3 . 1 7 4 . 175-1 6 1 . Explain child's symptoms to doctor. Notify adoption workers of c h i l d b i r t h and b i r t h history. Consultation with medical de-partment or private doctor/ hospital concerning medical report on selected c h i l d f o r adoption, foster or group home. Arrange with unmarried mother's worker for medical discharge examination f o r adoptive c h i l d 22 1 7 6 . Obtain maternal grandparents adoption consents, f o r g i r l under IS years. 1 7 7 . Obtain putative father'a background h i s t o r y 1 7 S . V i s i t c l i e n t i n mental h o s p i t a l s / prisons. 1 7 9 . Record f o s t e r home or adoption home study. ISO.Explore p o s s i b i l i t y of unmarried mother seeing c h i l d and/or feeding baby i n ho s p i t a l . 131. Take unmarried mother's non-ward consents and i n t e r p r e t implications. 182. Place c h i l d i n adoption home, t r a n s f e r r i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to new worker. 133. Determine type of placement required f o r c h i l d being taken into care. 134. Decision to take c h i l d into care f o r reasons of neglect or abuse. 185. Evaluate severity of neglect/abuse i n family s i t u a t i o n . 136. M a r i t a l counselling 137. V i s i t unmarried mother i n h o s p i t a l 188. V i s i t c h i l d to assess s u i t a b i l i t y f o r a proposed home (foster, adoption,group) 189. Evaluate strengths and weaknesses of family r e l a t i o n s h i p s . i n family service case. 1 9 0 . Clarify'nature of neglect or abuse complaint with parents about whoever complaint has been made. 1 9 1 . C l a r i f y and substantiate nature of neglect or abuse complaint with complainant. 1 9 2 . -A company mother and inf a n t . t o Court f o r unmarried mother's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c h i l d . 1 9 3 . V i s i t c h i l d at Juvenile Detention home in v o l v i n g casework' and p o l i c y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . 1 9 4 . Prepare d e s c r i p t i o n of propsed adoption home f o r unmarried parents worker. 1 9 5 . Arrange and supervise v i s i t s with prospec-t i v e parents to see adopting c h i l d i n h o s p i t a l . 196. Obtain and forward f a c t u a l i n -formation to lawyer re c h i l d to be placed i n priv a t e adoption. 1 9 7 . Complete and submit report to V i c t o r i a concerning completion of priva t e adoption. 193. Determine p h y s i c a l needs of c h i l d i n f o s t e r home a v a i l a b l e f o r adoption. 199. P a r t i c i p a t e i n (or chair) regular group meetings with adoption or fo s t e r heme applicants. 200. Securing c l i e n t s consent to release of c o n f i d e n t i a l information to another agency. 201. Preparing natural family f o r \"child's return from other placement. 202. Interpret medical information re c h i l d to natural parents, r e l a t i v e s , house parents, adopting or f o s t e r parents. 203. Prepare evidence when parents are applying f o r return of c h i l d . 204. 'Obtain: adoption consents/' 205. Prepare Supreme Court Custody reports 206. Discussing with other workers post-release plans of chil d r e n i n i n -s t i t u t i o n s , c h i l d ' s psychosocial needs, and plans to f a c i l i t a t e p lace-ment . 207. A s s i s t unmarried mother i n form-u l a t i n g plan f o r expected baby. 208. Preparation of c h i l d upon l e a v i n g group home. 209. A s s i s t i n g family to prepare f o r court concerning return of t h e i r c h i l d . 210. Ongoing assessment- of f o s t e r family's a b i l i t y to care f o r c h i l d . 211. Discussion of c h i l d ' s background with prospective adopting parents. 