'.1)‘I\I;"k

‘P‘
‘1‘

A

‘4.

s Staci? was crarxzizletssai to reveal tr: deter-
min nts pffectin: selection 0? ervloyssnt by second
year gfluiuqtiufi social w6?k sfiuients fl? Ii: ifian ptste
Lnivc“sfity. It wss hvnothesizud fdst there is a
hiefi1vnfiy c? détvn-{nonfs inflnnficiflg fcb afilfiction

fl
J.

O

r1 t‘r‘ a he. “i .?""'111",. f .000} 5:1 ',(<j27'"‘"’ 1": H’Ti "h‘lt f'fl S

L

hworawchv dif?ers on tne basis of cevtqin variwnles
charactevizirfi the csmiidwts, such as 393 RH‘ rsrftal

status. ?ivs detevwinants were selected based on a
the liternture. ‘xfiq outai~ei fwon a “areal

chawce questionnaire compirfiei the first h"pothesis,

wit: fhe ffl11011fi* hie" rchv Lain: established ?»h fbs

I

five data? inants tested: (1) type on a p30“; (9)

-n ‘ ‘ . "a K. - ~I . _--x . u - -‘
a t? -1_ ucr varlawlau

“J
I.»
J
:3
J
‘J

3 (3) OW“OPfufiftT for nvo‘ns
3. a ,.. ‘4» ? .. n .9);
Ci“: f’iI.C (-3. ."3.Y£{.'; (L) ‘3 h] O.r"“':'.\t C'.;T1 1.1;

scououic factors. The second hvnotnesis was rejected

00

ince introducing controls f0“ sex and Kari“:

'1‘
H
U3
(1'
(.3
L f
5...
w

*v‘c'iucg-i Uo significant V'if’ii’ltion in this. E11‘3T“*T‘r33".5.0'~31

srningsment of tnesa dvterminants.

 

'y ‘y
d, a. 4, I:

,‘s’ --
5 a
View}? 4,": a“ 'h’

“7:53.:
- 11 - L

 

 

 

‘ Ora-4"- ,\ : -‘\‘ NT ‘-v~3\4 T?‘ . ‘\7 P 7‘ ‘1~:.v .,-‘T 7: :wv" , ‘4 F‘.) :1 . \fin'v-(K‘v
) w‘ 1.. ‘J. .. J . E. ) .L .‘ __!‘-.' .. ‘ I ‘ 2/

.,'\"s{¢_, I J ~) LIL -I'J...i‘./.‘

.-

o ‘ {\‘f ‘ g ., -‘ \‘Y"" K n f‘: ".‘I‘ I... ‘n ‘T l\". V .< '- . 7 I. * v", . ..‘
”hunk: 1 ..a.gU:x.LI;.q 1 xv-‘.~Q«J4bw.‘SLJ JvuLxL, ..~U x1.._..‘..)

Hoar? fiosma Richard nelson
aroderick Green Hicnard Van Leolen
Terrv kcloskey James Van Leouwen

J .‘ -"‘~’ '.. 'f" t ""
ti .)t.:.../.4.‘A.{‘J-- - {UJJLL

Submitted in partial fulfillncnt of
the requirements for the degree of

I

1.. -.* r1 ‘ r- . f. ‘ -\ .~ - .. --,
LLILQ'; ti VJ J14") [ii-1.! ll If.

Kichiran state University
School of Social aork
inst Lansinz, Lichizan

Although many studies have been conducted and.many
theories advanced regarding the broad area of occupa-
tional choice, little is known about the process which

1

brinss peeple and jobs together. The need to determine

what job seekers are looking for within their chosen
occupation is great. This need is reflected in both

the employers' request for an answer, and in the employ-
ers' diversified efforts at employee recruitment.2 As

a partial answer to this need, the following study con-
cerns itself with gaining some insight into the deter-
minants which bring second year graduate social work
students toward a union with their first professional
position.

Students who are about to complete their training
for the profession of social work have firmly made their
occupational choice. Dr. Eli Ginsberg, who has spent
considerable time and professional effort toward the
deveIOpment of "a General Theory of Occupational Choice",
emphasizes the irreversibility of this process. Cr.
Ginzberg presents the following basic postulates:

"First, occupational choice is a process which

takes place over a minimum of six or seven

years. . . . Second, since each decision dur-

ing adolescence is related to ones experience

up to that point, and in turn has an influence

on the future, the process of decision-making

is basically irreversible. Finally, since oc-

cupational choice involves the balancing of a

series of subjective elements with the oppor-

tunities and limitations of reality, the cry-

stallization of occupational choice inevitably
has the quality of compromise." (Italics added)3

- 2 -

In accordance with Dr. dinzberg's process of decision-
making, second year graduate social work students have made
an ”irreversible occupational choice." what they have not
made, however, is the selection of a specific job within
the profession of Social work.

A graduate social work student who is about to finish
his studies and select a specific job has a number of
positions from which to choose. Each available position
varies somewhat with regard to such things as salary,
fringe benefits, working conditions, geographic location,
opportunity for professional advancement and type of client
to be helped. These varying factors have traditionally
been advanced as determinants of a Specific job selection.
The individual must evaluate these varying determinants
and in light of his own personal and professional desires
. select a job based on those determinants most important
to him. This study was conducted to determine the relative
significance of these determinants and their variance with

regard to certain variables such as sex and marital status.

