2007 Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States

- Summary: 2007 Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States

- Research Brief (PDF)

- Special Brief - Top Findings on BSW Programs (PDF)

2007 Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States: A Summary

The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) is pleased to present the 2007 Statistics on Social Work Education in the United States: A Summary. This is our second year to produce a Summary and accompanying two-page Research Briefs. We received a great deal of positive feedback on last year’s publications, but also noted the suggestions and requests for data we received throughout the year. In response to your feedback, we have made some modifications that will be helpful to programs and faculty. For example, we included new comparison groups, such as a 'state-by-state' chart summarizing basic information for each state, national level comparison data, and Carnegie Classifications.

There are pressing needs within the social work education community for accurate and timely data on a number of education-related issues. To be more responsive to those needs, CSWE is continuing a process of reviewing and revising the Annual Survey in order to streamline data collection and reporting. One result of that process is the addition of new areas of data collection – information on tenure and tenure systems, faculty licensure, Title IV-E funding, and the availability of part-time programs will all be addressed in this report. These additional questions are intended to respond to pressing issues in the education community. The tenure section will only be included periodically to reduce survey burden for programs. We are pleased to announce that the Summary and Research Briefs will be available at the CSWE Web site free of charge to members.

None of this would be possible without the cooperation of the social work program deans, directors, faculty and staff who worked so diligently on completing the Annual Survey of Social Work Programs – your efforts provide the education community with invaluable information. I would also like to give thanks to the CSWE Ad Hoc Task Force on Research and the Institutional Research staff, Christine Tracy and Jessica Holmes, for their work on administering the survey and analyzing the data in these reports. I hope that you will find the Summary both informative and interesting.

Julia M. Watkins
Executive Director

Introduction

The Annual Survey of Social Work Programs is an annual census of social work programs. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) has collected data from social work programs since its inception in 1952. The means of collection and reporting has changed over time, but the instrument itself remained largely unchanged until 2007. In addition to the use of the data for understanding social work education, the data is also used to determine program membership dues for accredited baccalaureate and master’s programs.

In 2004, CSWE began an intensive and purposeful examination of the Annual Survey process to become more responsive to programs, members, and other stakeholders needs for current valid data on social work education. CSWE appointed an Ad Hoc Research Task Force composed of deans, directors, faculty members, and researchers to assist with reviewing and revising the Annual Survey data with the hopes that the process would become easier and more streamlined for programs.

Changes to the Instruments

One of the major changes from 2006 to 2007 was a move from the custom-built Annual Statistics system to Zarca Interactive’s web-based survey platform. In order to assist programs with the transition, the staff offered a FAQ document, printable versions of the surveys, and live help sessions through APM and webinars. Other changes made to question wording, answer categories, and new questions are noted throughout the Summary to give context to the analysis.

Methodology

In the fall of 2007, survey invitations were emailed to program directors at all accredited social work programs (647) and members of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) (71); one contact at each institution, known as the chief administrator, received faculty surveys. The program instruments include sections on program structure, enrollments, concentrations and field placements (BSW and MSW only), financial aid, and degrees awarded. The entire text of the survey instruments is available at the CSWE website (http://www.cswe.org/CentersInitiatives/DataStatistics/ AnnualSurvey.aspx), while truncated text of the questions is used in most of the summary to conserve space. The text of new questions is included in full.

Limitations

The response rate for the Annual Survey has failed to reach 100% for some time. The results presented here are therefore interpreted in the context of previous results – with the warning to use caution. Introducing new measures, as well as our changes in question wording and category response, alters the instrument. Due to these changes, comparisons between this year and previous years may be more difficult. All changes, therefore, to the survey design were made with caution and only where the Ad Hoc Research Task Force believed that the question wording or response categories were in need of change. Instances where the question or response category wording has changed are noted in the report.

Institutional Characteristics

Social work programs were asked to respond to questions about their structure and the institution in which they are housed. At the time of survey administration, there were 461 accredited baccalaureate and 186 accredited master’s social work programs in the United States. This reflected a 0.9% increase in baccalaureate programs and 2.7% increase in master’s programs since the same time in 2006. Overall, accredited social work programs saw a 1.4% increase over 2006. Of these 647 accredited programs, some are “single programs” and some have both levels of accredited programs at the same institution (formerly referred to as “combined”), so the number of institutions housing one or more accredited social work programs was 513. Nationally, there were accredited social work programs at 19.5% four-year educational institutions (2,629) .

