02-‐19-‐2013
2013 Program Evaluation Report Hofstra University
Rehabilitation Counseling Program
Dear Provost Berliner:
As program director of the Rehabilitation Counseling (RC) Program, I am pleased to share with you the results from our bi-‐annual program evaluation for 2013. Keeping in alignment with our CORE accreditation and program mission, we conduct a bi-‐annual evaluation in an effort to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the program. The results are used as part of our strategic efforts to continuously improve the quality of the program. The program evaluation was composed of two phases: (1) an alumni survey and (2) an employer survey. This year we moved to an online survey format distributing them via social media and e-‐mail in an effort to increase our response rate. The alumni survey was sent out to individuals who graduated between 2008 to the present. The employer survey was sent to agencies represented on our Professional Advisory Board as well a agencies who are believed to have hired graduates within the past five years. In total 14 alumni and 6 employers responded.
The first section will discuss results from the alumni survey while the second section will review the results of the employer survey.
Section One -‐ Alumni Survey Results
Demographic characteristics of the alumni (N = 14) who responded to the survey are
summarized in Table 1. Primarily most alumni were female, of Caucasian background, and in the age range of 20 to 30 years old. Most are working in the counties of Suffolk and Queens; and have earned their national certification as a rehabilitation counselor. To a smaller extent some are licensed as mental health counselors in the state of New York. However, important to note, those pursuing licensing must complete 3000 clinical hours post-‐graduation before becoming licensed, whereas certification can be obtained shortly after graduation. One hundred percent of the alumni reported working full-‐time.
Table 1: (N= 14) Demographic Characteristics of RC Alumni
Characteristic Percentage
Gender F = 85% M = 15%
Ethnicity C = 71% AA = 22% H = 0% B = 0% O = 7%
(Haitian-‐
American)
Age 20-‐30 yrs
71% 31-‐40 yrs
15% 41-‐50 yrs
0% 51–60 yrs
14%
Characteristics Percentage
Work Loc. N = 9% S = 50% B = 8% Q = 25% M = 8% W = 0%
CRC Yes = 79% No = 21%
LMHC* Yes = 33% No = 67%
Gender: F= Female, M= Male
Ethnicity: C= Caucasian, AA –African American, H = Hispanic, B = Bi-‐racial, O=Other
Work Loc: N= Nassau, S=Suffolk, B=Brooklyn, Q=Queens, M = Manhattan, & W=Westchester CRC = National Certification in Rehabilitation Counseling
LMHC: License as a Mental Health Counselor in New York
* Figures are based only on those alumni who graduated from the combined program (n=7)
As indicated in Chart 1, most of our graduates in this survey are working with clients who have multiple disabilities followed by mental health and substance abuse disabilities. In terms of multiple disabilities, this may be a client, for example, who has a psychiatric disability in combination with a physical (e.g. amputation) and/or a sensory disability (e.g. blindness).
Chart 1: Population Served
Chart 2 indicates the agency setting in which alumni reported working. About 17% of our alumni in this survey work within the public sector setting (e.g. ACCES-‐VR), 8% with the Veteran’s Affairs, and 75% in the private nonprofit setting (e.g. Clubhouse of Suffolk, Samaritan Village, South Oaks Hospital, Safe Space). This demonstrates a shift from our last survey in 2010, which showed a more even divide between the nonprofit (47%) and public sector settings (27%). This shift may be a product of the alumni we collected data from, an increase interest in the mental
39%
31%
15%
15%
Type of Disability Served
Multiple Psychiatric Substance Abuse
Developmental/Learning
health population, and/or the hiring freeze that has been in place at ACCES-‐VR for some time now.
Chart 2: Agency Setting
In terms of income, Chart 3 compares initial (i.e. salary at first job post-‐graduation) to current salary. The data show that the majority of graduates started off earning between 30k– 40k per year. However present salaries were higher with most graduates earning between 40k-‐50k.
