Transforming the Field Education Landscape: national survey on the state of field education in Canada

ABSTRACT

The Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) project conducted a survey to gather information from field education coordinators and directors (FECDs) about their field education programs, staffing models, resources, and activities, and to invite their perspectives on field education in Canada. The purpose of this mixed methods study was to better understand the state of social work field education in Canada, from the perspectives of FECDs in accredited Canadian social work education programs. The study used an adapted version of a survey instrument developed by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) in the United States in 2015. Field education staff at 39 of the 43 accredited programs in Canada completed the survey. Results revealed differences in staffing and program administration models based on program size, and highlighted the workloads and challenges experienced by FECDs in facilitating quality practicum opportunities. The results show that FECDs are engaged in unique activities and responsibilities within social work education programs. The impacts of funding cutbacks, student readiness for placement, and resource shortages, including staff, time, institutional support, and placement disruptions, are among the challenges discussed in this article. The findings establish a baseline on the state of social work field education in Canada.

KEYWORDS:

• Field education
• social work
• field education coordinators
• field education staff
• social work students
• practicum
• social work education

Introduction

Field education is a crucial component of social work education, providing structured and supported experiences for students to apply academic knowledge to social work practice (Bogo, 2006). It provides students with purposeful opportunities to transition from social work student to practitioner, capable of practicing ethically and competently (Bogo, 2015; Drolet & Harriman, 2020). The role of social work field education is solidified by the national accreditation body of graduate and undergraduate social work programs in Canada. The Canadian Association of Social Work Education—l’Association Canadienne pour la Formation en Travail Social [CASWE-ACFTS] (Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE), 2014) affirms that ‘field education is … a central component of social work education’ and that ‘field education is a critical and distinctive aspect of social work education’ (p. 14). However, despite the advancement of field education as an essential component of professional social work education, there is limited research describing the state of social work field education in Canada. Extant research suggests field education staff feel overworked, under-resourced, and devalued in their roles (Asakura et al., 2018; Macdonald, 2013), leading some scholars to conclude that Canadian field education is in ‘a state of crisis’ (Ayala et al., 2018a, p. 289; Bogo, 2015).

The Transforming the Field Education Landscape (TFEL) partnership project was developed to study social work field education across Canada. The partnership consists of academics and stakeholders from universities and partner organizations across the country. In 2020, TFEL administered a survey to capture the state of field education in Canada. The survey was adapted from an original instrument developed by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) in the United States in 2015. It examined the structure of field education programs (e.g. models, staffing), workloads, and the perceptions and experiences of field education coordinators and directors (FECDs) who, in their role, are responsible for developing and monitoring field education programs and overseeing students’ field learning experiences.

Roles and relationships in field education programs

Field education requires collaborative working relationships between students, field instructors, faculty liaisons, and FECDs. Field instructors are social workers who provide supervision, instruction, and evaluation of social work practicum students, in addition to their typical social work role (Asakura et al., 2018; Bogo, 2006). Most commonly, field instruction is provided through individual mentorship and supervision or increasingly, through group supervision (Bogo, 2006). Faculty liaisons are responsible for supporting students in their practicum learning, building rapport between universities and agencies, and aiding field instructors in their role as social work educator (Kilpatrick et al., 1994; Wayne et al., 2010). The position is filled by a variety of staff members depending on the institution, including tenured, non-tenured and sessional faculty members, sessional instructors, limited-term or contract faculty members or instructors, and FECDs. They assist in student evaluation and advising on education issues in student placements. However, in some contexts, interest in, and commitment to, faculty liaison work has diminished partly due to decreased resources and increased expectations on faculty members to produce scholarly work (Kilpatrick et al., 1994; Macdonald, 2013; Wayne et al., 2010). The roles of FECDs are complex, involving securing field placements for students while managing multiple, competing demands from students, field agencies, faculty members, and academic institutions while prioritizing student learning in a variety of social work practice contexts (Asakura et al., 2018; Buck et al., 2012).

Neoliberalism

Existing literature demonstrates that neoliberalism has been, and continues to be, a significant threat to field education programs both in Canada and globally. Neoliberal policies are based on the ideology that individuals are responsible to provide for their needs, rather than recognizing the collective responsibility of society to care for one another (Morley & Dunstan, 2013). This ideology in government policies have driven austerity, deregulation, and privatization of social services, resulting in a substantial reduction in funding for public services (Ayala et al., 2018b). This adversely impacts the agencies that social work field education programs rely heavily upon for student practicums (Martinez Herrero & Charnley, 2021). Agencies simultaneously experience budget reductions and additional administrative workload expectations, while being required to focus on individual interventions rather than advocacy for systemic change (Martinez Herrero & Charnley, 2021; Spolander et al., 2014). These expectations on social service agencies have resulted in limited time for field instructors to mentor and supervise practicum students (Wade, 2007). Neoliberalism clearly has been a significant contributing factor in shaping the struggles facing social work field agencies.

