Virtual Training in Child Welfare

Authors

Penny Putnam Collins, Penny P Collins Consulting

Date of this Version

3-2023

Document Type

Article

Abstract

Child welfare offices and training centers had to transition their classroom instructor-led training to virtual platforms when the pandemic hit. Some training systems were already using virtual platforms or asynchronous learning tools to deliver training content, but no agency was 100% virtual pre-pandemic. The transition was sudden and there was a steep learning curve for some trainers. Changes made when the pandemic hit may now be the new normal. This QICTake highlights what our QIC-WD sites and team members experienced as child welfare agencies shifted to, and are now embracing, virtual training. What We’re Seeing Finding the Right Tools for a Virtual Environment Some training teams were using Zoom or other synchronous (interactive/live meeting) tools to deliver portions of the child welfare training program, especially if they had staff in rural jurisdictions which made inperson training costly or challenging to deliver. In one state, asynchronous modules (i.e., self-paced videos or lessons that can be viewed independently) were created pre-pandemic to reduce travel for in-person new staff training. (These tools focused on content related to the history of child welfare, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and other didactic learning areas.) In some localities, trainers had little, if any, experience using a virtual training platform before March 2020 and were unfamiliar with the tools and technology available to support virtual training. All of the trainers in the sites we interviewed were experienced trainers, however, many initially found the transition to the virtual classroom difficult. In the quick transition they had to conduct training virtually and some had to learn to navigate a new (to them) webbased learning platform. Even for those trainers where some content was available on-line, there was still a transition and learning curve to adapt all aspects of training to a virtual environment. Trainers realized very quickly they needed to learn as much as possible about the platforms (i.e., Zoom, Adobe Connect, GoToTraining, WebEx, Microsoft Teams) and the tools and resources within the platforms to keep learners engaged in the virtual training. Some training systems were able to select their software whereas others were constrained by jurisdictional contracts or technology restrictions. Regardless of the platform, training leaders emphasized the importance of setting clear, explicit expectations for participation at the beginning of each virtual training sessions. This included the use of a camera during the training and expectations for after the training. In some sites this was reinforced by agency management to build a culture of accountability. To keep participants engaged in the virtual classroom, training leaders included activities that encouraged frequent conversation and interaction among participants and trainers – preferably something new happening on the screen every few minutes to which the participants would have to respond. Trainers used polls, breakout rooms, white boarding, and paused frequently to ask open-ended questions to gauge participants’ understanding during virtual training. Additional tools for participant engagement included platform chat functions, post-it notes, screen sharing, Linoit boards, Padlet, pop quizzes, and surveys. To further engage child welfare professionals during the pandemic, the Colorado Child Welfare Training Center (CWTS) trainers facilitated conversations with veteran staff from across the state on relevant topical areas such as virtually assessing safety and conducting virtual family meetings. These DCW Virtual Town Hall Meetings allowed child welfare staff from across the state to share experiences and practices. This training enhancement was not part of the pre-COVID training model. Understanding the Right Set-Up for your Virtual Training Room Initially some sites believed that they could increase the number of participants for the virtual trainings. However, most sites learned quickly that classes needed to be capped at about 18 participants for optimum engagement and participation. In addition, some sites decided to have a moderator, producer, or virtual training assistant in the training to track attendance and participation and help manage the virtual classroom and the classroom activities (e.g., breakout rooms, launching polls and quizzes). This model allowed the trainer to focus on the delivery of training content and engagement of participants. In addition, some sites had an IT person available in case the trainer or participants experienced technological difficulties. Some of the sites continued to have all-day trainings with frequent breaks and activities, while other sites had participants in the virtual classroom for shorter increments, but had them go off-line to complete assignments, then join back in later in the day to discuss the assignments. Considering Content One of the most difficult and important transitions in many jurisdictions was how to adapt the curriculum to the virtual environment. There was little data available during the pandemic to drive these decisions. In one state, the training unit had to rewrite all of the new worker training to make it more skills based. This was especially challenging in a virtual environment without any hands-on or face-to-face learning opportunities so a program utilizing veteran workers as coaches for new workers was resurrected. Other adaptations made by training systems included: • The Colorado Child Welfare Training Center (CWTS), part of the Kempe Center at the University of Colorado-Denver, a QIC-WD partner, adjusted their pre-service simulation to include how to engage families and assess child safety in a virtual environment. Using actors as the family members, the new workers practiced how to interact with families virtually. • The University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Center on Children, Families, & the Law, the lead agency for the QIC-WD, adapted their mock courtroom experience to Zoom. Child welfare trainees learned the facts of a simulated case and were given testifying tips through lecture, discussion, and demonstration, using video clips of the best and worst practices in witness testimony. Trainees experienced questioning by different attorneys, depending on the type of hearing and examination (e.g., direct, cross, redirect) and received immediate feedback on certain aspects of their testimony. The simulation experience was successfully adapted to Zoom while simulating the concurrent changes in court practices. The trainers we interviewed reported that access to training was a benefit to the virtual model. They could make trainings more widely available, and participants and trainers did not have to travel to attend trainings. This not only eliminated the stress of traveling for new caseworkers but was more cost effective for states/ agencies. They also reported a downside to not convening trainings in person: a lack of building connections. They reported that some participants found it difficult to not have interaction with teams in their office (since more people were working remotely) and to only have virtual contact with other participants. Some trainers noted that the camaraderie built during weeks of in-person pre-service training was also missing when trainings moved to a virtual platform. An early assessment of the CWTS virtual trainings found that there were no changes to reported learning or satisfaction with facilitators between in-person (PreCOVID) and virtual contexts (Schwab-Reese et al., 2020). Although more evaluation is needed to assess the quality and best practices related to virtual trainings, this study is promising and suggests that virtual training can be just as effective as in-person training. The Future of Child Welfare Training When asked what training in the future would look like in the various QIC-WD sites, each training manager said it would be blended (a hybrid of virtual and in-person training). They did not see going back to an all-classroom training model after the pandemic ended. Blendedlearning is popular because it can easily meet the various needs of learners. For example, if the new caseworker needs foundational information, perhaps about the history of child welfare, agency policies, or how to work within the child welfare information system, they take a self-directed (asynchronous) e-learning course that can be assessed by an online test. To put knowledge into practice, an instructor-led classroom training (virtual or in-person) that includes role play or simulation training may work best. Perhaps to share their experiences on field practice activities, trainers can hold a virtual meeting/debrief with the training class. Blended learning models may also provide an opportunity to increase participation in training, particularly among professionals for whom travel is required to attend trainings (SchwabReese et al., 2020).