Do the Components of Strengths-Based Supervision (SBS) Increase Supervision Satisfaction? a Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose: Strengths-Based Supervision (SBS) is a model of clinical supervision that was developed for public child welfare settings. The purpose of SBS is to support implementation of Family-Centered Practice (FCP) by using supervisory activities that are theoretically consistent with this practice model. Specifically, SBS expects supervisors to: (a) parallel/model FCP principles in supervision, (b) integrate the use of crisis and scheduled, in-depth supervisory conferences, (c) utilize individual and group supervision modalities, and (d) fulfill the administrative, educational, and support functions of social service supervision. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which elements of SBS predict higher levels of satisfaction with supervision for CPS specialists who are being supervised according to these four components. Examining satisfaction with supervision is imperative as it impacts worker retention and is related to enhanced decision making and improved client outcomes.

Method: All of the child welfare workers in one region of a southwestern state were invited to participate in a cross-sectional, anonymous, online survey to determine their perceptions of the supervision they were receiving at the time of the study (N = 427; response rate = 53%).  The survey consisted of demographic questions, questions about the amount of supervision received, and six scales measuring elements of SBS: (a) critical thinking, (b) supervision availability, (c) modeling of FCP, (d) educational supervision, (e) supportive supervision, and (f) administrative supervision. In addition, a scale measuring respondent satisfaction with supervision was included to determine whether these elements of SBS predict higher levels of satisfaction with supervision in child welfare.

Results: A regression analysis was completed to determine which of the components of SBS predict satisfaction with supervision while controlling for hours of supervision. The model was significant, F(8, 333) = 189.77, p ≤ .001, accounting for almost 82% of the variance in supervision satisfaction scores (R² =.816). Five of the predictors were significantly associated with satisfaction: Critical Thinking (t = 3.42, CI₉₅[.10, .37]); Availability (t = 4.91 CI₉₅[.10, .24]); Education (t = 3.22, CI₉₅[.08, .31]); Support (t = 6.67, CI₉₅[.29, .54]) and Administrative (t = 2.90, CI₉₅[.06, .34]). The support variable was the strongest predictor corroborating previous research demonstrating the importance of the supervisor/supervisee relationship. Modeling FCP and the control variables, amount of supervision, were not significant predictors.

Implications: Findings suggest most of the components of SBS predict higher levels of supervision for this sample lending support to the model. Although the FCP variable did not predict levels of satisfaction, because the intention of SBS is to support implementation of these practice principles, it would be important to understand more about how modeling practice principles is perceived by supervisees. A striking finding is that higher amounts of supervision provided did not predict higher levels of satisfaction. This suggests it is not the amount of supervision, but the quality of supervision that is most important to workers. Considering time constraints faced by workers and supervisors, it is helpful to know that intentional, focused supervision is more important than just increasing the time spent in supervision.