![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Workplace-based supervision is a key resource in human services (HS), supporting practitioner wellbeing, service quality, and client outcomes. Theoretically, HS supervision has four functions: administration, professional development, support, and quality of care. However, there is limited empirical knowledge regarding how supervision is experienced in the disability sector. This study explores supervision experiences of HS workers in disability sectors, asking: 1) How do participants describe the nature and scope of the supervision received, provided, and endorsed (i.e., receipt, function)? 2) Are there differences between workers in the disability sector and those in other HS settings with respect to receiving effective supervision? and, 3) Do reported levels of professional wellbeing differ between workers in the disability sector and those in other HS settings?
Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive web-based survey was administered to frontline practitioners (n=263), supervisors (n=69), and leaders (n=25). Among these participants, 29 frontline participants, 13 supervisors, and five leaders worked in the disability sector. Quantitative measures asked about supervision receipt and function; with effectiveness measured using the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26) and wellbeing assessed with the Professional Quality of Life Scale – Health (ProQOL-H). Quantitative data was analyzed using Fisher’s Exact Test in SPSS; open-ended responses supplemented analysis to contextualize findings. This research was cleared by the PIs institutional Research Ethics Board.
Results: Disability sector participants described supervision functions similarly to the broader HS sample, with 34.5% (n=10) of frontline practitioners from the disability subsample and 35.4% (n=63) of practitioners in other HS sectors identifying that their supervision contains the main functions of supervision (administration, professional development, support, quality of care).
Results from Fisher’s Exact Test found a statistically significant difference in experiencing effective supervision between practitioners working in disability contexts in comparison to those who do not (p < .001), with only 11.5% of workers in the disability sector receiving effective supervision, compared to 49% of others.
Wellbeing outcomes of frontline workers and supervisors, measured through the ProQOL-H, revealed statistically significant differences across wellbeing domains, with workers in the disability sector being significantly less likely to report low burnout, high compassion satisfaction, and high perceived support. They were also dramatically more likely to experience high moral distress (p < .0001) and secondary traumatic stress (p < .0001).
Data from open-ended responses suggest that while supervision is valued by practitioners, supervisors, and leaders in the disability sector, frontline workers have inconsistent access and limited engagement in supervision that is specific and tailored to their practice. Several participants shared that they work in “toxic” environments that do not support their own wellbeing or the wellbeing of their disabled clients. Participants noted supervisors often lack knowledge or value in their roles or those they support.
Conclusions & Implications:
This study highlights gaps in supervision for disability sector workers, who report significantly less effective supervision and poorer wellbeing than peers in other HS settings. Findings point to the need for comprehensive, disability-specific supervision models that include administrative, educational, and emotional support tailored to the realities of disability work.