Neoliberal ideologies within post-secondary institutions also have adversely impacted field education programs. The main objective of field education is to provide social work students with opportunities to develop skills, which equip them in meeting the demands of the profession (Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE), 2014). Social work is shifted away from structural interventions and increasingly influenced by individualistic approaches and neoliberal worldviews which, in turn, influence social work education and curriculum (Martinez Herrero & Charnley, 2021; Spolander et al., 2014). Social work education face demands from the field for increased clinical skills for employability (Brown, 2016). These demands result in ‘the market shap[ing] social work education’ (Brown, 2016, p. 122). Additionally, social work programs are faced with financial pressures from within post-secondary institutions have also resulted in employment precarity. There is an increased reliance on part-time or limited-term contractional faculty positions, while class sizes and student enrollment in social work programs have increased (Regehr, 2013). Post-secondary institutions’ expectations on social work programs to be fiscally responsible have pitted field education against the research and teaching components of social work education, resulting in field education viewed as a financial burden (Morley & Dunstan, 2013). Research in academia is viewed as financially lucrative to post-secondary institutions, which positions field education as vulnerable to austerity and fiscal efficiency (Ayala et al., 2018b).

Field education administration and resources

Increasing workloads and role complexities have created challenges for FECDs to complete all the work required of them in managing a successful field education program (Macdonald, 2013). Student and faculty demands have increased in quantity and complexity (Asakura et al., 2018; Ayala et al., 2018b). At times, these demands conflict with each other and confound the role of FECDs. The unsustainable workload has also led to feelings of being devalued and overworked among FECDs (Macdonald, 2013). These challenges have made it difficult to recruit and retain FECDs, which further impairs their ability to meet the unmanageable demands of field education programs (Ayala et al., 2018b, 2018a).

To further complicate their roles, FECDs face a shortage of appropriate field placements for social work students (McConnell, 2016). Canadian schools of social work are regularly challenged in recruiting sufficient field practicum supervisors to support the number of students requiring practicum (Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE), 2014). American schools of social work experience similar challenges in ensuring appropriate placements for the number of social work students requiring field placements in their programs (Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 2015). Increasing student enrollments and expansion of programs have led to increased demand for practicum opportunities to accommodate the growing need for quality social work student educations; however, field agencies are concurrently experiencing decreased capacity to supervise social work students due to their own increased workloads (Regehr, 2013). It is at this intersection of neoliberalism within and outside the university that FECDs find themselves faced with the impossible task of providing quality social work practicums to all students in social work education programs.

Placement models

Field placement models and frameworks are crucial to understanding social work field education, as well as measuring learning outcomes. The limited literature specific to social work acknowledges that field placement models are diverse (Cleak et al., 2015). The clinical training model, which consists of one-on-one supervision between a field instructor and social work student, is the most common model (Cleak & Smith, 2012; Vassos et al., 2018). Although the necessity of the clinical training model has been demonstrated in the professional development, experiential learning, and engagement of students (Cleak & Zuchowski, 2019), the constraint of the current neoliberal context questions its sustainability (Vassos et al., 2019). With the decreased ability for traditional social work field education models to support the growing demand for social work placements, there is an intensified need to explore and develop alternative models to support student learning. Alternative placement models have emerged, including co-supervision, group or team-based supervision, and rotational supervision models (Cleak & Zuchowski, 2019). Literature describing these types of placements has increased; however, Canadian studies exploring the impact of neoliberalism on social work field education resources, models, and student learning have not yet emerged.

Materials and methods

This study utilized a mixed methods survey design to examine the current state of social work field education in Canada. FECD respondents were recruited by email sent to CASWE-ACFTS accredited social work programs. SurveyMonkey© was used to administer the survey online. The survey was a modified version of a survey instrument developed and administered by the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) to examine social work field education in the United States (Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), 2015). TFEL obtained permission from the CSWE to adapt the survey for the Canadian context. Most questions were unchanged, allowing for comparisons between the two countries in the future. The modified survey was administered in both official languages of Canada—English and French. It was piloted in both languages to ensure consistency and accuracy between the English and French versions. In total, 39 of 43 accredited social work programs responded to the survey (90.7%.) Of the total responses, 31 responses (79.5%) were fully completed and eight (20.5%) were partially completed.

