Child Welfare Supervision: A Practical Guide for Supervisors, Managers, and Administrators

Child Welfare Supervision This page intentionally left blank Child Welfare Supervision A Practical Guide for Superv...

Author: Cathryn C. Potter | Charmaine R. Brittain

25 downloads 5454 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Child Welfare Supervision

This page intentionally left blank

Child Welfare Supervision A Practical Guide for Supervisors, Managers, and Administrators

Edited by Cathryn C. Potter Charmaine R. Brittain

1 2009

1 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With ofﬁces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright © 2009 by Oxford University Press, Inc. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Child Welfare Supervision / edited by Cathryn Potter and Charmaine Brittain. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-532676-5 1. Child welfare--Administration. 2. Child welfare--Management. 3. Social work administration. 4. Social workers--Supervision of. 5. Child welfare workers--Supervision of. I. Potter, Cathryn C. II. Brittain, Charmaine. HV713.S89 2009 362.7068’3--dc22 2008026998

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

any people contributed to the completion of this book. First and M foremost, we thank our contributing authors. This group of child welfare leaders from agency settings, educational institutions, research centers, and charitable foundations brought a wealth of experience and wisdom to the crafting of ideas into pragmatic and research-based chapters for this book. Their professionalism made interactions a joy, and we look forward to continued opportunities to work together. Gary Anderson, Professor and Director, School of Social Work, Michigan State University Becky Antle, Assistant Professor, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville Anita Barbee, Professor and Distinguished University Scholar, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville David Berns, Executive Vice-President of Child and Family Services, Casey Family Program Katharine Cahn, Executive Director, Child Welfare Partnership, Portland State University Anne Comstock, Project Manager, Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Safety and Risk Assessments, American Humane Association Nancy Dickinson, Executive Director, Jordan Institute for Families, School of Social Work, University of North Carolina

acknowledgments

vi

Jean East, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver Sarah Ferguson, Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, College of Saint Catherine and University of Saint Thomas Michelle I. Graef, Research Associate Professor of Psychology, Center on Children, Families and the Law, University of Nebraska Lincoln Michele Hanna, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver Debra Mixon Mitchell, Senior Training and Project Specialist, Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver Debora Ortega, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver and Director, Latina Center for Community Engagement and Scholarship (DULCCES) Megan E. Paul, Research Assistant Professor of Psychology, Center on Children, Families and the Law, University of Nebraska Lincoln Erika J. Robinson, Graduate Research Assistant, Center on Children, Families and the Law, University of Nebraska Lincoln Kristin I. Saathoff, Graduate Research Assistant, Center on Children, Families and the Law, University of Nebraska Lincoln Riaan Van Zyl, Associate Dean, Research, and Professor, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville

Our colleagues at the Butler Institute for Families also supported the conceptual development, review and revision, and ﬁnal editing of the book. Without these wonderful colleagues our work would have been so much more difﬁcult. We are especially grateful to: Sandra Spears, Director, Butler Institute for Families, for her clear conceptualization and focused review, and for managing the work of the Institute to give us the space to write and edit. Anne Moralez, Senior Accounting Assistant, Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, for her masterful formatting and editing skills. Special thanks also to Elizabeth Potter, for using her professional editing expertise in service of her mother’s book. This book emerged from the Butler Institute’s ongoing work in the child welfare workforce arena. We wish to thank the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services for giving us the opportunity to work with a wonderful set of grantees from around the country in a 5-year child welfare workforce project. These fellow grantees, with their passion for developing the

acknowledgments

vii

child welfare workforce, have been a source of inspiration and motivation and a reminder that this ﬁeld is full of leaders with the power to improve the work lives of child welfare supervisors. At each site, a team of university and agency child welfare professionals worked together. We cannot possibly recognize all those involved in the partnerships, though we think of them as we name the sites and principal investigators: Fordham University, Virginia Strand, Principal Investigator Michigan State University, Gary Anderson, Principal Investigator State University of New York at Albany, Mary McCarthy, Principal Investigator University of Denver, Cathryn C. Potter, Principal Investigator University of Iowa, Miriam Landsman, Principal Investigator University of Michigan, Kathleen Faller, Principal Investigator University of North Carolina, Nancy Dickinson, Principal Investigator University of Southern Maine, Freda Bernotavicz, Principal Investigator

Cathryn C. Potter, Associate Professor and Executive Director, Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver Charmaine R. Brittain, Program Manager, Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

hild welfare workforce issues are taking center stage in the national C discussion about how best to serve children and families. Child welfare systems face multiple workforce challenges, including changing national demographics, the nature and complexity of the work, recruitment and retention issues, and organizational limitations, both structural and cultural. The literature on the child welfare workforce is very clear: supervisors are at the frontlines of dealing with workforce issues and are critical contributors to workforce solutions and effective practice. At the Butler Institute for Families, at the University of Denver, we had the opportunity to work in one of the ﬁrst set of Children’s Bureau grantees focused on workforce issues. The eight Recruitment and Retention grantees worked intensively with sites around the country to support child welfare workforce development. All grantees worked with supervisors as part of the projects. All experienced the power that comes from an effective supervisory workforce. Our own experience of working with supervisors in Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona through the Western Regional Recruitment & Retention Project showed us ﬁrsthand the importance of supervisors to the overall functioning of the agency. The Children’s Bureau has recently expanded focus on these issues through funding of the National Child Welfare Workforce Institute. In addition, multiple not-forproﬁt organizations have tackled workforce issues at the national level, including the Children’s Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Casey Family Programs, and the Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators, to name just a few.

X

preface

However, as we examined the literature on preparing child welfare supervisors, we were struck by the lack of professional resources that translate generic supervision principles to the speciﬁcs of child welfare supervision. While the availability of professional training programs in the states for supervisors has grown exponentially over the past years, publications that can support this are few. In this book, we seek to bridge the gap between research and supervisory practice, between management and organizational theory and supervisory practice. At its heart, we hope the book speaks to child welfare supervisors and those who aspire to supervise in child welfare settings, as well as to the managers who have responsibility for selecting and preparing child welfare supervisors. This audience includes those of us in schools of social work, as the need for continued professionalization of the child welfare workforce is perhaps most important at the supervisory level. No book can address all the issues facing child welfare supervisors. We hope that the content helps supervisors and aspiring supervisors identify areas for continued professional development. Child welfare leadership— at supervisory, middle-management, and executive levels—is recognized as being of critical importance to the health of the ﬁeld. The national conversation about how best to prepare these current and future leaders is at the forefront of the ﬁeld. The authors of this book have enjoyed the opportunity to join that national dialogue. We invite readers to do the same.

CONTENTS

Contributors 1.

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview CATHRYN C. POTTER

2.

Models of Social Work Supervision CHARMAINE R. BRITTAIN

3.

Supervisors as Leaders: A Critical Dimension for Organizational Success GARY R. ANDERSON

xiii 3

23

44

4.

Management Essentials for Child Welfare Supervisors JEAN EAST & MICHELE D. HANNA

61

5.

The Child Welfare Unit MICHELE D. HANNA

83

6.

Maximizing the Middle Management Role in Child Welfare BECKY ANTLE, ANITA BARBEE, & MICHIEL ADRIAAN VAN ZYL

119

The World Beyond the Unit

146

7.

KATHARINE CAHN

contents

xii

8.

Working in Changing Environments KATHARINE CAHN & DAVID BERNS

9.

Beyond the Question of Color: Diversity Issues in Child Welfare Supervision DEBORA M. ORTEGA & DEBRA A. MIXON MITCHELL

177

203

10.

Getting and Keeping the Best People NANCY DICKINSON & ANNE COMSTOCK

220

11.

Developing Worker Competence CHARMAINE R. BRITTAIN & CATHRYN C. POTTER

262

12.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

296

SARAH FERGUSON

13.

Managing Performance MEGAN E. PAUL, MICHELLE I. GRAEF, ERIKA J. ROBINSON, & KRISTIN I. SAATHOFF

330

Index

363

CONTRIBUTORS

Editors CATHRYN C. POTTER, MSW, PhD Executive Director, Erna and Brad Butler Institute for Families Research Director, Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver Denver, Colorado CHARMAINE R. BRITTAIN, MSW, PhD Program Manager Erna and Brad Butler Institute for Families Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver Denver, Colorado Chapter Authors GARY R. ANDERSON, MSW, PhD Professor and Director School of Social Work Michigan State University East Lansing, MI

xiii

XIV

contributors

BECKY ANTLE, MSSW, PhD Assistant Professor Kent School of Social Work University of Louisville Louisville, KY ANITA BARBEE, PhD Professor and Distinguished University Scholar Kent School of Social Work University of Louisville Louisville, KY DAVID BERNS, MSW Executive Vice-President of Child and Family Services Casey Family Programs Seattle, WA KATHARINE CAHN, MSW, PhD Executive Director, Child Welfare Partnership Portland State University Portland, OR ANNE COMSTOCK, MS Director Breakthrough Series Collaborative on Safety and Risk Assessments American Humane Association Denver, CO NANCY DICKINSON, MSSW, PhD Executive Director, Jordan Institute for Families School of Social Work University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC JEAN EAST, MSW, PhD Associate Professor Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver Denver, CO SARAH FERGUSON, MSW, MA, PhD Assistant Professor School of Social Work University of Saint Thomas Saint Paul, MN

contributors

XV

MICHELLE I. GRAEF, PhD Research Associate Professor of Psychology Center on Children, Families and the Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE MICHELE D. HANNA, MSW, PhD Assistant Professor Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver Denver, CO DEBRA A. MIXON MITCHELL, MA Senior Training and Project Specialist Butler Institute for Families University of Denver Denver, CO DEBORA M. ORTEGA, MSW, PhD Director, Latina Center for Community Engagement and Scholarship (DULCCES) Associate Professor, Graduate School of Social Work University of Denver Denver, CO MEGAN E. PAUL, PhD Research Assistant Professor of Psychology Center on Children, Families and the Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE ERIKA J. ROBINSON, BA Graduate Research Assistant Center on Children, Families and the Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE KRISTIN I. SAATHOFF, BA Graduate Research Assistant Center on Children, Families and the Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE MICHIEL ADRIAAN VAN ZYL, MSW, PhD Associate Dean, Research Professor Kent School of Social Work University of Louisville Louisville, KY

This page intentionally left blank

Child Welfare Supervision

This page intentionally left blank

1 CHILD WELFARE SUPERVISION An Overview C ATHRYN C. POTTER

hild welfare is one of the most complex, challenging, exhausting, exhilC arating, and satisfying practice arenas in human services. Child welfare workers make life-and-death decisions on a daily basis, and they make a difference in the lives of families and children at risk. Their supervisors stand with them, managing both their work and their ability to stay with the work, while contributing to positive and productive agency cultures and standing as a buffer to less productive organizational cultures (for an example of a supervisor’s day, see Box 1.1). Many have described the child welfare workforce situation as being in crisis, with heavy turnover among workers and increased stresses on agencies putting pressure on the quality of child welfare interventions (Drake & Yadama, 1996; U.S. Government Accounting Ofﬁce [U.S. GAO], 1995, 1997, 2003). Yet, many child welfare workers and supervisors thrive in their careers (Stalker, Mandell, Frensch, Harvey, & Wright, 2007). Numerous examinations of job satisfaction and job commitment in the child welfare workforce have identiﬁed supervision as a critical component in supporting both the retention of workers and the quality of service for families (Landsman, 2001; Smith, 2005; Strolin, McCarthy, & Caringi, 2007; Westbrook, Ellis, & Ellett, 2006). In this book, we turn our attention to child welfare supervisors, believing strongly that they hold a key to excellence in child welfare practice. Each of the following chapters will focus in on a critical area of child welfare supervision, beginning with competencies in management, leadership, and diversity, and moving on to speciﬁc supervisor roles that range 3

Box 1.1

A Supervisor’s First Day

Gina reﬂects on her ﬁrst day as an intake child welfare supervisor in a medium-sized urban– suburban county. She has been with this public child welfare agency for almost 7 years. She has 5 years of experience in an intake unit, and almost 2 years of experience in an ongoing, intensive family intervention unit. While she was an intake worker, she took advantage of the agency’s partnership with a local university and completed her master of social work (MSW) degree in their weekend program, with a concentration in family intervention. Her advisor suggested she take a class in supervision, but she was sure she would stay in direct work with families, so she didn’t think it would be necessary. She thinks of that decision with amusement as she reﬂects back on her ﬁrst day as a supervisor. Gina works in a state-supervised, county-administered child welfare system. Her county must often collaborate with other counties in the urban area; however, Gina understands that the organization and cultures of these other county’s agencies are somewhat different from her own. Her agency is bound by many state policies, but the director reports directly to the County Manager and Board of Commissioners. Gina recognizes there are larger political realities and wonders if supervisors are ever involved in responding to them. She wonders if her assessment of her agency’s organizational culture will change as she gains experience in this new role. Gina reports to the agency child welfare administrator (who reports to the director). The child welfare administrator was her ﬁrst supervisor when she came to the agency. While Gina knows it is an advantage to be familiar with her supervisor’s style, she realizes that the focus and tone of supervision is quite different in this new role. The agency child-welfare administrator recruited Gina to apply for this position, saying that Gina had the clinical child welfare skills, the respect of her fellow workers, a “good head on her shoulders,” and the potential to be a strong leader and manager. Her unit consists of seven workers who are quite diverse in age, gender, ethnicity, social and economic class, and experience. Gina hopes her own diversity-related skills will allow her to work well with this group. Four workers have at least 4 years of public child welfare experience, and one of these experienced workers had hoped for the supervisor job. Two workers have been with the agency for 2 years, and one is new to the unit, having been on the job only 2 months. This new worker, Lavonne, who is a recent college graduate, appears to be a bit overwhelmed. Gina knows that Lavonne will need supervision with an emphasis on developing her practice skills and supporting her decision making, while providing the support needed during the ﬁrst year of child welfare practice. Her mid-level workers may need a different approach, and Gina isn’t quite sure how this might best be handled. Some of her experienced workers are excellent, but one shows deﬁnite signs of cynicism, emotional exhaustion, and work avoidance. Gina realizes that she will need to respond to this at some point, but she doesn’t know much about burnout or secondary trauma or about performance management. There is some tension in the unit; Gina knew this before beginning this job. Indeed, it was the reason why the child welfare administrator wanted to bring in a supervisor from outside the unit. Two experienced workers have an ongoing conﬂict, and others feel they must choose sides. Lavonne seems to be trying not to make a choice, and this may result in her isolation from both groups. Gina knows that she will need to ﬁnd a way to promote development of a team even as she supports individuals and manages the unit’s workload. Gina’s ﬁrst day coincided with a supervisors’ meeting at which she learned several relevant things. A mock Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) review is to be held in 3 weeks and several cases from her unit have been selected for the sample. She will need to (continued)

4

prepare her workers to take part in the mock review. The child welfare administrator will also be looking at outcome data by unit in order to identify units where improvements are needed. Gina realizes that she will need to familiarize herself with available data reports and learn to use them in her management of the unit and supervision of her workers. The agency has been notiﬁed that a federal grant submission has been funded. This grant will support the development of a stronger linkage between some intake units and some ongoing units and the development of a more structured family assessment process. Though the agency committed to the grant many months ago, and implementation requires random assignment of units to the new intervention group and to the control group, this meeting was the ﬁrst time the supervisors had heard of the grant. Discussion ensued. Gina’s unit is in the experimental group. Gina is interested in the ideas involved and knows she is positively oriented to change, but realizes that many of her peers will work hard to try to stop implementation. She ﬁnds herself in the small working group assigned to address the issue. Gina knows she will have to work in this group to build relationships while advocating for best practice and remaining open to change. She suspects her workers will fall into several camps on this issue, and knows she will need to lead them well as new practices evolve in the agency. This county was involved in a highly publicized child fatality some months ago. Though the fatality took place while the case was under the supervision of a neighboring county, it was Gina’s county that did the initial assessment and may not have adequately passed on information to the supervising county when the family moved. The report from the state agency’s investigation of the fatality will be released today. The child welfare administrator sees the new grant program as a positive response to the anticipated criticism, and is having some difﬁculty hearing the concerns of Gina’s fellow supervisors. Gina knows she will have to ﬁnd a way to bridge the perspectives of middle mangers, supervisors, and workers. Gina learns that because her newest worker has completed core training and is now eligible for a full caseload, and in light of an anticipated increase in referrals in the wake of the upcoming media attention, her unit can expect an increase in cases over the next week. Gina will need to manage assigning cases to workers, and prepare them for the increased workload. As Gina left the meeting, one of the very experienced supervisors makes a point to welcome Gina, and to volunteer her availability for consultation. Gina wonders if she looked as though she needed help. At the end of the day as Gina is preparing to leave, Lavonne calls to discuss a particularly difﬁcult placement decision she is facing in the ﬁeld. Gina helps her weigh the various options and supports the decision to place the six children in the family. The children must be separated into two groups as their aunt cannot take all six, and the only foster care resource available does well with adolescents, but not with younger children. Gina works with Lavonne to ﬁnalize arrangements, arranges for the experienced, evening on-call worker to join Lavonne, and heads home for a late dinner. She will be available for Lavonne for the rest of the evening in case glitches occur. Gina has noted Lavonne’s strong assessment skills and also her apprehension about talking to children about placement. Gina has some ideas for how Lavonne can increase her skills in this area. Gina has had a full ﬁrst day. She notes a number of things she needs to think carefully about. She isn’t sure how much time for thinking there is in this job if most days are like this one! She wishes her mandatory supervision training could be scheduled soon. As it is, there is not an opening for her for six months. She wonders about the availability of mentoring for herself. She taped the email of the experienced supervisor to her computer monitor and knows she will use it ﬁrst thing in the morning. (continued)

5

child welfare supervision

6

Reﬂection Questions • If you were Gina, what would be your top priorities for the next week? The next month? The next year? • What are the most dangerous pitfalls for Gina as a new supervisor? • What are the most important resources available in Gina’s work environment? • What might you be most excited about if you were Gina?

from managing performance to managing change. Before we begin, however, it is wise to consider the big picture for child welfare supervision, touching brieﬂy on some of the areas we will later consider in depth. What is the nature of this work? What do we know of the child welfare workforce? What inﬂuences on supervision come from the organizational contexts and policy environments in which supervisors work? What are the critical supervisor roles? If the reader is a child welfare supervisor, none of this will be news; the later chapters will provide the in-depth examination readers are looking for. Still, as we reﬂect on the job, it is important to ground that reﬂection in an overview of the supervisory context. THE NATURE OF CHILD WELFARE WORK Child welfare is high-stakes work. From initial assessments of families that are aimed at determining safety and risk, to intervention with families facing placement, reuniﬁcation, or adoption planning or a combination thereof, the decisions made by workers and supervisors can determine the course of lives for children and families. Decisions that focus on safety can be literally life-and-death decisions; however, other decisions that shape trajectories for families are only slightly less momentous. For families entering the child welfare system, life may be changed forever. Whether that change is positive or negative depends on their choices, of course, but also on the decisions and actions of their worker, the supervisor, and the larger agency. Child welfare practice is a high-stress endeavor. Child welfare practitioners are consistently exposed to difﬁcult situations. They are secondary witnesses to immediate traumatic experiences for children (Pryce, Shackelford, & Pryce, 2007) and witnesses (through interviewing and intervention) to previous traumatic experiences of parents (Dane, 2000). Their work takes them into environments where they are sometimes themselves at risk (Horejsi, Garthwait, & Rolando, 1994; Littlechild, 2005). Workers and supervisors clearly experience personal effects of stress, including symptoms of emotional exhaustion, burnout, and secondary trauma (Regehr, Leslie, Howe, & Chau, 2002; Stalker et al., 2007). Supervisors have the frontline responsibility for helping workers develop competencies to manage stress and respond to its effects. Supervisors are also responsible for helping workers gain the set of competencies

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

7

and attitudes that make for a successful, rewarding career in child welfare (Rushton & Nathan, 1996). We know also that some organizational characteristics can buffer stress (Mor Barak, Levin, Nissly, & Lane, 2006; Yoo, 2002) and that child welfare supervisors have an important role in creating these positive work environments (Landsman, 2007). Child welfare practice often involves intervention with clients with complex, multi-problem needs in a context of scarce intervention resources. In recent years we have come to understand much more clearly the ways in which physical, emotional, and sexual abuse differ from one another in terms of causes and consequences. While many families do exhibit multiple forms of child maltreatment, it is also true that the evidence for intervention success may vary by type of maltreatment (Scannapieco & Connell-Clark, 2002). In addition, many families face co-occurring problems with substance abuse, domestic violence, and caregiver and child mental health problems (Scannapieco & Connell-Clark, 2002). Many families also struggle with economic concerns related to income, housing, and neighborhood safety (Eamon & Kopels, 2004; Garbarino & Kostelny, 1992). Understanding how best to create and deliver a package of integrated services that responds to these multiple problems is a critical issue in child welfare practice (Chambers & Potter, 2008; Fraser, 2004). Most child welfare agencies are not fully equipped to respond to family needs in the ways they might wish (Chambers & Potter, in press). Almost all child welfare resources, from the worker’s time to the availability of substance-abuse and mental health services, are rationed in some way by eligibility requirements, contractual limits, budgets, and so on. Supervisors are often responsible for allocating resources at the line level, and for working with higher management to advocate and plan for needed services. Child welfare practice requires a high level of critical thinking in a time-constrained work environment. Workers and supervisors make complex decisions in compressed timelines, often without all the relevant information. A number of important abilities are required to work with an array of information about a family, put it in the context of a body of knowledge about child maltreatment, consider and evaluate likely results for a number of courses of action, then settle on the best approach. An understanding of the evidence base for child welfare interventions is critical (Luongo, 2007). Thinking on one’s feet is an important skill, as is the ability to provide enough time for reﬂection so that workers can learn from experiences (Jones & Gallop, 2003). The ability to come to a decision in the face of ambiguity is required, as is the ability to reconsider decisions in light of new information (Westbrook et al., 2006). The ability to think in terms of risk management (through asking such questions as what characteristics drive risk? how can risk be mitigated? how much risk is tolerable, and how will risk be monitored?) is critical (Shlonsky & Wagner, 2005), as is the need to integrate a risk management approach into the broader child welfare

child welfare supervision

8

perspective (Spratt, 2001). Yet there are pressures toward a simpler, more formulaic approach to practice, pressures that may be grounded in cognitive– affective responses to stressful work (Coleman & Clark, 2003) and in organizational desires for highly regulated practice (Westbrook et al., 2006). Supervisors must help workers continue to bring their strongest cognitive skills to bear on decisions, knowing that workers’ ability to do so may depend on their abilities to manage stress. In sum, child welfare practice and child welfare supervision are not for the faint-hearted. Those who choose this profession are choosing work that requires their best thinking in the context of difﬁcult and stressful situations, with known effects on their own functioning in service of families and children with multiple problems. The organizations they work in may not be able to provide the full range of resources they need to do the work well. These organizations do give workers a supervisor who can make a difference for them and their clients. Who then are these child welfare workers and their supervisors?

THE CHILD WELFARE WORKFORCE Workers Most child welfare workers are women, and the majority of them are young (American Public Human Services Association [APHSA], 2005), although there is a core group of workers who choose child welfare as a long-term career (Stalker et al., 2007). The workforce does not generally match clients served in terms of race or ethnicity. Workers of color are underrepresented, and bilingual workers are especially needed (California Social Work Education Center, 2005). Child welfare workers are highly motivated. Ninety-seven percent report that they are proud to tell others what they do, and 87% say that helping children and families is a “very important” consideration in choosing this work. Two-thirds believe that they accomplish “a great deal” that is important (Light, 2003). Recent studies of worker retention commonly ﬁnd high average levels of motivation, commitment, and self-efﬁcacy (Ellett, Ellett, & Rugutt, 2003; Landsman, 2001; Potter, Comstock, & Brittain, 2007). Still, child welfare workers are aware of the stresses they face. Eighty-one percent believe it is easy to burn out on the job; threequarters say that the job is frustrating, and 70% say there is always too much to do. Most feel unappreciated (51%), and 69% say the pay is low, while almost half (42%) feel that talent and achievement are not well rewarded (Light, 2003). Most child welfare agencies (both public and private) do not require their workers and supervisors to hold a social work degree (APHSA, 2005; Child Welfare League of America [CWLA], 2001). Most states require a bachelor’s degree as the minimum degree required for a case-carrying, caseworker position, and most workers hold a bachelor’s degree (U.S.