These figures are slightly lower in this report at both the initial and current salary than in the 2010 report. One explanation may be the make up of the two groups of alumni. During the current data collection period, there were a higher proportion of alumni who graduated within the past 3 months compared to a much smaller percentage of alumni in the 2010 survey. This means that those in the 2010 survey were more seasoned in the field, having more opportunity to increase their earning capacity. Nevertheless, earning capacity in the field continues to be a challenge, especially for those early in their careers.
17%
8%
75%
State Vocational Rehabilitation Veteran's Affairs
Private Non-‐Prohit
Chart 3: Initial versus Current Income of RC Alumni
As part of the alumni survey, we inquired about the alumna’s level of satisfaction across nine domains including:
1. RC faculty
2. academic content and curriculum 3. practicum and internship experiences
4. faculty supervision received during the fieldwork experience 5. preparation received to work in the field
6. financial support received while in the program
7. support received to perform academically in the program 8. technology used while at Hofstra (e.g. Blackboard, g-‐mail, etc.) 9. assistance received in finding a job
Students rated their level of satisfaction on a 7-‐point Likert scale: 1= very unsatisfied,
2= unsatisfied, 3= somewhat unsatisfied, 4 = neutral, 5= somewhat satisfied, and 6= satisfied, and 7= very satisfied. Table 2 summarizes these results showing that on average students felt
satisfied or very satisfied across most domains. They were most satisfied with the RC faculty and the faculty supervision received during practicum and internship experiences.
Results were more mixed with respect to financial support received while in the program and assistance in finding a job. Important to note here, however, is that 71% of our students still had jobs before they graduated. Twenty nine percent of our alumni reported being unemployed.
These figures are slightly lower than in our 2010 survey where 85% of graduates had jobs by graduation and 15% within the initial three months post-‐graduation. We believe the economy, has been a major culprit for the sluggish job market that may be slowing down the speed to which students/graduates are securing employment. Even still, the program continues to receive job leads from the field that are filtered through our Online Rehabilitation Counseling Resource
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
25k -‐29k 30k -‐ 34k 35k -‐ 39k 40k -‐ 49k 8%
38% 38%
15%
8% 8%
31%
54%
Initial Salary Current Salary
Center and Facebook page to assist students/graduates in their search efforts. Furthermore, the RC faculty continues to network extensively with agencies in the community. Worth noting, is a recent increase in the number of job leads that seem to be filtering through the program during the past six months, perhaps indicative of an economy that is gradually improving.
Financial support continues to be a challenge to students in our program. We have been able to subsidize some of the tuition cost for many of our students through the RSA Long-‐Term Training grants. In addition, the Provost Fund is used faithfully to further assist in offsetting some of the cost. Even still, survey results show that this is one area students are least satisfied with in the program.
Table 2: RC Program Satisfaction
Area of Satisfaction M SD
RC faculty 6.93 .27
Academic content and curriculum 6.64 .50
Practicum & internship experiences 6.69 .48
Faculty supervision received during field-‐based experience
6.79 .58
Preparation to work in the field 6.50 1.34
Financial support received 5.57 2.73
Support received to perform academically in the program
6.71 .61
Technology used while in the program (Blackboard, g-‐mail, etc.)
6.71 .47
Assistance received in finding a job 5.93 1.59
Qualitative feedback shared by some of the alumni highlighted both strengths and areas for improvement. Primary areas of strength identified by alumni were: (1) knowledgeable and enthusiastic faculty, (2) the small group feel of the program, (3) networking opportunities, and (4) the resources that are available in the program.
In terms of areas for improvement, the following areas emerged as themes: (1) having more site visits built into the program, (2) having more financial support, (3) additional assistance in finding jobs, and (4) having more staff.