The survey consisted of a combination of open-ended qualitative questions, categorical questions, and agreement-scale questions. Questions in the survey spanned several central themes, including professional and program characteristics, resources and support, workload, and perspectives of FECDs. The survey was largely designed to capture institutional-level responses rather than individual-level responses, and only one response per social work program was requested. The only exception was in the initial demographic section, where questions were specific to the individual completing the survey. These demographics provided a snapshot of respondents and the composition of staffing in field education programs. It would have been difficult or impossible to accurately capture these variables at the institutional level, so respondent-level responses were used.

The demographics section of the survey included questions pertaining to the respondent’s salary range using categorical salary increments of $9,999 between $40,000 and $120,000. The lowest possible response captured FECDs with an annual salary of under $40,000, and the highest response captured those with an annual salary of $120,000 or more. Salary was further analyzed by comparing the number of years reported working in field education with salary range. Number of years working in field education was captured through an open-ended numerical variable. For analysis, it was then collapsed into three categories: less than 11 years, between 11 and 20 years, and more than 20 years.

The survey included questions capturing program staffing complements and models of field education at their respective programs. This included the full-time equivalencies (FTE) of all staff within the social work field education program at their institution, including core staff and administrative support staff. Core staff was assessed through an open-ended question with respondents indicating the total FTE of core staff in their program. Administrative support staffing levels were studied using a categorical value indicating if they had no administrative support, less than 1.0 FTE, 1.0 FTE, or more than 1.0 FTE assigned to field education in their program. Respondents were further invited to indicate the models of field education used in their program. Participants were asked to indicate if a faculty liaison model (all faculty members or field staff), sessional faculty liaison model, or a blended model was used in their program. The categories were not exclusive as respondents could select more than one model. The model of all faculty members referred to tenured faculty members primarily assigned teaching or research duties, who communicated between the field education program and field agency. The field staff model utilized field staff primarily assigned to field education while the sessional faculty liaison model utilized sessional instructors in this role. Finally, blended models referred to a combination of regular staff (faculty or field) and sessional instructors in the liaison role.

The survey included questions on the workload of FECDs and unique placement arrangements for students such as placements outside of standard business hours, placements within a student’s current workplace, placement disruption and replacement, and other unique placement designs. The survey also included questions on FECDs activities, tasks, and job responsibilities. From a list of 41 activities and tasks, respondents indicated whether they engaged in the task as part of their role or not.

A 7-point agreement scale explored respondent level of agreement on 25 statements regarding their experiences as FECDs. During analysis, these statements were reorganized into four themes: field education resources, finding and establishing field placements, student issues in the field, and relationships with field agencies. Responses from these questions were collapsed into three overarching categories of responses for analysis. Strongly agree, agree, and somewhat agree were collapsed into a category labelled ‘agree’, while strongly disagree, disagree, and somewhat disagree were collapsed into ‘disagree’. Those who responded ‘not applicable’ were not reassigned in the data analysis and remained ‘not applicable’ in the analysis. Unlike a Likert-scale, our agreement scale did not include a neutral response.

Multiple methods of data analysis were utilized in this study. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to produce a summary of the results. Open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis to capture common ideas, concerns, or resources across programs. Qualitative themes were analyzed by identifying repeat themes, which were highlighted in findings. This highlighted the number of respondents who reported a similar response. Some responses were also transformed into categorical variables. For example, in an open-ended question, respondents were asked to indicate the total number of social work students enrolled in their program. For analysis, the responses were converted into categorical variable by placing them into one of four groups: less than 100 students, 100–249 students, 250–499 students, and programs with more than 500 students. Additionally, select variables were compared. Comparisons were conducted between program size and allocation of resources, such as core staffing. Both responses were open-ended variables in the survey, which were transformed into categorical variables during analysis.

Missing data were addressed in two ways. First, the survey design allowed us to identify which program submitted the survey. When a program submitted multiple surveys, the case which submitted the most complete response was retained while the other case was removed from the sample. Some of these cases were due to respondents starting a survey, but not being able to finish it on their first attempt due to time constraints. Unfortunately, the design required them to re-start a survey to complete it. Second, the survey was designed in sections. This allowed for cases to be retained based on completed sections for analysis. Cases with incomplete surveys were removed from the incomplete sections but not the completed sections. As such, the number of cases fluctuated in each section.