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

9

GAO, 2003). Almost all states (84%) provide some level of support for workers to complete a master of social work (MSW) program, while 28% also provide support for related degrees. Workers do not generally receive large amounts of training in preparation for the work; on average, states require about 150 hours of preservice training and 30 hours of mandatory training during each year of employment (APHSA, 2005). Workers often cite inadequate training as one source of stress (U.S. GAO, 2003). There are few comprehensive assessments of child welfare worker training in the published literature since the early 1980s (Pecora, Dodson, & Teather, 1983). Most states appear to assess worker training needs in a less formal way. In recent years, results from the Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR) process may have a strong inﬂuence on decisions about available training. On average, child welfare workers make approximately $35,000 per year, a salary substantially below that of other professionals such as registered nurses ($52,000), public school teachers ($46,000), and police ofﬁcers and sheriffs ($45,000). Salaries are not keeping pace with inﬂation. Between 2000 and 2004, worker salaries increased, on average, by 6.3%, while the federal cost of living rose by 9.7% (APHSA, 2005). The importance of salary in attracting workers can vary considerably from urban environments where competition from other careers is strong, to some rural areas where the child welfare positions may offer more competitive salaries (Potter et al., 2007). Caseload sizes also vary for child welfare workers. For states deﬁning the child as the unit of measurement, caseload sizes can range from 9 to 80 children, depending on the state and type of caseload; where the family is the case unit, caseloads range from 11 to 100 families (APHSA, 2005). Nationally, caseloads average twice the recommended levels (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). One study of the predictors of job retention in child welfare found that for each increase in caseload size by one case, the probability of the worker staying with the agency decreased by 6% (Smith, 2005). Sixty-two percent of child welfare workers are unionized. Still, only 17% have state statutory caseload limits, and only a third of states have caseload or workload guidelines for workers and supervisors (U.S. GAO, 2003). Studies have linked both salary (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006) and workload (U.S. GAO, 2003) to turnover among workers. Turnover is an ongoing issue for child welfare agencies. The average tenure of a child welfare worker is estimated at between 2 and 5 years (APHSA, 2005; U.S. GAO, 2003). The average vacancy rate for child welfare positions is between 8% and 9% (APHSA, 2005), with annual turnover rates between 20% and 40% (APHSA, 2005; U.S. GAO, 2003). Preventable turnover (workers leaving for reasons other than retirement, death, marriage and parenting, spousal move, or return to school) is estimated to lie between 40% and 69%, based on exit interviews with workers (APHSA, 2005). One recent study of former child welfare workers found that 41% left within 2 years (20% within the ﬁrst year), and more than 60%

10

child welfare supervision

stayed less than 5 years. Those who leave quickly tended to be younger (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006). There is evidence that turnover affects the quality of services by delaying and interrupting good case decision-making (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006; Potter & Klein-Rothschild, 2002). Most importantly, turnover rates are correlated with recurrence rates, indicating that turnover is affecting outcomes for children and families. “Counties with a turnover rate exceeding 15% had a 6-month recurrence rate (an important ‘yardstick’ in the federal Child and Family Service Reviews) that was 125% higher than those with turnover rates below 8.5%” (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006, p. 21). Supervision is often cited as an important factor in workers’ decisions to stay or leave (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006; Mor Barak et al., 2006; Rycraft, 1994; Smith, 2005; Strolin et al., 2007; U.S. GAO, 2003; Vinokur, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1994). Moreover, organizational buffers, such as coworker and supervisor support, have been shown to counteract some of the effects of low pay and other organizational characteristics (Jayaratne & Chess, 1984; Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001; Mor Barak et al., 2006; Raukitis & Koeske, 1994; Yoo, 2002). One recent study found that supervisory support was the only variable that predicted workers’ sense of empowerment in the job (Cearly, 2004). Child Welfare Supervisors Somewhat less is known about the supervisory workforce. As we would expect, supervisors are older (in their 40s on average) and have more child welfare experience (between 10 and 15 years on average). They are mostly women, though supervisors are more likely to be male than are workers (Regehr et al., 2002). Most states do not require an advanced degree beyond a bachelor’s for supervisors, but in some states 50% to 75% of supervisors hold a master’s degree (Cornerstones for Kids, 2006; Regehr et al., 2002). Only two states require an MSW degree for supervisors (APHSA, 2005). States require an average of 70 hours of pre-service training for supervisors, with annual training requirements averaging 30 hours (APHSA, 2005). Preston (2004) found that managerial training is typically offered to supervisors when they ﬁrst become responsible for supervising others, but is not typically reinforced or expanded as supervisors move to middle management positions. There is also some evidence that state supervisor training may not cover all areas of management expertise that may be required to do the job well, by focusing primarily on interpersonal and technical skills and ignoring strategic thinking and planning (Preston, 2005). The national average supervisor salary is $44,000. The average supervisor manages a unit of six workers (APHSA, 2005). Turnover among supervisors is signiﬁcantly lower than that of workers, approximately 12%, with a third of this estimated to be preventable (APHSA, 2005). Experience does matter. A recent examination of supervisors in Arkansas found that supervisors from low-turnover counties had signiﬁcantly more experience as supervisors than did supervisors in high-turnover counties (Brownlee, 2002).

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

11

There has been less examination of job satisfaction and workplace stressors for supervisors in child welfare than there has been for workers. Silver, Poulin, and Manning (1997) found that only 21% of child welfare supervisors rated their job satisfaction as “low,” though on average supervisors reported relatively high levels of emotional stress, which may put them at high risk for burnout. Most personal demographic characteristics were not associated with job satisfaction. However, minority supervisors had lower levels of job satisfaction than those of non-minority supervisors. The more time supervisors spent in collaborative work with others and the higher their trust in the organization, the higher their job satisfaction. Longer time in the position and higher burnout scores predicted lower levels of job satisfaction. Interestingly, work attributes such as resource adequacy, supervisor support, caseload size, job autonomy, and time spent on paperwork were not associated with job satisfaction for supervisors (Silver et al., 1997). In Regehr et al.’s (2002) study of stressors among child welfare workers and supervisors, most supervisors reported ongoing stressors such as organizational change (59.6%), public or media scrutiny (40.4%), high workload (78.7%), and documentation requirements (44.7%). Critical-incident stressors were also common, with most reporting threats to staff (57.4%) or to themselves (55.3%) and the death of a child due to abuse or neglect (51.1%). There were no signiﬁcant differences between frontline workers and supervisors on measures of family and coworker support, traumatic stress, or depression. Both groups reported high levels of support and low to mild levels of depression. However, much like their workers, 48.7% of managers and supervisors had post-traumatic symptoms that fell in the high or severe range. In the qualitative portion of this study, supervisors underscored the importance of stressors associated with high staff turnover, high workload, increased accountability, and the pressure to support their staff. In recent years, several supervisor training, support, and mentoring programs have been developed through support from the Children’s Bureau under various training initiatives and individual states with interests in workforce issues (Jones, Alexander, & Patterson, 2003; Landsman, 2007; Strand & Badger, 2005). Many of these programs involve mentoring models in which supervisors receive mentoring support either within the organization or through partnerships with local agencies or universities. Some focus on speciﬁc aspects of the supervisor role, such as supporting supervisors as they develop their own clinical supervision skills (Grifﬁn & Shiell, 2003; Strand & Badger, 2005). Others take a broader approach to supervisory competencies (Jones et al., 2003; Landsman, 2007). THE ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILD WELFARE SUPERVISION Child welfare agencies are typically bureaucracies, with the positive and negative aspects of complex organizations (Cohen & Austin, 1994; Smith & Donovan, 2003). “Most public child welfare agencies operate as monolithic

12

child welfare supervision

bureaucracies with rigid lines of authority and top-down decision making that often is uninformed by worker experience. Lacking structures for modiﬁcation, these agencies are characterized by slow change and by frustration and resistance within the staff” (Cohen & Austin, 1994, p. 1). Some have argued that child welfare agencies are good examples of “street level bureaucracies” (Lipsky, 1980), or organizations in which the frontline workers interact with the public (Smith & Donovan, 2003). Bureaucratic conditions put pressures on best practices at the line level, and frontline workers develop ways to exercise their discretion both in and at the edges of the policy boundaries. Organizational constraints on practice, such as limited timelines, rationed services, and inadequate supervision and management, make it difﬁcult for workers to enact the ideals of the organization (Smith & Donovan, 2003). Supervisors can plan an important role in helping workers ﬁnd ways to exercise discretion and enact best practices at the line level. Positive organizational factors make a real difference in the quality of child welfare practice and in outcomes for children and families. Glisson and Hemmelgarn (1998) found that more positive child welfare organizational climate was associated with improved services and positive changes in children’s functioning. Yoo and Brooks (2005) note that workplace conditions (including the quality of supervision) have an impact on outof-home placement of children. Glisson and Durick (1988) found that characteristics of the organization were the strongest predictors of worker commitment to the job, and that the quality of agency leadership had the strongest impact on commitment. Lewandowski (2003) discovered that a number of organizational factors contribute to worker frustration, and, through frustration, to burnout. Glisson, Dukes, and Green (2006) recently tested the Availability, Responsiveness, and Continuity (ARC) organizational intervention in child welfare and juvenile justice settings using an experimental design. They found that the ARC intervention, which involved organizational change agents working with local teams to reduce barriers to client services and improve organizational climate, reduced the probability of worker turnover by two-thirds, and improved agency climate by reducing role overload, emotional exhaustion, and depersonalization among child welfare workers. The ARC program uses strategies that focus speciﬁcally at the unit level. Most studies of worker retention and job satisfaction ﬁnd that workers feel more positive about the support and competence of their fellow workers and their supervisors than they do about the larger agency (Potter et al., 2007; Strolin et al., 2007). Recent organizational assessments in Colorado, Wyoming, and Arizona found that perceived justice in the organization was the lowest rated measure across the 3-year longitudinal project. Other organizational characteristics, such as opportunities for advancement and the clarity and coherence of the organizational mission, were signiﬁcant predictors of intent to stay (Potter et al., 2007).

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

13

Landsman (2001) found that job satisfaction, commitment to the organization, and commitment to the child welfare ﬁeld in general were distinct constructs for workers. Support from the supervisor and the presence of opportunities to advance were strong predictors of job satisfaction, which in turn predicted commitment to the agency and to the ﬁeld. The degree of agency support for the work was a strong predictor of worker commitment. THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES Federal Policy Guidelines The past few decades have seen unprecedented levels of change in public child welfare. The passage of the 1980 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act is often cited as the beginning of the modern child welfare agency, focused on permanence for children, due process for families, and increased accountability for agencies (McGowan, 2005). This trend toward federal oversight has continued with the relatively recent passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA). All of these laws and the associated implementation policies create mandates for state child welfare practice that set parameters for supervisors and managers. Federal Oversight The federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) program has led states to focus on speciﬁc performance areas and has driven enormous shifts in how workers and supervisors address and document their work (Courtney, Needell, & Wulcyn, 2004). The CFSR reviews monitor child safety, permanence, and well-being outcomes relative to established federal standards. These reviews include speciﬁc case reviews as well as examinations of the organizational environments relative to training and other systems. Like other federally monitored outcomes programs, such as No Child Left Behind, the CFSR process sets a framework for data requirements to monitor state performance. These data elements then become the indicators that managers use to guide and evaluate agency interventions. These indicators may not, however, be adequate measures of system performance, and states that limit their use of data to the CFSR elements may be missing opportunities to track important trends (Courtney et al., 2004). Data and Outcomes Child welfare supervisors are increasingly required to use data to organize and support their work. Yet many supervisors entering a state’s special training on data use approached the training with antipathy toward data and little conviction of its managerial use (Moore, Rapp, & Roberts, 2000.) Moore et al. note that “three interdependent factors that facilitate

14

child welfare supervision

the use of outcome data are well-constructed reports, an organizational culture that supports learning and outcome achievement, and managerial skills in interpreting data and taking relevant action” (p. 475). Since many supervisors move to their positions from the caseworker ranks, it is important that supervisors have opportunities to develop these skills early in their supervisory careers. It is also important that child welfare organizations work to create internal cultures that support constructive uses of data to improve practice (Moore et al., 2000). Privatization and Managed Care The structure for provision of child welfare services varies across the nation, with some states providing most services directly and others working primarily through partnerships with private agencies (U.S. GAO, 2003). While the term “managed care” is not commonly used in child welfare, many approaches to privatization, especially those related to outof-home care, have been built on managed-care principles, which pose some challenges for low-resource systems even as they support stronger commitment to evidence-based practice (Embry, Buddenhagen, & Bolles, 2000). In 1999, 59% of 49 states surveyed reported at least one such initiative under way (McCullough & Schmitt, 2000). Implementation of these managed-care and privatization initiatives causes signiﬁcant impact on the public agency and the partnering private agencies and has implications for management skills in both settings (McBeath & Meezan, 2006). Supervisors may have responsibilities for overseeing external providers that are under contract, in addition to supervising employees directly. Alternatively, supervisors may supervise privatized work indirectly, as they support workers who must monitor the performance of contract agencies and workers. Service environments that include extensive privatization and managed-care approaches require skills in performance contracting, performance management, and case management, and are more complex than supervising individuals in a single-agency context. A LESSON FROM THE FIELD What makes a good child welfare supervisor? The authors of the subsequent chapters in this book present a number of important areas of knowledge and skill. Taken together, we argue that strong skills in these areas will help a supervisor be a good supervisor. But knowledge and skill aren’t everything that is needed in child welfare settings. As for the intangibles, it may be interesting to consider the perspectives of committed survivors— workers, supervisors, and administrators who stay and thrive in child welfare settings (Westbrook et al., 2006). Workers with higher job commitment have long been thought to be at higher risk of emotional exhaustion (Jayaratne, Himle, & Chess, 1991), and some studies have found that, paradoxically, workers with high job satisfaction also have high levels of emotional exhaustion (Silver et al.,

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

15

1997; Stalker et al., 2007). Westbrook et al. (2006) discussed this phenomenon with a sample of committed, yet exhausted, child welfare professionals from all levels of the organization (see Box 1.2). These committed survivors identiﬁed three primary factors that promote commitment to a long-term career in child welfare: 1) opportunities for movement in the agency and community—that is, the ability to switch roles over a career; 2) the importance of strong leadership and support from supervisors and local managers; and 3) the importance of preparing, educating, mentoring, and supporting new workers.

Box 1.2

Committed Survivors

Westbrook, Ellis, and Ellett (2006) interviewed “committed survivors,” (supervisors, administrators, and workers) in individual and focus group settings, as part of a larger study of child welfare workers. These committed workers differed from the general group of workers in terms of their engagement and involvement. Committed survivors were highly engaged in discussion with researchers and with each other, openly sharing experiences and speaking in voices from various vantage points in their career (worker, supervisor, administrator). They were polite and courteous to each other. They were calm, less emotionally charged, and more reﬂective than other workers. Committed survivors named the following characteristics as essential to building a career in child welfare: • • • • • • • • • •

Possession of efﬁcient time management and organizational skills An open, non-judgmental attitude Self conﬁdence Personal commitment (to clients and the larger profession) Compassion combined with ﬁrmness Intuition (thinking on one’s feet) Strong self-efﬁcacy beliefs An ability to be both a team player and to work independently An ability to “make your needs known” The enjoyment of problem solving

An ability to “keep things in proper perspective,” especially separating and balancing work and personal life, was also seen as critical, along with: • “Personal ﬂexibility in thinking . . . enjoy[ing] the gray areas in which decisions are not clear cut” • Using a sense of humor as a primary means of coping with stress • Enjoying the variety and unpredictability of child welfare practice • Viewing the work as a “mission” or a “calling” Reﬂection Questions • How do these attributes describe committed child welfare professionals you have known? • Do these attributes describe important characteristics of supervisors, in your view? • Are committed survivors “made” or “born” in your view? • What role do supervisors play in promoting “committed surviving”? Source: Westbrook et al. (2006, pp. 50–51).

16

child welfare supervision MODELS FOR SUPERVISION

In Chapter 2, Charmaine Brittain reviews the literature on models of supervision, examining models from the social-work and larger humanservices literature. Included is a discussion on the importance of developing a personal model for supervision practice. Multiple models are explored to chart the supervisory territory and help supervisors determine the components of a model that best ﬁts their approach to practice. SUPERVISOR ROLES Child welfare supervisors ﬁnd themselves working in multiple roles with their workers, peers, and the larger agency. In the balance of the book, we explore these roles more fully. The following is an introduction to these important areas. The child welfare supervisor is a leader and a manager. In Chapter 3, Gary Anderson discusses attributes of supervisory leadership in child welfare organizations. These include communicating purpose and meaning for the work, providing a strong ethical example, stimulating creative thinking and problem solving, building a climate that promotes highquality work, and creating a “culture of caring” (Collins & Porras, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). In Chapter 4, Jean East and Michele Hanna examine crucial management skills, introduce a management assessment model, and speciﬁcally focus on planning, communication, and decisionmaking skills in the child welfare environment. We then focus on the supervisor in the agency, beginning with a central supervisor role: managing a unit of workers. The unit system is an important and somewhat unique attribute of child welfare agencies. In Chapter 5, Michele Hanna directs our attention to the speciﬁc leadership and management skills involved in supervising a child welfare unit. Managing work groups requires skills that are similar, yet somewhat different, from managing individuals or teams of individuals. These skills include managing group development, managing turnover, understanding group roles, and managing both supervisor–supervisee relationships and intergroup relationships. Speciﬁc skills in areas such as meeting and workload management are also addressed. The child welfare supervisor works across levels of the organization, including relating to middle managers and work beyond the agency with community partners. In Chapter 6, Becky Antle, Anita Barbee, and Michiel van Zyl focus on the middle management role in child welfare. Child welfare supervisors may take on middle management tasks in some agencies, and they most often report to middle managers. The ability to take a middle management perspective is a crucial skill for supervisors in their daily work. Mastery of a middle management perspective is important for supervisors who wish to advance in the agency. Supervisors work extensively with other supervisors and managers in the child welfare agency and

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

17

interact with the larger community of child- and family-serving professionals and general community members. In Chapter 7, Katharine Cahn focuses on skills needed to work at the intersections of unit and agency and those of agency and community, including approaches to assessing the environment and skills for developing effective relationships and community partnerships. These skills are discussed in the context of the many practice initiatives in child welfare that require strong community collaboration components. In all of these agency roles, the child welfare supervisor manages change in a constantly changing environment. Both planned changes and unplanned changes are common in child welfare organizations. Supervisors often have responsibility for communicating, implementing, and monitoring changes (Lawson, 2006). In Chapter 8, Katharine Cahn and David Berns introduce important concepts regarding the dynamics of change and detail seven important aspects of the child welfare supervisor’s role in managing change. The ﬁnal section of the book focuses on the supervisor’s roles with individual child welfare workers. The child welfare supervisor holds a pivotal role in promoting diversity in the workplace. In Chapter 9, Debora Ortega and Debra Mixon Mitchell examine approaches to multiculturalism and their applications to child welfare. The chapter also takes an in-depth look at skills associated with intercultural communication and the effective use of these skills in supervisor–supervisee relationships and in managing diverse teams. Child welfare supervisors have tremendous inﬂuence on recruiting, selecting, and retaining the best child welfare workers. The quality of supervision is known to be an important factor in retention of the best child welfare workers (Strolin et al., 2007). In Chapter 10, Nancy Dickinson and Anne Comstock present a wealth of information on effective recruitment, selection, and retention strategies for child welfare supervisors. The child welfare supervisor has an important role in developing worker competence and in providing clinical supervision. The supervisor is responsible for knowing best practices in child welfare across multiple types of maltreatment and using this knowledge to support the practice of the workers she supervises. In Chapter 11, Cathryn Potter and Charmaine Brittain examine learning organizations and individual learning styles, take a developmental perspective to understanding worker learning, and elaborate on supervisory skills related to the interface between formal training opportunities and supervisory mentoring and coaching roles. In Chapter 12, Sarah Ferguson provides an important discussion of the skills speciﬁc to clinical consultation, with emphasis on the process, content, and phases of clinical supervision. Child welfare supervisors manage performance of their workers. In Chapter 13, Megan Paul, Michelle Graef, Erika Robinson, and Kristin

child welfare supervision

18

Box 1.3

Thinking Ahead

Gina has been a supervisor for 5 years now. She is considering applying for the child welfare administrator position in a neighboring county, but isn’t sure that she is ready for that. She might want to try her hand at supervising an ongoing, family intervention unit to broaden her skills. In any case, she is ready for some new experiences and to develop new skills. She attends the weekly supervisor meeting and the usual set of familiar and unfamiliar items are addressed: old annoyances requiring new solutions, new policies, new opportunities, and colleagues with familiar and new perspectives. Gina knows she is one of the informal leaders of this group. She isn’t easily irritated or worried. She likes problem solving and enjoys the fast pace of the work. She can use humor to diffuse situations and can confront her peers when needed without breaking relationships. Gina knows her job is stressful, and she knows how to manage that for herself. She wouldn’t trade it for an easier, more boring job. She is a committed survivor. As the meeting breaks up, she and her colleague Tamara pass a note to a new supervisor who is attending her ﬁrst meeting of the group. They look forward to supporting Lavonne in her new role.

Saathoff walk us through the processes and skills needed for effective performance management, including developing and communicating performance standards, monitoring and documenting performance, analyzing and addressing performance problems, and working with human resources systems. All of these skills are grounded in an understanding of the relevant legal frameworks involved in performance management. CONCLUSION Child welfare supervisors play a pivotal role in child welfare agencies. Some of the most competent of the “committed survivors” may be found among them (see Box 1.3). The evidence is clear that their performance impacts the performance, commitment, and job satisfaction of the workers that report to them. Supervisors make a difference for families served in child welfare. Supervisors also play a major role in creating and sustaining agency cultures that have been linked to positive client outcomes. They are important leaders and managers, working in the agency and community in a number of roles and using a wide variety of organizational skills. This book is designed to introduce supervisors to some of these roles and skills. No book is exhaustive as to the important issues, and no book is a substitute for strong mentoring and good practice experience! We hope, however, that the following chapters will stimulate your thinking and provide new ideas for how to advance your skills in supervision. REFERENCES

American Public Human Services Association. (2005). Report from the 2004 child welfare workforce survey: State agency ﬁndings. Washington, DC: Author.

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

19

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2003). The unsolved challenge of system reform: The condition of the frontline human services workforce. Baltimore, MD: Author. Brownlee, R. (2002). Recruitment and retention study: Supervisor survey. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas, Little Rock, Midsouth. California Social Work Education Center. (2005). The 2004 California public child welfare workforce study. Berkeley, CA: Author. Cearly, S. (2004). The power of supervision in child welfare services. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(5), 313–327. Chambers, R., & Potter, C. (2008). The match between families needs and services for high risk neglecting families. Public Child Welfare, 2(2), 229-252. Child Welfare League of America. (2001). The child welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study. Washington, DC: Author. Cohen, B. J., & Austin, M. J. (1994). Organizational learning and change in a public child welfare agency. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 1–19. Coleman, D., & Clark, S. (2003). Preparing for child welfare practice: Themes, a cognitive affective model, and implications from a qualitative study. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 83–96. Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built to last. New York: Harper Business/Collins. Cornerstones for Kids. (2006). The human services workforce initiative. Houston, TX: Author. Courtney, M., Needell, B., & Wulcyn, F. (2004). Unintended consequences of the push for accountability: The case of national child welfare performance standards. Children and Youth Services Review, 6(12), 1141–1154. Dane, B. (2000). Child welfare workers: An innovative approach for interacting with secondary trauma. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(1), 27–38. Drake, B., & Yadama, G. N. (1996). A structural equation model of burnout and job exit among child protective services workers. Social Work Research, 20(3), 179–187. Eamon, M. K., & Kopels, S. (2004). “For reasons of poverty”: Court challenges to child welfare practice and mandated programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(9), 821–836. Ellett, A. J., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003). A study of personal and organizational factors contributing to employee retention and turnover in child welfare in Georgia. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, School of Social Work. Embry, R. A., Buddenhagen, P., & Bolles, S. (2000). Managed care and child welfare: Challenges to implementation. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(2), 93–116. Fraser, M. W. (2004). Intervention research in social work: Recent advances and continuing challenges. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(3), 210–222. Garbarino, J., & Kostelny, K. (1992). Child maltreatment as a community problem. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(4), 455–464. Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(8), 855–880. Glisson, C., & Durick, M. (1988). Predictors of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in human service organizations. Administrative Quarterly, 33(1), 61–81. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401–421.

20

child welfare supervision

Grifﬁn, C., & Shiell, D. (2003). Improving clinical supervisory practice in front line CPS supervisors: A mentoring model. Professional Development, 6(1/2), 52–56. Horejsi, C., Garthwait, C., & Rolando, J. (1994). A survey of threats and violence directed against child protection workers in a rural state. Child Welfare, 73(2), 173–179. Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. A. (1984). Job satisfaction, burnout and turnover: A national study. Social Work, 29(5), 448–453. Jayaratne, S., Himle, D. P., & Chess, W. A. (1991). Job satisfaction and burnout: Is there a difference? Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 15(2), 245–262. Jones, J., & Gallop, L. (2003). No time to think: Protecting the reﬂective space in children’s services. Child Abuse Review, 12(2), 101–106. Jones, J. L., Alexander, M. D., & Patterson, N. M. (2003). The Tennessee child protective services supervisors development project. Professional Development, 6(1/2), 74–78. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Landsman, M. (2001). Commitment in public child welfare. Social Service Review, 75(3), 386–418. Landsman, M. (2007). Supporting child welfare supervisors to improve worker retention. Child Welfare, 86(2), 105–124. Lawson, H. A. (2006). Possible frameworks for research on workforce optimization and stabilization. Unpublished manuscript. Lewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational factors contributing to worker frustration: The precursor to burnout. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(4), 175–185. Light, P. C. (2003, March). The health of the human services workforce. New York: Brookings Institution Center for Public Services and New York University, Center for Public Service. Littlechild, B. (2005). The nature and effects of violence against child protection social workers: Providing effective support. British Journal of Social Work, 35(3), 387–401. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage. Luongo, G. (2007). Rethinking child welfare training models to achieve evidencebased practices. Administration in Social Work, 31(2), 87–96. McBeath, B., & Meezan, W. (2006). Nonproﬁt adaptation to performance-based, managed care contracting in Michigan’s foster care system. Administration in Social Work, 30(2), 39–70. McCullough, C., & Schmitt, B. (2000). Managed care and privatization: Results of a national survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(2), 117–130. McGowan, B. (2005). Historical evolution of child welfare services. In G. P. Mallon & P. M. Hess (Eds.), Child welfare for the twenty-ﬁrst century: A handbook of practices, policies, and programs (pp. 10–48). New York: Columbia University Press. Moore, T., Rapp, C., & Roberts, B. (2000). Improving child welfare performance through supervisory use of client outcome data. Child Welfare, 79(5), 475–487. Mor Barak, M. E., Levin, A., Nissly, J. A., & Lane, C. J. (2006). Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare workers’ turnover intentions. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(5), 548–577.

Child Welfare Supervision: An Overview

21

Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661. Pecora, P. J., Dodson, A. R., & Teather, E. C. (1983). Assessing worker training needs: Use of staff surveys and key informant interviews. Child Welfare Journal, 62(5), 395–407. Potter, C., Comstock, A., & Brittain, C. (2007). Find them and keep them: Recruitment and retention in child welfare. Findings from the Western Regional Recruitment and Retention Project. Presentation to the 16th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Portland, OR. Potter, C., & Klein-Rothschild, S. (2002). Getting home on time: Factors predicting timely permanence for young children. Child Welfare, 131(2), 23–50. Preston, M. S. (2004). Mandatory management training for newly hired child welfare supervisors: A divergence between management research and training practice. Administration in Social Work, 28(2), 81–98. Preston, M. S. (2005). Child welfare management training: Towards a pedagogically sound curriculum. Administration in Social Work, 29(4), 89–111. Pryce, J. G., Shackelford, K. K., & Pryce, D. H. (2007). Educating child welfare workers about secondary traumatic stress. In J. G. Pryce, K. K. Shackelford, & D. H. Pryce (Eds.), Secondary traumatic stress and the child welfare professional. Chicago: Lyceum Books. Raukitis, M. E., & Koeske, G. (1994). Maintaining social worker morale: When supportive supervision is not enough. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 39–59. Regehr, C., Leslie, B., Howe, P., & Chau, S. (2002). An exploration of supervisors’ and managers’ responses to child welfare reform. Administration in Social Work, 26(3), 17–36. Rushton, A., & Nathan, J. (1996). The supervision of child protection work. British Journal of Social Work, 26(3), 357–374. Rycraft, J. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75–80. Scannapieco, M., & Connell-Clark, K. C. (2002). Understanding child maltreatment: An ecological and developmental perspective. New York: Oxford. Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 409–427. Silver, P. T., Poulin, J. E., & Manning, R. C. (1997). Surviving the bureaucracy: The predictors of job satisfaction for the public agency supervisor. Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 1–20. Smith, B. D. (2005). Job retention in child welfare: Effects of perceived organizational support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job value. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(2), 153–169. Smith, B. D., & Donovan, S. E. F. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541–563. Spratt, T. (2001). The inﬂuence of child protection orientation on child welfare practice. British Journal of Social Work, 31(6), 933–954. Stalker, C. A., Mandell, D., Frensch, K. M., Harvey, C., & Wright, M. (2007). Child welfare workers who are exhausted yet satisﬁed with their jobs: How do they do it? Child and Family Social Work, 12(2), 182–191.

