Data for this article comes from three sources:  (1) a 1990 study of BSW Programs no longer accredited (Wayne and Hull, 1990); (2) data provided by Dean Pierce at CSWE on 1992 – 2004 program closings; and (3) an informal survey of directors of closed programs conducted through the BPD listserv.

Wayne and Hull’s 1990 study provides important background on program closings.  In 1979, the beginning year of their study, Wayne and Hull (1990) report that there were 274 accredited BSW programs.  Ten years later, there were 362 accredited BSW Programs, 22 programs in candidacy, and 26 schools expressing interest in developing new programs.  The number of BSW programs has grown steadily over the years, with the current number of programs equaling 479 (CSWE, 2005). 

From 1979 through 1990, there were 34 programs out of 274 (12.4%) that lost accredited status.  This is an average of 2.8 programs per year.  (Wayne and Hull, 1990).  From 1992 through 2004, there were 33 program closings, or 2.5 programs per year (CSWE, 2005).  It is encouraging to note that while the total number of programs has nearly doubled between 1979 and 2004, the number of program closings per year has actually decreased slightly.  The number of programs in candidacy has also decreased from 1990, when there were 22 programs in candidacy, to 2003, when there were only 15 programs in candidacy.  We are living in a universe that is a bit more stable than in the past.

In terms of auspices, Wayne and Hull’s findings are similar to those published in the Winter Issue of Update.  In both time frames, approximately 70% of the program closings occurred at private institutions.

Risk Factors

1.  Joint Programs:  The qualitative survey distributed to directors and faculty of recently closed programs provided some interesting findings.  One respondent came from a BSW program operated jointly by two institutions.  While one of the partner schools discontinued the BSW program, the other school has continued to operate its BSW program.  Wayne and Hull (1990) had found that 6 of the 31 schools that closed their BSW programs were working in some type of consortium with another school.  They note that the proportion of schools within consortia that close is proportionally higher. 

2.  Small Programs:  One of the respondents to the qualitative survey discussed the constant risk faced by small program, particularly those with only two faculty members.  This respondent indicated that the level of risk increases in small programs where there is frequent faculty turnover.  In such an instance, student enrollments are likely to decrease, and the financial viability of the program is likely to be questioned by the institution.  Wayne and Hull (1990) also noted size as a risk issue identified in their study.  While 53% of BSW programs nationally were in institutions serving less than 5000 students, 75% of the closed programs were in institutions of this size.  Of the closed programs, fourteen had under 25 social work majors, seven had between 26 and 100 majors, whereas only five had over 100 majors.

3.  Multiple Retirements:  A third respondent discussed a threat to program continuation that occurred when several members of the faculty were retiring at nearly the same time.  If a university administration is looking for a place to cut, the university might not refill the vacated positions, making it impossible for the remaining faculty to continue to operate the program or to meet accreditation standards.  In this case, when the Dean of the College was asked to identify programs to be eliminated as part of downsizing of the College, the BSW was selected.  The College wanted to develop new programs in the health area, and had to eliminate a program in order to make funds available for the new priority.  Although this program’s faculty provided statistical data to refute the concerns raised and students protested the closing of the program, their efforts were not successful.  Their documentation did, however, force the institution to publicly state that upcoming retirements were a contributing factor in the decision to eliminate the program.

4.  Decreasing Enrollment/Diminished Recruitment:  A fourth respondent discussed decreasing student enrollments and diminished efforts to recruit students.

5.  Provisional Accreditation Status:  A fifth respondent discussed a program that had been placed in provisional accreditation status.  This issue also arose in the 1990 study, where 23% of the programs that closed indicated denial of CSWE reaccreditation as the reason for closing (Wayne and Hull, 1990)

6.  State Budget Cuts:  A sixth respondent mentioned state budget cuts as the incentive to close a BSW Program.  As the budget was cut, university officials looked for programs with small enrollments.  Fortunately for this program, the threatened cuts did not occur, and the program has continued.

7.  Institutional Priorities:  Two respondents mentioned cutbacks in resources that occurred at the University level rather than the state level.  When the program director in one program approached the Dean for resources required for the upcoming program reaccreditation, the Dean indicated that there were other more important priorities.  .  This response came as a surprise to the program.  The second program was informed by the Dean that it was targeted to close without prior discussion of this decision.  The issue of institutional priorities was also documented in the 1990 study, where 15 of the 34 closed programs (44%) indicated that the central administration had made the decision to close the program, with ten of these programs indicating the cost of accreditation as a factor (Wayne and Hull, 1990). 