Results

Characteristics of field education programs

The employment status, position type, and contract type of respondents were delineated by program size. Most respondents reported being full-time staff (96.8%); however, nearly one in five (19.4%) reported being assigned to field education in a part-time capacity. Additionally, most FECDs held an administrative or professional designation with no faculty designation (61.3%). In terms of contract type, more respondents held a permanent contract (72.3%) and one-fifth held a tenure-track position (20.3%). Table 1 presents the summary statistics of respondents by employment status, position type, and employment contract type categorized by the number of BSW and MSW students admitted to the social work program in their institution.

Table 1. Characteristics of field education by program size.

	Number of students in social work program
	Less than 100	100–249	250–499	500+	Total
Employment status (n = 31)
Full-time	5 (16.1%)	9 (29.0%)	8 (25.8%)	3 (9.7%)	25 (80.6%)
Part-time with full-time hours (other assigned duties)	2 (6.5%)	1 (3.2%)	–	2 (6.5%)	5 (16.2%)
Part-time	–	1 (3.2%)	–	–	1 (3.2%)
Total	7 (22.6%)	11 (35.4%)	8 (25.8%)	5 (16.1%)	31 (100.0%)
Position type (n = 31)
Faculty (with clinical, practice, or field designation)	2 (6.5%)	1 (3.2%)	1 (3.2%)	–	4 (12.9%)
Faculty with academic rank^a	1 (3.2%)	3 (9.7%)	2 (6.5%)	2 (6.5%)	8 (25.9%)
Administration or Professional (no faculty designation)	4 (12.9%)	7 (22.6%)	5 (16.1%)	3 (9.7%)	19 (61.3%)
Total	7 (22.6%)	11 (35.5%)	8 (25.8%)	5 (16.1%)	31 (100.0%)
Contract type (n = 29)
Tenure track	2 (6.9%)	2 (6.9%)	–	2 (6.9%)	6 (20.7%)
Permanent contract	4 (13.8%)	7 (24.1%)	7 (24.1%)	3 (10.3%)	21 (72.3%)
Sessional, annual or long-term contract	–	1 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	–	2 (6.8%)
Total	6 (20.7%)	10 (34.5%)	8 (27.6%)	5 (17.2%)	29 (100.0%)

^aAssistant professor, associate professor, professor, or instructor/senior instructor.

Length of employment and salary

Length of employment and salary were captured and compared as categorical variables. The study found that 14 (42.4%) FECDs, reported less than 11 years of experience in field education, followed closely by 13 (39.4%) with 11–20 years of experience. Respondents reporting fewer years in field education generally reported earning lower salaries. Only five respondents (15.2%) had less than 11 years of experience and they were the lowest earners with annual salaries of $69,999 or less. Ten of the 12 respondents earning less than $80,000 a year reported working in field education for less than 11 years. Conversely, all the respondents reporting working in field education for more than 20 years reported earning an annual salary of $80,000 or more. Half of those (6 FECDs; 18.2%) reported an annual salary of $100,000 or more. Salary increased with the number of years experience working in field education.

Staffing

Programs with more than 500 students reported the highest number of full-time core staff, with an average of 4.6 full-time staff per program. The average number of full-time staff increased with program size. Programs with 100–249 students reported the highest average number of staff employed in 0.8 FTE positions, with an average of 0.5 positions per program of this size. In other words, half the programs reported employing one core staff at 0.8 FTE. Programs with more than 500 students were more likely than other programs to employ staff in a half-time (0.5 FTE) position, with an average of 1.0 positions per program of this size. In terms of 0.2 FTE positions, programs with 250–499 students employed more core staff in this capacity with an average of 2.6 staff members per program in this position. Table 2 presents the average size of onsite core staff of field education programs by program size, as well as the FTE of administrative assistants assigned to field education programs.

Table 2. Average staffing size by program size.

Staffing size	Number of students in social work program
	Less than 100	100–249	250–499	500+
Average size of core field team/Department for onsite program (n = 30)
Full-time (1.0 FTE)	1	1.7	2.3	4.6
Part-time (0.8 FTE)	-	0.5	0.3	0.2
Part-time (0.5 FTE)	0.2	0.1	0.6	1.0
Part-time (0.2 FTE)	0.9	0.4	2.6	0.8
Average cumulative current FTE vs. Average cumulative required FTE (n = 26)
Current	1.9	2.3	3.3	5.4
Required	2.7	2.5	3.4	7.0

Programs with 100–249 students and programs with 500 or more students more commonly reported having an administrative office assistant dedicated to field education full-time (9.7%). Programs with more than 250 students were the only programs to report having more than 1.0 FTE administrative support staff. However, nearly one-fifth of respondents indicated their programs did not have any administrative support assigned to field education (19.4%). All these programs had less than 500 students. Conversely, all programs with 500 students of more reported having at least some administrative support, with most reporting they had exactly 1.0FTE of administrative support dedicated to their field education program.