22

child welfare supervision

Strand, V. C., & Badger, L. (2005). Professionalizing child welfare: An evaluation of a clinical consultation model for supervisors. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(8), 865–880. Strolin, J. S., McCarthy, M., & Caringi, J. (2007). Causes and effects of child welfare workforce turnover: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(2), 29–52. U.S. Government Accounting Ofﬁce (GAO). (1995). Child welfare: Complex needs strain capacity to provide services. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accounting Ofﬁce (GAO). (1997). Child protective services: Complex challenges require new strategies. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Government Accounting Ofﬁce (GAO). (2003). Child welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child welfare agencies recruit and retain staff. Washington, DC: Author. Vinokur, K. D., Jayaratne, S, & Chess, W. A. (1994). Job satisfaction and retention of social workers in public agencies, non-proﬁt agencies, and private practice: The impact of workplace conditions and motivations. Administration in Social Work, 18(3), 93–121. Westbrook, T. M., Ellis, J., & Ellett, A. J. (2006). Improving retention among public child welfare workers: What can we learn from the insights and experiences of committed survivors? Journal of Administration in Social Work, 30(4), 37–62. Yoo, J. (2002). The relationship between organizational variables and client outcomes: A case study in child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 26(2), 39–61. Yoo, J., & Brooks, D. (2005). The role of organizational variables in predicting service effectiveness: An analysis of a multilevel model. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(4), 267–277.

2 MODELS OF SOCIAL WORK SUPERVISION C HARMAINE R. B RITTAIN

hild welfare supervision models reﬂect the nature of social work itself; C they come from a blending of models from various disciplines, which result in models compatible with the nature of child welfare supervision. As social work and, more speciﬁcally, child welfare has become more professional and standardized rather than ad hoc, so has supervisory practice. This chapter explores models of supervision that may help to guide such practice. Models help us make sense of our world by providing a framework for explaining behavior, phenomena, or objects. A model makes generalizations about observations of events or behavior and consists of an interrelated, coherent set of ideas and concepts that coalesce to promote understanding of events or behavior and thus offer implications for a course of action. Use of a model provides a broader understanding of supervision so that the practice of supervision can occur more effectively (Kadushin, 1976; Tsui, 2005). A model is distinguished from a philosophy of practice, which is a supervisor’s personal and professional integrated belief system that guides both supervisory and case practice (Munson, 2002). In this chapter, we present brief information about various models that guide social work supervision, to provide grounding for our understanding of supervision in child welfare. A fuller and more thorough analysis can be found in Tsui (2005) or Kadushin and Harkness (2002).

23

24

child welfare supervision MODELS OF SUPERVISION Functional Approach to Supervision

In 1976, Alfred Kadushin published his seminal book on supervision in social work, in which he established a typology for understanding supervision in social work that derived from the origins of the social work profession and has subsequently been used as a foundation by other authors (see Tsui, 2005; Munson, 2002; Hawkins & Shohet, 2000). The genesis of social work and, subsequently, social work supervision occurred in the latter half of the 19th century and initially resulted from the efforts made by the Charity Organization Societies movement when volunteer “visitors” were sent to families in need (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Tsui, 2005). These societies later evolved into what we understand to be the many threads of the social work profession today, ranging from care of the elderly (now known as gerontology), to work with impoverished families (today’s family and economic support agencies), to removal of children in cases of child maltreatment (our current child welfare system). During this nascent stage, supervisors directed trained “volunteers” to go and visit persons and families in need. The supervisor’s role was to provide administrative oversight, prepare the volunteers for their experience, support them when they returned to process their visit, and then help to arrange for the family’s needs within the social and ﬁscal constraints of the time (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Kadushin and Harkness (2002) note that from a historical perspective, supervision has always embodied three functional roles that were not labeled as such, but are inherent in the functional activities of supervision: • Administrative supervision focuses on the efﬁcient and effective delivery of services to achieve organizational goals. • Educational supervision is concerned with educating the worker for a more knowledgeable and skilled performance of tasks. • Supportive supervision provides support, sustenance, and motivation to the worker to improve performance.

Kadushin (1976) compared social work supervision to that of a threelegged stool, with each component being essential to effective supervision. Together, the components provide a unifying framework for supervision; each “leg,” or supervisory function, is distinct and necessary, and complements the other legs. Balance is everything: if one leg of the stool is broken or uneven, then the whole stool will falter and come crashing to the ground. Kadushin (1976) painted this ideal picture of how social work supervision should be performed in order to compare it to the reality of practice and more easily recognize strengths as well as make adjustments when appropriate. In fact, much of supervision takes place within the overlap of these supervisory functions (Hawkins & Shohet, 2000). Consider just one

Models of Social Work Supervision

25

interaction between a supervisor and worker: a supervisor sits down with his or her new worker to teach about client interactions (educational supervision). While doing this, the supervisor is also supporting the worker in an effort to reduce potential stress (supportive supervision) and reinforcing agency policy for client interaction (administrative supervision). Supervisors must enforce agency policies and procedures, but in order to ensure compliance, workers must be taught about the speciﬁcs of those policies and procedures and feel motivated and supported to do their jobs well. To effectively manage the workload, workers need knowledge and skills as well as support. Each of the types of supervision draws strength from the others; when workers have learned their jobs effectively and feel supported, they perform more autonomously and effectively. All supervisory functions are necessary components, and a missing leg on this threelegged stool will cause the whole structure to collapse. Administrative Supervision The primary goal of administrative supervision is to ensure adherence to agency policy and procedure in order to achieve agency goals and vision (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). If that is the goal, then the primary issue to be addressed in administrative supervision is the lack of adherence to agency policy and procedure. Administrative supervisors are responsible for organizing the workplace and work environment and managing the functioning of human resources within the unit. Most important, the supervisor’s role is to communicate the agency’s vision and mission, operationalize them, and continuously monitor whether the vision and mission are achieved (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Supervisors help to make sense of the larger environment so that workers understand their roles within the agency. Within administrative supervision, tasks include the following (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • • • • • • • •

Recruiting and selecting staff Operationalizing the vision Leading the unit Managing the workload Assessing unit performance Analyzing data and other forms of information Monitoring, reviewing, and evaluating work Communicating with staff and upper management Advocating with the community and other areas of the agency Managing change

Educational Supervision Educational supervision is about teaching workers the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to perform the job and helping them integrate these factors into daily practice. In educational supervision, the primary goal is to increase knowledge and skills, and the main issue to address is

child welfare supervision

26

lack of knowledge or skill or both, resulting in poor or inadequate performance. The goal of educational supervision is to ensure that case practice is consistent and based on agency policies and best-practice standards. A more consistent approach to casework improves the likelihood of consistent decisions and the application of similar interventions, thus achieving the agency’s goals. Because good casework is based on research and bestpractice approaches, when workers approach each case in a similar fashion, grounded in similar values and with a uniform perspective, then desired outcomes are more likely to be achieved. The activities or tasks associated with the educational aspect of supervision include the following (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • • •

Orienting new employees Teaching workers about the job Facilitating learning Helping workers develop professionally Facilitating professional growth and development

Some methods for conducting these teaching tasks are listed below (Brittain, 2005): • One-on-one coaching with the worker • Scheduling structured supervision time • Providing information on professional-development opportunities • Mentoring staff • Training a class or encouraging or arranging for staff to attend training • Engaging in “doorway” consultations, e.g., providing informal times when supervisors answer questions and provide case-speciﬁc guidance • Helping workers make decisions • Evaluating casework for strengths and needs • Helping workers solve problems • Assessing compliance with policy • Providing quality assurance • Guiding best-practice activities

Supportive Supervision Supportive supervision is the ﬁnal component of Kadushin’s three-legged supervision model. Within supportive supervision, the supervisor acts as team leader, head cheerleader, and “stress manager” for the unit to improve morale and job satisfaction for the worker that in turn beneﬁts the agency. The supervisor’s role is to help ensure that staff members are managing

Models of Social Work Supervision

27

the challenges of the job and the resulting stress so that they ﬁnd satisfaction with their job and remain motivated and committed to achieving positive outcomes with their clients. As already stated, to perform well, workers must understand the task and know what is expected of them in their positions. They must also have the abilities to do the job. However, a worker can be clear about the task and have the knowledge and skills necessary, but not be motivated to perform the duties of that position. Through supportive supervision, the supervisor helps each worker ﬁnd the motivation that provides the emotional energy to keep coming to work and maintaining commitment to the agency and the ﬁeld. During supportive supervision, the supervisor provides the following (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • • • • •

Reassurance Encouragement Recognition of achievement Expressions of conﬁdence Approval Attentive listening Stress and tension management strategies for the individual and unit

Some disagreement remains about which supervisory function came ﬁrst, administrative or educational (Tsui, 2005). More interesting from a historical perspective is how these roles came to take on more or less importance from the supervisor’s perspective. At one point during the early 20th century, schools of social work came to assume more responsibility for the educational function of preparing social workers for their jobs, thus directing the supervisor away from responsibility for this function. Later in the century, social work training in the agency gained more prominence, especially as workers were recruited from disciplines outside of social work. Since the 1980s and the welfare reform movement, accountability has moved to the forefront of the collective social work consciousness and drives much of the administrative role. Today, social work supervisors are more cognizant of the balance between each of the functions—administrative, educational, and supportive—although more emphasis is still placed on the administrative function (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Munson (2002, p. 16) states, more simply, that supervisors must “know what to read, what and how to write, what and how to watch, what to say, and how to say, and how to listen.” All supervisory activities can be boiled down to these basic tasks, and despite their seemingly simplistic nature, therein lies the challenge of providing outstanding supervision. Munson’s approach to supervision is described later in this chapter. These are the actions conducted by the supervisor, but a different set of models focuses on the fact that these actions are performed within an interpersonal context.

28

child welfare supervision INTERACTIONAL PROCESS MODELS

A second supervision model focuses on the interactional nature of supervision—that is, the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee, as the center for intervention and action. These models can be divided into three threads or types. Developmental supervision takes the supervisee’s tenure with the job as an orienting principle. Models of interpersonal supervision focus on the interpersonal relationship between and the corresponding motivations of the supervisor and the supervisee. In the third thread, the contextual approach, many of the previous models are woven together to create a contextual understanding of the supervisory relationship. Developmental Supervision A developmental approach to supervision focuses on the worker’s stage of employment within the job. The literature and our own experiences tell us that there are differences in supervision, depending on the amount of experience the supervisee brings to the job (Watson, 1973; Kaslow, 1977; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Tsui, 2005). Brand-new workers require more intensive supervision, while those with more experience move to increasing levels of professional autonomy. This is not unlike child development: at the beginning, just like children, workers have a great deal of dependence. As they mature in their positions, they become increasingly interdependent and then independent—that is, they rely less on their supervisors and coworkers and work more autonomously. Workers always need supervision, but the type of supervision will change over time. A worker’s developmental stage dictates the frequency and nature of the supervisory event. Thus, the supervisory experience should accommodate these differences so that the needs and the expectations of both the supervisor and supervisee are met. According to Hawkins and Shohet (2000), the stages of worker development are as outlined below. Level 1: Self-centered—This stage is characterized by a strong dependence on the supervisor on all aspects related to the job. New workers are often anxious and uncertain of their abilities and depend on the supervisor for guidance in making most decisions. Level 2: Client-centered—Workers at this stage display more conﬁdence but will alternate between dependence and autonomy. Some decision making is done on their own, but they will often check in with supervisors. Level 3: Process-centered—Workers display increased independence and self-conﬁdence at this stage. They are able to better understand their clients within a context and meet the needs of clients without ﬁrst checking in with their supervisors.

Models of Social Work Supervision

29

Level 4: Process-in-context-centered—Workers at this stage have mastered their jobs and are typically autonomous and conﬁdent in their abilities to work with clients. They typically have a great deal of practice wisdom to offer and, in fact, often become supervisors themselves at this point. The supervisor’s role with workers at this stage is to encourage continued professional development and help reduce their stress and burnout.

Similarly, the notion of progressive stages also applies to a supervisor’s own development and is typically characterized by beginning, middle, and later career stages. As supervisors mature, their focus shifts from being on their own needs to being on those of their supervisees and clients. Skills are integrated into unconscious competence; they are effortlessly practiced without the need to think through various steps and guidelines. In this later career stage, which often takes many years to achieve, supervisors have acquired a high degree of practice and agency wisdom, which indicates strong professional identity, autonomy, and competence (Tsui, 2005). Just as supervisors acknowledge and embrace their workers’ own development, so should they embrace their own. Such development occurs by consciously doing activities to promote their own maturity or by going to their own supervisors to ask for guidance. For example, a newer supervisor may seek multiple opportunities to learn new skills such as management and case consultation, while a more seasoned supervisor may look for more advanced skills such as using new practice modalities or for learning opportunities that ﬁne-tune supervision skills. In this way, the developmental wheel continues to turn so that supervisors and workers achieve incremental success in their careers. Interpersonal Supervision Models Another set of models is more concerned with the interpersonal nature of supervision and is closely connected to the psychoanalytical and psychological ﬁelds. Carroll (2001) has called the primary component of supervision the “relationship between,” and emphasis should be placed on nurturing and promoting it for improved supervision. In these models, tasks are subordinate to the process of supervision. Thus, the focus of analyzing supervision and improving it is through the relationship between the supervisor and worker and, for some models, extends to other relationships as well. A strong supervisor–worker relationship leads to a healthy supervisory experience; conversely, a negative or strained relationship will impinge upon the integrity of the relationship. Psychoanalytic theory is one framework or lens that can be used to view all types of human interactions—between clients, workers, or supervisors. Through this lens, the supervisor–supervisee relationship is paramount and deﬁnes the outcomes of supervision. Successful supervision results from a supervisory process that embodies the characteristics of a

30

child welfare supervision

good relationship and considers all aspects that contribute to that relationship. Munson (2002) calls this an “interactional perspective” to supervision, as it focuses on the variable interactions between the supervisor and supervisee as dictated by the current situation and reﬂects a reciprocal process. The supervision process offers a chance for the supervisor and supervisee to analyze the therapy session between the client and the worker (supervisee), or as Abroms (1977) has described it, to practice “metatherapy.” Issues to address in supervision include the working alliance, the transpersonal relationship transference, countertransference, and the acting out of behaviors. While different from therapy, supervision is similarly structured (Hewson, 2001; Melchiode, 1977). A clinical approach to supervision draws on these psychoanalytic roots to inform consultations regarding the psychosocial situations of clients and the impact on case progress. Interpersonal models focus on the relationship, and with the aid of other clinical theories can be equally useful for understanding and centering on that relationship. Cognitive and behavioral theories help make sense of the relation between feelings, motivations, and behavior. A systems theory approach focuses on the settings and connections between people and groups (Minushin, 1974). Everything in the environment of a person or entity interacts to form an interrelated whole (Compton & Galloway, 1999). The nature of the interrelationships and settings guides and informs the analysis and indicates potential interventions (Tseng & Seidman, 2007). Wosket and Page (2001) describe the space between the supervisor and supervisee as the “primordial soup” and say that both chaos and creativity exist there. The relationship between the supervisor and supervisee allows for this magical mixture to bubble into a new form that provides meaning to both parties through reﬂection and exploration. Bounding this area is the nature of the relationship, that is, the elements of contract, focus, review, bridge, and space that deﬁne the relationship itself and give it form (Wosket & Page, 2001). Effective supervisory relationships create a “safe” space where chaos is minimized and curiosity and learning ﬂourish. Shulman (1993) builds upon Kadushin’s enjoinment to carry out the functions of supervision in the context of a positive relationship through interactional supervision. Like Munson, his key assumption is that the supervisee plays an important role in the supervisory process via reciprocal relationships between the worker and various individuals and systems such as the agency, colleagues, and clients. In Shulman’s model, the supervisor’s role is to help mediate these relationships and the primary emphasis is on the interactional elements of supervision rather than the functions or tasks that engage the supervisor. Supervisory practice with workers can be divided into four phases: 1) preliminary, 2) beginning, 3) work, and 4) endings and transitions (Shulman, 1993). These phases integrate a developmental approach and indicate the supervisory functions that drive the

Models of Social Work Supervision

31

interactions between the worker and supervisor. Supervisors use speciﬁc skills during supervision (Shulman, 1993): • • • • • • • • •

Sessional tuning-in skills Sessional contracting skills Elaborating skills Empathic skills Skills in sharing their own feelings Skills in making a demand for work Skills in pointing out obstacles Skills in sharing data Sessional ending skills

Supervision, then, becomes the practice of interaction using these highly specialized clinical skills. Relevant to the interpersonal approach to supervision is the concept of “parallel process:” the relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee models the relationship between the worker and client (Shulman, 1993). A supervisory relationship based on mutual trust, openness, and engagement reﬂects a similarly grounded client relationship. A worker in a negative, punitive supervisory relationship, by contrast, will bring that to the client relationship. At issue are the supervisory relationship and the set of collaborative principles and behaviors that guide the nature of that relationship (Orlans & Edwards, 2001). A preferred relationship with a client is built upon trust and embodies respect, genuineness, and empathy; if a parallel process is realized, the supervisor–supervisee relationship would have similar qualities. As in a client relationship, collaboration allows for the development of the supervisory relationship and provides an opportunity for learning within that relationship (Orlans & Edwards, 2001). Carroll (2001) promotes a spirituality toward supervision, so that supervisors not only act in a speciﬁc manner but also truly become what they practice. The “spiritual supervisor” becomes reﬂective; learns and learns how to learn; becomes process oriented; establishes healthy relationships; practices connectedness; and becomes an interior, reﬂective person (Carroll, 2001). Solution-oriented supervision offers a similar interactive model that focuses on the nature of the relationship (Thomas, 1994). Through coaxing, cooperation, and mutual respect, supervisees and supervisors forge a relationship in which they can mutually determine solutions to the issues that arise during clinical work. These orientations blend easily with the interpersonal models of supervision. Hawkins and Shohet (2000) have conceptualized the seven-eyed supervisor model, which moves away from the context of supervision in the larger environment and instead focuses on the process of the supervisory relationship. Their model, directed more toward therapeutic environments, was developed in response to a perceived difference in supervisory

32

child welfare supervision

styles, despite similar contexts, and with the realization that four parties— the supervisor, the worker (labeled “therapist” in their model), the client, and the work context—uniquely interact. These distinct interactions result in different outcomes for each supervisory context. Their model focuses on a therapy matrix consisting of two main categories: the interaction between the worker and the client and the supervisory process between the worker and supervisor. Each of these categories produces three subcategories, or “eyes.” The seventh “eye” focuses on the contextual nature of the work. Differences in supervisory styles occur because of the differing interactions and results of these processes. Furthermore, a supervisor’s personal style as a practitioner impacts how he or she will conduct supervision, e.g., a cognitive-behaviorist may supervise very differently than a psychoanalytic practitioner would, by focusing on actions rather than meaning and motivation. Supervisors constantly make choices about how they will interact with their supervisees, and these choices emanate from the priorities determined by the “seven eyes” of supervision (Hawkins & Shohet, 2000). Speciﬁcally, these seven “eyes” in the Hawkins and Shohet (2000) model are Mode 1: The content of the supervision session—what is happening within the client? Mode 2: Focusing on strategies and interventions—what interventions did the worker employ with clients? Mode 3: Focusing on the therapy relationship—what is the nature of the interaction between the worker and the client? Mode 4: Focusing on the worker’s (therapist’s) process—what internal processes are going on for the worker? Mode 5: Focusing on the supervisory relationship—how is the client’s interaction with the worker impacting the supervisory relationship? Mode 6: Focusing on a supervisor’s own process—what is the supervisor’s own internal process as a result of these interactions? Mode 7: Focusing on the wider context—how are the needs of the wider organizational context impacting the client–worker– supervisor relationships?

These modes interact in a way that deﬁnes the nature of the supervisory relationship between the supervisor and supervisee. The interpersonal models focus on the relationships and the individuals, whereas a contextual approach expands the perspective of inﬂuence. The next section discusses the contextual approach to supervision. Contextual Approach Tsui (2005) has integrated several previously discussed major theoretical models into a coherent and responsive model of supervision that considers

Models of Social Work Supervision

33

CONTEXT

CULTURE Agency (Goals, Structure, & Process)

Policy & Regulation

Supervisor (Roles, Styles, & Skills)

Contract

Supplier/ Consumer Relationship

SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP

Format

Stage

Educational

CULTURE

Worker-client Relationship

Supervisee (Needs & Satisfaction) SOCIAL WORK INTERVENTION

Administrative Functions & Tasks

Client (Problem & Outcome)

SUPERVISORY PROCESS

Supportive

CULTURE

CULTURE

Figure 2.1 A comprehensive model of social work supervision. Source: Tsui (2005). Reprinted with permission.

the contextual nature of the supervisory relationship, including the agency, the supervisor, the supervisee, and the client (see schematic for Tsui’s model in Fig. 2.1). The supervisory relationship and supervisory process are nested within the context of the larger organization and community culture. Tsui designates the supervisor, supervisee, agency, and client as the four corners of the supervisory relationship, and the space between these corners represents the supervisory relationship that is grounded in, and inﬂuenced by, these four parties. Each of the relationships is in turn inﬂuenced by other factors. Agency policies, rules, and practices strongly impact the agency–supervisor relationship while the supervisee–client relationship is inﬂuenced by a professional code of ethics, agency policy, and the worker’s knowledge and skills. The client–agency relationship is an indirect one, since clients’ interaction is with the worker and they typically do not pay for services. Still, they are service consumers who can put pressure on the service provider (the agency) to provide adequate and sufﬁcient services. Other models inﬂuenced Tsui’s conception of the supervisory relationship. Kadushin’s functional areas of supervision, namely administrative, educational, and supportive, are part of the supervisory process between the supervisee and the supervisor, and are ancillary to the major

34

child welfare supervision

role played by culture in inﬂuencing supervision. Similarly, the interpersonal dynamic, or the “relationship between,” is just another component in the process, rather than being central to supervision (Tsui, 2005). Trust between the supervisor and supervisee is the single most important quality for supervisory success because it allows for the development of an interpersonal relationship to deal with those issues central to the model. Relationships are embedded in the supervisory process—that is, the interaction between the supervisor and supervisee (Tsui, 2005). The supervisory process consists of three components: • Supervisory contract—the understanding of each party’s rights and responsibilities. This may take the form of a schedule for meetings and mutually agreed-upon goals, expectations, and tasks. • Format—how supervision is carried out, depending on the culture of the agency, the supervisor’s style and competence, and the worker’s level of autonomy and his or her needs. • Stage (or development)—this speaks to the maturity level of the relationship between the supervisor and the worker, whether it is brand new or a long-established relationship. Each stage has a unique set of characteristics that drive the relationship and set the supervisory goals.

All of these components are nested within the cultural context of the agency, and this most profoundly inﬂuences the relationships, the supervisory process, and the functions of the supervisory relationship. Tsui’s (2005) model is based on seven guiding principles that inform the contextual approach: 1. Supervision is an interpersonal exchange between two or more persons with one person being more experienced and guiding the other to provide services to clients. 2. A supervisor’s goal is to achieve the agency’s objectives. 3. Three types of interpersonal exchange occur and are related to the job’s functions: use of authority (administrative role), exchange of information (educational role), and expression of emotions (supportive role). 4. Supervision should reﬂect the values of the social work profession. 5. Related to the job roles, the supervisor monitors performance; communicates professional values, knowledge, and skills; and offers emotional support. 6. Supervisory effectiveness is evaluated by assessing the worker’s job satisfaction, the worker’s job achievement, and the achievement of agency outcomes.

Models of Social Work Supervision

35

7. Supervision involves four key parties: the agency, the supervisor, the supervisee, and the client. All have a stake in the outcome of supervision (Tsui, 2005).

Tsui’s model goes beyond a traditional, two-way supervisory relationship between supervisor and supervisee to include the agency and the client in the interactional process. This sets up a dynamic that requires a broader understanding of the cultural context in which these relationships occur. While Tsui is not the ﬁrst to discuss context (e.g., Kadushin, 1976), his perspective broadens the emphasis and shifts the focus of supervisory actions. A cultural perspective, or a way of viewing the world, provides deeper insight into the nature of these relationships and their effects upon each other (Tsui, 2005). Supervisors should consider the culture of an agency, for example, whether it is a highly bureaucratic agency or a more ﬂexible environment. Interjection of the supervisors’ own culture and personal value system into the organizational milieu results in even more intricate and intensely unique supervisory relationships. For example, a free-spirited manner of supervision operating in a highly bureaucratic, rigid agency may create sparks. Further, in Tsui’s model, the supervisor considers the client’s perspective and the needs and expectations he or she brings to the process, and then mixes in the worker’s own styles and value system and considers how these might affect not just the client interaction but also the supervisory relationship. In other words, the supervisory relationship contains echoes of all these relationships, personalities, and styles. Thus, the cultural interaction of these four parties provides the context for and strongly inﬂuences the nature of the supervisory relationship. Child welfare itself has some pungent cultural attributes that resonate for all child welfare agencies. By its very nature, it is a strongly bureaucratic culture that places heavy emphasis on accountability because of the kind of work undertaken and the subsequent intense government scrutiny. The client base is typically involuntary, and often represents subcultures that are different from the child welfare workforce. Yet child welfare organizational cultures still vary between child welfare agencies and some of this variability can be explained by the cultures that the supervisor and supervisee bring to the relationship. Tsui uses these principles to build a holistic, contextual approach to supervision. His approach places signiﬁcant emphasis on the parallel processes: the process between the supervisor and supervisee being mirrored by the exchange between the worker and the client. According to Tsui (2005, p. 63), the contextual approach suggests that the physical, interpersonal, cultural, and psychological contexts will greatly inﬂuence the format, structure, content, and even the results of social work supervision. This is why both parties should be contextually sensitive, personally sincere, and psychologically

36

child welfare supervision pleasant. The success of supervision sessions depends on physical comfort, a harmonious relationship, organizational appropriateness, psychological well-being, and cultural sensitivity.

