Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

Purpose: Supervision has been found to affect organizational, worker and client outcomes, (e.g. Martin & Schinke, 1998; Ellett & Millar, 2001; Banach, 1999). Although the role of supervisors in promoting effective intervention has been touted, there is little research into what makes supervision effective, particularly in child welfare (Collins-Camargo & Groeber, 2003; Tsui, 1997). Shulman (1993) developed a clinical supervision model deemed worthy of further testing in the public setting. Only limited studies explored the use of such approaches in child welfare (Young, 1994; Kane, 1991). A six-state survey revealed that although staff indicated techniques associated with clinical supervision were desirable in promoting effective practice, current supervision in child welfare was largely administrative in nature (Collins-Camargo & Groeber, 2003). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of clinical supervision in this setting. Methods: A quasi-experimental, mixed methods study was conducted to test the impact of clinical supervision on organizational culture, worker practice, staff turnover, and client outcomes in four states. The cross-site evaluation included focus groups, surveys measuring organizational culture and self-efficacy in child welfare tasks, and analysis of agency data on retention, practice standards, and case/client outcomes. Results: Supervisors described improved organizational culture, supervisory and worker practice, and client impact related to the intervention (three states). Statistically significant gains were found in organizational culture and self-efficacy for intervention groups in contrast to comparisons (two states); case review data slightly favored the intervention groups (one state); comparative difference in worker turnover rates approached statistical significance when controlling for unemployment rates (one state); and trends suggested the intervention regions performed better than their comparisons in some case/client outcome indicators (two states). Implications: The findings of this study support the implementation of clinical supervision in child welfare to promote desirable outcomes. Lessons learned related to both the implementation and cross-site research process could benefit further studies. Banach, M. (1999). The workers' view: Strategies and coping skills in a family preservation program. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16(3), 237-249. Collins-Camargo, C. & Groeber, C. (2003). Adventures in partnership: Using learning laboratories to enhance frontline supervision in child welfare. Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1, 2), 17-31. Ellett, A. and Millar, K. (2001). A multi-state study of professional organizational culture: Implications for employee retention and child welfare practice. Paper presented at Society for Social Work Research 5th Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA. Kane, D. (1991). Strategies and dilemmas in child welfare supervision: A case study. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation. City University of New York, NY. Martin, U. and Schinke, S. (1998). Organizational and individual factors influencing job satisfaction and burnout of mental health workers. Social Work in Health Care, 28(2), 51-62. Shulman, L. (1993). Interactional supervision. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. Tsui, M. (1997). The roots of social work supervision: An historical review. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(2), 191-198. Young, T. (1994). Collaboration of a public child welfare agency and a school of social work: A clinical group supervision project. Child Welfare, 73(6), 659-671.