In the following analysis of institutional characteristics, the educational institutions housing one or more accredited social work programs (513) is used to provide an overall picture of social work education. Institutional data was also collected from doctoral programs. It is included in some of the program breakdown of information, where pertinent. Please note that when program level data in presented in this section, it will not add up to 513, rather the 647 individually accredited programs are presented along with the 71 doctoral programs.

Response Rates

The response rates in every category are lower in 2007 than in 2006. The largest drop in responses was from doctoral programs (down to76.0% from 88.4% in 2006). Where possible, a comparison is made between respondents and non-respondents to assist with interpretation of results.

Institutional Auspice

Programs were asked to identify their institutional auspice with four response categories provided: (1) public-state, (2) public-other, (3) private-denominational, and (4) private-other. The majority (56.6%; 252) of accredited social work programs is housed in public institutions and 28.8% (128) are private-denominational. However, differences become evident when examining the distribution of auspice in all programs (BSW, MSW, and PhD). Private-denominational institutions house 31.6% (123) of baccalaureate programs, 12.0% (20) of master’s programs, and 9.3% (5) of doctoral programs. Public institutions offer more master’s and doctoral programs (73.5% and 66.7%, respectively) than their private counterparts. Distribution of accredited programs by auspice for survey respondents is comparable to that for the entire population of accredited programs.

Gender/Ethnic Identification of Institution

Programs were also asked if their institution identifies with specific a gender or ethnic group. The majority of respondents from accredited programs (84.6%; 367) self-identified as “Non-ethnic, Co-educational” institutions. The largest category of accredited programs identifying with a diverse population self-identified as “Historically Black College or University (HBCU)” with 7.1% (31) of programs.

Primary Setting of Institution

A new question for the 2007 survey asked programs to self-identify their institution’s primary location setting: rural, suburban, and urban. The distribution of accredited programs showed about half (46.6%; 204) were located in urban settings. As with institutional auspice, there was an evident difference between institutional settings when looking at all programs (BSW, MSW, and PhD). Master’s and doctoral programs are more likely to be in urban settings (62.7% of master’s and 83.0% doctoral programs). Only two doctoral programs (3.8%) were located in rural settings. As with institutional auspice, the distribution of setting for respondents is comparable to that for the entire population of accredited programs. 
 

Carnegie Classification

One of the new questions added in the 2007 survey was institutional Carnegie Classification. This question was asked in response to requests CSWE received for peer institution data. There are many ways to define “peer” – but in efforts to provide much needed data the Carnegie Classification has been used in the analysis of some faculty data. A brief explanation of the categories is provided below, and further information can be found at the Carnegie Foundation Web site (http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications).     

Spec/Med: Special Focus Institutions—Medical Schools and Medical Centers
Spec/Health: Special Focus Institutions—Other Health Profession Schools
Spec/Faith: Special Focus Institutions—Theological Seminaries, Bible Colleges, and other faith-related institutions
RU/VH:  Research Universities (very high research activity)
RU/H:   Research Universities (high research activity)
Master’s/S: Master’s Colleges and Universities (smaller programs)
Master’s/M: Master’s Colleges and Universities (medium programs)
Master’s/L:  Master’s Colleges and Universities (larger programs)
DRU:   Doctoral Research Universities
Bac/Div: Baccalaureate Colleges – Diverse Fields
Bac/Assoc:  Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges
Bac/A&S:  Baccalaureate Colleges—Arts & Sciences

As shown in the chart below, the highest number of accredited programs are housed in institutions classified as Master’s/L (29.9%; 135), followed by RU/H (13.7%; 62). Again, there are some differences when looking at all programs (BSW, MSW, and PhD), especially in the two Research Universities categories. RU/H institutions housed 12.9% (51) baccalaureate, 25.7% (43) of master’s, and 18.9% (10) of doctoral programs. RU/VH institutions housed 6.8% (27) baccalaureate, 24.0% (40) master’s, and 64.2% (34) of doctoral programs.

Part-time Programs

Another structural element asked about was the availability of part-time option in programs. At the baccalaureate level, 189 (48.3%) programs offered a part-time option. Master’s level programs offered a part-time option at 147 (88.6%) institutions; doctoral programs offered a part-time option at 32 (59.3%) institutions. 

Title IV-E Stipends 

Since 1980, the federal Title IV-E child welfare training fund has been a source of financial assistance for social work students specializing in child welfare work . It is necessary to have current data on the number of social work programs participating in this program for the ongoing discussion of funding for social work education and student debt load.