Such an approach also grounds the supervisory relationship in the core values central to the social work profession, such as dignity, recognition of the importance of human relationships, integrity, and competency (National Association of Social Workers, 1999). ADOPTING YOUR OWN FRAMEWORK Multiple models of supervision have been introduced here. While they vary in scope and focus, all share an emphasis on self-awareness about supervisory efforts and consideration of the impact of the supervisory process. Which model is right for you, the reader? The next section explores the application of some of these models to supervisory practice using case examples. Applying Theoretical Models to Case Practice The Case of Ashleigh A supervisor for 5 years, Ashleigh feels like she’s ﬁnally mastered her job as an ongoing supervisor in a large, public child welfare agency. Early on, she attended supervisor core training and took to heart the Kadushin model provided at the training. Many of the strategies she uses on a daily basis had their genesis in that core training. She is mindful of her role as a leader, manager, data analyst, change agent, performance monitor, teacher, mentor, coach, stress-buster, performance monitor, and counselor, to name just a few of the roles she assumes every day. With her own administrator, Ashleigh reﬂects on her own performance within these roles and continually strives for improved performance. Recently, Ashleigh has been dealing with issues related to a worker on her unit, Adolpho. The agency adopted a new approach to family assessment and Adolpho is struggling with the new process and with getting his documentation completed in time. He’s been with the agency 19 months and Ashleigh knows that this is a critical time for him, as he could very well decide whether to leave or stay for the long haul during the next few months. She believes Adolpho offers rich experience and has excellent rapport with clients, so she is doing her best to manage these issues so that he does stay. About 2 months ago, he dealt with a fairly horriﬁc case of child abuse: a 2-year-old child was severely injured and burned by a caretaker. He had made the recommendation that the child be returned home and still questions his decision making in this case. Ashleigh approaches Adolpho’s situation thoughtfully: how can she help him through this hump time, improve his performance, and teach him the knowledge and skills necessary to comply with current agency practice? She goes back to her framework and lists all the activities related to administrative, educational,

Models of Social Work Supervision

37

and supportive supervision that will address Adolpho’s needs, thus improving his well-being, furthering his commitment to the agency, increasing the likelihood of positive outcomes for his clients, and achieving agency goals. The Case of Belinda Belinda proudly considers herself a “spiritual supervisor” and believes spirituality touches all aspects of her supervisory practice. She has a master’s degree in clinical psychology and maintains a small private, clinical practice on the side. Rising from the ranks and having spent 12 years as an ongoing, adoptions, and intensive family worker and now 10 years as a supervisor, she feels conﬁdent in her expertise and abilities. Throughout the agency, she is known for her practice wisdom, and many workers take their most vexing cases to her for consultation. Her approach to supervision is much like her approach to counseling. She sets aside a speciﬁc amount of time, closes the door, and tries to understand the issues from her worker’s perspective as well as consider the client’s situation. She keenly picks up on transference and countertransference issues while building solid relationships with her workers. She aligns with her workers yet challenges them when necessary so that good case decisions are made for her workers and their clients. Now, her new worker, Briana, is worrying her, and she is not sure what to do. Carefully, she analyzes the facts of the situation. Briana has been coming in late, missing her visits, neglecting documentation, and generally drooping around the ofﬁce. Belinda considers Briana’s caseload. Is it too heavy? What are her cases like, and how are they affecting her? She knows that Briana has been assigned several domestic violence cases, one in which a little girl was severely injured. She thinks about Briana’s reaction to the impending new family assessment form and her relationships with her coworkers. Dealing with change has always been a challenge for Briana, who grew up in Bailey, where the agency is located. Belinda sees that all these issues are converging on Briana, and Briana is just not coping well with all these stressors. New changes, particularly in light of so many unresolved issues, seem to be too much for Briana. Belinda decides to sit down with Briana for an intensive discussion about her workload, her reactions, and her relationships, and strategize about ways to cope with all of these situations. Belinda wants to explore transference and countertransference issues that Briana may be experiencing with her clients, in part due to the domestic violence. Belinda feels great that she’s been able to weave through all these dynamics to come up with a plan. The Case of Carlos For Carlos, supervision is all about context. He’s been a supervisor for more than 15 years and prides himself on the rapport he’s built with workers as well as his agency management. He has successfully navigated

child welfare supervision

38

multiple agency changes while maintaining high unit morale and setting a standard for achievement of agency outcomes. His was the ﬁrst unit to achieve the standards set in his state’s PIP (Program Improvement Plan). Carlos encourages continuing professional development for both himself and his workers. Known as a hands-on supervisor, he frequently goes out with his workers on home visits and attends court hearings when time allows. Early in his career, he attended supervisor core training, where he learned about the Kadushin model for supervision, but for him this model was never sufﬁcient. He has always been mindful of the agency and community culture and builds this awareness into his supervisory practice. Now he is challenged by his worker, Chris, who has been with the agency for 5 years and switched to Carlos’s unit about a year ago. Chris was a stipend student and has invested heavily in her career with the agency. Now she’s having multiple issues. For some reason, she can’t seem to master the new family assessment form and her assessments are ﬂat, almost cookie-cutter-like in approach. He knows she’s had some personal issues with a parent passing away, relationship problems, and a recent move, causing her to be frequently late and distracted during work hours. According to their computer system data, she’s also missed several face-toface visits, jeopardizing her compliance with agency expectations as well as her relationships with clients. Time for an intervention, he thinks. First, he has a heart-to-heart talk with her expressing his personal concern for her well-being. Together, they lay out all the issues that have affected her life over the last year and how they’ve affected her work. Chris acknowledges that she just can’t deal with more change right now and says this is why she is struggling with the assessment form. Carlos also ﬁnds out that she’s having problems with her cases involving domestic violence, as they brings up her own history—that is why she missed the face-to-face visits. Together, they develop a plan that will help her perform the functions she is required to carry out, develop her skills in family assessment, and address her emotional issues at this time. Scenario Wrap-Up All of these cases share similar worker and organizational issues and demonstrate strong supervisory practice, yet each worker’s situation was approached in a very different way by three superior supervisors. Ashleigh approached her situation by taking a structural–functional approach to the issues, while Belinda chose a clinical path to understand an interpersonal situation. Carlos’s approach was to look at everything from a contextual standpoint and weigh various factors to develop an intervention strategy that drew upon the methods employed by the other cases. While the approaches were different, all were successful in achieving a positive outcome. These case studies illustrate the practice integrity of using a speciﬁc framework to guide supervision that results in a coherent approach to intervention.

Models of Social Work Supervision

39

Building Your Own Approach Good models offer a holistic perspective for conceptualizing the supervisory process so that both supervisors and supervisees have a common language and a guide through supervision. Models should be grounded in a philosophy of practice so that a cogent approach to all aspects of the supervisor’s practice coalesce in all interactions with the supervisor’s workers, agency, and clients. Such an attentive approach to supervision may also ﬁlter into other areas, like promoting an evidence-based approach to child welfare practice—a must in this era of accountability. Using a supervision model is not the only key to good supervision; rather, it provides a framework for the process and a map for the application of supervisory skills, tasks, and functions (Wosket & Page, 2001). An effective model becomes a vehicle for the supervisor to express his or her own unique personality, abilities, and qualities, as well as a guide for the development of speciﬁc knowledge and skills. That said, supervisors should be ﬂexible in their reliance on models. An effective supervision model should provide just enough in the way of structure and guidance to enable the supervisor to tolerate and work with the unknown and unexpected in supervisees and their clients. An effective model is one that can be tailored to the supervisor’s unique style and character so that it is worn as a closeﬁtting glove that takes on the shape and form of the hand within it, rather than forcing the hand into a crooked or unnatural form (Wosket & Page, 2001, p. 28).

Personal supervisory style—that part of supervision that is unique and creative and not so much bound by formulaic responses or patterns—also differentiates supervisors. Munson (2002, p. 116) describes style as “the patterns we use in attempting to communicate with others.” A personal style is more active when the supervisor is direct with the workers, asks speciﬁc questions, and provides speciﬁc guidance, while a reactive style is more indirect with the use of exploratory questions without any speciﬁc answers (Munson, 2002). Style goes beyond interaction to all aspects of work life, from time management to meeting management. A supervisor’s personality and culture play a role in individual style. Sometimes styles among supervisors and worker click, and sometimes they just miss the mark. An understanding of one’s style enhances learning and improves effectiveness. We encourage the reader to determine the model that best ﬁts your needs, and then adapt it to suit individual supervisory practice and style. As you consider the models, contemplate the following questions: 1. Which model resonates most closely to my own training, values, and personal style? 2. Will the adoption of this model be useful to my practice? (If the answer is no, consider another approach.)

child welfare supervision

40

3. How will I adapt the model to meet the differing needs of my workers? 4. What part of the model should be adapted to ﬁt my own style? 5. How will my supervisory model impact the day-to-day aspects of my job? 6. Within the framework of my chosen model, how will I continue to grow as a supervisor?

We hope these questions will inspire a more thoughtful approach to supervision that is grounded in the use of models, steeped in self-awareness, and welcoming of new knowledge and skill development. A supervisor’s framework for practice guides how he or she applies the tools provided so that supervisory practice becomes an integrated whole. Mindfulness of the supervisory process bridges the gap between structure and creativity in supervision (Munson, 2002). Models provide frameworks for understanding supervisory practice, while creativity and personal style bring together the constellation of behaviors, relationships, and interventions that lead to mastery of supervisory practice. RESOURCES

The following resources may be helpful to the reader. They were retrieved from the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Web site at: http://www. acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/tta/index.htm. Child Welfare Information Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov) is a national service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Welfare Information Gateway consolidates and expands on the services formerly provided by the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information and the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. Child Welfare Information Gateway provides access to print and electronic publications, Web sites, and online databases covering a wide range of child welfare topics, including child abuse prevention, family preservation, foster care, domestic and inter-country adoption, search and reunion, and much more. Child Welfare Information Gateway is the connection to programs, research, statistics, laws and policies, and training resources needed to help professionals protect children and strengthen families in their communities. The National Resource Centers (NRCs) are funded by the Children’s Bureau, within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Each NRC provides on-site training and technical assistance to states, tribes, and public child welfare agencies in the preparation and implementation of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process. State and tribal requests for training and technical assistance are made to regional ACF ofﬁces. For a listing of

Models of Social Work Supervision

41

regional ACF ofﬁces and the states they serve, visit the ACF Web site at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/oro. • The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement (http://www.nrcoi.org) offers technical assistance, training, teleconferences, and publications to assist states with the CFSRs, including strategic planning, quality improvement, evaluation of outcomes, facilitation of stakeholder involvement, and improvement of training and workforce development. • The National Resource Center for Child Protective Services (http://www.nrccps.org) focuses on building state, local, and tribal capacity through training and technical assistance in CPS, including meeting of federal requirements, strengthening of programs, eligibility for the CAPTA grant, support to state liaison ofﬁcers, and collaboration with other NRCs. • The National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues (http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji) offers states assistance with their CFSRs, including the collecting and analyzing of data, legal and judicial issue analysis, promoting of stakeholder involvement, action planning, and implementation of program improvement plans. • The National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning (http://www.nrcfcppp.org) provides training and technical assistance and information services to help states through all stages of the CFSRs. The Center emphasizes family-centered principles and practices and helps states build knowledge of foster care issues. • The National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (http://www.nrccwdt.org) addresses a broad range of program and technical issues (including tribal and court child welfare issues) in assisting with the CFSR process. Services include training on data use and management, assistance with the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), coordination of peer consultation, and preparation and use of state data proﬁles. • The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Adoption (http://www.nrcadoption.org) partners with states, tribes, and other NRCs to offer support in all phases of the CFSR process, including analysis of adoption and permanency options, exploring of systemic factors, increasing of cultural competence, and promotion of stakeholder involvement. • The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development (http://www.nrcys.ou.edu/nrcyd/) provides states with CFSR assistance, including promotion of stakeholder involvement, technical assistance and training, and information services. It also offers states, tribes, and other youth-serving

42

child welfare supervision organizations assistance in effectively implementing the Chafee Foster Care Independence and the Education and Training Voucher programs and supporting youth engagement in child welfare policy, planning, and program development. • The Collaboration to AdoptUsKids (http://www.adoptuskids. org) provides training and technical assistance to states and tribes in connection with the CFSRs on issues that pertain to the development and implementation of quality recruitment and retention services for foster and adoptive families.

The National Resource Center listed below is co-sponsored by the Children’s Bureau and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. • The National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov) works to develop knowledge and provide technical assistance to federal, state, and local agencies and tribes to improve outcomes for families in the child welfare and family court systems who have substance use disorders.

The following two National Resource Centers were established to support statutorily mandated programs and provide services primarily to grantees. • The National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center (http://aia.berkeley.edu) works to enhance the quality of social and health services delivered to children who are abandoned or at risk of abandonment due to the presence of drugs and/or HIV in the family. • The National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs (http://www.friendsnrc.org) offers knowledge and expertise in the implementation of family-support strategies in a variety of settings and for many purposes. It provides CFSR assistance, including building of networks, collection of data, and promotion of stakeholder involvement.

Finally, the Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Health and Human Services has funded a new, national institute focused on the child welfare workforce. • The National Child Welfare Workforce Institute (http:// www.ncwwi.org) provides professional development for child welfare middle managers, supervisors, and social work students entering child welfare practice, as well as numerous practical resources on child welfare workforce issues.

Models of Social Work Supervision

43

REFERENCES

Abroms, G. M. (1977). Supervision as metatherapy. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Supervision, consultation, and staff training in the helping professions (pp. 81–99). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brittain, C. (Ed.) (2005). Supervisory training: Putting the pieces together, Unit I. Denver, CO: Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver. Carroll, M. (2001). The spirituality of supervision. In M. Carroll & M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative approaches to supervision (pp. 76–89). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Compton, B., & Galaway, B. (1999). Social work processes. Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2000). Supervision in the helping professions: An individual, group and organizational approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Hewson, J. (2001). Integrative supervision: Art and science. In M. Carroll & M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative approaches to supervision (pp. 65–75). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Kadushin, A. (1976). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work (4th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Kaslow, F. W. (1977). Future trends. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Supervision, consultation, and staff training in the helping professions (pp. 302–311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Melchiode, G. A. (1977). Psychoanalytically oriented individual therapy. In F. W. Kaslow (Ed.), Supervision, consultation, and staff training in the helping professions (pp. 155–174). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.). New York: Haworth Press. National Association of Social Workers (1999). NASW Code of Ethics. Retrieved May 18, 2007, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp. Orlans, V., & Edwards, D. (2001). A collaborative model of supervision. In M. Carroll & M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative approaches to supervision (pp. 42–49). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Shulman, L. (1993). Interactional supervision. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Thomas, F. (1994). Solution-oriented supervision: The coaxing of expertise. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 2(1), 11–18. Tseng, V., & Seidman, E. (2007). A systems framework for understanding social settings. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 217–288. Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Watson, K. W. (1973). Differential supervision. Social Work, 8(3), 37–43. Wosket, V., & Page, S. (2001). The cyclical model of supervision. In M. Carroll & M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative approaches to supervision (pp. 13–31). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

3 SUPERVISORS AS LEADERS A Critical Dimension for Organizational Success G ARY R. A NDERSON

hen one is asked to identify agency leaders, there is the tendency W to point down the hall to the ofﬁce of the county director, agency executive director, or chief executive ofﬁcer. The titles, salaries, location on the organizational chart, and ofﬁce place and space identify the singular individuals at the top as the leaders of organizations. With a variety of personalities and styles, these leaders are in a powerful position to mobilize other people toward the mission and purpose of the agency. However, limiting one’s view of leadership to the select professionals with executive titles risks missing the potential and organizational social capital present in the leadership opportunities and roles for supervisors. In child and family service agencies, the ability to achieve organizational goals—assuring the safety of children, advancing positive and lasting attachments and permanency, and addressing the well-being of children and their families—is directly linked to an appreciation for, and afﬁrmation of, the leadership capacity and contribution of frontline supervisors. Following a chain of command and hierarchical reporting relationships, child welfare agencies rely on supervisors to orient new workers, convey agency policy, communicate practice principles and protocols, and implement systems of accountability. Often promoted to these positions because of their competence as frontline workers or abilities to implement agency policy with some measure of detail and skill, supervisors might not be prepared for the new tasks, relationships, and purposes that accompany a supervisory position in a social service setting. These settings may have 44

Supervisors as Leaders

45

many characteristics of a bureaucracy, regardless of the agency’s size. The supervisor occupies a position that is central to the maintenance and management of the organization and is thus in a unique spot to provide special leadership. The quality of the casework, the positive outcomes of service delivery, the successful recruitment and retention of workers, and the ability of the organization to function in times of change and stress depend on the recognition, development, and afﬁrmation of supervisors as crucial organizational and community leaders. This chapter will focus on the leadership qualities that are essential attributes for frontline supervisors. Learning about leadership and developing an organizational culture that supports supervisory leadership will be explored. In addition, the critical need to identify, train, and nurture leaders will be discussed. Leadership at the top is essential for adaptation to change and to frame a central sense of purpose for the agency. Additionally, achievement of organizational outcomes through a competent, caring staff that can function with professional skill and wisdom requires supervisors who lead from the middle of the organization, close to the front lines of service delivery. ATTRIBUTES OF SUPERVISORY LEADERSHIP There are often multiple ways that an organization promotes the management responsibilities of a supervisor. Supervisors may have gained their positions because of their abilities to complete necessary documentation and other accountability measures in an accurate, detailed, and timely manner. Consequently, supervisors are responsible for ensuring that workers know agency policy and protocols, as well as policy and protocols in the external organizational environment, such as those of court work. The supervisory experience becomes one of managing case assignments, monitoring paperwork completion, and knowing and following proper procedures. The training of new supervisors may reﬂect this orientation, as a disproportionate amount of time is focused on learning and conveying agency policy. This work corresponds to Kadushin’s (1976) administrative function of supervisors and the multiplicity of supervisory roles (as noted in Chapter 2). The evaluation of supervisors may be based on their achievement of certain types of metrics and milestones regarding accountability, organizational ease, and comfort with the work done in one’s unit. Reports are properly completed! Reports are done on time! Documentation is ﬁled and maintained and quarterly statistics are thorough! The successful completion of management tasks is important for organizational efﬁciency and accountability. Some supervisors make great managers. Still, management and leadership are not identical, and leadership ability is also a necessary attribute for supervisors (Kotter, 1998). Distinctive leadership attributes associated with supervision need to be recognized, nurtured, and promoted within the agency or organization. The literature on organizational leadership identiﬁes multiple attributes

46

child welfare supervision

and descriptors of leaders. While it is often focused on famous people such as Cesar Chavez, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Eleanor Roosevelt, the literature points to attributes of supervisorsas-leaders that draw upon similar qualities (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). These attributes include 1) the supervisor’s opportunity and responsibility to serve as an ethical role model in the manner that one performs work; 2) the ability to communicate a sense of purpose and meaning in one’s work; 3) the ability to stimulate creativity, problem solve, and foster improvement; 4) the supervisor’s support for a climate that fosters collaboration and competence; and 5) the supervisor’s creation of a culture of caring (Collins & Porras, 1997; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). These attributes will be brieﬂy described and explored, as they provide a focus for recognizing and developing supervisory leadership ability. Ethical Behavior as an Attribute of Leadership Recently, a national survey of organizational leaders was conducted, and the respondents were asked to identify the most important attribute that a leader could possess (Covey, 2004). The list of attributes included content expert, able decision maker, visionary, and communicator. The primary attribute identiﬁed in this national survey as the most important quality for leadership was integrity. Integrity can be deﬁned as behaving in a manner that is trustworthy. The supervisor is honest and acts responsibly, modeling the behavior expected of others (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The supervisor is aware of ethical principles and standards, acts in a manner that is consistent with these values and principles, and promotes ethical practice in the organization. The primary goal of supervisors-as-leaders is to be professionals with integrity. Integrity in supervision is displayed through the relationship with the person being supervised: clear, direct, and honest communication with employees, congruence between communication and expectations and performance evaluations, fairness in the evaluation process, and respectful and courteous treatment of employees. Integrity in supervision is also displayed through a supervisor’s relationship with other managers and in relation to the agency and its mission. The supervisor communicates with other managers and accurately and thoughtfully conveys organizational information to employees. Integrity in supervision is also exhibited through adherence to the values and ethical principles associated with professional social work. For example, the supervisor’s goal is to help employees, and through promoting their competence and well-being, help the people in need who are served by the agency. The supervisor is attentive to issues of justice and fairness within the workplace, the broader agency, the community, and through the agency’s service delivery. If necessary, the supervisor challenges examples of social injustice in the workplace and community. The behavior and approach of the supervisor demonstrates respect for the dignity of staff members and human service professionals for whom he or she is responsible.

Supervisors as Leaders

47

The supervisor also displays respect for the children and families served by the agency, as well as the other organizations that work with the agency to accomplish its mission and purpose. The supervisor demonstrates a fundamental understanding and valuing of relationships while addressing management tasks and other organizational responsibilities. This commitment to ethical behavior is further demonstrated by a range of practices and behaviors in the role as supervisor (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 1999). These practices include 1) behaving in a competent manner and promoting competent behavior in one’s fellow professionals; 2) possessing knowledge and understanding of the nature of diversity and cultural competence so that consultation and intervention with employees and direction for clients is in the context of sensitive and thoughtful responsiveness to cultural factors that shape identities, experiences, and outcomes; 3) acknowledging and discerning issues related to conﬂict of interest in the workplace or in the community, with particular sensitivity to dual or multiple relationships; 4) respect for the privacy of individuals, particularly individual staff members and supervisees who conﬁde in one’s supervisor; 5) protecting the conﬁdentiality of written information in relation to human resources and client ﬁles; and 6) maintaining appropriate behavior and social interactions in the workplace and avoiding any semblance of sexual harassment, inappropriate relationships, or impairment. Impairment can take a number of forms, for example, the abuse of substances that incapacitate or compromise the supervisor’s ability to be attentive, focused, and engaged in thoughtful decision making. There are some aspects of leadership that may not rise to the level of ethical consideration but that nonetheless promote positive leadership. Courtesy and politeness may not be ethical imperatives, but modeling of these forms of conduct and communication has a constructive effect on the workplace. To the extent that such behaviors communicate respect, they are linked with the ethical modeling that correlates with effective leadership. Civility, generosity, and a sense of gratitude may not be ethical imperatives, but because they exemplify an attitude of respect and promote a healthy work environment, they are admirable and desirable for an effective work environment. In fact, the type of leadership described as “servant leadership” highlights such traits. Some argue that the humility that motivates and informs these behaviors and identiﬁes this type of leadership is essential for organizational success (Greenleaf, 2002). Persons in supervisory roles are crucial organizational leaders. Because of their positions of responsibility and oversight of professional performance, and given the power inherent in these roles with regard to agency resources, workload, and performance evaluations, supervisors have the ability to promote helpful and healthy work environments or engender personal, professional, and organizational harm. Consequently, the most important attribute an organizational leader and supervisor can have is to act with integrity and behave in an ethical manner on the job. There may not be many moments of high drama when a supervisor’s ethical leadership is tested. However, deception, lying to workers, frequent

child welfare supervision

48

hypocrisy, lack of cultural sensitivity, and selﬁshness are certain to have a highly negative impact on morale, team cohesion, and performance (see Box 3.1). Taking daily opportunities to behave with integrity builds a record of ethical leadership. For example, during individual and group meetings, the supervisor might remind workers of the human value of each person served by the agency. The supervisor could display this humanistic stance through his or her own courteous and respectful behavior toward clients and staff. He or she could take the time to listen to workers, other staff members, and clients. While honestly communicating agency expectations and policy, the supervisor could advocate for the staff, seek to distribute work in an equitable manner, and provide professional autonomy without disengagement. Greenleaf (2002, p. 27) suggests that the supervisor might ask, “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while they are being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? What is the effect on the least privileged in society?” Daily examples of honesty, respect, and fairness underscore the need for consistency and a measure of patience and mercy toward oneself and others. Purposeful Behavior as an Attribute of Leadership Another essential trait of leadership is the ability to communicate a sense of purpose that can enliven, motivate, and guide one’s own behavior and that of one’s supervisees (Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1997; Greenleaf, 2002). This sense of purpose includes knowing, understanding, communicating, and inspiring supervisees to act in accord with the agency’s mission and vision. An agency’s mission typically identiﬁes why an agency exists and its methods of operation or action to accomplish its purpose. The mission statement may identify the persons to be served and the services that are provided by the agency. The agency’s vision is typically broader and grander than the mission statement. Collins deﬁnes a vision as “what

Box 3.1

The Dog Unit

Jen has just joined an intake unit as the new supervisor. Other supervisors have told her that the previous supervisor was “burnt out” and have hinted at negative reasons for his departure. One member of the unit reveals, with a certain amount of deﬁant embarrassment, that “We are the dog unit in the agency.” It is common for workers to take long lunches, cut out early, and ignore the dress code. While there is little open conﬂict, unit members don’t always treat each other with respect. A worker who recently transferred out of the unit takes Jen aside and lets her know that unit members were “encouraged” to make referrals to a speciﬁc contract agency run by the previous supervisor’s wife. Questions 1. What qualities does Jen need to embody for her unit? 2. If you were Jen, what would be the three primary themes for your ﬁrst unit meeting? 3. What speciﬁc issues would you address ﬁrst, and how would you address them?

Supervisors as Leaders

49

we stand for and why we exist” and “what we aspire to become, to achieve, to create” toward an envisioned future (Collins & Porras, 1997, p. 221). Connected to core values of the agency, this vision may express the longterm and hoped-for impact of the agency in terms less constrained by the reality of existing resources. These statements of purpose—a mission statement, vision, and agency values—may be clearly articulated and a fundamental part of organizational culture, or they may be implicit or less visible. Such concepts might primarily serve a public relations function for the organization. Regardless of their liveliness and dynamic quality, the understanding and implementation of the agency’s mission, vision, and values is a supervisory task. The translation of these concepts into daily practice results in supervisory leadership. Even if the larger organization has an ill-deﬁned mission and vision or low commitment to mission and vision, supervisors-as-leaders must communicate a sense of purpose to their workers and staff (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The supervisory leader has a multifaceted set of responsibilities and duties with regard to organizational purpose. A supervisor cannot assume that professional staff members know the mission, vision, and values of the organization. These may or may not be communicated through formal employee orientation programs. Consequently, the supervisor must communicate these concepts to workers through a unit-level orientation process. The meaning of these concepts may not be clear to employees, and the understanding of how to apply these guiding statements to daily practice may require consistent education, reafﬁrmation, and translation (see Box 3.2). For example, in examining family group decision-making projects, in which extended family and relevant professionals meet together to plan a set of activities to ensure the safety and well-being of a child at risk of abuse or neglect, the leader’s role is, in part, to focus and move the group toward a positive outcome by reminding all participants that the

Box 3.2

Visits: Not Just a Checklist

At the end of the month, a foster care caseworker, Briana, gladly and somewhat smugly reports to her supervisor, Anita, that she has met all the requirements for seeing her kids this month. Anita tells her, “Great job,” and then pauses and asks, “Who was the last child you saw and what did you two talk about? How are the foster parents doing and what do they say about her? This is a reuniﬁcation case, I remember. How did her last visit with Mom go? Did you accomplish what you planned to accomplish during the visit?” Briana stammers a bit, giving Anita very broad and ambiguous responses. Anita sees a teachable moment and says, “It’s great that you saw your kids, but remember we’re making those visits for important reasons. Let’s talk about purpose and strategies.” Questions 1. What was Briana’s approach to her visits? 2. What would you want to convey in this teachable moment? 3. Where would you start?