Review of the Literature

a review of the literature reveals that there are
several important determinants involved in job selection.
The Department Task Force on Social dork Education and
Manpower in the U. S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare lists the following factors as important in relation

to both recruitment and retention: ". . . social work

 

 

-3-

salary scales and levels . . .3 the public image of the
social worker and the respect accorded him; opportunities
for career advancement; and the need for personal and pro-
fessional satisfactions from this career choice."“"f

Salaries in social work have long been a subject of
critical comment and contradiction. a survey in 1956 of
California county welfare workers revealed that the most
frequently cited reason (kSS) for leaving the profession
was low salaries.S Another study of resignees of social
work agencies, made in lf’D by the U.5. Department of
Health, hducation and Welfare, indicates that increased
salary alone was reported as the key determinant that
would have prevented resignation.6 Conversely, in a 1956
poll of delegates attending the National Conference of
Social workers, only 233 indicated that salary was a major
determinant in their choice of a career.7

This typifies the contradiction that exists among
traditional factors credited as determinants of specific
Job selection. Further review of the literature revealed
that no one particular determinant is singularly respon-
sible for social workers' occupational preference.8 The
available literature gives us, at best, only approximations.
Almost anything one might say, based on these studies, can

be and is violated in specific instances.

Justification and Linitaticn of the Stuig.

when attempting to uncover determinants which social

-u-

workers in general apply as criteria of specific job selec-
tion we find contradiction and inconsistency. Perhaps these
determinants as criteria Change with relation to where the
social worker happens to be along the continuum of his
career. That is, a social worker just about to embark on
his professional career will have a different heirarchy of
determinants as criteria of his job selection than will a
professional social worker wao has been in the field for
five years. In accordance with this concept we eXpect to
find an interaction of determinants which will be arranged
in a heirarchial order for our study group - second year
graduate social work students at hichigmi 3 ate University.

Our results will not give further information regard-
ing why social workers choose their profession, nor will
our heirarchial structure of determinants be applicable to
social workers other than those just about to embark upon
their professional career. Ne will, however, uncover a
heirsrcny of determinants which the beginning professional
social worker applies as a determinant of his Job selec-
tion. This prediction could then be used to develop re-
cruitmcnt programs for agencies within the profession.

Our hypothesis for study focus, therefore, states that
there is a heirarchy of determinants influencing job selec-
tion for the beginning professional social worker; and this
heirarchy reflects certain variables characterizing the

candidates, such as sex and marital status.

Definition of Terms

Heirsrchy of Determinants: That from a list

of five determinants presented (Lconomic, extra-
agency, employment conditions, Opportunity for
professional advancement, type of agency) one
will be seTected by the group as the most impor-
tant job selection criteria, another as 2nd im-
portant, etc. That is, they will fall on a con-
tinuum ranéing from most important to least im-
portant.

Job Felection: This refers to the choice of a
specific employment position within the profes-
sion of social work.

 

3t dy Groun

 

The study group consists of all full time, second
year graduate social work students at hidhigan State
University enrolled in the Spring term of 1967. This
includes he full time students in the following break-
down: 16 married men; 10 married women; 5 single men;

15 single women.

Trts Collection

 

Our data collection method was a forced encice ques-
tionnaire. On the basis of our review of the literature,
we began by positioning the following five determinants
as job selection criteria: economic factors; extra-agency
variables; employment conditions; Opportuni y for profes-
sional identification and advancement; and type of agency.
Under each of these determ nénts, we selected three specific
subfsctors (outline next page) from whicn we derived our

forced choice questions:

.namou alania QI

solaceiioa 31g-
~aeup oozed; 99019! 3 can bodflam nataoalloo n$ab «no
.o'wtn'zoux ad: 39 :wotvo': 1m ‘10 stand .113 no .e-xxmnua

, '1

 
  

309$10 natvoofea do; :3

~333MO£Q316 ; :19 fa ,. 3..

  
  

a bun fi0£38931!9°~;£ 1'3
'mfieh 9:91?! 'm:

#15" m” (”6.3” "L:~"’7f‘.' 3::1.".-"-f'3 .,* "v”‘m a

-5...

Data Collection continued

 

1.

11.

111.

1V.

V.

Economic factors
A. Salary
5. Fringe benefits
C. Job Security
Extra-Agency Variables

A. }eographic Location & Cost
of living

3. Family ties.
C. Community Facilities.
imployment Conditions
A. Friendly & c00perative staff.
3. Caseload size and working hours.
c. Office space and equipment.
Opportunity for Professional advancement
A. Opportunity to obtain ACSJ
B. Adequate supervision

C. Opportunity to supervise students
or case aides.

Type of Agency

A. work focus (1.9. in office or in
tne field)

B. Clientele

C. dork method (casework, group work, c.o.)

In order to rank the subfactors in their order of

importance, the members of our research team selected, under

each deter

didant, subfactors which were most important to

him. Under each determinant, the subfactor which received

- 7 -

the largest number of votes in a poll of the research team
was given the number one position, the second largest number
of votes was given the nuneer two position, and the last was
given thiri pcstion. The subfactors in the outline above
are ranked in their order as selected by the resc arch team.

Jiven a heira rchy of subfactors under each determinant,
we then developed our forced choice questionnaire pitting
subfactor to. l in the first determinant age nst subfactor
No. l in tne SL cond dete r"inant, etc. se continued this
process until e:1ch subfactor Lo. 1 was pitted a:ainst every
other subfactor No. l and each subfactor No. 2 was pitted
against everv other subfactor No. 2 and each third sub-
factor arai nst ever; other trlird subfa ctor (see question-
naire in Appendix).

harital status and sex were noted on the questionnaire
in ore er to pinpoint respondent's characteristicsvcitn re-
Spect to their heirarchial selection. Information on prior
comnitntnt, type of agency committed to, and whether the
student planned to fulfill the commitment was also re-
quested in an effort to deternfre the validity of commit-

ment as a recruitment procedure

Data finaljsi s

 

On the basis of tne choices made by the study group
on the questionnaire, the number of times eecn subfactor
was sc Wlect d was totaled and unc er eacx determinant the

total for all three subfactors constituted a student's

score {or that pir

was followed for tie r

'0

{r r‘.
h u}

Qv

‘“ scor s tnen posts; on a

. ,r, r . . A ‘ a; -~
appendix). wis QPJCBQHPB .

n v' r“. v "
.Jr/OAtu’v 0.