The study found that multiple field education models are often utilized within the same program. However, across all program sizes, the most commonly reported models were the faculty member model (67.8%) and sessional faculty liaison model (64.5%). The survey also explored the number of sessional instructors working as field liaisons in social work programs. Smaller programs reported employing fewer sessional instructors as faculty liaisons, while larger programs utilized more sessional instructors as faculty liaisons. Most commonly, respondents indicated their program employed between 1 and 5 sessional instructors as faculty liaisons (46.5%), while the least number of respondents reported their program employed 6–10 sessional instructors as faculty liaisons (7.1%). Approximately one-third (32.1%) of respondents reported their program did not employ sessional instructors in faculty field liaison roles.

Prevalence of unique placements

In terms of unique student placements, the majority of FECDs reported that less than 6% of students were impacted by each type of unique student placement or disruption. However, sizable proportions of unique placements were reported by participants across all types. Most notably, more than one-quarter of FECDs (27.3%) reported that over 5% of their students experienced a placement disruption or replacement. Additionally, over 40% of respondents reported that more than 5% of their students required placements out of regular business hours. A similar number of respondents reported the same proportion of students required other unique placement designs. Table 3 presents the total reported prevalence of unique student placements.

Table 3. Prevalence of unique student placements.

Percentage of students in field	Type of unique student placements
	Outside business hours (n = 32)	Within workplace (n = 33)	Other unique designs (n = 32)	Disrupted and replaced (n = 33)
Less than 6%	18 (56.3%)	24 (72.7%)	19 (59.4%)	24 (72.7%)
6–10%	8 (25.0%)	2 (6.1%)	7 (21.9%)	7 (21.2%)
11–20%	4 (12.5%)	7 (21.2%)	4 (12.5%)	2 (6.1%)
Above 20%	2 (6.3%)	–	2 (6.3%)	–

FECD activities

Respondents reported being responsible for a wide variety of activities in their field education program. Thirty-three respondents indicated whether they engaged in a total of 41 specific tasks, activities, or responsibilities. The five most common were: developing field education manuals (93.9%), building relationships with agencies (93.9%), participating in policy development (90.9%), advising students on field education-related matters (90.9%), and participating in social work program committees (87.9%). The five least commonly reported activities were as follows: participating in student retention processes (45.5%), administering field education awards (39.4%), advising students on course selection, degree requirements and/or career planning (33.3%), conducting scholarly research or producing scholarly publications or presentations (33.3%), and teaching social work courses other than field education (30.3%). Respondents reported an average of 29 specific activities from the list, with a minimum of 12 and a maximum of 40 activities.

Challenges and issues on state of field education

Most FECDs (59.4%) disagreed with the statement that their program had the resources necessary to complete the job adequately. An overwhelming majority (84.4%) reported that the responsibility to locate sufficient appropriate practicums was time-consuming, and that their duties required them to work additional hours beyond their contract hours. Similarly, respondents indicated that academic and research staff were not incentivized to engage in field education programs. Although a slight majority of FECDs (56.3%) indicated that the field team had adequate staffing resources to support field education, a larger proportion of FECDs indicated that there was a lack of incentives for faculty and research staff to participate in field education activities (65.6%). Table 4 presents the perspectives of FECDs on field education resources, including staffing and time.

Table 4. FECD perceptions on field education resources, staffing, and time.

Statements	Disagree	Agree	Not applicable
Field receives adequate resources overall, incl. staffing, finances, technology, & technical support, for its program & operations at my institution	59.4%	40.6%	0.0%
Field education staffing levels in my schools/program are adequate to address fully the responsibilities of overseeing field education	56.3%	43.7%	0.0%
The field team has adequate staffing resources to ensure that placements provide the full range of expected learning activities and experiences	34.4%	65.6%	0.0%
Locating appropriate placements based on the range of skills and preparation of students admitted to this institution is very time-consuming	12.5%	84.4%	3.1%
Given the range of expectations, locating appropriate placements regularly results in work performed well beyond the work hours (day, week, month, or year)	18.8%	75.0%	6.2%
Given the range of expectations for the FECD and field staff, it is difficult to find the time to do everything that is needed.	21.9%	71.9%	6.2%
Institutional priorities provide incentives for full-time, tenure track teaching & research faculty members (beyond those already assigned to the field) to participate in the field.	65.6%	15.6%	18.8%

Finding and establishing field placements

Finding and establishing sufficient quality practicums for the number of students enrolled in their program was a significant challenge for the vast majority of FECDs (87.5%). This was exacerbated by the pressure to increase student enrollment in their program, which adversely impacted the field education process, including finding quality placements for students (56.3%). Table 5 presents the FECD perceptions on finding field placements.