2 1 2 . Prepare statement f o r court on behalf of c h i l d . 213- C l a r i f y adoption procedure f o r putative father, and in t e r p r e t Agency's r o l e . 2 1 4 . -Accompany putative father to h o s p i t a l to see unmarried mother and/or c h i l d . 2 1 5 . P a r t i c i p a t e i n dec i s i o n to accept or r e j e c t adoption or f o s t e r home. 2 1 6 . Interview prospective adoption or f o s t e r home applicants to evaluate s u i t a b i l i t y of home. 2 1 7 . Decision to release c o n f i d e n t i a l information concerning a c l i e n t to another agency. 2 1 S . Study of backgrounds, i . e . b i r t h information medical h i s t o r y , of c h i l d r e n f r e e f o r \u00E2\u0080\u00A2adoption. 2 1 9 . Probation v i s i t s to adoption home to evaluate adjustment and development of c h i l d and r e l a t i o n -ship i n the home. 2 2 0 . ..Counselling with .-adopting parents during probation period re problems and needs, i . e . c h i l d development. 2 2 1 . Casework Recording.} 2 2 2 . Read s o c i a l and'psychological reports on c h i l d to assess s u i t a b i l i t y of c h i l d f o r group, foster,.adoption home. 2 2 3 . Decision to place c h i l d i n group home. 2 2 4 . . Arranging f o r and removal of c h i l d from ' adoptive home. 2 2 5 . Consultations with other agency s t a f f and medical consultants concerning p o s s i b l e harmful e f f e c t on c h i l d r e n rejected by adopting parents. 2 2 6 . P a r t i c i p a t e with other agency personnel, i n d e c i s i o n to place a c h i l d i n a s p e c i f i c home (fo s t e r , group, adoption). APPENDIX F CATEGORIES OF TASKS FOR AUTONOMY USING THE THREE POINT RATING SCALE FOR EACH LEVEL OF AGREEMENT-LEVELS OF AUTONOMY LEVELS OF AGREEMENT High 4,5,10,11,16 18,23,34,47,55 65,66,69,68,97 99,105,109,113,119 126,166,183,184,185 186,188,189,190,193 201,203,206,209,211 215,216,223 Medium 1 2 , 5 4 , 1 3 9 low 2 7 , 2 8 , 3 3 , 3 6 , 3 8 39,40,41,49,61 76,80,81,87,88 90,98,125,134,143 144,146,147,148,149 158,163,165,167,168 169,172,173,175 75 2,3,7,8,9 15,19,21,29,31 32,45,46,56,64 96,107,118,130,137 156,174,181,182,191 199,204,207,208,210 212,217,219,220,221 222,224,225 1,13,20,22,24 25,35,52,59,63 70,74,77,78,84 86,108,111,115,116 117,120,122,128,129 131,136,138,140,150 152,154,155,157,159 160,161,162,164,176 178,180,189,194,195 198,200,202,213,214 2 6 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 5 0 , 5 1 5 3 , 6 2 ' , 7 2 , 7 3 , 8 2 8 3 , 8 5 , 8 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 2 1 G U \" \u00C2\u00B0 1 2 3 , 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 5 1 5 7 , 1 5 3 4 8 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 4 , 1 2 7 67,60,71,79,92 1 3 3 , 1 7 7 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 5 2 2 6 . t i e d t i e d 6 , 1 4 , 3 0 , 5 7 , 7 5 9 , 1 7 0 3 7 , 4 9 , 5 8 , 6 9 , 9 4 9 5 , 1 3 2 , 1 7 1 6 0 APPENDIX G TABLE # ( 1 ) Percent agreement on autonomy of Tasks using a three point r a t i n g scale. a) 7 5 tasks ^ 7 5 $ agreement b) 1 1 0 tasks > 6 0 $ agreement c) 4 1 tasks 6 0 $ agreement APPENDIX H GRAPH # ( 1 ) Histogram i l l u s t r a t i n g percent agreement on autonomy using a three point r a t i n g s cale. 1 0 0 7 5 5 0 2 5 > 7 5 $ 6 0 - 7 5 $ PERCENT AGREEMENT < 6 0 $ "@en . "Thesis/Dissertation"@en . "10.14288/1.0104512"@en . "eng"@en . "Social Work"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en . "Graduate"@en . "Professional autonomy as a criterion for classification of social work tasks in a child welfare setting"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/36576"@en .