One final comment regarding the alumni survey results. Graduates were asked to describe how the program’s mission fulfilled their educational goals. A copy of the mission was included for reference. All comments (N = 6) with the exception of one believed the mission was fulfilled while they were in the program; that they were well prepared to work in the field. Examples of comments are as follows:
“The program held its mission statement in high
regard and followed all of the tenets of the mission every step of the way, ”
“The mission and objectives were carried out very well in my educational experience at Hofstra”
One alumna expressed being poorly informed about the field and believes this has contributed to his/her inability to get a job.
Please see the bottom of this report for a copy of the mission statement and objectives of the program.
Section Two – Employer Survey Results
An online employer survey was administered to the program’s Professional Advisory Board along with other community agencies believed to have hired graduates from the RC program within the past five years. In total we reached out to approximately 25 employers, receiving a response rate of 24% (N=6). Four of the employers indicated hiring more than one RC graduate within the past five years with one employer taking on five graduates during that time frame.
Fifty-‐seven percent (57%) of the employers were from the public sector (e.g. ACCES-‐VR, VA, etc.) and 43% were from the non-‐profit sector (i.e. community-‐based agencies). The largest
percentage of employers reported working in settings with more than 500 employees while the others were evenly divided among medium and small sized organizations. See Chart 4 below for details.
Chart 4: Size of Employer
The clientele served by the agency varied widely among the employers including persons with criminal background, transitioning youth, physical disabilities, visual disabilities, mental health disabilities, and substance abuse. Likewise, there was a vast array of services offered by the
57%
14%
14%
14%
Size of Employer
>500 employees 251-‐499 employees 51-‐250 employees
< 50 employees
employers who responded to the survey. Please refer to Table 3 for a listing of the specific services.
Table 3: Services Offered by the Employer (Rehabilitation Agency) (N=6)
Type of Service # of Employers %age of Employers
Vocational Assessment 3 50%
Transition Services 2 33%
Vocational/Job Readiness Training 3 33%
Counseling (Individual or Group)
4 67%
Job Placement 4 67%
Supported Employment 2 33%
Employers were asked to complete a 22-‐item survey using a five-‐point Likert scale (1 = poor to 5 = excellent), measuring the competency of RC graduates hired within the past five years. Based on the results in Table 4, employers rated the RC graduates overall as good in their level of competency to work in the field. When looking at specific areas of competency, they rated graduates as being most competent in the area of conducting intake interviews. This was followed by several other areas being rated equally good including (1) ability to develop
counseling relationships, (2) effectiveness in conducting counseling sessions, (3) effectiveness in conducting vocational assessments, and (4) effectiveness in working with other professionals.
Competencies rated more within the average range included: (1) supervisory and administrative skills, (2) knowledge of independent living, (3) knowledge of supported employment, and
(4) knowledge of assistive technology and accommodations. Surprisingly, employers also felt that graduates were average to good in terms of their ability to work with employers in the job placement process.
The RC program devotes a significant amount of time to the counseling and assessment process, which may speak to the higher ratings in these competency areas. Courses are exclusively devoted to content in these areas. Supervisory skills, independent living, assistive technology, and supported employment are integrated throughout the curriculum in several courses. The dispersion of these content areas without designated course offerings may influence the degree to which students absorb and retain the knowledge post graduation. Furthermore, with the exception of supported employment, these are specialty areas in the field that in the past the program had grant funding to offer concentrated coursework in these areas. Students receiving grant funding were required to take these courses to graduate. Presently we have training grants in other concentrations (e.g. mental health and transition services). Consequently, the
specialized coursework in supervisory skills, independent living, and assistive technology are not available. Nevertheless, the RC program will review the curriculum to determine if additional content can be accentuated in the program to enhance the competency of our students in the program. We will also be reviewing the results of the survey with our Professional Advisory
Board during the fall 2014 meeting to gather more insight on their concerns related to these competency areas.