L3

0
9‘."

-llflp-.I.CJ

5.1..

‘ ornate LILfiPG 1403

I " {sh \fx'.’1 5"r“,\_) l :I’t“
.L.i LLv\1U.. \.t"§&&\.J‘J H... .g

L3 .4;

v. . "' F\
Kc. i.) U L

..
A

-.-‘ IL- n . v--. 3'
ale 1, the type 0: apncy

(a! "
.fi'vBl’l .Lfl

“slum S
essionel advanccnent‘ and

in n

WAOJfgl“

e-en. .2. 1.. x ..
nt ciztcrenco in th«lr po

shows tr e det;rnins in n

nts

3 ". ‘ ; ~.' vu-
Ll’t‘. u ul’hln-

r‘ ‘ (up J
Cu. 3. J... 1.... v 1".)1...

isle

113d responses
.2
uLLL

fine

“ginnht Wu
LITE

‘- - "'4'. .'-.‘ ‘. ;' u'"
U L0 L‘....Lllc.LII L. Uci

r.. :
l.113

(.5

O L..S u. CDlllJlCuu

~$~

‘J

U L“.

-~

L. '- '1
UKAUJ.

5.

table (1..

i:

‘_1

eir hi erarchic

A. ”vclx ICC

Vfi‘.‘

JQAH

C out o

‘r w "-9 Y’-
vhf} ILLBL'

.1

aroundoml

categori

CCU.

same procedure

. ' - -‘~ "..‘
outlining fOJP actualiniued and out...

.— ', a- _‘ \ :
06 lent/it: n in

of

.‘ ,'..._,-,‘-.'.L.
U11 dULK‘3 .1.:AJ.$.L(11’1U

e3 ... .-.e crIi

. Cal 1‘8-

‘
i

C‘P¢1\AI¢L)BLL

in

n. 3 51101411.

3 ranked Siéfiif-

.‘

it fec-

'JC 0.11M): ..

‘ .
bud Uh. tiLd

~o-J
(‘Ifi‘sUA-(l-'

0 L133

H

VV 1" UL!»

extra-

'tpportun-

loyuont conditions

\1 11.0 SiobAil-

' w-

\" 11611.3 . Table

n
“I“

rangomont.

H

Table 1. Distribution of Responses of Total Study Group

 

 

 

deterninunts Number of Responses” Iercent
Type of abcncy 370 20.9
extra-Agency Variables 355 2A.}

opportunity for frofessional

 

 

fldvancement 266 19.3
dmnloyment Conditions 261 19.0
economic ?actors 145 10.5
e w Totals 1377 100.0
"x5:100.2o p>.005 dI'n

Table 2 introduces a control for sex. The date indi-
cate that there is no significant difference between male
and female resnondents in the hierarchical arrangement of
the five categories of deter inents for joo selection.

There is virtually no difference in the number of positive
responses for the three categories of =nployment conditions,
Opportunity for professional advancement, and type of agency.
However, as was expected, the males scored ”economic factors"
somewhat higher than did the renales. The female memoers of
the study group selected ”extra-agency variables" more fre-
quently than did the males, as expected. Frequent selec-
tions of the subfector ”family ties” under the category of
”extra-agency variables" bytne f’nales account in large

part for this difference.

slam nee-r396 99579362?th 31111013112312: on 31 been: mm -..1
10 ufiS'Pkflfifififl LBOIHOKBQOId edi NI ainebnocce" Birma‘ ban
.noidoai’ea do; '10”: aflmatrnsiao 'lo eel-'xoaetro eviz sum:
evidiaoq ‘10 *xedmun add at 00119193112: on viimm'xtv al overt"
.auokvfbaoo snomzoieme ionolqoaedsc sewds‘sds «oi aoanoqaom
.voaegs io oqvé has .Jnemeoasvbsvlaaoxcaefiouq so? fidlflflJfiOquo
"a'xoaos‘x almanac" banana «inn oust .bbfleoqxo aw 8:3 new“
‘10 sandman slant odT . .aolm‘l ads bib and: mi
own «on 'doldatuwzomaa-mba“ be: ueiea mm

’001" “WAO‘XQ ’58: ‘0qu0 88 , e '3 .3 an an 'r

     

10-1 ._r '1 «m3 'Ibblfll "8013 Vitflié'," ..°r’ ‘ ¢

ilfl$.$flUOOOB scram: end yo ~ '4 -. ._

 

 

Table 2. Distribution of flank One on Selection Determinants
bv Sex

 

 

“ 3, h“ an r _ '- .v ' v];
Wetenntlrunuts .9n161x;cs JW~ gfi-t
. u ' . . fi '
ymles r’hales
inwber of ?eroent number 0? Percent

 

Type of Agency 27.6 26.2

extra-agency Variables d

N
o

I?“
n)
0‘
o

O

Opportunitv for Profess-

 

 

ional advancement 19.1 19.5
emoloyment Conditions 18.4 l‘.h
laconomic Factors 153. 5 (‘5. '3

A Totals 130.3 33.0
*xiée.75 p>.1o ar-u

A control for marital status is introduced in table 3.
The data reveal that there is no significant canny" in the

h anarchy or determinants for job selection between married

re

and Sinfle students. Only a slifiht variation is noted in
the category of "economic factors“, where the merrieu re-
spondents scored somewhat Higher than the single respon-

dents, as exaected. However, Luis may be partially cue to

the fact that 623 of the married students are male, wnile

75% of the single students are fenele.