Table 5. FECD perception on finding field placements.

Statements	Disagree	Agree	Not Applicable
Having enough appropriate placements for the number of students admitted to this social work program is a significant, ongoing challenge	12.5%	87.5%	0.0%
Pressures to increase student enrollment at my institution have affected the field education process, including identifying and providing appropriate placements for students	34.4%	56.3%	9.4%
Because of large numbers of students, it is sometimes necessary to place students in field education settings that we would otherwise not choose to use	25.0%	75.0%	0.0%
The region where we place student has adequate placement opportunities to provide the full range of expected learning activities & experiences	34.4%	62.5%	3.1%
Out of necessity, the field team often utilizes non-BSW or non-MSW supervisors to supervise students in field education	34.4%	65.6%	0.0%
At my school, the number of students admitted is considered in relation to the number of field education opportunities available for students in a given year in this geographic area	56.3%	31.3%	12.5%
It is difficult to cultivate new field placement opportunities because of the range of responsibilities assigned to/expected of the director/coordinator of field education	28.1%	68.8%	3.1%
It is difficult to cultivate new field placement opportunities because of the complexity of students’ needs and requests related to field education, often necessitating the design of unique and individualized placement experiences	25.0%	68.8%	6.2%

Study findings show the dilemmas facing FECDs when placing students. Most FECDs agreed it was sometimes necessary to place students in settings FECDs would otherwise choose not to use (75.0%). FECDs reported utilizing non-BSW and non-MSW practitioners to supervise social work students out of necessity (65.6%). Most FECDs agreed that available field placements for students were not considered by administration when increasing student enrollments (56.3%). Despite the challenges in finding quality placements, nearly two-thirds of FECDs reported their region had adequate field placements to provide expected learning experiences for students. However, most FECDs (68.8%) also reported that developing new placements was challenging due to their workload and responsibilities, and it was further complicated with the increased demand of students requesting unique or individualized placements.

Challenges experiences by students in field education

Over half of the respondents (56.3%) reported that student performance problems were treated differently in field education then they were in the classroom. However, most (81.3%) of respondents agreed that performance issues were addressed adequately within both the field education and classroom settings. Student readiness and performance issues also have led to increasing placement disruptions over the past 5 years according to most respondents (71.9%). Table 6 presents FECD perception of student challenges in the field.

Table 6. FECD perception on student challenges in field.

Statements	Disagree	Agree	Not applicable
Student performance problems in field are treated very similarly to classroom performance problems in my program’s policy and practice	56.3%	34.4%	9.4%
Student performance problems, in both classroom and field, are addressed at my institution to the degree that is commensurate with the circumstances presented by the student.	12.5%	81.3%	6.2%
Student safety is addressed to a sufficient degree	6.2%	87.5%	6.3%
Within the past five years, placement disruptions due to lack of student readiness and/or student difficulty have become more common	25.0%	71.9%	3.1%

Collaboration and partnerships with field agencies

Most respondents (87.5%) agreed that community organizations were steadfast on providing field learning opportunities for students. However, an overwhelming majority of respondents (90.6%) also reported that agencies have struggled to provide field instruction due largely to budget reductions in the last 5 years. In addition to placement disruptions caused by student readiness, most FECDs (87.5%) also agreed that agency budget reductions have led to an increasing number of placement disruptions. There was a high level of agreement among the respondents (93.8%) with the statement that field education is highly dependent on social worker and agency willingness to voluntarily supervise students. Table 7 presents the final theme on FECDs’ perception of field agencies.

Table 7. FECD perception on field agencies.