50

child welfare supervision

purpose of the meeting is the welfare of the child and that the agency values extended family involvement. There may appear to be a conﬂict between formal statements of purpose and actual organizational behavior, so supervisors need to keep the focus on the mission and purpose and preserve a sense of direction despite organizational distractions, contradictions, and undermining of sense of purpose. For example, the primacy of worker comfort and well-being may seem to compete with service to children and families. Supervisors need to inspire their workers to achieve the greater good, looking beyond agency policy. In one situation, a supervisor was presented with an intake referral in which the child’s circumstances raised serious concerns about the child’s well-being and possible parental neglect, but didn’t seem to ﬁt agency criteria for immediate intervention. However, the family was isolated, the child had a number of pressing needs, and there was no other organization that would engage in an outreach effort to assess the child’s circumstances. In this case, the supervisor reminded the intake worker that in addition to being agents of the state, they were professional social workers who should in some way respond to a clear need in a timely manner. The supervisor had communicated a sense of ethical concern and professional obligation that was broader and deeper than agency policy, although not necessarily contrary to agency purposes. Attentiveness to a sense of purpose may have multiple facets, as a supervisor may create a sense of purpose and set of beliefs that characterize one’s own work and the work of the team, as well as acknowledging and implementing an agency’s vision (Collins & Porras, 1997). Identifying, deﬁning, and transmitting one’s values is one of the functions of a supervisor leader. Teaching the values and accompanying behaviors is also a function of leadership. This attentiveness to purpose helps to create a culture reﬂecting this in the work unit. The extent to which this culture is clear, congruent with the expectations and skills of the workforce, and aids in effective practice is a function of leadership. Purposeful leadership instills loyalty and a positive commitment to work. Consequently, the professional workforce and staff are inspired to provide excellent service by a supervisory leader who teaches and afﬁrms the positive social purpose of the unit (see Box 3.3). Problem Solving as an Attribute of Leadership One of the key qualities of supervisory leadership is the ability to successfully address problems. These problems may face the agency and the team or unit that the supervisor is responsible for, or may be within the domains of individual workers. This type of leadership is evidenced through the problemsolving process that the supervisor develops to address a range of challenges (Perlman, 1973). This process may have a number of elements: 1. Assisting in accurately identifying the nature of the problem, challenge, or opportunity facing the worker or the team or unit.

Supervisors as Leaders Box 3.3

51

To Visit or Not to Visit?

During supervision, Michael discusses a challenging case with his supervisor, Rachelle. He tells her that he really thinks visits should be stopped on the Jones case, as the mother was 20 minutes late to the last visit, appeared high, slurred her speech, and had difﬁculty responding to the caseworker’s questions and to her daughter’s behavior. Rachelle empathizes with Michael’s frustration and agrees with his concerns, but reminds Michael that a visitation schedule cannot just be changed—there must be a sound clinical reason to do so, and then the agency must ﬁle a motion with the court. Rachelle wants to help Michael focus on the main reasons visits are important to all members of the Jones family. Questions 1. What was Michael focusing on in this situation? 2. What “big picture” ideas would you like Michael to think about? 3. What questions would you ask Michael to help him take a broader view?

This includes probing to identify and gather all relevant information that might bring perspective and inform the circumstances under scrutiny. The search for relevant information relies on the supervisor’s ability to question and explore the circumstances with the affected parties. It also includes the ability to add expert opinion based on knowledge gained from academic preparation, organizational experience, and clinical skill. The balancing of active listening with probing questioning and precise input is a function of supervisory leadership. 2. Supporting the worker in crafting an assessment of the situation and presenting problem. This assessment process includes the supervisor’s understanding that circumstances and challenges are multifactorial and require a range of perspectives and exploration for multi-causative or contributing factors. The problem-solving process also includes supporting the worker and, when necessary, assisting the worker to take the assembled information and construct a working hypothesis that can guide problem-solving strategies. Again, the supervisor may need to provide expert consultation, or use knowledge of agency and community experts and resources. The balancing of expert knowledge with openness to the uniqueness of each circumstance and the need to support worker initiative is a function of supervisory leadership. 3. The process of crafting multiple responses and alternative approaches to the presenting problem. The supervisor supports the development of a range of options for the worker’s behavior. These options can be examined in light of available knowledge, environmental factors, risk assessments and predictions of probable outcomes, and other considerations. The experience of

52

child welfare supervision the supervisor may guide the assessment of risk, particularly in identifying the potential degree of harm and the probability that a negative outcome might occur. This analysis of options is designed to effectively solve problems and, at some level, protect and support the worker and his or her ability to decide and act. Balancing the exploration of a full range of responses while supporting the development of a fairly precise strategy for intervention is a function of supervisory leadership. 4. The implementation of a problem-solving strategy can be anticipated or role-played with a supervisor. The effective leader will navigate preparing the worker and supporting the worker without unnecessarily taking over or imposing a set of actions on the worker. There may be times when a supervisor provides extra guidance or even accompanies a worker on the basis of an assessment of risk. A survey of workers and supervisors described by agency executives as effective and resilient revealed that these successful professionals valued a supervisor who did not micromanage but also did not operate with a laissez-faire attitude toward agency and caseload challenges. Balancing the empowerment of workers to act while remaining engaged and supportive is a function of supervisory leadership. 5. The problem-solving process requires an evaluation of the outcome of the strategy implemented by the worker. The supervisor supports an operational plan that includes such an evaluation. The supervisor may play a role in the evaluation and in debrieﬁng a worker. The supervisor leads the team or unit in creating a learning environment in which it becomes routine to ask what has happened and what lessons can be learned from the action and its consequences (Senge, 1990). A commitment to continual quality improvement in service delivery and the process of problem solving is a function of supervisory leadership. The alternatives of failing to learn from experiences or assigning blame and failing to accept at least some measure of responsibility can be countered by the supervisor’s development of a learning environment. Review of one’s actions and their outcomes without fear of recrimination and blame creates the opportunity to ensure that problems are addressed and serves as the foundation for future successful problem solving. Balancing this evaluation and accountability with safety and a commitment to learning is one function of supervisory leadership.

In addition to guiding a problem-solving process and demonstrating a stance of supportive leadership, supervisors encourage the connection of the problem-solving process to the values and purpose of the agency. The individual challenge may demand a focused analysis and response, but at

Supervisors as Leaders Box 3.4

53

Expanding Options

Lynn, a fairly new caseworker, has been working with a mother and her two kids, ages 3 and 7 years. The mother has mental health concerns and struggles to meet the basic needs of her children. During the assessment, Lynn gathers information about the family, including that the mother’s relationship with the children’s father was violent and the mother was often beaten. The father is no longer involved with the family. Lynn discusses the case with her supervisor, Christina, as it looks like an out-of-home placement will be necessary to keep the children safe. Christina asks about the children’s father and Lynn quickly dismisses him and his family as a potential placement. After all, she says, “he beat Mom, he hasn’t paid child support, he’s a drinker, and he’s a deadbeat dad. He had to learn that somewhere. And mom’s family is even worse.” Christina agrees with Lynn that there may be further issues to assess, particularly with regard to domestic and family violence, and reminds Lynn that they “have a responsibility to the family to at least check out all possible resources and involve the father and the extended family to the extent that it is safe and possible.” Questions 1. What was the worker’s perspective? 2. How would you frame your discussion with Lynn to reduce her resistance to brainstorming options? 3. How would you structure a brainstorming exercise?

some point in the process, a supervisor will connect the rules and factors that shaped the response to the values and purpose of the organization (see Box 3.4). Even if this comes after a problem has been addressed, the supervisor-as-leader takes an implicit set of rules and actions and overtly connects the worker’s choices and actions to the mission of the agency. Although the skills associated with problem solving and the skills associated with purposeful leadership may be different, the supervisor looks for opportunities to afﬁrm the worker’s thought processes and actions, and identify or reinforce the connection between action and purpose (Collins & Porras, 1997). Assisting workers with problem-solving processes or guiding a team through challenges facing the unit on a scale larger than an individual issue is an important exercise of leadership. The supervisor who can demonstrate competence through problem-solving processes in a manner that advances worker autonomy and decision making but is engaged and supportive gains the respect of colleagues and workers. Successful case decision-making increases a sense of achievement and individual purpose. This competency reinforces the worker’s loyalty to the supervisor, team, and agency, strengthens a commitment to stay at the agency, and deepens a sense of professionalism. Collaboration as an Attribute of Leadership Supervisors have a special opportunity and responsibility to not only connect their work to the agency mission but also connect the people in their

54

child welfare supervision

teams to one another to accomplish the mission of the organization. Supervisors can lead the effort to craft a mutually beneﬁcial relationship between two or more parties to achieve common goals. These beneﬁcial relationships may be with persons or programs within the agency or in the broader community. The goals may be the speciﬁc goals of the agency or broader community goals shared by the agency and other organizations. These relationships involve sharing responsibility, sharing authority, and some measure of sharing accountability to achieve results (Chrislip, 2002). This collaborative leadership works to create a shared vision and joint strategies to address concerns that go beyond the parameters and boundaries of the team, program, or organization. In order for a supervisor to exercise this type of leadership, a number of skills are required, outlined below. 1. The ability to assess the strengths and resources of the organization and potential partners, as well as assess the compatibility of missions and methods. This involves active exploration and curiosity about other programs and the ability to formulate a working critique without being overly critical. 2. The ability to engage potential partners through communicating a vision and picturing the beneﬁts of the collaboration. Engagement may include some level of conﬂict and the ability to navigate through this conﬂict. Central to conﬂict resolution is framing conﬂict as an opportunity for genuine engagement and a reﬂection of some measure of commitment and passion that has the potential to be an asset to a collaborative effort. 3. The ability to enlarge and elaborate on a shared vision that includes sharing leadership and accountability. The supervisor needs to be able to move beyond visions and visualization to action, in accordance with the shared purpose and values. This level of mutuality involves appreciating the potential risks of collaboration. An effective supervisor may conclude that it is preferable to coexist or ﬁnd some level of cooperation with other persons and programs, rather than to aim for a collaborative relationship.

Collaborative leadership is enhanced by a supervisor’s ability to be selfreﬂective in the process of working with another. This reﬂection includes the ability to ask for feedback and direction from partners. Reﬂection on one’s own behavior, decisions, and thoughts requires constant attention. It requires times of quiet, retreat, and slowing down the pace of work as much as possible. The developing of partnerships within and between programs requires genuine humility—the recognition that one is learning and capable of making mistakes and then growing from them, respect for the views of others, and a commitment to a participatory process (see Box 3.5). Operating in a manner that deliberately exposes one to an uncomfortable

Supervisors as Leaders Box 3.5

55

Connecting with the Community

A new supervisor is trying to connect with the broader community on a new initiative to expand placement resources for minority children. Information about minority overrepresentation in the agency is presented at a meeting with community members. Community members tell the supervisor that they’ve only known the agency to take children out of their homes and that the agency is not seen as a positive resource. Wisely, the supervisor tells them, “You’re right, we have a lot to learn about how to be better service providers in our community and need to improve our communication with the public.” She then asks, “How can we do this?” Questions 1. What approach is this supervisor taking with the community? 2. What are the next steps in continuing this process? 3. On what criteria might this community judge this supervisor and the agency over the next several months?

situation, through newness, voluntary abdication of some degree of control, or conﬂict, may be more easily managed if the supervisor has a sense of humor and a commitment to learning. Supervisors are in a position to make connections with other persons and programs in the agency and in the broader environment. This may serve the team well by increasing the abilities to reach goals and garner the resources needed to attain success. There is also something gained through the camaraderie of professionals with a shared mission and purpose. The supervisor leads by introducing and building partnerships that help accomplish the agency’s purpose and provide social and professional support for team members. Without this supervisory leadership, a team risks experiencing isolation and having insufﬁcient resources, which may hinder accomplishing agency purposes and the satisfaction that comes from success. Caring as an Attribute of Leadership One may question whether it is possible to build and lead an effective organizational team without some measure of caring among team members and between the supervisory leader and team members. A successful therapeutic relationship requires the qualities of warmth, genuineness, and empathy. These qualities are also required in a supervisory relationship. The ability to inspire workers to act in an ethical manner, with their actions informed by a set of values to achieve the team’s purposes, solve problems, and build collaborative partnerships, requires these same qualities. Caring, warmth, genuineness, and empathy can be used to describe professional relationships and the nature of helping and work relationships (Dees, Emerson, & Economy, 2002; Kouzes & Posner, 2002). These attributes and skills are often overlooked with a preference for budgetary

child welfare supervision

56

and strategic planning skills, or are judged to be “soft” and, by implication, less desirable. However, particularly in times of crisis or when an organization is under considerable external or internal pressure, a leader’s ability to communicate a sense of caring is crucial. At a recent discussion of management skills a participant noted, “Rarely is love discussed or considered from a management/leadership point of view, and yet love incorporates the ideas of humanity, spirituality, inspiration, communication, passion and intimacy” (Australian Institute of Management, 2006, p. 1). At some level, in some ways, supervisors lead their team by virtue of the care that they feel and impart to team members (see Box 3.6). The literature on worker recruitment and retention reinforces the importance of feeling cared for by one’s supervisor and the link to productivity and staying with the organization (Dickinson & Perry, 2002; Ellett, Ellis, Westbrook, & Dews, 2007). To accomplish the purpose of the team and to achieve the vision for their work, a supervisor encourages and teaches workers to care about the children and families served by the organization. To encourage the team to work together in an efﬁcient and effective manner, a supervisor promotes caring about one’s colleagues. A supervisor also acts in a manner that communicates concern for team members. Again, a study of resilient workers and supervisors noted the importance of a work setting where the supervisor cared about the workers’ professional lives and, to some extent, their personal lives. This caring about workers’ personal lives was communicated in part by adopting policies and practices that assisted workers in balancing their commitment to work and that to their own families outside of work. This attitude toward workers reﬂects a value position by

Box 3.6

Get Outside Your Box

Marlene is a no-nonsense kind of supervisor. She’s never really been a touchy-feely kind of person, but she knows that some of her workers need this. Despite her inclination to be less demonstrative, she buys a package of colorful stickers and embellishes notes and paperwork with encouraging and cheerful stickers and positive messages when transmitting paperwork to her workers. Marlene has joined the “secret pal” club, whose aim is to support a more positive work environment, and she has to admit she enjoys thinking of creative ways to quietly reward colleagues. At every unit meeting, she acknowledges accomplishments and gives out simple, humorous rewards. The result has been improved cohesion in her unit and among units. While she’s still not completely comfortable with this approach, she knows it is working for many members of her staff. She would like to ﬁnd additional approaches to supporting and rewarding colleagues that ﬁt with a variety of supervisor and supervisee styles. Questions 1. What values are being communicated by Marlene? 2. Why is this necessary? 3. What ideas do you have for Marlene?

Supervisors as Leaders

57

the organization and also aligns with practical and pragmatic considerations. In describing a successful organization, Peter Senge (1990, p. 312) has noted, “The most important step is the ﬁrst step—acknowledging that one cannot build a learning organization on a foundation of broken homes and strained personal relationships.” This aspect of caring for one’s employees can be extended to self-care. An effective leader not only cares about team members but also develops habits and practices that promote his or her own well-being. The development of strategies to maintain commitment, energy, health, humor, knowledge, and perspective is necessary for self-preservation and serves as a model for colleagues and team members. A key quality of leadership, particularly in circumstances with considerable stress and insufﬁcient resources, is a sense of hopefulness and optimism. Self-care is required in order to provide the intellectual and strategic leadership needed for the team to function effectively. DEVELOPING LEADERS As organizational leaders, one of the roles of supervisors is to mentor, teach, and invest in the professional development of staff and team members. In addition to responding to the casework and other needs presented by team members, the supervisor assesses the overall strengths, potential, and areas for growth in employees. The fostering of team members’ professional development and encouraging them to grow professionally and aspire to leadership behaviors and roles is a function of supervisory leadership (Collins, 2001). The supervisor has a crucial role in preparing future professional and organizational leaders by crafting a work culture that supports taking responsibility, making decisions, taking initiative, and acting creatively. Supervisors seek out opportunities for team members to learn and grow and be stretched. For example, one supervisor delegated opportunities for community education to a worker who displayed teaching ability and expressed an interest in outreach and community engagement through teaching. Another supervisor delegated many of the orientation tasks and conversations to a senior worker with skills in mentoring and assisting new professionals to become acclimated to the work setting. A supervisor might encourage team members to be involved in ﬁeld education as ﬁeld instructors or to mentor student interns. By sending workers to specialized training, into opportunities for networking, and to meetings to represent the supervisor and the unit, the supervisor can promote a culture that recognizes and develops leadership abilities. Recognition of worker talents and potential, and then ﬁnding opportunities for further development and exercise of those talents, may result in losing the worker to another position. The supervisory leader needs to recognize that nurturing of leadership abilities in team members may compel

child welfare supervision

58

and enable a worker to leave the unit or the agency for further leadership opportunities. Developing, mentoring, and encouraging new leaders to take on new responsibilities is an important aspect of leadership. Finally, supervisory leaders need to develop their own abilities. This development begins with the recognition of oneself as a leader with the potential for expanded leadership. The organization may provide opportunities for leadership training or mentoring of supervisors. If this is not a formal process, a supervisor can seek out a mentor inside or outside of the organization. Such mentoring may focus on one attribute, such as collaborative skills, or be broader as the mentor provides a role model for leadership. Formal training or continuing education may also support a supervisor’s identity and leadership attributes. The supervisor may wish to seek out opportunities for leadership in addition to working with supervisees. For example, serving in professional organizations, participating in conference planning and doing presentations, being a community taskforce member, working with universities on curriculum and partnership development, mentoring new supervisors, and other avenues of service can expand leadership attributes and opportunities. CONCLUSION The recognition and preparing of supervisors to be organizational leaders is essential in the human services. From this position in the middle of the organization, the supervisor operates in, and understands uniquely, the organizational culture and vision. In a position that relates to frontline workers and implements the purpose of the agency, the supervisor’s ability to guide, teach, motivate, and support team members is essential for the success of the organization. The ﬁrst organizational challenge is to ensure that supervisors recognize their crucial roles and the special leadership that accompanies their position and professional status. These supervisory leaders bring a variety of personal attributes to their positions. With different styles, personalities, histories, and experiences, each supervisor approaches leadership in a unique manner. However, there are a number of attributes that characterize leaders, and even if these are displayed in a variety of ways, they are essential for leadership in a human service organization. Central leadership attributes include a commitment to ethical practice and to integrity in relationships, the ability to understand and communicate a sense of purpose that can inspire and guide workers, skill in problem solving that builds trust and empowers the competency of team members, the ability to collaborate with others to achieve goals, and a strong sense of caring for others. Leaders develop other leaders as well (see Box 3.7). The supervisor who functions as a leader serves as a role model to others who learn and are inspired by the intentional actions that build a learning culture and an effective approach to service delivery.

Supervisors as Leaders Box 3.7

59

Passing It On

John has been with the agency for some 25 years, having started as a worker and been promoted to supervisor almost 20 years ago. He has supervised a number of units in his large agency and has passed up promotion to several administrative positions, saying, “Why would I want to push paper?” Positions in his unit are coveted in the agency, as he is known to take care of his workers while setting the highest standards for their work with families. John has mentored many workers to become supervisors over the years. As he nears retirement, agency supervisors meet to plan a tribute that will include Lessons Learned from John and John’s Guide to Mentoring documents. Questions 1. What kinds of things are likely to be listed in Lessons Learned from John? 2. How do you think John’s mentees would describe his approach to mentoring and leadership development? 3. If your supervisees were to write these documents about you, what do you hope they would say?

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Reﬂect on the leadership attribute of ethical behavior. How do you exhibit this in your supervisory practice? What are your areas of strength? Which areas need improvement? 2. Reﬂect on the leadership attribute of purposeful behavior. How do you exhibit this in your supervisory practice? What are your areas of strength? Which areas need improvement? 3. Reﬂect on the leadership attribute of problem solving. How do you exhibit this in your supervisory practice? What are your areas of strength? Which areas need improvement? 4. Reﬂect on the leadership attribute of collaboration. How do you exhibit this in your supervisory practice? What are your areas of strength? Which areas need improvement? 5. Reﬂect on the leadership attribute of caring behavior. How do you exhibit this in your supervisory practice? What are your areas of strength? Which areas need improvement? 6. Which of the leadership attributes would be the most difﬁcult to acquire or build? Why? 7. How does the schema presented in this chapter ﬁt with your own values and beliefs regarding leadership? What is similar? What is different? REFERENCES

Australian Institute of Management. (2006). Love @ work. Management @ Work Series. Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons (www.aim.com.au/ publications).

60

child welfare supervision

Chrislip, D. (2002). The collaborative leadership ﬁeldbook: A guide for citizens and civic leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Business/Collins. Collins, J., & Porras, J. (1997). Built to last. New York: Harper Business/Collins. Covey, F. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press. Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Dickinson, N. S., & Perry, R. E. (2002). Factors inﬂuencing the retention of specially educated public child welfare workers. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare, 15(3/4), 89–103. Ellett, A., Ellis, J., Westbrook, T., & Dews, D. (2007). A qualitative study of 369 child welfare professionals’ perspectives about factors contributing to employee retention and turnover. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(2), 264–281. Greenleaf, R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Kadushin, A. (1976). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Kotter, J. (1998). What leaders really do. In Harvard business review on leadership (pp. 37–60). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Michigan State University School of Social Work. (2005). Resilient child welfare worker interviews. East Lansing, Michigan: Author. National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics. Washington DC: Author. Perlman, H. H. (1973). Social casework: A problem-solving process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Senge, P. (1990). The ﬁfth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

4 MANAGEMENT ESSENTIALS FOR CHILD WELFARE SUPERVISORS JEAN E AST & M ICHELE D. H ANNA

s described in the previous chapter, leadership is a crucial competency A for child welfare supervisors. Requisite management skills are equally important. This chapter will cover several core competencies for the management role of a supervisor, including an assessment model to aid thinking about the different levels of knowledge necessary to be effective, planning models, and key management skills of communication and decision making. Many scholars have made a clear distinction between management and leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1990), while others see them as very interrelated (Kettner, 2002). It is our opinion that management and leadership are very related for child welfare supervisors, but there are also distinctions between the two. In the leadership role, a supervisor is responsible for providing direction through creating a vision, seeking alignment of team goals with key strategies, and empowering, motivating, and inspiring others to meet the goals of the unit. In the management role, a supervisor is responsible for setting routines and order of dayto-day activities, allocating resources, planning for short-term goals, and providing a problem-solving and decision-making structure through which to accomplish the work. Buckingham and Coffman (1999) make the distinction clear by noting that great leaders look outward, while great managers look inward, inside the organization. Both leadership and management skills and perspectives are essential for the child welfare supervisor. Consider the following example illustrating the distinction between leadership and management. A child welfare supervisor has been asked to 61

child welfare supervision

62

Table 4.1 Leadership and Management Responsibilities Leadership Roles

Management Roles

• Create a vision for change with the unit • Communicate goals and seek commitment of staff • Empower staff to develop strategies for change

• Create a plan and timeline for intervention • Design new staff roles and responsibilities • Establish policies and procedures • Develop means for ongoing problem solving and evaluation

increase the use of family conferencing in ﬁrst-time child neglect cases, and the unit is to pilot this project over the next year. A breakdown of relevant leadership and management responsibilities is described in Table 4.1. Learning to blend leadership and management roles is important for any supervisor (Weis & Gantt, 2004). THE SKILLS APPROACH TO LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT One way to think about both the distinction between and the overlap of leadership and management in the supervisor role is to apply the threeskill approach originally developed by Katz (1974). He proposed that there are three levels of skills needed in leadership or management positions: technical skills, human relations skills, and conceptual skills. Technical skills are knowledge and skills in a particular area of work. For example, the child welfare supervisor needs to understand the causes of child maltreatment, the laws and policies that govern the day-to-day work of the unit, and the best treatment interventions for resistant clients. Human relations skills are those needed to effectively work with people and include a vast array of leadership and management skills, such as motivating, building a team, listening and conveying empathy, and challenging others to grow and change. It is obvious that a child welfare supervisor needs human relations skills to effectively work with diverse staff members and clients. Finally, conceptual skills include the ability to see the big picture and work with ideas and concepts. For a child welfare supervisor, such skills may be necessary to understand the changing environment of the agency or the role of one’s unit in the context of the larger agency. A management supervisor needs more technical and human skills in his or her day-to-day work. Conceptual skills are important in working effectively within the larger agency and community environment (Edwards & Austin, 2006). Another way to think about the overlap of leadership and management is to consider the levels of knowledge needed to be effective as a supervisor. Through a review of the literature, Russo and Libove (1996) have developed a model that includes four levels of knowledge required by a leader–manager: knowledge of self, knowledge of others, knowledge of the organization, and knowledge of the world. This model can be helpful

Management Essentials

63

for child welfare supervisors in that it outlines a framework for recognizing levels of knowledge needed in different situations. Each interaction in an organization could include all four levels. 1. Knowledge of self includes self-awareness, knowledge of personal strengths and limitations, and clarity of personal values as they relate to employment settings and demands. 2. Knowledge of others is related to understanding human behavior in organizational settings. This might include understanding developmental needs and career aspirations of staff and knowing the learning styles, personality styles, personal motivation, and values of those being supervised. 3. Knowledge of the organization requires an understanding of the organization’s mission, values, culture and norms, and authority and decision-making structures, and of how the unit ﬁts within the organizational structure. 4. For a child welfare supervisor, knowledge of the world and community involves many factors of both the community and policy environment. This knowledge may pertain to the community and its neighborhoods, the community agencies, or the state and local child welfare policies. In addition, this area might include knowledge of emerging trends in the ﬁeld of child welfare practice (Russo & Libove, 1996).

