ARTICLE SUMMARY WORKFORCE
Supporting Family-Centered Practice Through Supervision: An Evaluation of Strengths-based Supervision Lietz, C. A., Hayes, M. J., Cronin, T. W., & Julien-Chinn, F. (2014). Supporting family-centered practice through supervision: An evaluation of strengths-based supervision. The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 95, 227-235. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.2014.95.29
Issue
Child welfare supervision focuses on administrative tasks, while education and support are often overlooked. Clinical supervision is often overlooked due to the crisis nature of child welfare work. Supervisors have a critical role in supporting their workers as they apply federal and state policies and procedures in the context of each case. Therefore, the strengths-based supervision model encapsulates all of these activities into one model that highlights the need for supervisors to engage in intentional supervisory activities. The strengths-based supervision model was developed for the child welfare system and includes four integrated components to enhance implementation of family-centered practice (FCP) through intentional supervisory interactions. One of the fundamental aspects of FCP is that families should be preserved whenever possible and use natural supports (such as relatives) when keeping families together is impossible. Supervisors play a crucial role in the implementation of practice principles. There are four elements to the strengths-based supervision model: 1) parallel FCP principles in supervisory interactions; 2) integrate crisis-oriented and in-depth supervisory processes to foster critical thought; 3) conduct clinical supervision using both individual and group modalities; and 4) serve administrative, educational, and support functions during supervision. The strengths-based supervision training lasts 12 hours over a 2-day period and comprises four modules as well as an introduction that defines the supervisory tasks and the importance of the supervisory process. Module 1 includes a discussion on the administrative, educational, and supportive functions of supervisors. During this module, supervisors have an opportunity to reflect on their strengths and areas for growth. Module 2 includes an explanation of the parallel process. Supervisors are expected to develop a list of supervisory interactions that are consistent with both the strengths-based supervision and FCP. Module 3 includes a description of the differences between task-centered and reflective supervision. Supervisors learn when to use task supervision, such as when the worker is new or in urgent decision-making situations and when to use reflective supervision, such as when the supervision should foster analytical thinking. Module 4 compares individual and group supervision, specifically, the importance of intentionality when making decisions about how to structure supervisory conferences. More than 1,000 child welfare supervisors have been trained in the strengths-based supervision model since its inception in 2008, yet an evaluation to determine the degree to which supervisors implement aspects of the strengths-based supervision after the training is needed.
Method
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the learning from the strengths-based supervision training to what actually occurs in supervisory practice. This was accomplished by observing the changes in the supervision as reported by the workers during a two-month period. Workers were aware that their supervisors attended the training, but were not informed about the specific content of the training. Supervisors were also asked to self-evaluate their implementation of the model. A sample of 28 supervisors were identified who were scheduled to attend the training. Supervisors were invited to participate in a pre-test survey one month prior to the training. A one-group pre-test-post-test design was used to evaluate the changes observed by the workers during the two-month of implementation. A sampling frame of 144 workers was identified, with 81 replies (a response rate of 56%). A concurrent nested design was used to create an instrument that primarily included closed-ended items, with two open-ended responses. Six subscales were created to measure the respondents’ perceptions of: 1) administrative supervision; 2) educational supervision; 3) supportive supervision; 4) modeling of FCP principles in supervision; 5) critical thinking in supervision; and 6) supervisor availability. Respondents were asked to report their level of agreement with the items ranging from 1 strongly disagree to 6 strongly agree. Workers were also asked to report the number of hours of individual and group supervision they received per week.