Table 4: Employer Survey Results (N=6)
Survey Item M SD
Ability to conduct intake interviews 4.50 .55
Ability to conduct vocational evaluations 4.20 .84
Ability to develop counseling relationships 4.33 .52
Effectiveness in conducting counseling sessions
4.33 .52
Effectiveness in conducting vocational counseling 4.33 .52
Ability to develop a rehabilitation plan 4.17 .75
Ability to utilize medical, psychological, employment, educational, social and family information
4.17 .41
Effectiveness in working with other professionals
4.33 .52
Ability to coordinate services 4.17 .75
Ability to use community resources 4.00 .63
Understanding of the rehabilitation system 4.00 .63
Ability to conduct job seeking skills training 4.17 .41 Ability to work with employers in the job placement
process 3.83 .75
Knowledge of rehabilitation procedures and practices 4.17 .41
Knowledge of supported employment 3.60 .55
Knowledge of independent living 3.40 .55
Knowledge of provisions of the ADA and other disability legislation
4.00 0
Knowledge of assistive technology and accommodations 3.60 .55
Knowledge of cultural diversity 4.00 0
Supervisory and administrative skills 3.25 .50
Ability to implement change/recommendations of
supervisor 4.00 .89
Overall assessment of the graduate(s) 4.33 .52
Concluding Remarks
Overall, the RC program views the results of the alumni and employer surveys as favorable. The alumni who responded seem predominately satisfied with their participation in the program as well as the bridge it provides towards a successful career path in Rehabilitation Counseling.
Likewise, employers seem satisfied with the quality of the graduates the program supplies to the field, thus achieving our mission and goals.
Nevertheless, the program will investigate the areas rated less favorably and, with the help of our Professional Advisory Board, implement changes where appropriate. Moreover, we intend to address the response rate in both surveys. Although the response rates are improvements from the 2010 program evaluation, they are still lower than would be preferred. Increasing our response rate from both alumni and employers will ensure a more representative perspective about the program.
Respectfully submitted by,
Jamie S. Mitus, Ph.D., CRC, LMHC, LCPC
Program Director – Rehabilitation Counseling
Cc: Dr. Liora Schmelkin, Senior Vice Provost & Dean of Graduate Studies Dr. Ron Bloom, SHSHS, Acting Dean
Dr. Holly Seirup, CMHP, Department Chair
Dr. Andrea Nerlich, Associate Professor – Rehabilitation Counseling
Rehabilitation Counseling Program Mission Statement
The Rehabilitation Counseling Program seeks to prepare students at the Master’s level to become highly competent, quality-‐oriented, and culturally sensitive professionals who work with individuals with disabilities. The program strives to ensure that students acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to assist individuals with disabilities in their pursuit of independence that accounts for vocational, personal, social, and psychological endeavors. The program subscribes to a scientist-‐practitioner model for academic preparation to illustrate the importance of intersecting evidence-‐based and theoretical concepts with practice. Our mission is accomplished through a commitment to the values of empowerment, collaboration, holism, innovation, and quality.
Program Objectives
1. To recruit high quality candidates of diverse background who demonstrate the potential to be successful in working with individuals with disabilities, meeting the needs of the disability community, and addressing professional issues that continuously arise.
2. To maintain a Master’s level curriculum that aligns with the standards set forth by the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE) to ensure students receive the highest quality of academic training to become rehabilitation counselors well equipped to work with a diverse population. Specific content domains in which students are train include:
a. professional identity
c. human growth and development d. employment and career development e. counseling and consultation
f. group work
g. assessment; research and program evaluation
h. medical, functional, and environmental aspects of disability i. rehabilitation services and resources
j. practicum and internship experience.
3. To ensure that the program curriculum sufficiently prepares students to be eligible for the certification exam in Rehabilitation Counseling (CRC) and/or the New York state licensing in mental health (LMHC), depending on program designation.
4. To continually revise program requirements in an effort to remain current with the needs of the disability community and ensure that students are prepared to manage contemporary professional issues.
5. To further develop and strengthen the program’s relationship with the disability and human services communities to remain connected to the field and current in academic instruction, as well as facilitate quality fieldwork and employment opportunities for students in the program.