Table 5. vistriouticn o: fiark fine on selection Determinants
by ;'.’1l‘iLi..l .;ti'.tll3o

 

 

.'

 

 

 

 

 

”COM-.“v—CH- -. “a.“ “a. ---u *u 0 - u” -m —1[” t __‘_
- 1 a . .\ yr. .‘ux In t\. x 1 5“, ‘- .‘ .‘f
iett‘l‘f‘LI’EE‘UtS {1-2; 1.1.1; :3 ”If ’1. .t'il 1+?”1t‘153

a. '1'.’1GC1 sin gle
‘Ix'.n:1‘k}(_1'rb on I ‘Jficghv‘t ::11r"y113" C.” TrQT’ijnt
.n ' .A - 1)!

1y “6 0.1. 1‘ ”3110“! L..\).S 27.“-

‘I,,A_ "f, _ ‘ ’11].

.5.-".o1"a- 1381103 1‘ ‘11"1u. 0183 (.1... 8 23.8

Opportunity for Erofe ess ’
ionul Advanceme Lt lb.9 19.]

TlO‘1L‘p.1t {3071-1 itiOI18 lEQ’L) Li.”
jconomlc lectore 11.2 9.7

 

Totals 100.0 100.0

 

“14:1.15 p>.lO uf=w

 

The initie 1 part of the hypothesis, that the?“ is a
hierarchy of uetCW1insnts iniluencing job selection for the
oocinning professional social worker, was verified by the
data or this study. Analysis of the responses of the total
stuoy group reveals tnet tie iive cats cries of job selection
determinants are not distribtttu randomly, but retrer {all
into a hierarchical errsn ement, as hypothesizel. The
hierarchical arrangement found places "type of agency" first;
”extra-agency variables," second; "ottortunity for profess-
ional advancement” third; ”eerloynont conditions" fourth;
and ”economic factors" fix th.

The seconi n rt of tre hv;Mot1csis, taut this nier>.1r n-

icel arrangement will reflect the sax and marital status of

o n

O
‘ o
- o

asluaefi lggngiaauosit

a at axed: Jan: .alaodtoqtfl ed: 10 aunq £3132.“t an"
ed: 101 nol3oe£ea dot antnfllhttu; h3u8a£mnoaab To tansbfiaid

0:...0""*‘J‘

__;';¢6I Isnoiscalosq anlnntaod
KWM‘W . abuse at“ 39 sub
new assumed I " °

ad: 26 bottles? suui‘

“A".
"" ';_l':".
.11.?

motioolio dg§_to f».u' . .

'
'.'~'_;~::‘
‘

1330: add 30 in

'
. .

    
     
 
 
  
    
  

 

”In-N‘ov‘fi“

4 “3-) wide. mwmwan

*1; ._

"fi{4'2,13$1dn§8field s ,9”;

.dd'iil " 13".-) '

Ihlnsgnsxus Ina}.
".aeidsttn?

:bntdd “:4;

. I
i)."LF_-..!c1.

1735'“-.- .. ., . fir .,
I» U 'cl
° . .9
0 '5 "1.2.
' 1'1": 1 [um

 

 

- 12 -

the respondents, was disproven by the data. to significant
difference was found in the hierarchy establisned by the
total study group when introducing controls for sex and
marital status. Only slight variations in the number of
positive responses given each of the five categories was
noted. The females scored extra~agency variables somewhat
higher than did the males, while the males gave economic
factors a higher score than did the females, as expected.
It was expected that the single students would rank extra-
agency variables higher than the married students, but the
data reveal a slightly higher score for this category from
the married students. As expected, economic factors scored
somewhat higher with the married respondents than with the
single respondents.

Of interest is the unexpected fact that economic factors
received the lowest rank of the five determinants tested.
Previous studies reveal that Salary was often the most fre-
quently mentioned reason for worker migration.9 One poss-
ible explanation for the low score received by economic
factors in this study is that there is a minimum salary
level presented by social work agencies and expected by
graduating students. It is recognized that if salaries are
raised, this category will become more and more important in
job selection. At present, salary standardization within

the profession prohibits this from being a major determ-

inant. However, it may be a very potent variable influenc-

ing occupational choice in the first place. in additional

.bedeei sansnimvs: 9b evil ed: lo \esw answer end hevleeeu
~91? Jean: 96:! 11933:» new rules 311d: leave'z seibuda suoive'x‘i
-seoq 0110 9.00162351111 «when 10'! noses: bsnolsaom deneup
almaooe \{d hotteoe'x e-xoos we! ed: €191 miinnsque old}.
male: 1111111111111 3 at «redeem Q." than c1311: :11 810305":
Yd beansqze has not ‘ ,I “it £11961 ‘1: boanee «.1: [e1 1
0'13 tablfilpF‘al 3nd: :- “£53,311 "SI .aflmbuse $3.333.
at 3118310552: 312;}?! @QMIIQOQG Iilw $0353.60 3. 1‘ , 1...“: 1

.‘ “‘Ia. .311829'1... T j! .19..." .'.’° . DI.

 

  

      
  

.DOEIZJ"1"5'1 01‘; .22 "er-x ' : .' 811.!