 

• A total of 134 (34.7%) baccalaureate programs offer IV-E stipends in 32 states.

• Master’s programs offer IV-E stipends at 87 (52.7%) institutions in 37 states.

• Some master’s programs also have child welfare related concentrations, but no IV-E funding, including 20 programs with a concentration in “children and youth” and 37 programs in “families, children, and youth.”
  
   

Faculty

The faculty section of the Annual Survey asks programs for individual information on full-time faculty and aggregate data for part-time faculty.  Since 2001, the faculty section has been pre-filled using the previous year’s data.  Programs were only asked to update information on individual faculty members.  In 2007, programs were asked to provide new information for all faculty members due to the new survey administration system and concerns that faculty information was not being updated.  Unfortunately, this change led to a lower response rate for the faculty section.

In 2007, programs reported a total of 8,590 full-time (4,635) and part-time (3,955) faculty or instructional staff with a primary assignment to a social work program (baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral).  This is an increase from last year (8,082) even though the response rate for last year was higher (94.3%).  Further data was provided for 5,224 (60.8%) of those faculty members.  The following summary will focus on the reported data for individual full-time faculty members. 

Full-Time Faculty

For the purposes of this summary, “full-time” refers to faculty members who spend 50% or more of an FTE in social work education.  Programs reported a total of 4,635 full-time faculty or instructional staff with a primary assignment to a social work program (baccalaureate, master’s, or doctoral).  However, only 55.4% (285) of institutions provided detailed individual information on 3,066 full-time faculty members (66.1% of reported full-time faculty).  This falls short of the typical reporting rate, so the following data is presented with a warning to interpret with caution.

The following analyses are based on the individual information provided on 3,066 full-time faculty members.  A majority of those faculty members (61.3%; 1,680) had no administrative title.  As shown in Table 2, the highest percentage of those with an administrative title had a title of “director” (23.4%; 642) followed by “associate/assistant dean or director” (5.0%; 137), and “other” (4.9%; 134).  

The table below includes national comparison data from the 2008-09 Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac Issue. Since the data presented in the Almanac was for faculty with ‘teaching duties,’ only those faculty members with a portion of time assigned to teaching (86.1%; 2,640) were included in the second column.  The mean percentage of time assigned to teaching for all full-time faculty members is 53.9%. 

The majority of social work faculty members have a Master’s in Social Work (92.7%; 2,817).  However, there is a significant difference in the likelihood of having an MSW based on gender with female faculty being more likely to have an MSW than male faculty (p<.05).  Faculty with a master’s degree as the highest degree fell dramatically during 2007 (from 39.5% to 26.2%), while faculty with doctorates in social work/welfare rose (from 41.7% to 55.8%).  It is unclear whether this is a result of the changes in reporting or due to the response rate. 

The chart below shows the racial/ethnic identification of the full-time faculty members.  “Minority” faculty members (African American/Other Black, American Indian/Native American, Asian American, Chicano/Mexican American, Other Latino/Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Puerto Rican, and Other) accounted for 25.1% (752) of faculty members.  This is a slight increase over last year (24.5%).  It should be noted that the category “Foreign” was removed as a response category under the racial/ethnic identification question and was made into a separate question in 2007.

Full-Time Faculty: Licensure

Another new question in 2007, programs were asked to identify if faculty members held any social work licenses.  Approximately half of the faculty members (51.8%; 1,588) were reported as having some type of license.  Table 4 shows the distribution of licenses.  Since faculty can hold more than one license, the numbers of licenses may be greater than the total number of faculty.  The most commonly reported ‘other’ licensure was the Licensed Independent Clinical Social Worker (LICSW) with 39 (1.3%) faculty members holding the license.

Full-Time Faculty: Tenure and Hiring

Another change for 2007 was a one-time additional section regarding tenure systems, hiring, and retirements.  The tenure and hiring section is based on the instrument created by Jeane Anastas during her work as a CSWE Senior Scholar (used with permission).  It is intended to address questions in the education community about recruitment of social work faculty members. 

Most social work programs are in an institution that has a tenure system (93.4% of baccalaureate and 98.2% of master’s).  Programs that reported having a tenure system were also asked about any structural changes to the tenure system.  A small percentage of programs reported changes to the tenure system in 2007, with the most frequently cited change “making the standards more stringent for granting tenure” (14.8% baccalaureate and 10.3% master’s).

