| Course | MSW 554 Advanced Techniques for Anti-Racist Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | 6 |
| Paper type | Agency practice audit |
| Length | About 580 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 554 Week 6
Agency Practice Audit of the Front Desk Check-In Procedure: The Procedure Defined Before Watching, Field Notes Dull Enough to Use, Where Practice Diverged From the Procedure, What Could Not Be Seen and One Step Moved
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 554: Advanced Techniques for Anti-Racist Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Agency Practice Audit of the Front Desk Check-In Procedure: The Procedure Defined Before Watching, Field Notes Dull Enough to Use, Where Practice Diverged From the Procedure, What Could Not Be Seen and One Step Moved
The Procedure, as Written
From the front desk manual: greet the client; ask for name and date of birth; confirm insurance on file; ask the client to take a seat. Photo identification is requested only at a first visit.
How I Watched
Two mornings, October 12 and 14, 8 to 11 a.m., seated in the waiting area with the manager's approval and without recording names. I noted each check-in: time, the client's apparent race and age group, whether it was a first visit (from what was said), what the staff member asked and how long it took.
I did not tell the front desk staff which pattern I was looking for, only that I was observing check-ins for the procedure audit. Telling them would have changed what I saw.
Field Notes, Selected
8:12. White client, 60s, return visit. Name, birth date. Asked to sit. 40 seconds.
8:19. Black client, 30s, return visit. Name, birth date, "Can I see an ID?" Insurance card requested. 2 minutes.
8:41. White client, 20s, first visit. Name, birth date, ID, insurance. 3 minutes.
9:05. Latino client, 40s, return visit. Name, birth date. "Is your address still the same?" 1 minute.
9:22. Black client, 50s, return visit. Name, birth date, "ID, please." 1 minute 30 seconds.
Where the Procedure Diverged
Table 1
Identification Requests at Return Visits
| Group | Return-visit check-ins observed | Asked for ID at a return visit |
|---|---|---|
| White clients | 9 | 0 |
| Black clients | 6 | 4 |
| Latino clients | 4 | 1 |
Note. Note. Two mornings, 19 return-visit check-ins. Apparent race recorded by the observer; small numbers.
What Could Not Be Seen
Whether staff knew some clients better, whether some cards had expired, or whether clients had been asked before for a reason in the file. I recorded apparent race, which may be wrong. The numbers are small. Still, the procedure says no ID at return visits, and four of six Black clients were asked.
I shared the table with the front desk manager before anyone else, and the manager confirmed that no clients in the period had flags requiring ID. That rules out one explanation and leaves the pattern standing.
One Step, Moved
The front desk script was changed on November 1 to a fixed sequence for every return visit: name, birth date, "Has anything changed with your address or insurance?" No ID request unless the system flags a mismatch. Small, everyday differences in treatment by race are the kind of pattern research on microaggressions describes as cumulative (Sue et al., 2007); a fixed script removes the discretion where the difference appeared.
Follow-Up
Repeat the observation in January.
The January observation will use the same mornings, the same hours and the same columns, so the two sets of notes can be compared directly. If the ID requests at return visits fall to zero for every group, the script has done its job; if they do not, the next step is a conversation with each staff member.
References
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271-286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
The Chamberlain MSW 554 Week 6 instructions
The agency practice audit compares what a procedure says with what staff actually do. Write the procedure down from its source before you observe. Describe how you watched: dates, hours, where you sat, approval and what you recorded and did not record. Keep field notes plain, with times and actions, not adjectives. Compare practice with the procedure in a table where groups can be compared, noting small numbers. Check at least one alternative explanation with someone who knows the system. State what could not be seen. Then move one step, a change to the procedure itself, and say how the change will be checked. Avoid naming individual staff.
How this MSW 554 Week 6 example is built
The procedure section quotes the manual: greeting, name, birth date, insurance check and ID only at a first visit. The method section describes two mornings from 8 to 11, seated in the waiting area with approval and without names, and notes staff were not told the pattern being watched. Five field note lines show the format. A table shows ID requested at none of nine White, four of six Black and one of four Latino return visits. A paragraph reports the manager confirming no record flags. A section lists what could not be seen. The step section describes a fixed script from November 1, citing Sue et al. (2007). The follow-up repeats the observation in January.
Where the points sit in the MSW 554 Week 6 rubric
The grader checks that the procedure was defined first and the change is to the procedure. A paper that reports impressions of bias without a written standard loses the most. Credit goes to a sourced procedure, a clear observation method, plain field notes, a comparison table with its limits, one alternative checked and a single step moved. Protecting staff and clients from identification earns marks. Small numbers should be acknowledged without dismissing the pattern. Sources on everyday discrimination should be cited in APA. The follow-up should use the same method so results can be compared. An audit that tells staff what it is checking without revealing the pattern it suspects keeps the observation fair.
MSW 554 Week 6 help from the desk
Audits most often slip by describing staff as biased instead of describing what happened against the procedure. Another frequent gap is field notes full of interpretation, which cannot be compared. Some audits skip the alternative explanation, which makes the finding easy to dismiss. Others recommend training rather than a change to the procedure itself. If you cannot observe in person, use records such as wait times or call logs and say so. An audit whose finding a manager can verify, and whose change removes the discretion where the difference appeared, is more likely to be adopted than a report of concern. Share the table with the manager before anyone else, and ask what would explain it, since that conversation often decides whether the change is adopted.
Get a MSW-554 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment and the rubric and a custom MSW-554 Week 6 audit comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. One thing the desk will not produce is placement paperwork: the hours sheet a site initials, and the write-up a field instructor completes about you, are documents only you can hand in.
More MSW 554 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 554 Week 1: One Finished Move Post
- MSW 554 Week 2: Annotated Session Transcript
- MSW 554 Week 3: Intake Form Redesign
- MSW 554 Week 4: Microaggression Response Script
- MSW 554 Week 5: Family Meeting Facilitation Plan
- MSW 554 Week 7: Outreach Language Rewrite
- MSW 554 Week 8: Practice Technique Portfolio
- MSW 555 Week 6: Ethics Analysis
- MSW 553 Week 6: Disconfirming Evidence Memo
- MSW 504 Week 6: Developmental Stage Analysis
- MSW 505 Week 6: Family Treatment Plan
MSW 554 Week 6 questions, answered
How long does the observation period have to be?
Long enough for the procedure to repeat under different conditions, which for most routines means several days rather than several hours. Assignments in many sections state a minimum. Where access is limited, the example shows how a shorter record is written up honestly, with the limitation stated rather than buried.
Can the audit look at a routine I am part of?
Usually yes, and it is often the only realistic option available. The example handles it by recording the writer's own steps in the same flat register as everybody else's and by saying where being inside the procedure made something invisible. What it avoids is a paper in which the writer is the only person doing it correctly.
Does an audit need numbers in it?
It needs counts of what was watched, which is not the same thing as statistics. How many walk-ins, how many were offered a seat, how many waited past the point they had been told about. Small counts stated plainly hold up; percentages built on a handful of instances do not, and graders say so.
Where can I find a free MSW 554 Week 6 sample paper?
The MSW 554 Week 6 audit of one agency's front desk check-in, from the written procedure to the step that was moved, is reproduced here.
What changed after the MSW 554 Week 6 audit?
The front desk adopted a fixed script for every return visit on November 1, with no ID request unless the system flags a mismatch, and the observation repeats in January.