8.  Dual Departments Not Chaired by a Social Worker:  The seventh situation was complicated by the fact that the Social Work program was in a joint department, and the Department Chair was not from Social Work.  The Department Chair, like the Dean, failed to offer support to the BSW program.  Although this program had a large, active student body protesting the program’s loss, the program was still discontinued.  The institution did, however, continue the program until all enrolled social work students could graduate.  Wayne and Hull (1990) had also noted dual departments as a risk factor, citing that two-thirds of terminated programs had been in dual departments.

Protective Factors

To combat the threats inherent in the risk factors presented above, programs can take steps to develop protective factors. 

1.  Joint Programs:  Before becoming involved in a joint program with another institution, be sure to assess the commitment of the second institution and the resources committed to the ongoing implementation of the BSW program.

2.  Small Programs:  Many BSW programs are small, and small programs can operate with great efficiency and effectiveness.  However, they must be especially vigilant to assure that program enrollments continue at their current rate or increase.  Recruitment efforts by faculty can be helpful here.  One option is for individual faculty members to develop relationships with community colleges which are “feeder schools” for the four year institution.  Development of articulation agreements with these schools will ease the transition for transfer students and assure that they retain the highest possible number of credits as they complete the transfer process.  Involving alumni from a particular community college in recruitment efforts is another way to pave the path for future students to move into the BSW program and have available a potential “mentor” who knows the ropes of the four year school.  Since transfer students move directly into the BSW program when they arrive at the university, there is less opportunity for their attention to be diverted than would be the case with freshmen students, who do not initially take social work courses.

3.  Multiple Retirements:  This is beyond the control of the program’s faculty and administration.  However, it is possible to anticipate retirements in advance and to make special efforts to remind the administration of the value of the program to the university at such times.  Here, the relationship between the program director and the Dean of the School would be especially important.  If a strong relationship exists, lines of communication are more likely to remain open, and the BSW Director has the best opportunity to reinforce the value of the program for the School and the institution.

4.  Diminished Enrollments:  Recruitment efforts by faculty are key here.  A program may face diminished enrollments for many reasons, including demographic changes in the geographic area.  When this occurs, new markets must be opened, and new recruitment efforts established.  If the number of high school graduates will be decreasing, recruitment should target other markets:  e.g., paraprofessional workers in human service agencies; non-degreed staff members at field placement agencies; and returning workers.

5.  Provisional Accreditation:  The easiest way to avoid this threat is to assure that the program has autonomy, adequate resources and a strong self-study.  This may mean planning for years in advance.  One program, located in a school with limited resources, spreads its self study process and costs out over several years so that there is no requirement to request a large amount of funds in any single year.

6.  State Budget Cuts:  This threat is outside of the program’s control.  Often budget cuts occur rather quickly, leaving a program with little time to prepare or respond.  One thing a program can do is to demonstrate to its institution that it has value to the institution beyond monetary value.  Most social work programs have the advantage of having strong relationships in the community.  Field instructors, program advisory committee members, state officials with whom the program has dealings, and other community leaders may serve as advocates if a program is threatened with budget cuts.  The social work program through its activity in field education settings, also provides valuable services to the surrounding community.

7.  Institutional Priorities:  Within all institutions, there are changes in institutional priorities that occur periodically.  To minimize this threat, good relationships with other departments within the university and with university administrators are important.  The BSW program must be seen as valuable by university colleagues and administrators.  An internal advisory committee composed of university leaders and faculty from other departments can be helpful here.  At the very least, such a communication network may help the program to be aware of threats to its existence at the earliest possible time.

8.  Dual Departments Not Chaired by a Social Workers:  Dual department arrangements can work very smoothly and harmoniously if both programs establish ground rules for their operations.  The autonomy standard of CSWE is helpful here, as a guideline to assure that both programs operate autonomously within the department.  In one such department, for example, there was an unwritten agreement that the sociologists would support the decisions made by the social workers in their program meetings and vice versa.  Each program would interview potential faculty separately, and the department would officially endorse the candidate recommended by the program.  This relationship worked successfully in this program for over twenty years.  A small program that can live harmoniously as part of a large department may, in fact, be in a safer position that a small social work department that must advocate for resources independently.

References

Wayne, H. and Hull, G. (1990).  The Rest of the Story:  Baccalaureate Social Work Programs no Longer Accredited.  Journal of Social Work Education, 26(3) pp. 244-254.

Pierce, D. (2004).  Email message dated 12/17/04.