 

- 13 -

unexpected result of the study was the hi¢h scores and the
tOp ranking given to the "type of agency” category. fhis
finding suggests that a social work student's prior selec-
tion of a particular type of agency may be basically irre-
versible, as is his occupational choice, as stated in the
theory of nli fiinzber5.10
The data revealed that fifteen students (333) were
committed to work in specific social work agencies. The
variety of agencies to which the respondents reported com-
mittments pr,hibited any analysis of the responses with
regard to the type of agency issuing the stipends. however,
the fact that only two of the comeitted students plan to
pay back the agency issuing the stipend iniicates that
stipends with work committments are an effective recruit-

ing tool for social work agencies.

Suggestions for Further Research

 

The scepe of this study is limited by the study group
composed of the second year graduate students at one school
of social work. A similar, more extensive study sampling
students from all or a sample of graduate schools of social
work in the United states'would prouuce broader implications
for methods of recruitment and would not be limited to a
specific geOgraphical area.

The fact that "economic factors" were ranked lfifit 3‘

mong the five determinants tested, while rankiur

J

other research regarding social worker mobility, su5_ests a

.’I . u_..-‘a '

» ~,f,:i,iw; «eds'w‘n «0‘1 BHOIJBGM
quo'xz,‘ than .933. “5 13¢ch 81 25933 31:13 ‘to ages: etfl‘
{001103 cap a): 33mm when, «so! bnoooa #3 1o boooqm

gamma 'g" ' 3* 'txre'rom am A‘ anew £31003 to
' '7 ‘ fi ”9.3.." . 1-, - ,3'.‘ -

   
  
 
   
  
 
 
  

Lilia its mos) 83(‘16735. :a
._ . ~ " Lit-1.. 4" H.‘ ..w". 3;“ °‘ Ju; 's ' ”f" 7“.
=¢°¥?tl 3T'ffi'fif' 4:51 99 ‘r'L “,12l303588 bo3inu and hi 4*ow

B If 5M mailman" 7-2: sin). .'i ’.
:5“: q’fihzéfil"

~ .9323 Isotnvp: .*"-r s

.-I .'_ ..'.-' .: ..‘. {.’if}:
a.-;-;_+, m»: almnoee ..

_ a

j:- ;.*_' ”fr:
u‘mfi?d?;‘9 slid! .be3e93 932.1. ’9" 1‘ 94‘ ,nom

“‘I 'c "..

. I ' '
.tvlildom «onion I'L'nh Mn.. . ~ '«~ w" ~nddo

-114-

couparison study between graduating social were students
and social workers with specified amounts of work experience
within tne profession. a concurrent study could be made of

samples from both groups or a follow-up study with the pre-

sent sanple could be attempcd.

firearv

It was hypothesized that there is a hierarchy of de—
terminants influencing job selection for the beginning pro-
fessional social worker; and that this hierarchy differs on
the basis of certain variables characterizing the candidate,
such as sex and marital status. The study group consisted
of be full ti 6, second year graduate social work students
at tichigan State University enrolled in the spring tern of
1967.- The first hyrothesis was snown to be correct, with
the following hierarchy being extablished for the five de—
terminants tested: (1) type of agency; (2) extra-apency
variables; (3) Opportunity for professional advancement;
(h) enployment conditions; and (S) econosic factors.
The second hypothesis was rejected, since introducing con-
trols for sex and marital status produced no significant
variation in the hierarchical arrangement of these deter-

minants.

oeb evil 313': 70": bedelidasdxe gated vimsvmid :‘..xi".o£ 10': ed
{snags-mews (S) manages '10 equ‘ (L) :beaeed 833813111919
{daemonavba [window 10‘! xszramoqqo. (C) :aoIdnhn
.z'zcnn't 01mm” '(2) bus {311013151169 anoqum U".
~aoo ahloubo'zflxt oasis .1»:an u'w- 3:301:3on bacon at

3330131551. ‘9‘! {>0qu “3“! When has me 10* e {a

«swan!» Wands-[now an: at rm‘
7 “V: j '::Lu~,.+ ‘ "TQM!" 7

”f 2'°‘1"’,

| I '
o . ’

 

 

 

 

l. hadushin, Alfred, "peterminents of Career Choice
and prir I ylicetions for social nozck,” social Jerk educa-
tio fl. 3'01. ‘JI, NO. 2, (Jipril, 1955), pp. 17"d70

 

 

 

 

2. Tbid.

3. Ginzberg, sli, et. al., Ccc mp qticnal Choice, An
Annwcsch to a }en:rel Theory. (He; Esra: Colunciu Lniversity
Press, 19vlf, p. 173.

1. Closing the Jan in Social work Eenpower, Report

tTe -en rtmentsl Trxsk :‘orce on Soci ’31 dork education and
Fennower, U.3. flent. of herlth, Aducstion, and welfare
U.d. JCV't. Printing Office, sash., 5.0.), p. t9.

3. California separaticn of 3001? el :orkers, U.5. Sept.
efiltu, Lduc etion, and uel are (3351., 9.9.: bureau of

of ET
Zuzlic Assister ce, Social security Administration, l95t).

 

5. Pollen, Jillian n., Btutv of staff Lo.:es in unild

 

 

Helfare end Tsnily serviCe Agencies ( 835-: Jo . 3-). UGPt°
0.51:T 117371;}. LLL, .iJ'~J‘u..C'.iti(-)n, find I'll 01 l‘are ’ lgbo ) , p O 65.

7. flitte, 3. fro, ”decruitment and RetentiO' of rer-
sonnel,” Tourn11 o the flattenel Frobetian 0nd “Whole .ssc.
‘V'Ol. III, L50. 2 ("SUI-ll, 1757), p. 15/.

n Clrsfn- +79 133 in rioc1°l or” Finrowcr, On. cit.,

N

 

 

pp. 69:76; 1011611, 0”. Cit.’ pp. 10 3-107, lZQJ’lQO.