Statements	Disagree	Agree	Not applicable
Most community agencies are committed to providing quality field instruction on an ongoing basis	9.4%	87.5%	3.1%
Field education opportunities depend heavily upon the willingness of agencies and their social workers to provide voluntary field instruction	0.0%	93.8%	6.2%
Within the past five years, it seems that agencies have been struggling to provide field instruction, as agency budgets have been cut and staff positions lost	6.2%	90.6%	6.3%
Within the past five years, placement disruption due to changes in agency staffing or funding have become more common	3.2%	87.5%	6.3%
My program is developing partnerships with community agencies to enhance collaboration in field education year to year	9.3%	84.4%	6.3%
My program enjoys strong support from community agencies for many or most aspects of field education	3.2%	90.6%	6.3%

Discussion

This study was designed to assess the state of social work field education in Canada. The survey findings demonstrate the challenges and disparities facing field education programs across the country. Field education programs are vulnerable to neoliberal political realities, both internal and external to the university. This study reinforces what many people working in social work field education in Canada already know—social work programs face a shortage of appropriate field practicums. Most FECDs reported being forced to utilize less desirable field placements due to high student enrollment and the number of available placements. Simultaneously, FECDs widely recognized that budget cuts and staffing reductions have translated into challenges for agency in providing field instruction. Of concern, FECDs in this study reported that budget cuts faced by agencies have led to placement disruptions becoming increasingly more common in the past 5 years. The study also reveals that a high proportion of field education programs rely on sessional instructors to serve as faculty liaisons between the field program and field agency. While not explored in this study, this phenomenon could relate the disproportionate increase in student enrollment without the same growth in faculty positions highlighted by Regehr (2013). Additionally, FECDs have attempted to navigate the neoliberal realities facing field agencies while at the same time being excluded from administrative decisions on increasing student enrollments. The expansion of social work programs without regard for field education opportunities has negative repercussions for placing practicum students and for their learning. The conversations about program expansion often exclude FECDs, even though FECDs may not have the capacity to accommodate increased demand for field placements caused by increased enrolments. Field education plays a pivotal role in social work education, but more support is needed for Canadian social work field education programs.

The results from the study also indicate that FECDs are facing an overwhelming workload. Most FECDs reported being inadequately resourced to meet the demands of their role successfully. Just under half of the participants reported their staffing levels as being inadequate to meet the current needs of the program. This increases to nearly two-thirds expressing concern about having adequate staffing levels to ensure students have access to the full-range of field education experiences. All program sizes reported a current average core staffing level below the reported FTE required to meet the demands placed on the field education program. The most noticeable discrepancies between current and required core staffing levels were programs with less than 100 students, and programs with 500 students or more. The findings indicated the majority of FECDs are working additional hours beyond their employment contract to meet the current demands of their role. The increasing complexity of student needs and demands have created greater workloads for FECDs. Workloads are also increased due to students experiencing placement disruption or breakdown and require a new field education placement. A substantial proportion of FECDs reported more than 6% of their students required a unique placement, which result in additional work as FECDs try to accommodate diverse needs. A high level of agreement among FECDs indicated that placement disruptions have increased over the past 5 years due to both student readiness and field agency staffing or budget cuts. The same is true for students requesting unique placements. This increases the time needed to cultivate practicums for students. These realities have led to a perfect storm to create overwhelming expectations and impossible workloads for FECDs in Canada.

Unsurprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has added to the complexities of field education programs. The pandemic significantly changed the social work profession and field education both in Canada, as well as globally (Archer-Kuhn et al., 2020; Banks et al., 2020). This project was developed prior to the pandemic but the survey was administered in Spring 2020, at the onset. The pandemic added stress to an already strained social work field education system. We acknowledge that some of the participants may have responded to the survey based on the system prior to COVID-19, while others may have responded based on the conditions of operating within the pandemic. We are currently in the third academic year impacted by the pandemic. The survey may reflect some of the changes in response to the pandemic, but it is also possible that perceptions and conditions have worsen since our data were collected. This highlights the critical need to examine the state of social work field education on a routine basis.

Limitations

While this study provides the first comprehensive national study on the state of social work field education in Canada, it is not without limitations. First, it is important to note that the number of accredited social work programs in Canada is small which limits the data analysis to descriptive statistics. It was not possible to calculate multiple variables as the maximum number of responses was 39 in the survey. A further limitation is participation in the survey. While the method of participation served to balance the desire for participation with the immense workload and ensure program had an equal voice, it is essential to note that this study’s method relied on FECDs to provide a single survey response on behalf of their program. Each program determined how to best participate in the survey. This approach was also adopted by the 2015 CSWE survey. Some respondents may have consulted with their colleagues to answer the survey questions. In some instances, it is possible that there may have been a diversity of opinions within a single program with only one perspective being recorded in the survey. Another limitation of the study was that it relied upon a self-report survey. Self-report surveys are influenced by the participant’s ability to assess the answers to the questions accurately (Althubaiti, 2016). Respondents may not have inaccurately estimated the FTE, enrollment numbers, or the proportion of students requiring a unique placement. These variables are more accurately assessed through administrative data.