The value of using this levels-of-knowledge model is that it can help the supervisor do two things: acknowledge strengths and develop a plan for improvement. Most managers and supervisors tend to have some areas of knowledge that are stronger than others. As many in the literature have noted (Bolman & Deal, 2001; Kouzes & Posner, 2002), knowing oneself is a critical component of supervision. The following case vignettes further illustrate this point. Knowledge of Self and Others Sherry is a 42-year-old African-American child welfare supervisor with a social work degree. She started in the agency at age 28 as an intake child protection worker and has worked up to a supervisor position. Given her experience, she has a keen awareness of the issues of child protection and is considered by her staff to be both good to work for and practical. She gives generously of her time to each staff member, advising on cases, opening opportunities for professional development, discussing personal concerns, and giving support. Sherry believes in self-actualization and knows her own strengths and limitations as well as those of her staff. She often introduces to her staff team-building activities and personality proﬁles that increase self-knowledge and team functioning. Sherry’s strengths have created a supportive team in which staff members help each other out and

64

child welfare supervision

there is low turnover. Recently, the agency has been undergoing major change, in both administration and philosophy, with a move to more community-based models of intervention. Sherry is worried this may disrupt her ability to be effective as a supervisor. She has survived, she believes, by remaining insulated from the agency and community politics. She has seen new programs come and go before, but with recent talk about restructuring units, she realizes that she may have to change. The advantages of Sherry’s knowledge of self and others are evident. She has a strong team and little turnover. She counts on her practical experience, which has served her well. The disadvantage that Sherry faces is that by not being as strong in organizational and community and world knowledge, she is less prepared for change. She may have missed opportunities for herself and her staff to gain new perspectives and knowledge. Knowledge of Organization and the Community and World Angela is a 50-year-old Latina child welfare supervisor. She grew up in the local community and has worked in corrections and a local family center, and she has been a foster parent. She took a job as a foster care worker after receiving her degree and has been a supervisor for 5 years now. Angela prides herself on her knowledge of the organization from multiple perspectives. She worked with child protection units when she worked in corrections and at the family center. She knows how to get through the red tape to get services for clients. Having been a foster parent herself, she knows that system well. She is a great advocate for families and foster parents within both the organization and the community. She connects with many in the community on behalf of families, educating, recruiting, and getting resources. She is passionate about foster care and attends any conferences she can to learn more about what is happening in the ﬁeld. Her staff respects her passion for the work, but at times feels neglected. She has been known to cancel staff meetings if there is a conﬂict with another important meeting in the agency or the community. She expects everyone on her team to share her passion and several workers have switched units because they felt they needed to grow in other areas. She asks her staff members to plan team-building time, and on one occasion when they brought in someone to teach learning styles she announced, “These tools are silly. How will this help our families?” Angela’s passion and knowledge of foster care and its importance in the organization and community are of obvious beneﬁt to families and children. She brings a unique perspective to the organization and certainly builds strong community ties and reputation. At the same time, her less-developed knowledge of herself and others creates potential problems for her staff. Her lack of attention to her staff could lead to discontent, turnover, and burnout. Use of this framework can help the child welfare supervisor think about his or her roles and make a career development plan. Skills Box 4.1 helps to illustrate these ideas.

Management Essentials

65

Skills Box 4.1 Ways to Increase Levels of Knowledge Level of Knowledge

Increase Knowledge and Skills

Knowledge of self

• • • •

Knowledge of others

• Get to know each staff member individually and build on his or her strengths. • Develop a professional development and career plan for each staff member. • Plan for casual team-building time. • Take an interest in cases and join staff members on occasional home visits.

Knowledge of organization

• Seek out opportunities to work on agency committees. • Convene informal meetings with other supervisors. • Ask for consumer input.

Knowledge of community

• • • •

Keep an inventory of strengths and areas for growth. Attend personal-growth workshops. Use coaches and mentors. Use personal inventories (i.e., Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Enneagram, and Learning Style Inventories). • Set aside 10 minutes each week to reﬂect.

Attend conferences to ﬁnd new ideas. Network with the community. Visit other child welfare agencies and interview key people. Create a vision for the future.

Sources: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®: Published by CPP, Inc. See also Aspell & Aspell, 1997; Keirsey, 1998.

PLANNING Planning is a “process of identifying where you want to go and how you intend to get there” (Schermerborn, 1993, p. 190). A child welfare supervisor engages in this process on a daily basis, sometimes without even noticing. It can be as common as ﬁguring out how to distribute cases to workers or be a more extensive process of visioning for the future and putting in place a formal plan with speciﬁc goals and objectives for program development. The literature identiﬁes various types of planning (Kettner, 2002). One type is strategic planning, a process of examining program mission, goals and objectives, community need, and agency capacity for meeting need, often done over a 3- to 5-year timeframe (Bryson, 1995). Strategic planning is generally undertaken by an entire agency or department and a child welfare supervisor is likely to be a participant along with others in the agency. Some authors use the term long-range planning interchangeably with strategic planning and others consider the long-range plan the more speciﬁc means to accomplish the strategic plan (Kettner, 2002). Regardless of the terms used, the importance of planning to address strategic issues in an ongoing, changing environment cannot be ignored

child welfare supervision

66 Table 4.2 Principles of Planning Participation principle

• Engage all those who will be affected by the plan. • Remember support staff who are often critical to implementation of new directions. • Genuinely listen to the ideas of everyone.

Search principle

• Do your homework on the relevant facts and parameters of the planning. • Look for best practices and new ideas and get your staff to do the same. • Be positive about new ideas and at the same time encourage a diversity of opinions.

Commitment principle

• Plans need to be operationalized into goals and objectives that the staff can understand. • Be realistic about what can be done. • Get staff commitment to the plan of action.

Flexibility principle

• Be ﬂexible. • Modify the plan as circumstances indicate. • Set up a feedback process so that staff members can give input on what is working and what is not. • Consider mistakes a way of learning and not a punishment.

Adapted from C. McCann, personal communication, January 1974.

(Eadie, 2006). If an agency develops a strategic plan that identiﬁes a goal obtaining more community or family involvement in the placement of children, the child welfare supervisor will engage in a planning process to determine how the unit will accomplish this new direction. At this level, the supervisor is engaging in program planning, identifying interventions, developing goals and objectives, and allocating resources and staff to accomplish the new directive. A common concern of supervisors is not having enough time to plan. In the fast-paced and crisis-driven nature of child welfare work, planning can often feel like a luxury. Despite this reality, it is essential to the quality of the work of the unit. First, supervisors who engage in planning are more effective in responding to the environment (Menefee, 2001). Second, there are some key principles of planning that will make the planning process and the supervisor more effective (see Table 4.2). Following these principles will increase the likelihood that planning will be successful. Steps to Project Management Planning efforts are often realized in the form of strategic or project management. Any new project requires a series of steps that a manager can follow to increase the chances of getting where he or she wants to go (Lewis, Lewis, Packard, & Souﬂee, 2001). These steps are outlined below. Step 1: Develop a vision and purpose. Vision is a desired future state (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). It sets the overall

Management Essentials

67

hoped-for direction for change. It is important to begin by determining the rationale for this project and its desired outcome or purpose. For example, if you are changing your database system to track all the collaborative agencies involved in a child welfare case, why are you doing this and what is the best possible outcome? Step 2: Set clear goals and objectives. Goals and objectives help staff members know where they are going and how they are going to get there. By making objectives measurable, the hoped-for outcomes are deﬁned so that performance can be evaluated. Step 3: Develop an activity plan and timeline. Plans can feel overwhelming if the exact activities, their timing, and the time frame for each activity are not clearly set ahead of time. A timeline chart listing activities and the time frames in which to accomplish them can be helpful (Lewis et al., 2001). Step 4: Identify resource requirements. Often projects are proposed without a clear idea of all the resources required to effectively implement the goals that have been set forth. Such resources include human, ﬁnancial, technical, and other resources (Buhler, 2001). Examples include staff development and training, staff time for implementation, money, information, and expertise and collaboration from other departments. Step 5: Think through constraints and contingency plans. It is rare that new projects are accomplished without some problems along the way. It is best to plan for these as much as possible by thinking through problems or constraints and potential contingency plans or alternative courses of action ahead of time. Step 6: Implement the plan and monitor results. Implementation of a project can be thought of as having two phases: an initial phase of initiating the project and a second phase of establishing or standardizing the project into the day-to-day life of the organization. In the initial phase, sometimes done as a pilot phase, it is important to monitor the process and outcomes closely and often. Such monitoring allows necessary adjustments to be made as needed. Once the supervisor is satisﬁed with the implementation process, he or she can move toward ways of making the effort more routine by developing protocols, policies, and procedures for staff to follow. Monitoring then becomes part of the process and happens at regularly established intervals.

Day-to-Day Planning and Time Management Paradoxically, despite the difﬁculty in ﬁnding the time to plan, planning can actually improve time management (Schermerborn, 1993). And without good time management skills, productivity can be compromised

child welfare supervision

68

(DiPadova & Faerman, 1998). Like all managers, child welfare supervisors must deal with time pressures and deadlines, and like many managers, they are likely to identify time management as a source of stress (Whetten & Cameron, 1995). While techniques and strategies for time management are plentiful, each supervisor needs to create his or her own strategies. There are several key principles that supervisors should keep in mind. First, it is important to distinguish between effective time management— that is, prioritizing your work on the basis of urgency—and efﬁcient time management, which means getting things done on the basis of importance. In First Things First, Covey, Merrill, and Merrill (1994) propose that one must know how to allocate time to projects with deadlines and simultaneously deal with crises that may need urgent attention. The effective supervisor can both meet deadlines and handle crises in a timely manner. They contend, however, that if supervisors spend more time in activities that are important but not urgent, such as long-term planning, relationship building, personal development, and quality supervision, they can be more efﬁcient in the long run than if they were always preventing crises and scrambling to meet deadlines at the last minute. One strategy to increase a supervisor’s efﬁciency is to set aside time each day to do strategic and long-range planning for both the supervisor and the unit (see Case Example 4.1). This process helps keep the focus on the big picture, knowing that the day and week will inevitably be ﬁlled with many activities beyond one’s control. Case Example 4.1

Managing Time

Often child welfare supervisors are promoted from within. As caseworkers, crisis often rules the order of the day, and pending deadlines set the priority list. As a new supervisor, Barbara was looking forward to a slower pace and having more control over her time; however, she quickly became overwhelmed with what appeared to be a constant “putting out of ﬁres.” It seemed that every time she planned to have a unit meeting or a worker conference or to spend time completing her administrative duties, she was interrupted by a worker needing immediate case consultation or the phone rang, setting off a chain of events that precluded her planned activity. Barbara decided to ask one of the seasoned supervisors, Stacey, who appeared to do well in time management, for tips. Stacey said that she, too, had experienced feelings of being overwhelmed at ﬁrst. For her, using the calendar on the computer was very helpful. Prior to using the computer calendar, she had invested in a daily planner that provided hour-by-hour slots to be ﬁlled. Recognizing that crises are a part of working for child welfare, Stacey said that it was important to schedule for tasks that one had control over, such as unit meetings, worker conferences, and administrative duties (see example below). The key was to put these items in the calendar early in the month before anything else and then to treat them as mandatory events, to be changed only in rare instances beyond one’s control, such as an unplanned meeting called by administration. Any deadlines that had to be met needed to be clearly identiﬁed with reminder notes marked a few days prior to the deadline. Stacey also stressed the importance of letting workers know when she was working on her administrative tasks or having a conference with another worker—that they were

(continued)

Management Essentials

69

not to interrupt her unless it was an emergency. In some instances, what constituted an “emergency” might need to be explicitly deﬁned, given the crisis mode in which many workers tend to operate. Having regular conferences with workers could often cut down on the number of “immediate consultation” needs. As for the phone calls, Stacey suggested that calls be allowed to go to voicemail during conferences and when deadlines were pending, stressing that messages be checked as soon as the task was complete and the calls returned. Stacey also suggested that Barbara schedule the ﬁrst half hour of each day and the last half hour of each day as a time to prioritize and review a realistic daily “to-do” list. Those tasks not completed at the end of one day might need to be the priority for the next day. Barbara agreed to implement these suggestions over a 1-month trial. She thought that some of this activity seemed rigid and was concerned that it would not work for her. With minor changes that suited her personality and schedule better, such as using only the ﬁrst half-hour of the day to review her list, she found the next month to be much smoother and felt much more in control of her time. Time/Day

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

8:00–8:30

Planning

Planning

Planning

Planning

Planning

8:30–9:00

Monthly stats due Friday

9:00–9:30

Unit meeting

Worker conference 1

Worker conference 2

Administrative time

9:30–10:00

Unit meeting

Worker conference 1

Worker conference 2

Administrative time

Stats due at noon

10:00–10:30

Administrative time

10:30–11:00

Administrative time

11:00–11:30

Administrative time

11:30–12:00

Administrative time Administrative time Administrative time

Administrative time

Administrative time Administrative time Administrative time

child welfare supervision

70

MANAGEMENT SKILLS: COMMUNICATION AND DECISION MAKING Communication “The notion that people need to communicate more is perhaps the most widely accepted idea in management, indeed in all human relationships. Whether it’s called ‘counseling,’ ‘team building,’ ‘conﬂict resolution,’ or ‘negotiating,’ it all boils down to one idea—that if we talk it over, things will get better” (Farson, 1996, p. 53). Within an organization, there are many levels of communication that a child welfare supervisor needs to consider. Each level may require a variety of communication skills. These levels include the following: 1. Intrapersonal communication, in which one manages a personal process, such as deciding how to cope in a stressful situation; 2. Interpersonal communication, or how we communicate with others and the environment, such as how one gets along with coworkers or staff; 3. Intragroup communication, such as the communication within a team; 4. Intergroup communication, for example, how the child welfare team communicates with the income assistance team; 5. Intraorganizational communication, or how organizations communicate to employees; for example, how does management communicate new policies to staff; and, ﬁnally, 6. Interorganizational communication, or how the child welfare unit communicates with the courts, the child placement agencies, or others in the environment.

Recognizing the level or context of a communication ahead of time allows the supervisor to carefully think through the message and how it will be communicated. Communication is at the heart of the supervisory relationship. Communication can be deﬁned as “an interactional process that involves sending, receiving, and feedback” (Compton, Galaway, & Cournoyer, 2005, p. 159). Child welfare supervisors likely spend most of their working hours in communication with multiple parties: staff, families, colleagues, and community members. In order to understand and enhance communication in the supervisory process, the supervisor needs to begin by understanding the communication process and the role of perception in this process. The communication process involves ﬁve components: the sender, the message, the medium, the receiver, and feedback. Every supervisor is dealing with this process each time he or she communicates with others. The sender initiates the communication in a message. Often this process is called encoding. A supervisor takes his or her thoughts and puts them in a message form,

Management Essentials

71

then uses a medium, or means, to communicate the message. The medium could be something spoken, something written, or a nonverbal medium. The message is then received and decoded. The receiver then gives feedback to the sender. What is important for the supervisor in understanding this process is that each component needs to be considered carefully for communication to be effective. Consider this situation—a child welfare supervisor needs to communicate to one of her staff members that he needs to be in court for another caseworker on an emergency case at 3 P.M. that day. She knows this staff member does not like surprises, but she has no one else to cover. This is an interpersonal communication, so the supervisor needs to think about the following: • The sender, herself: How does this employee react to her and what is their relationship? • The message: What exactly will she say, how will she present this dilemma to the worker, what will be the voice tone and nonverbal style? It is important to note here the signiﬁcance of nonverbal communication. Pointing your ﬁnger, in contrast to putting a hand on someone’s shoulder, communicates a very different nonverbal message. Of course, cultural norms also need to be considered. • The medium: What will be most effective—face-to-face, a note or memo, an e-mail, or a phone message? • The receiver, the worker: Since he does not like surprises, what will work best and what are his possible reactions? • Feedback: How will his response be handled? How will she manage surprise, anger, frustration, or quiet resentment?

By recognizing this as an interpersonal communication in which one wants to maintain the relationship and accomplish a work goal and thinking through the communication process, an appropriate communication can be identiﬁed. Perception is a key part of communication. It is the way we take in and process information—that is, how we make sense of information—and it supports relationship building and maintenance in the work setting (Buhler, 2001; Robbins, 2005). The child welfare supervisor knows this because perception is such a key part of the job for a child welfare worker. Investigating child neglect and abuse, assessing for risk, and licensing a foster home are all activities that involve a great deal of taking in of information and making sense of or organizing it. Given the signiﬁcance of this process in child welfare work, it is important for a child welfare supervisor to be aware of his or her own perceptual process and potential bias and to help workers do the same (see Table 4.3). As any supervisor knows, the barriers to communication are many, including misperceptions, the way information is ﬁltered and selectively

child welfare supervision

72

Table 4.3 Key Questions to Increase Understanding of Perceptions Self-awareness

• What are my values and how do they affect my world view? • What is my cultural ﬁlter? • What is my psychological ﬁlter?

Perception vs. reality • What are the facts and what is my evidence for them? • Have I only looked at certain facts and not others (selective perception)? Perception bias and errors

• Do I take shortcuts in making decisions? • What is my past experience? • Is there a lack of time?

chosen, lack of trust or credibility, and information overload. In addition to errors of perception, the one communication barrier that may be particularly relevant for child welfare supervisors is information overload, when there is too much information to take in over a short period of time. The child welfare worker is likely to face a barrage of information on any given day, leading in turn to information overload for the supervisor, who listens to each worker’s concerns and cases along with managing all the other responsibilities of a supervisor. Cross-Cultural Communication Child welfare practice by its very nature involves communication across culture, gender, and class differences. Understanding the dynamics of these communication processes is an important component of cultural competence and is addressed in more detail in Chapter 9. It is important to note that for the child welfare supervisor, modeling good cross-cultural communication can translate into better team functioning and better practice on the part of workers. Decision Making Decision making is an everyday part of the child welfare supervisor’s life and is required in all management roles, such as planning, organizing, supervising, and evaluating. It is not an easy process; as Tropman (2006, p. 216) reminds us, it “usually means the painful necessity of choice.” To better understand and improve one’s decision-making abilities it helps to have a model for understanding and thinking about the decision-making process and some strategies or tools for improvement. One way to think about decision making is to distinguish between problem solving and decision making (Schermerborn, 1993). Problems exist when there is a difference between what is and what is desired. For example, an employee who is late for work is demonstrating a problem behavior. The problem is being late, and what is desired is being on time. Or a computer program that does not produce accurate information is a problem; what is desired is, of course, correct information. Making a decision is

Management Essentials

73

making a choice about what to do about the problem. It is the basis for action. It is important to be clear about this distinction. Good decisions are made when the problem has been clearly deﬁned and alternative courses of action are generated for solving the problem. The problemsolving process is well known to many supervisors and is applicable in many situations. The process includes the following steps: 1. Deﬁne the problem, which may also include ﬁnding the problem. 2. Generate alternative solutions. 3. Review criteria for evaluating alternatives or create criteria if none exist. 4. Evaluate alternatives against criteria and decide on a proposed course of action. 5. Implement the solution. 6. Evaluate the results.

A simple example can illustrate this process. One unit’s goal is to have a permanency plan within 9 months for all cases, and this goal is not being met. This is the problem. The child welfare supervisor would begin by further deﬁning the problem, asking why this is happening and what the barriers are to ﬁxing it. Once the supervisor feels he has thoroughly considered the causes, alternatives can be generated. Then criteria for evaluating these alternatives are applied. Criteria such as safety may be applicable. Once the criteria are established, alternatives are analyzed. If safety is a criterion, an alternative of returning children home before completion of treatment may not be possible. This leads to a process of deciding on the course of action to take. A second way to think about problem solving and decision making is to identify the types and context of problems so as to have a more deﬁned process for making decisions. The types of problems typically identiﬁed in the management literature are (1) routine, (2) non-routine, (3) expected, (4) unexpected, and (5) crisis (Buhler, 2001; Schermerborn, 1993). Routine problems are common and familiar to the supervisor. For example, not having an available foster home when one is needed may be a routine problem. It happens on a regular basis and the supervisor is not surprised when one of her workers presents this problem. A non-routine problem, by contrast, is one that does not happen often. For example, it may be rare that a worker goes to a home visit and on the ﬁrst visit ﬁnds a lawyer present for the family. As a supervisor, you may have never had this experience yourself or with one of your staff members. Expected problems are ones that may not have happened before, but can be predicted, based on either past experience and intuition or a planning process that identiﬁes potential problem scenarios. An expected problem might be that you are planning to change caseload assignments and you know that several of your workers do not like change. You anticipate that there will be resistance and

child welfare supervision

74

complaining. In contrast, unexpected problems are not anticipated and therefore surprise the supervisor and may take him off guard. The supervisor may have planned a meeting with a community-based agency that he has worked with over the years and he expects they will be receptive to the meeting. The supervisor arrives and the staff bombards him with complaints about agency procedures. Finally, crisis problems are generally non-routine and unexpected and can lead to dire consequences if not handled quickly and properly. If a supervisor thinks about the types of problems that might surface and the kinds of responses that are helpful for approaching different types of problems, he or she will become more effective at managing what is often a “day full of problems.” Skills Box 4.2 outlines strategies for decision making by problem type (Buhler, 2001; Schermerborn, 1993).

Skills Box 4.2

Strategies for Decision Making by Problem Type

Type of Problem

Decision-Making Strategies

Routine

• Be knowledgeable about policies and standard operating procedures. • Keep staff informed on policies that affect them, and present information in a variety of ways. • Have everything in writing.

Non-routine

• • • •

Expected

• In the planning process, list all the potential things that can go wrong and develop contingency plans. • Find others who have had similar situations or changes and get their input. • Rehearse with staff about possible scenarios.

Unexpected

• Since you are often in a reactive situation, slow down any decision making. • Get more information. • Distinguish between problems and symptoms. A symptom may be what you immediately see or is reported to you but is not the underlying cause or problem. • Keep the problem in perspective and avoid deﬁning too broadly or narrowly.

Crisis

• • • •

Check to see if there is a policy that applies to the situation. Gain all the necessary information about the situation. Use brainstorming and generate alternatives. Get staff to engage in the problem-solving process so the problem does not become yours alone to solve.

Stay calm and don’t overreact. Be clear about the time you have. Get all the information available. Recognize that you may have to make a decision without all the necessary information. • Seek consultation.

Management Essentials

75

Case Example 4.2 illustrates an unexpected and possible crisis situation. Decision-Making Styles Individuals tend to have their own decision-making styles, based on a number of factors such as personality (Myers, 1993) and based on experience and setting. Decision-making styles can also be inﬂuenced by culture (Brightman & Sayeed, 1990). A decision-making style is a learned or preferred way of processing information and coming to a conclusion or decision (Hunsaker & Alessandra, 1980). It is important for any supervisor to understand his or her own style and have some awareness of how this style affects others (Robbins, 2005). Case Example 4.2

Problem Solving

Josie has been a supervisor of an ongoing unit for 2 years. Prior to her promotion, Josie’s primary role was as a child welfare investigator. Most of what she knows about ongoing cases she has learned as a supervisor. When faced with a new or difﬁcult situation, Josie will consult with other ongoing supervisors as well as with her program supervisor. On Friday afternoon, a worker informs Josie that he needs to have an adolescent male client appear in court for a delinquency hearing at 8 A.M. on Thursday morning of the following week. Her worker is very upset and states that he is not sure how he will get the client to court on time. The client has been placed in a juvenile facility 6 hours away. There is no suitable placement for the client in their county given his age and his placement history. The juvenile detention center will not take him as he has not yet been adjudicated delinquent and his crime had been committed over a month prior. The detention center does not consider him to be a ﬂight risk. The child protection shelter has room; however, they are not a locked facility and do consider him a ﬂight risk as he has a history of running from the shelter. The county ofﬁce where the child is placed states they do not have staff available to help with transportation. For the worker to have the child there at 8 A.M., he would have to travel all night without rest. Because this is an unexpected problem, Josie starts by getting more information. Josie’s ﬁrst solution is to contact the district attorney and ask that the child’s presence at the hearing be waived. The DA states that the child must be present at the hearing and will not waive the mandate, nor will he reschedule the hearing. Josie’s next thought is to contact the county administrator and ask him to intervene. She makes the broad assumption (possibly deﬁning the problem too narrowly) that the county of placement is being difﬁcult because it does not want to deal with the child, as he is an out-of-county placement. Her administrator cautions her against this assumption, stating that although this may be a problem in some counties, the county in question has been cooperative in the past. After contacting the county herself, she learns that the problem is not that the county will not help with transportation, but rather that they were willing to meet the worker halfway for both trips to and from, but her worker was insisting that they transport the child the entire way. The problem is not a routine problem. The worker says he is concerned about accruing compensatory time, as the county has been discouraging workers from working overtime. Josie explains the policy to the worker, including the responsibility they have for making sure that the child is present at court. Josie approves compensatory leave for the worker. In this case, Josie had time to make a decision and avoid a crisis. She continued to get information so the problem could be clearly deﬁned and then made a decision.

76

child welfare supervision

One presentation of styles divides decision makers into rational or intuitive (Schermerborn, 1993). Rational or systematic decision makers tend to plan for decisions carefully, establish criteria, and methodically weigh alternatives against criteria. They break down complex problems into smaller components, search for additional information in an orderly manner, and complete each analytic step in sequence. A systematic style of decision making is important when there are many facts to be integrated and standards such as policy directives need to be applied. Intuitive decision makers tend to keep the overall problem in the forefront rather than focus on components of the problem, use hunches to direct them, and work with multiple alternatives simultaneously, quickly exploring new ones and abandoning others. An intuitive style of decision making is important when there is a level of uncertainty and facts are limited and when there is little precedence or criteria and multiple alternatives are possible. It is helpful for supervisors to develop skills in both styles, by practicing both and learning from others (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, 2005). Apart from style, the child welfare supervisor, like any other manager, is not immune to faulty decision making based on common errors made in the decision-making process (Buhler, 2001; Robbins, 2005; Schermerborn, 1993). Some examples of common mistakes in decision making include the following: • Deﬁning the problem too broadly or too narrowly. An example might be in assessing the differing sizes of caseloads within a unit. The problem might be deﬁned too broadly if the increased neglect being reported in the community is viewed as being due to increased awareness from the intensive training provided in the school system. Deﬁning this same problem too narrowly would be trying to have each caseworker have the exact same number of cases at all times. It may be true that more education in the community is leading to more referrals, with some being inappropriate, but that is another problem. In this case, caseload size should be the focus. At the same time, deﬁning the problem as needing to ensure that everyone has the same caseload size will be too conﬁning and create a potentially unsolvable situation. • Focusing on symptoms rather than on causes. Symptoms are often experienced ﬁrst: an employee is never complete with her paperwork before court appearances or the intake unit is holding cases too long before transferring them to an ongoing unit. All supervisors need to train themselves to ask, “What is behind this problem?” Often the answer leads to more information and a realization that what appears ﬁrst is a symptom of the underlying problem. The employee who does not have paperwork done may be having difﬁculty prioritizing or may spend too much time ﬁnding extra resources for families at the expense of court

Management Essentials

77

reports. By focusing on the causes, both the supervisor and staff save time and are more productive. • Identify any bias in decision making. We all have patterns and errors that can make their way into our decision-making process and impede the making of good decisions (Robbins, 2005). Some examples include (1) overconﬁdence—thinking we know more than we actually do—which is often a bias of longtime employees for whom the job has become routine; (2) anchoring bias, or the tendency to stay stuck on the initial information we receive, which then distorts further information; (3) conﬁrmation bias or selective perception, the way we tend to see what already conﬁrms our decision; (4) availability bias, or focusing on information that is more readily available or more vivid to us; and (5) representative bias, assessing the likelihood of something happening on the basis of a previous experience. The child welfare supervisor is often very aware of these biases in how staff members make decisions about families. As a parallel, the supervisor can make the same bias errors with staff or in an organizational context. It is important to recognize these biases, and it can be helpful to discuss these with staff as a learning tool.