WORKFORCE: Child welfare case managers and child protective investigators
Findings
The results indicate that nearly half (40.5%) of respondents reported that they observed positive changes in the supervision they received after the implementation of strengths-based supervision. Respondents stated that they had more scheduled group supervision meetings and that supervisors seemed to pay more attention to group meetings with more detail being presented in each case. Respondents also reported that individual and group supervision became more clinical in focus, paying more attention to the needs of the families and being more case-driven. These positive changes were corroborated by the supervisors, with 16.6 percent of supervisors reporting that their supervision was primarily clinical in nature prior to the training versus 24.4 percent of supervisors reporting that their supervision was primarily clinical in nature during the post-test. Similarly, only 7.4 percent of supervisors in the pre-test group identified clinical focus during the group supervision versus 25 percent of supervisors in the post-test group identified clinical focus during the group supervision. Interestingly, more than half of the sample (50.6%) reported not receiving group supervision at pre-test compared to 31 percent who reported not receiving supervision at post-test. While this suggests a need for more improvement, it does point to the training promoting group supervision services. When looking at the scale items (see Table 1 below), the findings demonstrate that on average, respondents perceive modest improvement in all areas, with the most substantial changes indicated in the educational (pre-test mean = 4.16; post-test mean = 4.38) and critical thinking (pre-test mean = 4.00; post-test mean = 4.19). Table 1: Scale Items PRE-TEST MEAN (SD) (N = 81)
POST-TEST MEAN (SD) (N = 85)
Critical Thinking (eight items; α = .92)
4.00 (1.27)
4.19 (1.14)
Modeling FCP (five items; α = .93)
4.42 (1.30)
4.58 (1.23)
Supervisor Availability (three items; α = .80)
3.91 (1.39)
4.08 (1.24)
Administrative Supervision (three items; α = .87)
4.67 (1.32)
4.76 (1.14)
Educational Supervision (three items; α = .87)
4.16 (1.39)
4.38 (1.35)
Supportive supervision (three items; α = .92)
4.60 (1.46)
4.71 (1.39)
SCALE
Findings from the supervisor implementation survey suggest that supervisors self-report substantial increases in most of their supervisory activities. There were three areas that were perceived as unchanged: individual supervision, crisis supervision, and supportive supervision. Given that crisis supervision is offered through one-on-one modality and is the most common type of supervision, it makes sense that there would be little to no reported change. There were areas that were reported as having substantial perceived changes: mean score in use of group supervision (pre-test mean = 2.73; post-test mean 4.00) and level of agreement that the supervisor had implemented strengths-based supervision (pre-test mean = 3.60; post-test mean 4.62). The group supervision result indicates that perceived increases in group supervision occurred after the training, corroborated by the comments by the supervisors reporting wanting to use group supervision more or finding the utility of group supervision. The level of agreement about the implementation of strengths-based supervision indicates that supervisors were more intentional about the usage of the strengths-based supervision model after the training. Table 2: Agreement of Implementation of Strengths-based Supervision PRE-TEST MEAN (SD) (N = 16)
POST-TEST MEAN (SD) (N = 15)
Model family centered practice
3.80 (1.08)
4.75 (0.58)
Conduct scheduled individual supervisory conference
4.67 (1.05)
4.63 (1.26)
Conduct scheduled group supervisory conference
2.73 (1.39(
4.00 (1.63)
Conduct crisis supervision when needed
5.07 (0.59)
5.31 (0.60)
Monitor the quality of practice
4.60 (1.71)
5.12 (0.72)
Provide supportive supervision
4.93 (0.70)
5.00 (0.63)
Provide educational supervision
4.77 (0.83)
4.87 (0.50)
Foster critical thinking
3.77 (1.09)
4.50 (0.63)
Conduct clinical supervision
4.20 (1.40)
4.62 (1.20)
Implement strengths-based supervision
3.60 (1.06)
4.62 (1.02)
ITEM
WORKFORCE: Child welfare case managers and child protective investigators
Implications
The findings suggest that overall, respondents observed positive changes to the supervision they received two months after the supervisor received training. The increases to group supervision and clinical supervision were positive outcomes of the training. These increases in clinical supervision are consistent with the direction of the system given FCP suggests moving away from an incident-driven investigation toward a global assessment that examine the concerns in the broader context. The findings also suggest that strengths-based supervision may be one way to support the growth of clinical supervision in both the individual and group modalities. The findings offer implications for child welfare supervision regarding supervisory training, specifically group supervision and clinical supervision. Continuing the education of supervisors can impact how the supervisor structures their supervisory activities. The strengths-based supervision might also prove beneficial for social work students, particularly given that these child welfare workers tend to move into supervisory positions quickly. While training can provide a theoretical framework for supervision; practical supervision is necessary as well. Therefore, training and supervision need to work in conjunction with one another to support ongoing professional development.
WORKFORCE: Child welfare case managers and child protective investigators