9. California Jcperstion of Social iorkers, on. cit.
1 l i ’
am To len, on. C' t.

10. }inzbep:, OS. Cit.

b12110 mi 382205. 333313 1 4:. 3 ' .'.e 15211:!» ..xorraf
.3q90 .i..U ;.C.c “need 1:933:16 miA cetv-xea‘c. $51.1}: 1:. A

.adwcq q(0(3’}1‘ ‘61? 81 bill .[LC TESLPL‘LI .1731} t‘

 

(,0

.fi

«19:10 tommtmfibm. 3cwitm395" 4.”. .1 .w-‘LH. .1

.oaaA cross: am. no awet. own}: odd "to [eves-st ".iei
.. . ‘ YCGIQ mm?“ .0725 ‘III ,

 

 

 
 
 

 

..dto .32 use - - 29g; “2 99": 9133 riff-89K 5'
.0 . - 41', .~‘ gqq .oflo «:0 .rerI :rlY-E'd .

 

..310 ”Q “23322. My} 5’o'oa ‘10 rousmuob‘ 51128011123 .8
K ‘.. , ’ ' 3&3 .qo ‘JOIIO.

'.-.."i.' - I . to .32 ,medxnl? ."“

..' " ,. gnu—-

il‘ornf1 u~“”“nL*r1 CI Eocial {SrPcPs, U.5. )0; t. of
— ' . v '* 7 . - -. \ .
1.": 1. 1:111: 1‘: -01., 3:1: ..’.f 16 \ «sh. , row . . . 1.1% an

of qulic Assistance, Aocial aecurity ndginistca Lion,
195W 1

A

f‘
121

f

 

C?C¢*Wj_tfin 11: iv 510*11 50?? Fogjghiz, ?Pbort o? the Jept-
.-. -. ~~., , . ~. 3 .. 1“: ~ »~ ' "
mental 1asm.'orce on 0001al w'ffi 11Lcatio“ and tan-
bcver, U.E. 'bpt. of Health, Ed”CRtlLU and welfare
8.:. }ov't. Erintin3 Lffice, Jasn., 3.6.), p. 59.

D 3 A
“~ Ia 3"“ ‘3 7.. ,' " -‘ ‘ ~‘f | 3' ‘ -. - ”5"."

.’J .’l :f T“:.""71 - 1=' CF»? (1-26" 1012-1: IJL‘_u..‘.L$:1 ‘..I-._\".-l'b.LuJ

~.- ’11 w .- ’- :7 ‘ Kill-3

1-5.33, .L‘f/l}, I). l)-J.

iirzber: 311: et. 31-: CCCU“9*1“h“1 Chéire 11 Ahjronnh
‘-

 

 

Iadushin, Alfred, "Jet ruinunts of ’grecr unoice and Their
Irplicntions for Social work," Social Jnvk aiunn*3un
3:01. .V':, 3.0. 2, (April, 19:31)) ' "U" . l?-£.|7.

 

 

 

Tollen, Hillium 3., 3,1dy 0” Staff Toosas in Ch 71 wnlfmre
.-' "1 . 9 , \ , ,' - 1.-
P' ‘E 3 H 51F ‘ wV3 3‘” 4'31“ 1' S (”la La 9 .'.‘~/. 0 'J o -.ab‘tho

 

. _
01" Acalux, e;.'.iu<;atinn, arm 15181 are, 1900), p, {f},

niLte C. P., "Vecruitrnnt and Retention of Personnel,’
Th"“rfil c" +59 ‘atiorfil frnhvtiow afii quole Associa-

tihn, xol. III, 20. 2 (April, 1137?) p. 113.

 

I

II

Table A

Questionnaire

hocow<
no make

pszmoca>U<
90m huflsfiunommo

onHaHvCOo
meEhOHmfim

moHQwAQw>
hofimw< whuxfl

mpouowm
owebcoom

TABLE A

oawspm

may;

coauaflé x

oamzfim
woppflesoo poz

cog3HEEoo

Students

11
10
11
1,2
11
ll
11
10
10
10

 

10
10
8

;3_~,21
10
10
11

10
10

ll
10

IO
15 31 2O 26 21 25 1’15 335

11

X

X

X

X

 

Z
d

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1o
11
12
13
1g
lb
16
1
T:
19
20
21
22
23
25
Eb
2?
26"
jU
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
12
13
15
M6

1.)

261 266

Totals

 

   