Individual vs. Group Decision Making Child welfare supervisors make many decisions individually, that is, without consultation, on a daily basis. The advantage of individual decision making is that it is more efﬁcient in terms of the time required. Making a decision without consultation is most effective when there are few alternative courses of action. For an experienced child welfare supervisor, this may be a rather routine situation. A worker asks about whether to prepare a document for court and you know that it is not only required but that the judge will ask for it immediately. At the same time, there are many other decisions that are more complicated and involve greater ambiguity or possible alternative solutions. Making decisions in consultation with another individual or in groups is an important option for the supervisor. Generally, groups are more effective in making decisions when it is necessary to generate new ideas, gain a variety of perspectives, reach consensus or buy-in and a better understanding of the decision, or build a team (Harvard Business School Press, 2004). That said, there are also hindering factors to group decision making, and social scientists disagree about whether individuals or groups make better decisions (Johnson & Johnson, 1997). Factors that can impede effective group decision making include lack of group maturity, a group that does not function well, groupthink, or inappropriate group size (Robbins, 2005). Groups that are newly formed or that have a history of conﬂict can have a difﬁcult time making decisions. Groupthink, ﬁrst identiﬁed and deﬁned by Janus (1982), is the potential for groups to support each other and reach consensus without

78

child welfare supervision

being open to alternative perspectives. This can lead to overconﬁdence and, hence, faulty decision making. This could happen with a group of seasoned child welfare workers who all think about child maltreatment in a similar way and are convinced of their positions. Finally, the ideal group size for a group decision-making process is considered to be 7 to 10 (Robbins, 2005). Given the options for decision making, it is up to the supervisor to decide when and how to use individual and group decision-making processes. Table 4.4 outlines questions to ask before choosing a method. If group decision making is the choice, the supervisor needs to decide on and design the process for the group, and know the options for group decision-making models. The models for group decision making, discussed below, include (1) decision by authority after group discussion, (2) majority rules (voting), and (3) consensus (Johnson & Johnson, 1997). 1. Decision by authority after group discussion. As the supervisor, you tell your team that you will be making the ﬁnal decision, but you want their input. In this model, you beneﬁt from the group’s ideas, but you also risk competition from group members to get their ideas heard, you do not resolve conﬂict, and group members may feel that this is a waste of their time. An example of when you might use this model is when you are trying to manage a schedule for on-call coverage and you want to hear the concerns of your staff, although ultimately you have to make up the schedule. The staff know that everyone has to take turns covering evenings and weekends, so there is not a lot of resistance to the decision, but they want to provide input based on personal needs, and you are willing to be ﬂexible. 2. Majority rules. This model generally means taking a vote on a topic. It is often helpful when trying to come to closure on a topic and when complete member commitment is not necessary or the issue is not highly important. The disadvantage is that there is an unhappy minority, which can lead to lack of commitment. And if done too quickly, all opinions may not be heard. This model might be useful, for example, when a decision on when to hold staff meetings needs to be made. Everyone agrees there will be one meeting a week, but some prefer the beginning of the week, stating that this helps them get organized for the week, while others prefer the end of the week so that they can take care of crises and have more time for planning. Still others want Wednesday, and say they like breaking up the week by getting the staff together. After hearing all these arguments, the supervisor decides it is time to move on and asks for a vote. 3. Consensus. Consensus decision making is deﬁned as both a type of decision and a process of decision making. Consensus means getting agreement on the decision from everyone involved

Management Essentials

79

(Andrews, 1999). It is considered by many to be most effective because everyone participating agrees to support the decision (Johnson & Johnson, 1997). It has also been shown to increase job satisfaction in public-sector employees when perceived levels of organizational politics are high (Witt, Andrews, & Kacmar, 2000). Consensus decision making involves working towards unanimous agreement and requires that all members participate, listen, and be open to a variety of ideas (Andrews, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 1997). As mentioned, the advantage of this model is that there is group buy-in, and it also has the potential to create more innovation and quality. The disadvantage is that it is time consuming and can create more conﬂict among group members. An example of a good time to use consensus decision making is when you have set aside 2 hours for your unit to design a new intake procedure. You have the time set aside, you want some new ideas, and it is essential that everyone agree to the changes.

For child welfare supervisors, understanding decision-making processes is not only useful for managing units but also an important skill to teach and model, as group decision making is important for working with client families. Family group conferencing and decision making is essentially a parallel group decision-making process. CONCLUSION A child welfare supervisor has many responsibilities within the management role that require a range of knowledge and skill. This chapter begins by presenting the distinction between leadership and management and makes the point that both roles and sets of skills are important to be effective as Table 4.4 Decision-Making Processes Model

Questions to Ask Yourself

Authority

• • • •

Do I have ultimate decision authority and does the group expect this? Is the problem routine? Do I need immediate resolution? Do I have the expertise and information to support my making the decision?

Majority rule

• • • •

Is the decision not so important to everyone? Do I need a sense of the group but also to move on? Is time limited? Will those who “lose” be alienated or retaliate?

Consensus

• • • • •

Is there adequate time for more extensive discussion? Do the staff and I have the psychological energy for discussion? Is this a complex decision? Do I want new and diverse ideas? Do I need commitment and buy-in from everyone?

child welfare supervision

80

a supervisor. The integration of management skills with leadership practice is presented using a framework for understanding the levels of skill and knowledge that a supervisor needs to develop. A key management function, planning, is outlined, including steps for project management and time management. In addition, this chapter provides background material on two key management and supervision skills: communication and decision making. These skills are essential to carrying out all supervisory roles. Being a leader, manager, and supervisor in a child welfare setting requires a complex set of competencies, all important to ultimately fostering better outcomes for families and children.

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. How would you describe your own knowledge and skills related to managing a unit of caseworkers? What areas are important to increase your skills? 2. How do you like to make decisions? How does this process compare and contrast with that of workers in your unit? 3. What are your preferred planning methods? When do they work best for you? What new methods might you consider? 4. Think of a major decision you have to make in the near future. Examine that decision through the lens of the models presented in Table 4.4. How might your course of action change according to the decision-making model you choose?

REFERENCES

Andrews, J. (1999). 40 consensus decision-making activities. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ. Aspell, P. J., & Aspell, D. D. (1997). Enneagram personality portraits. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2001). Leading with soul. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brightman, H., & Sayeed, L. (1990). The pervasiveness of senior management’s view of the cultural gaps within a division. Group & Organizational Studies, 15(3), 226–278. Bryson, J. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonproﬁt organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules: What the world’s greatest mangers do differently. New York: Simon & Schuster. Buhler, P. (2001). Management skills. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Pearson Education. Compton, B., Galaway, B., & Cournoyer, B. (2005). Social work processes (7th ed.). Belmont CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Covey, S., Merrill, A. R., & Merrill, R. R. (1994). First things ﬁrst: To live, to love, to learn, to leave a legacy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Management Essentials

81

DiPadova, L., & Faerman, S. (1998). Managing time. In R. Edwards, J. Yankey, & M. Altipeter (Eds.), Skills for effective management of nonproﬁt organizations (pp. 469–491). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Eadie, D. (2006). Planning and managing strategically. In R. Edwards & J. Yankey (Eds.), Effectively managing non-proﬁt organizations (pp. 375– 390). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Edwards, R., & Austin, D. (2006). Managing effectively in an environment of competing values. In R. Edwards & J. Yankey (Eds.), Effectively managing non-proﬁt organizations (pp. 3–25). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Farson, R. (1996). Management of the absurd: Paradoxes in leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster. Harvard Business School Press. (2004). Creating teams with an edge. Boston: Author. Hunsaker, P., & Alessandra, A. (1980). The art of managing people. New York: Simon & Schuster. Janus, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52(5), 90–102. Kettner, P. (2002). Achieving excellence in the management of human services organizations. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Keirsey, D. (1998). Please understand me II. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books. Kotter, P. (1990). A force for change: How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewis, J., Lewis, M., Packard, T, & Souﬂee, F. (2001). Management of human service programs (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Menefee, D. (2001). Strategic administration of nonproﬁt human service organizations: A Model for executive success in turbulent times. In J. Rothman, J. Erlich, & J. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community intervention (6th ed., pp. 414–428). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Myers, I. B. (1993). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (n.d.) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Robbins, S. (2005). Essentials of organizational behavior (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Russo, E., & Libove, L. (1996). The comprehensive leader. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ. Schermerborn, J. (1993). Management for productivity (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., & Smith, B. (1994). The ﬁfth discipline ﬁeldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Sinclair, M., & Ashkanasy, N. (2005). Intuition: Myth or a decision-making tool? Management learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tropman, J. (2006). Supervision and management in nonproﬁts and human services: How not to become the administrator you always hated. Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers Publishing Co.

82

child welfare supervision

Weis, R., & Gantt, V. (2004). Knowledge and skill development in nonproﬁt organizations. Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers Publishing Co. Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (1995). Developing management skills (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Witt, L. A., Andrews, M., & Kacmar, M. (2000). The role of participation in decision making in the organizational politics–job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53(3), 341–358.

5 THE CHILD WELFARE UNIT M ICHELE D. H ANNA

ike that of many social service agencies, the organizational culture of L public child welfare agencies is hierarchical in nature. At the top of the hierarchy is the state ofﬁce or county administrators and at the bottom are the frontline workers. In between may be a number of levels of middle management, depending on the state’s administrative organization. Within the broader context of management, the level of management is dependent on the scope of responsibility (Menefee, 2004)—the lower the level of management, the narrower the scope of supervisory responsibility. In general, the child welfare agency is a workplace organized around the supervisory group or team or the child welfare unit, in which one supervisor is responsible for the supervision of a small number of frontline workers (Child Welfare League of America [CWLA], 1984). The effective child welfare unit supervisor must, therefore, understand group dynamics and development (Menefee, 2004; Salus, 2004). DEFINING THE CHILD WELFARE UNIT The cohesive child welfare unit is one that is “motivated to achieve the mission and goals of the agency, as well as satisfying the caseworker’s own personal needs and goals” (Salus, 2004, p. 7). Guzzo and Dickson (1996, pp. 308–309) deﬁne a work group as a group made up of individuals who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks 83

84

child welfare supervision they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g. community, organization), and who perform tasks that affect others (such as customers and coworkers).

Vinokur-Kaplan and Miller (2004) identify four major dimensions of different types of workplace groups or teams in human service agencies: purpose or mission, time, degree of autonomy, and authority structure. In terms of purpose or mission, workplace teams are concerned with either improvement of agency processes or delivery of services. The frontline child welfare unit is focused on providing services to children and families. The purpose or mission of all child welfare units, as deﬁned by federal mandates and then operationalized in agency mission statements, is to provide safety, well-being, and permanency for the children in their care within the context of the larger agency. It is important that the unit supervisor and all members of the supervisory unit recognize the reality that child welfare units are focused on delivering services in the context of broad agency goals and purposes. The second dimension, time, refers to the length of time the group is in existence (Vinokur-Kaplan & Miller, 2004). Within a public child welfare agency, the length of existence of a unit depends on how the unit is deﬁned. If the unit is deﬁned by task responsibility, for example, the intake unit, the foster care unit, or the adoption unit, the unit will be in place as long as the organizational structure remains intact. If the unit is deﬁned by membership, the typical child welfare unit remains in a constant state of ﬂux as membership shifts due to promotions and turnover. According to the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey (American Public Human Services Association [APHSA], 2005), with 42 states reporting, the average turnover rate for child welfare in 2003 was reported to be 11.8% for frontline supervisors to 22.1% for child protective service workers. Wanous, Reichers, and Malik (1984, p. 670) discuss the concept of temporal overlap, which “refers to the simultaneous occurrence of socialization and group development.” Temporal overlap occurs when 1) new cohorts enter into an existing organization and become a “group” because of the shared newcomer experience; 2) a newcomer enters an established group; and 3) a new group consisting of present employees is established within the organization. Each of these situations differs in the degree of organizational socialization and group development that occurs, providing challenges to the supervisors involved as they manage the important attribute of time. Table 5.1 provides brief examples of how all three of these situations may occur within the child welfare organization and the impacts they may have on supervision. The third dimension is the degree of autonomy (Vinokur-Kaplan & Miller, 2004). Work groups are often characterized by leaders who make most of the decisions for the group and the group members. Teams that focus primarily on improvement of processes are often self-managed and make their own key decisions. The child welfare unit supervisor has a minimum level of autonomy over how the unit is managed, given that most of

The Child Welfare Unit

85

Table 5.1 Examples of Temporal Overlap Within the Child Welfare Agency High Group Development: Low Organizational Socialization

Medium to High Group Development: High Organizational Socialization

Low Group Development: High Organizational Socialization

Organizational restructuring Example: The agency has decided to change from a generic unit model (units work cases from intake to closure) to a specialized unit model (cases transfer from unit to unit depending on stage of the case and service needed, e.g., investigations, foster care, adoptions).

New cohorts Example: The county has just received funding for the hiring of 10 new caseworkers. These workers all report on the same day and attend new worker training together before being assigned to individual supervisors.

New staff member Example: A new supervisor or new worker joins the established group. This is the most common kind of change that occurs within child welfare agencies, due to turnover or promotional opportunities.

Possible challenges to supervision: Supervisors may not be assigned to specialized areas that they are most knowledgeable about; workers may not want to let go of cases they have had for a while; workers may be assigned to units specializing in areas they are not familiar with.

Possible challenges to supervision: Supervisors may be assigned more than one new worker, depending on size of the agency and needs of the unit, which can be overwhelming. The cohesiveness of the cohort may lend itself to constant discussion and comparisons of different supervisors and may present a problem if members feel they are not receiving similar or equal supervision. This situation may result in unrealistic expectations and requests from the new workers.

Possible challenges to supervision: In both cases, there may be a short honeymoon period when everyone is accepting; however, is it possible that members of the established group will not be accepting and may be covertly or overtly hostile towards the new member. The new supervisor will have to contend with the legacy (positive or negative) of the previous supervisor. The new worker may be expected to immediately carry a full caseload within a unit that may be overwhelmed by covering the vacancy for some time.

the policies and procedures that govern the unit are rooted in the policies and procedures of the agency. Supervisory autonomy, for the most part, is found in administrative tasks such as case assignments, meeting management, individual conferences, supervisee training and development, unit time management, and leave approval. Both the supervisor and unit workers also have a relatively high level of autonomy when it comes to making individual case decisions as long as they are in line with agency policy and state law. The fourth and ﬁnal dimension discussed by Vinokur-Kaplan and Miller (2004) is the authority structure of the group. Depending on the service area, the child welfare supervisory unit may be generic or specialized. In agencies serving rural areas, the generic unit will often be cross-functional,

child welfare supervision

86

Case Example 5.1

Silos

In a large metropolitan county, child protection services are provided by a county ofﬁce. Within the ofﬁce, several child welfare units exist that specialize in different aspects of child welfare services. The initial child welfare investigation is done by one unit, family preservation services are provided by another unit, foster care placement is provided by another unit, and ongoing or permanency services are provided by yet another unit. Although county workers and supervisors know that they must work together to provide services, the culture of the agency is such that units rarely interact with each other and there is no cross-training provided other than the initial new-worker training. Transfer of cases and case-related materials is done electronically. A brief case conference may occur at the request of a permanency worker; however, this rarely occurs given the overwhelming caseloads of all units. In this particular case, Mary, an ongoing permanency worker, has made a recommendation that the foster parents of James (age 5) and Henry (age 2) be allowed to adopt the children, as the parents’ rights have been terminated and the children have been residing in the foster home since Henry was 6 months old. To Mary’s knowledge, there are no suitable relatives for the children and they appear to be thriving in this home. In preparation for the upcoming court review, Mary makes a surprise visit to the home to gather some needed information for her court report. Upon arrival at the foster parents’ home, she learns that James, Henry, and the foster parents’ biological children have been removed from the home pending an investigation of neglect and abuse allegations. Mary returns to the ofﬁce and sees Susan, the foster care worker who is assigned to the foster home. Susan informs Mary that she was not aware of any investigation and, to her knowledge, the home is more than suitable for foster care or adoption. Both Mary and Susan inform their respective supervisors about the situation only to learn that neither of them knew that an investigation was taking place. Mary’s supervisor contacts the investigation supervisor and asks for a case stafﬁng. At the stafﬁng, it is learned that the investigatory worker, Jane, was a new hire who did not realize that she needed to inform the foster home worker of the investigation. The supervisor apologizes for this, stating that she assumed this was information learned in the new-worker training. Jane further states that she was planning on contacting both the foster care worker and Mary for collateral interviews within the week; however, she had already placed James and Henry with a relative and was planning to recommend that the home be closed. Mary asks who the relative is and learns that it is an uncle who had previously been ruled out as a relative resource because of his criminal background. Jane states she was unaware of any criminal charges and she had run a local police department check and it was clear. Mary informs her that the uncle’s criminal history was in a different state, and had the investigator spoken with her ﬁrst, she would have learned this. Susan also informs Jane that there is a process that must be followed before a foster home can be closed and is somewhat irritated that Jane did not know this. As a result of this situation, the three supervisors approach their administrator and ask for time to do cross-training with workers in an effort to prevent situations like this in the future.

consisting of members from several different specialty areas. One generic unit may include individual specialized caseworkers responsible for speciﬁc tasks or speciﬁc settings; a small group of generic caseworkers may be responsible for all of the tasks for each case. This level of diversity requires a supervisor to have a broad knowledge of all components of child welfare practice and child welfare policy. The specialized unit consists of workers who all work in one specialty area such as investigations, permanency, or adoption. Larger urban counties

The Child Welfare Unit

87

are more likely to have specialized supervisory units within the agency’s organizational structure. Many times, supervisors of specialized units are previously successful caseworkers for the area of child welfare they supervise; however, a general knowledge of other areas of child welfare is also necessary. Although specialized units tend to be divided by tasks or function, the units are dependent on one another to accomplish the overall mission of the agency. Case Example 5.1 provides an illustration of how important it is for child welfare workers and supervisors to understand this interdependence and the impact it has on the safety and well-being of children as well as the overall effectiveness of the agency. COMPOSITION OF THE CHILD WELFARE UNIT The formation or development of supervisory groups within the child welfare system is dependent on many variables. The Child Welfare League of America acknowledges that personnel practices for public child welfare agencies are determined by the merit and civil system of the state (CWLA, 1984); however, it also offers standards for the organization and administration of agencies providing child welfare services. As previously stated, most public child welfare agencies are divided into supervisory units in which one supervisor oversees the services provided by a group of frontline workers. This organizational pattern is also seen in many private child welfare ofﬁces. The actual size and composition of the supervisory group will vary depending on the overall size of the agency, the location of the agency, i.e., urban or rural, and the tasks delegated to the unit. The child welfare unit workers will also vary in levels of education and experience. For public agencies, state policies and mandates help to determine the function of the county child welfare ofﬁce. The majority of states’ (38) child welfare agencies are reported to be state administered, meaning that, for the most part, child welfare policy is administered similarly throughout the state (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families/Children’s Bureau and Ofﬁce of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation [DHHS], 2003). The remaining states’ child welfare agencies are reported to be state supervised and county administered, meaning that the organizational structure may vary from county to county. A few of the states reporting their agencies to be state administered can be more accurately deﬁned as state administered with a strong county structure (DHHS, 2003). In these states, the administration of child welfare comes out of the state ofﬁce; however, counties have a strong inﬂuence on how the policies are administered. The typical child welfare ofﬁce will include a number of supervisory units in which one supervisor is responsible for overseeing the work of approximately ﬁve frontline workers. The CWLA standards recommend a “ratio of one full-time supervisor to no more than ﬁve trained and experienced social workers who need individual attention” (CWLA, 1984, p. 49). In a study of 12 public California child welfare agencies, conducted by the

88

child welfare supervision

Human Services Workforce Initiative (HSWI), the supervisor-to-worker ratio ranged from 1:4.6 to 1:12.5 (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2006). The supervisor-to-worker ratio can make a huge difference in a supervisor’s effectiveness and the overall unit’s effectiveness. The element of time is the most obvious variable affected. Logistically, the time it would take to provide individual attention to six or more workers, as opposed to ﬁve or less, would be challenging to even the most seasoned of supervisors. It takes more time to supervise more people, and the individual time workers need is often sacriﬁced due to the constant state of crisis and chaos that can occur when one unit is responsible for a large number of cases. The level of experience and education of the unit members may be a factor as well. In general, it takes more supervisory time to train and guide a unit of ﬁve new inexperienced workers than it does for a unit of ﬁve trained and experienced workers. Just as new workers will often start with smaller caseloads and gradually build to full caseloads, new supervisors should ask to begin supervision with a smaller unit, when possible, and gradually work up to a full unit. At minimum, new supervisors would beneﬁt from having a unit of workers with diverse experience and educational backgrounds. This mix of experience can aid the supervisor in time management, as he or she may not need to meet as frequently with the more seasoned workers on an individual basis. This can free the supervisor to spend the extra time and attention that many new, inexperienced workers crave. DIVERSITY WITHIN THE CHILD WELFARE UNIT The diversity within the typical child welfare unit may impact the supervisor’s ability to be an effective team leader or group manager. The results of studies exploring the relationship between group effectiveness and group composition vary (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). According to Guzzo and Dickson, more often than not, research has found that heterogeneity among group members has a positive effect on creativity and decision making within the team, although it has been found to often be positively related to turnover. As discussed in Chapter 9, child welfare units may be diverse on several levels, including, but not limited to, education, experience, gender, and cultural background. As supervisors get to know each of their unit members, this diversity can be a source of strength for the unit as a whole. It is important that supervisors recognize the different strengths each worker brings to the unit from various perspectives. The lone male worker who is often found in child welfare units can help female workers who may be attempting to understand an adolescent male on their caseload. The worker who has a strong religious afﬁliation may help their coworker understand a client’s faith perspective that to them seems rigid or outside the “norm.” The effective supervisor takes the lead in facilitating dialogue among unit members that encourages growth in the cultural competence of each unit member.

The Child Welfare Unit

89

CWLA (1984) recommends that a child welfare supervisor have at minimum a master’s degree; however, a survey of 42 state child welfare agencies in 2004 found that only 2 states required a master’s degree for supervisors. A bachelor’s degree was found to be the minimum level of education for case-carrying workers and supervisors (APHSA, 2005). A 2003 survey conducted by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) of 716 child welfare practitioners, including direct service workers, supervisors, administrators, and other child welfare practitioners, found that 75% held an MSW and 25% a BSW (Whitaker, Reich, Reid, Williams, & Woodside, 2004). The average length of experience in child welfare was 9 1/2 years, with 27% having less than 3 years. Other research has found that the average length of tenure for child welfare workers was 2 years and for supervisors, 3 years (U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce [GAO], 2003). As a result, child welfare supervisors (master’s- or bachelor’s-degree level) may be responsible for overseeing the work of bachelor’s-degree-level workers with little to no experience or master’s-degree-level workers with years of experience. In agencies that partner with schools of social work, the unit may also include bachelors- or master’s-degree-level interns temporarily placed in the unit as a part of their ﬁeld education. The difference between supervisor experience or education and that of the worker may present challenges to supervisors as they try to fulﬁll the educational responsibilities of supervision. A primary component of educational supervision is teaching or training workers how to do the job they are assigned (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Just as importantly, supervisors are expected to provide guidance and expertise to trained workers through case consultation and as situations arise. To be effective, a supervisor needs to understand some general principles and techniques about adult learners, as outlined in Kadushin and Harkness (see Table 5.2). While these principles apply mostly to the learning process, they also translate to the supervisory process. Principle 6 in particular addresses the recognition of the uniqueness of each supervisee. It is vital that, in all areas of supervision, the supervisor not take a “one size ﬁts all” approach. The level of supervision needed for a master’s-degree-level social worker with 5 or more years of experience is not going to be same as that needed for an inexperienced worker who does not have a degree in human services. Supervisors must learn to tailor their supervisory approaches to the individual worker just as child welfare workers should tailor treatment or case plans to each individual client and family. Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale (1999) discuss diversity in terms of social category, values, and information. Social category is what most of us think about when we use the term diversity, for example, race, socioeconomic background, or gender. Value diversity has to do with differences in terms of how the group members perceive their mission, goals, or tasks. Informational diversity involves the difference in the knowledge base, work perspectives, and level of experience within the group. Jehn et al. found that in order for a work team to be effective, it should have high

90

child welfare supervision

Table 5.2 Six Principles of Adult Learning Applied to the Child Welfare Unit Principle 1: Workers need be highly motivated to learn. Supervisory Techniques • Explain the usefulness of what is being taught, its application, and utility. • Make learning meaningful to workers, relating it to their individual work and needs. • Show the connection between areas of high motivation and areas of low motivation. • Stimulate existing motivation and instill motivation that may not exist. Example: Workers are required to document case contacts. Joe has a worker who tends to write minimally and does not provide enough detail in her written contacts. This worker has experienced several occasions in the last few weeks when the judge or one of the attorneys at court has drilled her for details that she could not recall. As a result, Joe is receiving complaints from the court. In a conference, Joe explains to the worker that thorough written documentation, instead of simply trying to remember details, she will be able to write better court reports and, in turn, make the court experience less stressful. The following week, Joe receives a call from the courts praising the worker for her report and the worker declares that court went off without a hitch! Principle 2: Workers need to be able to devote time and energy to the learning process. Supervisory Techniques • Establish structure including, but not limited to, time and place. Explain objectives, expectations, length of meetings, and agendas. • Within reasonable limits, allow ﬂexibility for workers to determine their own solutions. • Establish a safe and secure psychological space for workers to be open and honest in the learning process. • Recognize, acknowledge, and use the workers’ existing knowledge and abilities. • Make analogies between the familiar and the unfamiliar. • Express conﬁdence in workers’ abilities to learn and problem solve. • Be ready and willing to share your knowledge and expertise. Example: A supervisory unit is having difﬁculty maintaining ofﬁce coverage on a regular basis. The supervisor, Sarah, posted the hours when workers were expected to be in the ofﬁce to cover the phones and handle any in-house emergencies. Sarah decides to make this the topic of the next scheduled unit meeting, which happens to be a day and time that all workers agreed to, and with rare exception, all are present. Sarah presents the problem to the workers and asks for input for a solution that all can agree on. Sarah notes that they all show up to the unit meetings, and she doesn’t understand why they can’t do the same for ofﬁce coverage. One worker states that part of the problem is that the supervisor set the schedule without asking for input originally and many of them resented this, as they had prior commitments during those times. Sarah apologizes for this oversight and together the unit develops a schedule that works for everyone. One worker, who always seems to recognize possible pitfalls in situations, suggests that they also put a mechanism in place in case someone inadvertently is unable to cover their assigned time. The group agrees that this is a good point and commits to one another to make every effort to adhere to the new schedule. Principle 3: Workers need to feel successful and feel that learning is rewarding. Supervisory Technique • Provide workers with tasks or objectives that are realistic and can be met, not tasks that are beyond their ability to meet successfully. • Spread out workers’ learning. Cover issues that are clear, concise, and attainable. Do not try to deal with every issue all at one time. (continued)