The above chart shows the distribution of faculty members by tenure status.  A chi-square analysis showed that there are significant differences regarding faculty members’ tenure status on the basis on gender (p<.05).   Some of the percentages are provided to illustrate the differences.
 

Full-Time Faculty: Faculty Salary

As mentioned in the institutional section, the faculty section includes a new table reporting by rank and Carnegie Classification.  The following faculty charts include salary information on full-time faculty with a title of professor/full professors, associate professors, and assistant professors that reported not having an administrative title (1,350).  Salaries are adjusted to reflect a nine-month academic period.  If there are less than five faculty members in a single category salary information is excluded to ensure confidentiality of faculty’s salaries; however, their information will be included in the grand total,
 
Salary information was reported for 92.6% (1,250) of faculty meeting the above criteria.  Although fewer cases were reported, the rate of reported salaries increased more than 8% between 2006 and 2007.  Salaries for most ranks at the graduate and combined program levels increased between 2006 and 2007.

In 2007, a question was added regarding the source of funding for faculty salary, where programs were asked to give the percent of a faculty member’s salary from “university” and percent from “external sources.”  The mean percent for non-administrative faculty from “university” was 95.2% and from “external sources” 32.0%. 
 

Baccalaureate Programs

In 2007, 397 of 461 (86.1%) baccalaureate programs responded to the Annual Survey on Social Work Programs. New questions were added in 2007 that addressed structural components of baccalaureate programs.  One question asked programs, “Does your program require students to fill out an application in order to declare social work as their major?” The majority of programs (77.7%; 304) reported that an application is required.  Almost all programs (94.9%; 373) use a semester system.

Baccalaureate Programs: Enrollment

Programs were asked to report student enrollment as of November 1, 2007.  A total of 26,055 full-time students and 4,499 part-time students were enrolled as of November 1st for the 2007-2008 academic year.  Please note that only reported juniors and seniors are included in the following section.  According to the application and enrollment data for 2007, 80.6% of applications received were accepted and 82.7% of accepted applicants were enrolled.

The chart below shows the distribution of enrolled full-time baccalaureate students by gender and age.  Overall, 88.5% (20,671) of students are female.   The highest percentage of students are “25 and under” (63.7%; 14,879).   There are 8,729 full-time minority students, comprising 37.2% of the total full-time enrollment.   Part-time student gender was comparable to full-time student gender (85.0%; 3,458 female).   However, part-time programs had a greater percentage of minority students: 52.6% (2,218).

Baccalaureate Programs: Field Placements

Programs reported that 12,294 students were in a field placement as of November 1st, 2007.  Child welfare continued to have the highest concentration of students in 2007 (18.9%; 2,328), followed by Family Services (11.1%; 1,364), Mental Health or Community Mental Health (9.4%; 1,158), School Social Work (9.3%; 1,144), and Aging/Gerontological Social Work (8.6%; 1,060). 

Baccalaureate Programs: Degrees Awarded

During the 2006-2007 academic year, 397 programs awarded 12,018 degrees to students, with an average of 30.3 degrees per program.  About half of the institutions awarded between 10-30 degrees (47.4%; 188).  Most graduates are female (89.1%; 9,570).

The graduate debt section had a lower response rate than other sections.  On average, 75.6% of graduates acquired loan debt while working towards a BSW (60.7% of respondents reporting). The median debt load reported was $16,913 (only 21.4% or 85 programs reporting).

Master’s Programs

In 2007, 169 of 186 (90.9%) of Master’s programs responded to the Annual Survey on Social Work Programs.  Some new questions were added in 2007 that addressed structural components of master’s programs.  One question asked if the TOEFL and/or GRE (including the four individual sections) are mandatory.  The majority of programs (83.9%; 130) required the TOEFL.  Most institutions did not require student to take the GRE – with (23.6%; 38), the highest percentage, requiring the Verbal section (See doctoral enrollment for comparisons with doctoral application process).

Master’s Programs: Dual Degrees

Most Master’s programs offered certificates were Aging/Gerontology (31.8%; 47) and School Social Work (30.6%; 45). 

Master’s Programs: Enrollment

A total of 24,644 full-time students and 14,864 part-time students were enrolled as of for the 2007-2008 academic year.  The acceptance rate for applications to full-time master’s programs was 64.4% in 2007 (approximately the same as 2006).  Because students apply to multiple programs at a time there is no way for CSWE to produce a count of “unduplicated applications.” Therefore, the actual number of people applying to social work programs is likely inflated.