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
“...-.-....” - 1.....1-.......-- ‘,___._ ..-.. .. ..-“ ..
‘ r.“ - r 4 .....~. 1---~--...-....,..'o -..]... 1' 1 - . -- n
... .... -... ..‘. . . . ... -. - .. .. 1
.-...-.. .., -- . .41. .- ,.... ......
*-—1-4a.. - ., .7”. _ __.. ~ , _ . .-
”v- ~ ...... -..... -.. ‘ v" "~ . '
1-..-.. v» ...-.... .1._ .... ..' _- .. r . ...... - ...-1 .. .
- ..‘-11.-.~1.. --1 1 . . , 1 .. >
.. .. _ .1 .. . -.
1 -. — ~- 1. .
._ -.- .. a - 1
A- , . v‘ .. v
..._~..--1.—~. - _ .1
.. __ __ .. 1 . .
-... -. , _ .. , -
...2-, , . .. , __ ..
... . 1. .. . :-
..-...- ...-.1-.- .-.-
.. .-. - 1 . o .-... . . . .- - . 1 1
. .« ... .,.-..._-- . _ , ,1 . .. A-” -1.1.. - . . vu. ._ 1 ..‘.
-.....-_ . ...... ....--1.-. . g -...1.. -..--.. -‘..- --~ .1.
-...........~.. --v cu- ...... _. 1 . .. 1‘. . ,. ..‘-u -I-\-. ~-~~ ~
.,'
_. ...-.....- .- .. .. . .._- .-..-- 1.... .-.... .. ... .1 .-
.-........-....... . ....-.- _..-,.. .- ...; .-.-_.-.. . ... .. ...... - .11
-—u- -.. ...-- .- --.- .. .. ~-—-.~—.~..---.v~ m- .-.-. ......- ~ "-.‘ v --"~ ——-'-‘
.---- ~. .... ... .- . ~0s-u—vc .- ... . ..g -—1 .-. ........ ...... . ----*-- -"""“' .
l
...1 ~w—. -....~- I.-1-— -- ....— -.--.- -..- . .. .... .. s--——n--. - --- « .-
... ..... .--—..; -»— . . -. ”‘1' ~-~~ «so-...»- .---- 1...--.. . w ~~Iv.~ "“ 'In—
. ‘..- ... . - ~ _ ,. . 1..-... -V _.... ... , , ,- _ ..‘-.4. m~ a. o -
1-.v—x-‘oou----—.. H4.--Uv- ..v—u-~-¢~o~~ o--~.. 1 H . .-- . .. .... - .. 1-.» ‘u ..a
....-1-..-. -. ,-_.-.. ._ 1 .. -'_..- -.. ... . _ ...m . . . ,1..
.. .-.. ...... ~‘_.< ~.--. < - 1--. O-'---' . . 1 , . .1 .1 1 . o
-. ,_ ,. , . .... . _ ..-. ..- . 1 .. . w . . - 11 H, , . .. .. .
4 .1.-. .. . ,,...._,. - -.. .... -. 1. .. ... - , .. . .,-. --.
.1 _ 7. .~-. .-...-. . . . . , _ , ,. .
. . .1 , ~- -'4 11 ...- ~....- ... . - . ,,. I. . -.. ., ,.
.
. . ~ . 11 -... . -. , - _ 11. ,. , a. - 1 1 ,_. ,- ---—~ . -- . :-
.- »-~----~ .‘_, .—.—. -v—~... - ..~- «. ... .. . nv-- - ,.
1
- .1 .1. . 1-. ... 4 1. .. ..... _. ..-. » .. _. . n... . . ....— .
v--....... . _ . . ....1' -~- ...... .. ,... 1 4
< .1 ...1. H , , _ -... -. - 1 . _ .. ....... . ... 1.
. .1. ‘--. . . ~.~. .- . ..-... . - -1... . .... -. ,. , , .. , 1 . _ ,-
- ,._.,~_ . -1 V- ..--, .1 . .-_.. . _ . ,.-.. . , ~~v
. .-- ...... _ ..... .. -.. . .1 . -. ... ,_ ,. _ ._ ....-1 ..
..-..- ....I-. ... .1. .. .
. 1 . -—1. - .

 

..‘- .. , -. _ '.. _, ......1. o-M...- - ... ._ 1- «b 1. .-- --.11 ‘-.‘ o
....-.--. ...._.,. '-' “.---.. '71- . -.. .. .,
“nun. - ._- .. .4 -: -- >--~n- -..” ' -,__.

. ~ .0...” . .. . . - Iv“—-a‘1. . .-— -.
.~-- ...: ....-1. a .I-pa 1 ...O 'o- . .- ----v- c- . . 11- . -
‘ n. -. .... w- 10* 0". “4* .; ..-. ”.... . ~..——~~ .
' w ’ - .. ... 1~~O ‘— . - --.... .-.
. 1~ _ . .~a‘~- y‘,‘ , ...- ... ... -.
-- c - - ti. . »«--- <c~~ 7 ‘_ .——-o——. -o
--‘1. ~ fir”. . ....‘w.-u. .-- ..-, .. _
. .-.- ...-..-. .- ....-.- - - .- .
.- . . -:..- . ..-.--...-.-...-. -..-.-...-...---.--..-----_. -
. . . u..-. ... ...-......1 ...-c ..w-‘-‘—<—-—.‘<.. —-~~-~m|—~----~-—
: v - " . . 1--.- -- I --—-IQ«—.- -.~——u "...... _
. A -"‘ . 1 - u - u . » » .. ..‘. .--. 1 ..
-» ...-_ , . .- - . .. ... ... ~ ., _.
.1 ~>< 11 ._ -. -—1--- u.- >— ”--'--~- ~ - ~»- ~ .
. - . - --...-. .. ...-.-.. ..--.-. .--
..’-n... u .~- -oo-»~-9-~.'~~.-.n— ... .,. -..--...- _. -.u—.o ----.--«. --- -~ —. ..-—-
. - ..-----.-.--..---..-.--.- -..-..-._.-.. .-._-'.--- ---.-
-....-.-.-..-.-.-- -----.. .....-....--._--.--..--..-. .....-._.- ..
.-.----.-..-...-.-- --:..‘.-..-. . .--........ ...-...“.
- .I-~- ....__.. ... - -I-C -~- “u- .1 ~ ... .... »'---~«-“ -0 'U ” -< --—.«---' . .
-~-. ruv .... .4..- ...- ... .. u - u. ~§~<v~uo~ vv-OO‘--O~---o __.~.‘ 1.-. --o4 .
.
. .. uv*.a1 ..uc-uu-ov— - ... ...1. --1A._.... -' 'Ov- " N‘ " -" -~--1 -‘-'.~
.. ... , ... .-..-.-.....,-- .__-...._.---. . .. .-..- -_ n...
’1 a.--- "u a- . ~--o-.--....-.. , ... v~'..- v~.- . . .. ---- . .. so ,. 3-- - .
I
..- --¢~ ~ —- -u--—.u11.u.~..—--. 1 —...-..- .. --------> . .-
.... .---. .-.-.~n-. .... ...1- . ... 1. .- -1 . . - v-v-c ‘7‘ - ‘ .
o»—-—-‘ —r ~- .’v— 1-. —. - ..,.- ._ . --- ~”' ' -
l . - D V. ‘—" ‘ O - .7.‘ IV .> y. - -~ 'O.."- I - v ‘ - ‘ ‘ ’ N ‘
. . --.. .-.._ ...... . _ ._.,. . 4, _, ,l. ,- .-voo-u1—u.. ..‘-u .- - ,- ’ ' 'U‘Hd
. . ..-....,.._-......._. .-.- _ .. .....--- .. ...-.... .. .. -. ..
' 'on» ... . u. . ._ _,,__-.-, —. ... .-. 1- ‘...-~ .., ., ,-_ . .1 .. .
v 1'77 .. ~----1-—>«»-- ~ 1 .V..-, .-1 .--«-.-. . *1 -..1 .1- ~11-»»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII.

