Supportive Supervision and Resilience Alliance to Address Secondary Trauma in Ohio: Preliminary Finding on Impact

Introduction: As part of the needs assessment process, surveys were conducted with 588 Ohio child welfare workers across nine counties to assess organizational culture and climate (OCC), and secondary traumatic stress (STS). All counties showed the same OCC pattern of high rigidity and resistance and low engagement. Fifty-three percent of respondents experienced elevated levels of STS symptoms. The root cause analysis to determine why this pattern of results occurred zeroed in on issues related to supervision. Supervision was a challenge at every level. Focus groups with 90 supervisors across the counties found that supervisors felt they needed more skills in coaching and supportive supervision and that staff needed to develop stronger coping skills. Thus, the collaborative created the intervention Coach Ohio, a multi-level Supportive Supervision intervention that paired Resilience Alliance (RA) with strategies of supportive supervision including the Atlantic Coast Child Welfare Implementation Center (ACCWIC) Coaching Model. The theory of change was as follows: when supervisors utilize a model of supportive supervision that emphasizes helping staff prevent and mitigate effects of secondary trauma and disengagement, then staff will acquire enhanced skills of reflection, emotional regulation, and coping, and they will experience less trauma and more support, which may lead to better job satisfaction and increased intentions to stay with the agency.

Method: Utilizing a quasi-experimental design, four Ohio counties and half of a large urban county participated in Coach Ohio and worker and supervisor responses on immediate post-intervention surveys were compared to responses by those in three comparison counties and the second half of the workforce in the large urban county. Measures of coping, resilience, optimism, perceived support, work-life balance, STS as well as job satisfaction, intentions to stay or leave the organization were included in the survey. MANOVAs and regression analyses were conducted.

Results: Controlling for workload, the MANOVA showed significant differences between those in the intervention vs comparison groups on coping, work-life balance, job satisfaction, intentions to stay, intentions to leave and STS in the expected directions. Regression analyses on the three later variables found participating in the intervention, perceiving work life balance, reporting higher levels of resilience, organizational support, support from one’s supervisor, attachment, and less STS predicted job satisfaction (R=.69, R² = .48), F(7,340) = 44.06, p < .0001. Better emotional regulation, work-life balance, attachment and personal stress along with less STS were predictors of intentions to stay (R = .50, R² = .25), F(6,357) = 19.73, p < .0001. Less personal stress, sense of organizational support, lower work-life balance and more STS led to more intentions to leave (R = .56, R² = .30), F(4,359) = 38.94, p < .0001. Further analyses of thinking of quitting and looking for a job also showed the impact of the intervention and coping on those more active aspects of withdrawal.

Discussion: These preliminary results reveal efficacy in the intervention on most expected outcomes. Future analysis plans and implications of these findings will be discussed.