Future research

The findings of this study support the need for ongoing research to explore the challenges facing social work field education in Canada. This research requires a collaborative partnership with Canadian schools of social work to ensure representation from all accredited programs. School of social work are tasked with preparing students for social work profession—a profession which supports vulnerable individuals and groups and requires social workers to be ethical and competent. Research on field education is integral because of its role in cultivating future social workers with the skills to make competent decisions rooted in social work ethics. Regular, ongoing research on the state of field education, such as replicating this study in the future, would ensure we are responding to the changes facing this important component.

Further research is needed which engages diverse stakeholders in field education, including support staff at field education programs, students, field agencies, field instructors, and social work faculty. This will better construct a comprehensive picture of the landscape of social work field education. Research from other jurisdictions, such as Australia, have identified a high field educator turnover rate, suggesting the need to re-examine traditional assumptions of field education for social work (Cooper & Crisp, 2012). Future research in Canada may consider whether field educator turnover is a challenge to the quality of field education in diverse contexts. This is significant given the important role of practicing social workers in the field education process.

Research on Indigenous social work field education models, as well as anti-oppressive and anti-racist models of education is sorely needed. This survey did not specifically explore field education models employed in Indigenous social work programs, nor models supporting racialized students. Models of field education supporting diverse worldviews on teaching and education need to be understood to support student learning. Also, Indigenous, racialized, 2SLGBTQ, and disabled social workers and social work students face discrimination and structural violence in both the academic institution and field setting (Badwall, 2014; De Bie et al., 2021; Gair et al., 2015). Utilizing models of field education, which support structurally excluded students, is integral to creating more socially just social work programs.

There are also opportunities to expand upon these research findings. This paper highlights select demographic and descriptive statistics from participating programs. Future research could build upon this study to provide comparative analyses between variables. Future research could explore any discrepancies between FECDs and social work faculty members at accredited social work programs. This would require collecting data on faculty salaries and could compare salaries both within programs and among programs. Additional analysis on data from the survey could also explore relationships between variables. Reported salaries could be compared with levels of agreement with the 25 statements reported in this paper to understand if salaries impact FECD perceptions. Additionally, a student-to-FECD-FTE ratio could be calculated and compared to reported resource allocation to explore possible relationships between these variables. There are many opportunities for research beyond this paper.

Conclusion

This study aims to stimulate a critical dialogue to improve social work field education and to advocate for a transformation of field education in Canada. Study findings support the need to transform social work field education to withstand the immense challenges facing it. This transformation must maintain quality field education opportunities for social work students, which support them in becoming competent and ethical social workers. This study clearly demonstrates the challenges facing the status quo of field education in Canada. Field agencies are stretched beyond capacity due, in part, to neoliberal policies, leaving many potential field instructors unable to provide opportunities for social work students. Furthermore, FECDs face increased enrollments and often lack the opportunity to provide input regarding program expansion. FECDs face immense workloads and challenges, in part due to neoliberal realities, which are exacerbating the crisis within social work field education in Canada. While this study expands on this discussion, there is a need to engage multiple voices in continued conversations to redefine, reorganize, and redesign social work field education to ensure students continue to receive the fulsome education required to competently support the vulnerable people the profession is entrusted to serve.

Author contributions

Ellen Mi served as team lead for the student research group.

Julie Drolet is TEFL Project Director and supervised the work.

Jeffrey J Walsh, Mohammad Idris Alemi, Tara Collins, and Ellen Mi contributed to the literature review.

Mohammad Idris Alemi, Sheri M McConnell, Eileen McKee, Tamara Sussman, and Christine Walsh contributed to survey tool development.

Jeffrey J Walsh, Mohammad Idris Alemi, Tara Collins, and Ellen Mi contributed to data analysis.

Jeffrey J Walsh, Mohammad Idris Alemi, Tara Collins, and Ellen Mi wrote the paper with input from all authors.

Jeffrey J Walsh, Julie Drolet, Mohammad Idris Alemi, Tara Collins, Vibha Kaushik, Sheri M McConnell, Eileen McKee, Ellen Mi, Tamara Sussman, and Christine Walsh reviewed and edited the paper.

Author names are listed alphabetically after the first and second authors.

Ethics approval

This study received ethics approval from the University of Calgary’s Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (CFREB). The ethics approval number is REB19-0901.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

TFEL is supported in part by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) under project grant [895-2019-1003].