Do you plan to receive an M.S.W. Degree in June? YES N0
11. MALE FENALE -
III.MARRIED ,' SINGLE

QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

 

 

Are you committed? (For purpose of this study, you are committed if you
have received money and/or materials from a specific social work agency
for purposes of obtaining an M.S.W. and for which you must work for a
specific length of time or pay the money back.) YES NO

If you are committed, what type of agency are you committed to:

Child Welfare
Adult and/or Child Psychiatric setting
Family Service
Corrections
Public Assistance
Other (specify)

 

 

0501wa»-

 

If you are committed, do you plan to work or pay the money back?

Work Pay back

 

Please read the following choices and under each pairing place an "X" next
to the variable which would be most important to you in selecting a job.

1. Geographic location and cost of living.
Salary.

2. Friendly and cooperative staff.
Adequate supervision and training.

3. Work Focus (i.e. in the office or in the field).
Salary.

4. Geographic location and cost of living.
Friendly and cooperative staff.

5. Adequate supervision and training.
Work Focus (i.e. in the office or in the field).

6. Salary.
Friendly and cooperative staff.

7. Geographic location and cost of living.
Adequate supervision and training.

8. Work Focus (i.e. in the office or in the field).
Friendly and cooperative staff.

9. Geographic location and cost of living.
Work Focus (i.e. in the office or in the field).

.
v!-
v
.‘ u
o
I.
.

 

.. .-..

m"

~~--._...

I ...

.yl .

nu. _

.. ‘ .

r ..
\

1..

r.

"a. I.

). .
.
n . 1
. .
i n
‘ .
\
3.1
I
NI
..ul
..
..ll '-
...
r.

:10

..‘

r

.‘,

' {

 

QUESTIONNAIRE

Page 2
10. Salary.
Adequate supervision and training.
11. Fringe benefits
Family ties.
12. Fringe benefits.
Caseload size and working hours.
13. Fringe benefits.
Opportunity to obtain A.C.S.w.
14. ° - Fringe benefits.
Clientele (child or adult).
15. Family ties.
Caseload size and working hours.
16. Family ties.
Opportunity to obtain A.C.S.w.
17. Family ties.
Clientele (child or adult).
18. Caseload size and working hours.
Opportunity to obtain A.C.S.W.
19. Caseload size and working hours.
Clientele (child or adult).
20. Clientele (child or adult).
Opportunity to obtain A.C.S.w.
21. Job security.
Community facilities (i.e. recreational, cultural and educational
facilities).
22. Job security.
Office Space and equipment.
23. Job security.
Opportunity to supervise students or caseaids.
24. Job security.
Work method (casework, group work, C.O.).
25. Community facilities (i.e. recreational, cultural and educational

facilities).
Office space and equipment.

 

.
L
m
.
.1
\

_
z. 7
z
a
r... I
. ;
oi V u
.
.
.1 F11
...V.
1
cl
...
. I
.
... .
..

....

.rl

rlo

.“
a
v

. u
I .1
I. . ...
.c\ f.»
i]
f I.
.‘l \‘A
.,
Fa .
I".
..
.
. .
.-
- ... ...
.. u ..
.I .
O ’

u‘
A.)

'0
'.

,. .
{I . . .
.1 fix \J. «.1
a. v\ .4
. . . . ., i.
In \I.
I 11.]!
.L. a
V. l
. t' I‘.
. A . I
. ., II.
.- C .r. -
. V
.
. ~.
.‘
I.
..
rf.
Lil ..
r-
O!
I‘
1r 4_)
9 cl.
.3
Hz .
s'vu
. .v
.1

.
r.
e
.
.
\u.
.
u ..h
. r?
. i. ..i
...
. y
.
\3

4.

..'

I .
n
.
a

1"!

QUESTIONNAIRE

Page 3

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Conmunity facilities (i.e. recreational, cultural and educational
facilities).
Opportunity to supervise students or caseaids.

Community facilities (i.e. recreational, cultural and educational
facilities).
Work method (casework, group work, C.O.).

Office space and equipment.
Opportunity to supervise students or caseaids.

Office Space and equipment.
Work method (casework, group work, C.O.).

Work method (casework, group work, C.O.).
Opportunity to supervise students or caseaids.

.
.. .
. .
.r
.
,
.lnl -
.l
5‘ II.
'VI
, .
our. 1 l
r; .f.
\
..-
.
w u
. Ar. ....
I\
.l . ~
.
u ...» .
..x I .\ b
..
y .
. .
a . ...
.-
r
r. .
u
,
fill,
..
a
l.
1.