Driving Organization and System Change: Child Welfare Supervisor and Administrator Perspectives of Initial Implementation

Background/Purpose: Implementation of new practices within child welfare systems takes place within a complex web of interconnected factors.  Despite a growing awareness of the importance of implementation frameworks to support innovation in child welfare, limited research has been conducted from the perspectives of individuals responsible for overseeing and implementing these initiatives. This study examined child welfare supervisor and administrator views on the initial implementation of a trauma-informed data-driven case planning approach to child welfare through an organization driver lens.  We sought to build knowledge on the way in which the organization drivers of: 1) system intervention, 2) facilitative administration, and 3) decision support data system (Fixsen & Blase, 2008) facilitated or inhibited initial implementation as perceived by child welfare supervisors and administrators.   

Methods:  Individual phone interviews were conducted with child welfare supervisors (n= 16) and administrators (n=6) responsible for implementing a new trauma-informed case planning approach in a Midwestern state. Participants were randomly sampled from rural and urban regions, had participated in training on the trauma-informed initiative, and were supervising or overseeing the implementation of the initiative.  A semi-structured interview guide was created with specific attention to organization drivers.  Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using modified analytic induction (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). To support trustworthiness of the results, researchers used peer debriefing, regular team meetings, negative case analysis, and member checking.

Results:  Several key themes emerged about organization drivers as facilitators and barriers of effective implementation. System intervention:  Supervisors reported feeling supported by administrators, identifying the need for intra-agency collaboration in large-scale initiatives.  Participants also described a sense of responsibility to ensure support, structure, and accountability for frontline workers. While administrators identified external champions, supervisors were less aware of efforts to promote the initiative at the community and state levels. Facilitative administration: Participants described many obstacles to trying to eliminate barriers for frontline practice. Despite communication across various levels of the agency, supervisors saw enthusiasm and emphasis on the initiative wane over time. Supervisors also expressed frustration with needing to hold caseloads as this dramatically limited their time for providing direct support to frontline workers. Decision support data system: Participants spoke favorably of newly-implemented technology-based tools that supported high-quality practice. They identified electronic “practice tips” as helpful for decision-making and ongoing case planning. Additionally, new electronic supervision logs were seen as a meaningful tool to enhance supervisor-worker relationships and guide effective case planning. 

Conclusion:  This study contributes to the child welfare implementation literature by identifying the unique perspectives of supervisors and administrators implementing a large-scale trauma- informed data-driven case planning approach within a state child welfare system. Through an organization driver lens, shared and distinctive perspectives of supervisor and administrator were identified. Future implementations should carefully consider the various organization drivers that contribute to or impede the success of a large-scale efforts to improve child welfare practice.  Although there is not one ideal strategy to implement new practices within child welfare systems, informing the process may positively affect outcomes for the children and families served.