The chart below shows the distribution of enrolled full-time master’s students by gender and age.  Overall, 87.1% (20,296) of students were female.  The highest percentage of students are “25 and under” (39.6%; 9,222).  Students age “26-30” made up 25.4% (5,910) of the total student population.  Master’s Programs have 7,184 (31.4%) full-time minority students.  Part-time student’s gender was comparable to full-time students (86%; 11,422 female). Part-time programs had a higher percentage of minority students 34.5% (4,662).  Overall, the percentage of master’s students identified as ‘minority’ was lower than baccalaureate level.

Master’s Programs: Concentrations and Field Placements

The concentration categories were revised in 2007 with the assistance of the CSWE Ad Hoc Research Task Force.  Some examples of new categories include the following: Administration, Community and Social Systems, Health, and Rural Social Work. Programs reported 17,700students declared a concentration in a field of practice.  Families, Children, and Youth had the highest percentage of students (26.6%; 4,712), followed by Mental Health (13.7%; 2,422), Other (12.5%; 2,214), Health and Mental Health (8.2%, 1,462), School Social Work (8.0%; 1,415), Children and Youth (7.4%; 1,311), and Aging/Gerontology (6.1%; 1,074).

In field placements, the highest concentration of students were in Mental Health or Community Mental Health field settings (20.3%; 5,338), followed by Child Welfare (14.2%; 3,728), and School Social Work (11.4%; 2,992). 

Master’s Programs: Degrees Awarded

During the 2006-2007 academic year, 16,794 master’s of social work degrees were awarded from 169 member programs.  The average number of graduates from these programs was 99.4.  Programs were also asked about the debt load of MSW graduates .  Master’s programs (52.1%; 88 responding) reported that on average 72.5% of graduates (down from 81% in 2006) had loan debt with an average debt amount of $26,478.

Distribution of graduate’s gender is nearly identical to the distribution of student enrollment – with female comprising 87.4% of graduates and 86.0% of enrolled students.

The racial/ethnic identification of graduates reported as “minorities” was 30.7% (4,166). A very small percentage of graduates, just 1.2% (200), identified as "Foreign, no resident visa."

Doctoral Programs

In 2007, 54 doctoral programs (76%) responded to the Annual Survey of Social Work Programs – a lower response rate than usual.  New questions added this year identifies information on joint degree offerings, number of years to degree completion, and the current employment of recent doctoral program graduates.

Doctoral programs are asked if they require students to take the GRE (verbal, quantitative, analytical, and written sections), MAT, and/or TOEFL.  The percent of programs requiring the GRE is greater than at the master’s level, the percent requiring TOEFL is also higher, however, few programs reported requiring the MAT.

Doctoral Programs: Enrollment

The acceptance rate for applications to doctoral programs is 39.9%.  Because students may apply to multiple programs at a time CSWE is unable to produce a count of unduplicated applications.  In all, 2,247 students were enrolled in doctoral programs as of November 1st of the 2007-2008 academic year. 

The Enrolled Students section of the doctoral instrument is more detailed than the instruments used with master’s and baccalaureate programs.  Doctoral instrument included questions that examine students who are “newly enrolled,” “currently taking coursework,” and “completed coursework.” 

Doctoral Programs: Degrees Awarded

During the 2006 – 2007 49 doctoral programs awarded 304 students degrees.  The highest number of graduates were in the “41 and over” age category (49.0%; 149) – as expected graduates from doctoral programs tend to be older than graduates from baccalaureate and master’s program.  The percentage of minority graduates was comparable to the percent enrolled (31.7%; 93).

Approximately one quarter of graduates finished their degree in five years (24.9%; 72), another 17% (49) in four years, and 14.9% (43) in six years.  This year there is a lower percentage of students to finish in 10 years or more (9.3%; 27, compared with 14% last year).  Only 20 programs (28.2%) responded to questions about loan debt, reporting that on average 38.6% of graduates had loan debt.  The average debt load for graduates was $25,451 (18 programs responding, 25.3%).

Doctoral Programs: Employment of Graduates

In 2007, new questions were included to try to gather more information about current employment of the new graduates.  Information was provided for the employment status of 238 graduates (78.3% of reported graduates).  As indicated in table 7, “tenure-line faculty positions” represented the largest number of graduates in a single category (40.3%; 96).  Over half of the graduates (57.1%; 136) reported as employed in an “academic” position (faculty, research, or administration).