The Child Welfare Unit

91

Table 5.2 Six Principles of Adult Learning Applied to the Child Welfare Unit • Present information sequentially, from the obvious to the obscure. • Praise workers when truly warranted. Do not offer praise for work that is mediocre or does not meet standards. • Provide honest feedback from a strengths perspective. • Provide feedback less frequently. Constant, daily praise can be seen as trite or condescending, whereas constant critical or negative feedback can be seen as “nagging” and diminish the worker’s motivation to improve. Example: When new workers ﬁrst come out of new-worker training, they are often overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and may feel anxious, thinking that they should remember all they were told and now be ready to do the work with minimal guidance. Recognizing this anxiety in a new worker assigned to her unit, Sophie calls the worker into her ofﬁce on the ﬁrst day in the unit. Sophie provides the new worker with a written agenda for their ﬁrst meeting, which includes unit expectations and a training schedule. She explains to her new worker that she has reviewed her personnel ﬁle and knows that she has extensive experience in testifying in court and working with attorneys; therefore, she will only cover that as it pertains to the unit’s cases and jurisdiction. She asks the new worker if she has any particular concerns. The worker tells Sophie she is relieved to see that the training schedule appears to start at the beginning of the case and follows to the end; however, she wonders what will happen if something should occur that they have not covered yet. Sophie explains that they will deal with those situations as they come up and assures her worker that she will be available, as will other workers in the unit. She notes that each of the other workers in the unit has different strengths and that she recognizes these strengths with a “worker of the month” award at each month at unit meetings. She tells the new worker that she hopes to be able to recognize her as well after she has been with the unit for a few months and her strengths have become evident. Principle 4: Workers need to be actively involved in the learning process. Supervisory Techniques • Encourage workers to participate in the planning of the agenda. • Provide opportunity for questions, discussions, and expressions of doubt or disagreement. • Provide workers with opportunities to apply the knowledge. Example: Gina has a unit of seasoned workers who have been with the agency an average of 3 years. She notices that recently some minor steps in procedures and policy have been overlooked or ignored by most of her staff members. In particular, she was told by her supervisor that her unit did not appear to be keeping up with data entry of their case contacts and that this was causing an issue for the entire county ofﬁce. As a result, Gina informs her unit that during the third week of the month, the weekly unit meeting will have a training component, beginning with the unit meeting in 2 weeks. She tells them that she would like to provide them with an opportunity to have mini-refresher training for different procedures and policies that may have changed since they went through training. She states that the ﬁrst meeting will address case contacts and documentation. She asks the workers to send her a list of ideas for future training. Several of them submit ideas; however, during the ﬁrst meeting, one of the workers who has been there the longest states that she feels this is unnecessary and objects to spending her time this way. Gina ask the other workers if they feel the same way and one of them who has been there almost as long states that she welcomes the training opportunity. She says she has been frustrated because she has been unable to keep up with her documentation and would welcome any suggestions that might help. This opens a dialogue between all of the workers regarding how to address the problem. The workers develop a solution and all agree to try it for the next month to see if there is improvement. After the meeting, the worker who complained tells Gina she now feels differently and provides her with a list of ideas for future training. (continued)

92

child welfare supervision

Table 5.2 Six Principles of Adult Learning Applied to the Child Welfare Unit Principle 5: Content needs to be presented in a meaningful way. Supervisory Techniques • Make content interesting and relevant to workers as much as possible. • Make content ﬁt a theoretical framework that provides organization and relates to the work done with clients, showing how this can help workers do a better job and thereby improve the conditions of the clients on their caseload. • Be selective in content and train on issues of relevance. • When possible, have workers practice or apply the content in different situations during the training. • Make content planned, continuous, sequential, and integrated into practice. • Relate new concepts to old concepts previously taught. • Periodically review and summarize content. Example: As an MSW supervisor, Mary often has MSW interns assigned to her unit. Recognizing that part of the purpose of the internship is for both the student and the agency to consider the student’s potential employment after graduation, Mary tries to provide each student with a realistic picture of what working at the agency entails. She has also learned that many of the students like to integrate what they are experiencing with what they have learned in class. Therefore, when meeting with students, Mary always tries to connect theories of human behavior to the subject at hand. Mary particularly likes to talk about cognitive-behavioral theory when talking to students about developing case plans. Prior to sending students out on their own for the ﬁrst time, Mary will talk through possible situations that may arise on the case involved and have the students practice with her how they will handle conversations with clients. She will do this each time the student goes out, and when they return have the student explain the differences between what actually happened and how they practiced it. Mary will also take the opportunity for “teachable moments” as they arise, pointing out to students how information covered in previous conferences is evident in the current discussion. Principle 6: Supervisors need to recognize and consider each supervisees’ uniqueness. Supervisory Techniques • Do an educational diagnosis of each worker to determine their level of proﬁciency, strengths, and needs. • Review and refer to the diagnosis before each individual conference. • Engage workers in these assessments and ﬁnd out what they already know and what they want to learn. • Recognize differences in learning styles, including the pace at which each worker learns. Example: As a new supervisor of a unit that has workers at different educational levels and experience, Sam decides that he wants to develop individual learning plans with each of the workers. Sam has recently learned that people have different learning styles and that to be an effective supervisor he must be willing to adapt to and approach each worker according to his or her unique style. Sam informs his workers of the plan at a unit meeting and has each of them complete a learning-style inventory. At his ﬁrst conference with each worker, he reviews the results with the worker and asks if the worker feels this is an accurate representation of their learning style. He then discusses with each worker their individual goals for improvement and needs for training. Together they develop a plan that is concrete and sequential, to be evaluated at the 6-month review period. Prior to each conference, Sam reviews both the results of the learning-style inventory and the notes from previous conferences to refresh his memory of the best approach to use with the worker for that conference. He also notes that this information has been helpful on a daily basis and with one worker in particular who frequently comes into the ofﬁce asking the same questions over and over. Sam notes in this worker’s ﬁle his observation that the worker will do this until the procedure has been fully learned. Sam makes a mental note to be more patient with this worker in the future. Adapted from Kadushin & Harkness (2002).

The Child Welfare Unit

93

informational diversity and low value diversity. For example, an adoption unit may have one worker who was previously an investigator, another who recruited foster families, and yet another who was an ongoing worker who dealt with birth families. Each of them brings a unique perspective to the unit; however, if each of them values permanency and sees adoption as a viable option, they are more likely to work together towards the goal while respecting one another’s differing perspectives. Social-category diversity yielded a greater satisfaction in job performance when task interdependence was high. Jehn et al. surmise that being able to work together when social-category diversity is high may lead to greater satisfaction because the group may have had to overcome challenges related to the diversity. In the long run, social diversity and informational diversity were found to become less relevant over time, while value diversity became a more important predictor of group effectiveness over time. These ﬁndings would suggest that, for the child welfare supervisor, it is important to keep in the forefront the mission and purpose of the agency and the supervisory unit. This involves articulating a set of values focused on the safety, permanence, and well-being of the children in care. GROUP DEVELOPMENT Group development presents different challenges for supervision at different stages. Several models of group development exist in the literature (e.g., Agazarian, 1999; Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Sarri & Galinsky, 1967; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977; Wheelan, 1994). Many of the models are primarily reﬂective of the development of a therapy group or a task group with a speciﬁc purpose and timeline. To understand the group development of the child welfare unit, it is important to understand how child welfare units are formed (Sarri & Galinsky, 1967). As most public child welfare agencies have been in existence for a number of years, it is rare that a child welfare supervisor has the opportunity to supervise a newly created unit with a group of workers who have never been a “unit” before. If this were the rule rather than the exception, applying the stage models for group development would be relatively easy. However, more often than not, child welfare units are in a state of ﬂux with members entering and exiting on a fairly regular basis (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Group continuity and stable membership has been found to affect the overall collective mood of the group, the communication patterns of the group, conﬂict levels within the group, the long-term impact of diversity within the group, and the supervisor’s leadership style (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Fine, 1971; Katz, 1982; O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). In many ways, a child welfare unit can be viewed as a living system (Lewin, 1947). As with any system, as the unit develops, consistent patterns of behavior emerge regardless of the characteristics of the individual members. Units develop boundaries and normative behavior. Stability

94

child welfare supervision

within the group provides a sense of equilibrium that can be disturbed as membership changes. Moreland and Levine (2002) outline the process through which group membership changes. It is important for the supervisor to understand this process and how it may affect group dynamics (Gummer, 2001). Unit membership begins with the hiring process (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Sarri and Galinsky (1967) call this the origin phase. This phase will vary according to the personnel practices of the state or county agency. If the supervisor is fortunate enough to participate in the hiring process, this ﬁrst stage of group membership is an investigatory time spent exploring the potential worker’s qualiﬁcations and ability to ﬁt into the existing group, which allows both parties to make an informed decision about potential group membership. The new member’s entry into the group will then be with a level of commitment to success for both the unit and the individual. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for a new hire to be assigned to the supervisory unit without the supervisor’s input, and, in some cases, without his or her prior knowledge. It is also not uncommon for a worker to be transferred into a supervisory unit without input from the supervisor. In these cases, the supervisor’s role is to do his or her best to help the new unit member transition smoothly into the existing unit. When a unit is formed or a new member enters the unit, a period of socialization begins (Moreland & Levine, 2002). This is a time when the new member and the existing members begin to navigate their relationships. In groups where all the members are new to the unit and each other, this formation phase is a time when the members will investigate each other, seeking out similarities and commonalities (Sarri & Galinsky, 1967). In existing units, the existing workers will evaluate the newcomer’s ability to ﬁt in to the unit structure, assessing his or her commitment to the group’s goals and purpose. According to Wheelan’s (1994) ﬁve-stage theory, this initial stage is one at which members are trying to identify and test what is acceptable behavior and what is not, for both the leader and the other members. This stage corresponds to Tuckman’s (1965) initial stage of forming, which is characterized by testing and dependence. The supervisor is very important during this stage, as there is a great deal of dependence on the leader to set the stage and provide the road map of boundaries and limits. If the new member is the supervisor, this phase will include an exploration of the level of change the new supervisor will bring to the group’s existing structure. Once socialization has occurred, acceptance of the new group member(s) occurs and maintenance begins (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Role negotiation may take place during this time, with group members vying for status and position (Akan, 2005). Wheelan (1994) terms this a period of counterdependency, in which group members debate issues of power and authority. This peiod corresponds to Tuckman’s (1965) stage of storming. The third stage is one of norming (Tuckman), or trust and structure (Wheelan). It is during this time that the roles and responsibilities of group

The Child Welfare Unit

95

members, acceptable norms within the group organization, and procedures are clariﬁed and accepted. When this occurs, the unit is able to work well together with a commitment to the collective goals and mission of the group. This process enables stage four, performing (Tuckman) or work phase (Wheelan), to emerge. Working relationships are solidiﬁed and the group develops work patterns and styles that are collectively and individually effective. The ﬁnal stage of most group development models is an ending or termination, or adjourning stage. Wheelan (1994) differentiates between temporary groups and continuous groups. The child welfare unit is a continuous group that often continues beyond the tenure of its members, including the supervisor. For the child welfare unit, termination occurs every time a member leaves. Long-standing units will develop group traditions and norms marking these times of departure. There is usually a time of reminiscence of the time the exiting member spent with the unit (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Depending on the length of time the exiting member spent with the unit, the role he or she played in the unit, and the social relationships developed, unit members may also experience feelings of grief and loss. This may impact the productivity of the remaining members for a period of time. THE IMPACT OF TURNOVER As new members join the unit, the group will often ﬁnd itself in a state of regression and a period of resocialization (Moreland & Levine, 2002; Wanous et al., 1984). The extent to which the resocialization process mimics the initial developmental stage of the unit depends on several variables including but not limited to the reason for exit or entry, the position affected by the change, e.g., supervisor or worker, and whether or not the group has reached the maturation phase, outlined by Sarri and Galinsky (1967). The maturation phase is characterized by stability of unit structure and effective unit responses to internal and external stress. A change in leadership can have a signiﬁcant impact on the organizational culture of the child welfare unit (Glisson & Green, 2006). The unit’s task identity may remain the same; however, the new supervisor may introduce structural and procedural changes that can greatly affect the productivity of the workers (Wheelan, 1994). Organizational culture is based on the norms and behavioral expectations of the unit and “prescribe[s] the way work is approached in the organizational unit and [is] the basis for socializing coworkers in the way things are done in that unit” (Glisson & James, 2002, p. 770). In a study of public child welfare and juvenile justice case management units, Glisson and James found that units with constructive organizational climates were likely to have less turnover, increased job satisfaction, and improved service quality. As new workers join the group, several factors will affect how well the new member integrates into the existing unit culture (Moreland &

child welfare supervision

96

Levine, 2002). First, where did the new member come from? Is this a new hire with little to no experience or is this a new hire with a wealth of experience in another agency? Is this someone transferring from another child welfare unit within the same agency or the same county? Did the new person come from a unit that had the same task responsibilities as this unit? Did she come from a rival unit? This information will affect the level of trust existing members have for the new member. If they are suspect of the new worker’s loyalties to the unit or the assigned work, they may not

Case Example 5.2

Making a Change

Margarita is scheduled to be transferred to the home-based services unit after being in the investigative unit for almost 3 years. Margarita asked for the transfer, stating that she was burned out on investigations and wanted to be able to do more preventive work with families. Within the last few months, there has been a lot of tension between the two units, as several cases transferred to the home-based services unit from the investigative unit have been rejected for various reasons, mainly because the homebased unit members felt the investigators had not been thorough in their assessment of the families and that most of the cases did not meet criteria for acceptance into their unit. The investigative-unit members felt that the home-based unit was asking them to do more then they were required by policy and were simply not wanting to work as hard as everyone else in child welfare, referring to their much smaller caseloads. Margarita’s investigative coworkers mockingly told her to be sure to let her new unit members know what it means to do “real work.” The home-based workers were particularly concerned about Margarita’s arrival, as several of the cases that had been rejected recently had been Margarita’s. The home-based unit members have spoken to their supervisor about their concerns, stating that they do not see how Margarita can ﬁt into the unit when she does not respect what they do. The home-based services supervisor, Karen, asks Margarita to meet with her the week before the scheduled transfer. Karen asks Margarita if she has any questions or concerns about the transfer. Margarita states that she is looking forward to the change of pace and is excited about the new position. She states that she has been reading the policies for the unit in preparation for the move and now realizes that she could have done a better job preparing cases for transfer. She tells Karen that she is concerned that she will not be accepted by the unit but believes that she will be able to earn their trust quickly and is optimistic. During the unit meeting prior to Margarita’s transfer, Karen assures her unit members that she believes Margarita will ﬁt in well with the unit and encourages them to be open-minded and give her a chance. About 1 month after the transfer, Margarita goes to lunch with some of her old unit members. Again, mockingly, they ask Margarita how she is enjoying life in the “slow lane.” Margarita takes this opportunity to tell the investigative workers how hard the home-based unit works and how important it is to have cases transferred that meet the criteria set by policy and are assessed thoroughly. She talks to them about corners she used to cut and explains how she has since apologized to her current unit members about the errors she made. Over the course of the next few months, the home-based workers see a noticeable difference in the quality of the cases being transferred. During a unit meeting, they provide Margarita with a small gift signifying their acceptance of her into the unit, and thank her for the impact she has had on the transfer process.

The Child Welfare Unit

97

be as willing to welcome the new member into full membership (see Case Example 5.2). The knowledge and ability of the new worker will also affect how well she transitions into the unit. This background includes educational knowledge and work experience as well as knowledge of acceptable behavior within the group. New hires with minimal work experience are less likely to be assigned a full caseload upon entry. In many states and counties, new hires must attend mandatory training before being allowed to do any casework. When they are allowed to actually work cases, they are often assigned reduced caseloads to acclimate them to the responsibilities of case management. During this time, it is usually the existing workers who must carry an overload to assure services are provided to existing cases. Also during this time, new cases continue to be assigned to the unit and the supervisor must distribute them in a timely manner. New supervisors might be tempted to “work” the cases themselves during this time in an effort not to overload their already overburdened workers. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) identify this as a source of stress for many new supervisors. They found that supervisors who also try to act as case managers ﬁnd that they have very little time to actually supervise. A new unit worker who transfers from within the county or within the state system will often come with a “reputation” (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Good or bad, the reputation will precede the new worker’s arrival and can affect the organizational climate of the unit. Organizational climate is the extent to which unit members share perceptions of the impact the work environment has on their individual well-being (Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006). The reputation of being a “good worker” carries a different connotation than that of being a “bad worker” or a “problem.” The “good” worker will be expected to hit the ﬂoor running and carry a full caseload, and, if coming from a different area, to learn quickly. Prior to the “bad” or “problem” worker’s arrival, unit members will often have anxiety and concern about the ways in which the new worker’s reported lack of work ethic will affect each individual worker’s caseload and work environment. Organizational climate has been found to predict both work attitude and service quality (Glisson et al., 2006). If workers are concerned that the new worker will have a negative impact on their work environment and their personal well-being, they are less likely to have a good attitude or provide quality services to clients. Collectively, this can create a collective group mood that affects group interaction and overall performance (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000). Supervisors need to be aware of these dynamics and address them directly when at all possible. If the supervisor has input into the hiring process, these issues or concerns can be addressed during that time. Without breeching conﬁdentiality, the supervisor can then assure the existing unit members that she is working with the new unit member and has clearly outlined her and the unit’s expectations related to work performance.

child welfare supervision

98

DEVELOPING AN EFFECTIVE TEAM Understanding the concepts of group development is important for child welfare supervisors, as their ultimate goal is to develop a competent team of workers who can effectively and efﬁciently carry out the mission and goals of the agency (Salus, 2004). It is the supervisor’s responsibility to assess the unit’s level of functioning and achievement, which includes the level of group cohesion and the overall unit level of work productivity. According to Salus (p. 22), the following qualities are indicative of a cohesive unit: • • • • • • •

Attendance Whether members arrive to work or group meetings on time The level of trust and support among group members The commitment to the group’s goals Staff members who readily accepts assigned tasks and roles The amount of individuality accepted in the group How much fun members have

Group cohesion develops over time as the unit progresses through the phases of group development. In continuous or temporal groups such as the child welfare unit, the level of cohesion varies as members enter and exit. On one hand, stability within the unit supports and promotes cohesion. On the other hand, group cohesion supports and promotes “high productivity, high morale, low turnover, high-quality work, achievement of outcomes for children and families, [and] lower stress in the supervisor’s job” (Salus, 2004, p. 22). Moreland and Levine (2002) note that members who feel a strong commitment to the unit are more likely to work hard to achieve the unit’s goals and are more likely to try to maintain membership. Speciﬁcally, in a small qualitative study, Rycraft (1994) found that public child welfare workers who felt they had a strong personal and professional investment in the agency and their colleagues were more likely to maintain employment with the agency. These ﬁndings suggest that positive peer relationships and the worker–supervisor relationship are a vital component of the development of group cohesion, which in turn affects professional and performance outcomes for the unit.

MEMBER ROLES Within the child welfare unit, an organizational hierarchy exists that deﬁnes the formal roles of the members. The supervisor’s role is that of leader and manager. How this role manifests itself in the unit environment will be discussed later in this chapter. In some cases, a tenured worker is assigned to the unit and fulﬁlls the role of lead worker. The lead worker will often serve as a “backup” during time of supervisory absence, as well as a trainer or mentor to less experienced workers.

The Child Welfare Unit

99

Child welfare units also sometimes have a unit secretary or clerical person who assists the supervisor and unit members with administrative matters such as time sheets, leave forms, mileage reimbursements, and, in some cases, data entry. For many supervisors, the unit secretary or clerical person plays a vital role in supervisory time management. As previously stated, the unit will usually consist of four to ﬁve frontline workers who vary in education and experience but rank equally in the organizational structure. Lastly, the unit may be fortunate enough to be assigned a case aide, a volunteer, or a student intern. The case aide is often a paid person who may or may not have a degree. In many ofﬁces, the case aide assists workers with transportation, supervision of visits, and completion of other case management tasks that the worker needs to do to get the job done. Volunteers can be used for similar tasks as long as the county or state approves. Often volunteers do not work many hours per week and are used for clerical support such as ﬁling and copying. Student interns can be a welcome addition to a unit. Depending on the educational level, a bachelor’s or master’s degree, the student intern may provide some relief to workers in case management. Many interns begin their ﬁeld placement observing and shadowing workers. As the internship progresses, the level of autonomy increases and the intern is able to complete some of the more advanced case-related tasks instead of the worker. In some states, more advanced students can be assigned case responsibility under the close supervision of the supervisor or a master’s-degree-level worker. The primary drawback to student interns is that their presence in the unit is time limited, and often, just when they are seen as full members of the unit, it is time for them to leave. At that point, the tasks assigned to them revert back to the line workers within the unit. On the other hand, use of student interns is a direct way to recruit new workers once the internship concludes. In order for a unit to operate as a cohesive team, unit members will take on various informal roles depending on personality and behavior. Combined, these roles mesh together and help a unit to achieve objectives and goals. The roles include a solver, a doer, a checker, a carer, and a knower (Crainer, 1998). The solver is the innovative idea generator. This is the person who will “think outside the box” and identify another way of doing things. The doer concentrates on getting the task done and making sure it is ﬁnished. The doer pays great attention to detail and believes in a systematic approach. In the child welfare unit, the doer may be the one who assists others in staying on task, keeping up with deadlines, and meeting unit goals. The checker is the person who provides the unit with the “big picture.” The checker is a critical thinker who will identify the consequences of group decisions and activity and convey them to the group as a whole, to individual group members, and to the agency. The checker is a realist who understands the issues related to quality work and time management. The checker also recognizes individual talents and strengths and

child welfare supervision

100

will suggest ways to effectively use them for the greater good. The carer is the social democrat who is concerned about the overall well-being of the group and how well everyone is getting along. This is the “social chair” of the unit. The carer will often initiate group celebrations, lunches, and other social activities. The ﬁnal role is that of the knower, who is the expert or specialist. This person will know the policy and be aware of both formal and informal procedures within the agency, and will be the one other unit members turn to for a quick answer rather than looking up the policy themselves. Case Example 5.3 illustrates how these various roles might manifest within a permanency or ongoing unit that has been asked to assist the investigative unit in completing investigations that have not been completed because of a personnel crisis in that unit. Case Example 5.3

Unit Roles

John, a supervisor, calls his unit of ﬁve in for an impromptu meeting after a supervisors meeting. Anxiety is high because the ofﬁce buzz is that workers are going to be temporarily transferred to the intake unit to help take care of a large backlog of investigations. Several of the workers have talked with John regarding the gossip and have expressed their fears and concerns. Once in the meeting, John informs the unit that no one is being transferred. Instead, each unit is being given 10 backlog referrals to investigate. Most of them are low priority and should be relatively simple. John asks the unit members for ideas on how they can complete this task within the 30-day timeframe that has been set, without jeopardizing their own workloads. • Cathy, the solver, states that they could split the 10 cases, assigning two to each person in the unit. • Jeff, the checker, notes that not everyone in the unit has experience in doing investigations and is concerned that the investigations may not be done correctly, which could cause more issues in the long run. • Josie, the knower, reminds everyone that she just transferred from the intake unit because she was burned out and is not very happy about having to do this. She states that she is willing to help anyone who has not done investigations before but really doesn’t want to do any herself. • Brenda, the carer, noticing that others shifted in their chairs when Josie said this, afﬁrms Josie’s position as valid and asks if there is any way they can get the task done and have everyone feel that Josie has done her part. • Cathy, the solver, suggests that since there are two other persons in the unit (Brenda and Mary) who have investigative experience, they could each take three cases, and the remaining four could be split between herself and Jeff, with Josie assisting them in completing the cases. • Mary, the doer, states that this is ﬁne with her but suggests that Josie, having had the most recent experience, could review the cases ﬁrst and prioritize them so that she and Brenda do not each end up with three difﬁcult cases that take too much time and thus can’t be completed within 30 days given the demands of their own caseloads. • Josie, the knower, states that this should be fairly easy to do and that she is willing to go out with the other two and help them get it done. She says that she would also be willing to back up Brenda and Mary if needed. • They all agree on the plan and Brenda, the carer, announces that they should all plan to go to lunch at the end of the 30 days to celebrate completion of the task assigned.

The Child Welfare Unit

101

SUPERVISOR–SUPERVISEE RELATIONSHIP Maintaining professional boundaries is mandated by the NASW Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers, 1999). Most often, discussions about boundaries refer to the worker–client relationship. The NASW Code of Ethics (p. 19) is also clear regarding the supervisor’s ethical responsibilities in the supervisor–social worker relationship: 3.01(b) Social workers who provide supervision or consultation are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. 3.01(c) Social workers should not engage in any dual or multiple relationship with supervisees in which there is a risk of exploitation of or potential harm to the supervisee.

Dual relationships (nonsexual) accounted for 52.3% of 254 boundary violations reviewed in a study of NASW complaints over an 11-year period (Strom-Gottfried, 1999). Although only a small percentage (4%) of those were reported as concurrent with supervision, this is an area that can pose a challenge to child welfare unit supervisors, particularly those promoted from within the unit. The context of the supervisor–supervisee relationship within human services is one of interpersonal communication (Tsui, 2005). The nature of the work is such that unit members share experiences that can be highly stressful and emotionally taxing. The importance of conﬁdentiality prevents child welfare workers and supervisors from discussing the events of the day with those outside of their workplace and sometimes outside of the unit. The need to process and share emotions related to the work fosters a camaraderie among child welfare workers that often evolves into social interaction and long-lasting friendships. Setting boundaries for relationships with supervisees means that the unit supervisor has to discern when it is appropriate to interact socially with unit members. In some settings, this may be easier said than done. For example, dual relationships can exist on many levels in a rural community. It can be a familial relationship or a business relationship, for example, the husband of the supervisee may be the supervisor’s accountant because he is the only accountant in town. The supervisor is the one who has the responsibility to assure that any dual relationships not pose a “risk of exploitation of or potential harm to the supervisee.” (NASW, 1999, p. 19) It is important that the supervisor remember that boundary issues in the supervisor– supervisee relationship, just as in the social worker–client relationship, are related to authority and power (Munson, 2002). Given the power and authority the supervisor has over supervisees in relation to the evaluation of their work and the overall work environment, dual relationships pose a challenge to even the most seasoned professional. Tsui (2005) states that in human service organizations, supervisor– supervisee relationships can take one of three possible paths. The ﬁrst path

102

child welfare supervision

is of a formal, hierarchal nature with the relationship ending once the supervisee leaves the organization. In this case, the supervisor focuses on administrative duties, giving instructions, and monitoring performance. The second is professionally oriented with the supervisor treating the supervisee as a professional peer. In this case, the relationship may focus more on the professional growth of the supervisee and last throughout both parties’ professional careers. The last potential path of the supervisor–supervisee relationship is a friendship. Friendships develop as people share personal concerns and triumphs, feelings, and mutual support in daily encounters over time. These relationships often last a lifetime, surviving after either or both parties leave the agency. Tsui (p. 55) states that because social workers are indeed human beings, “it is more important to locate the boundary between a professional relationship and a personal relationship than to pretend that there is no such thing as a personal relationship in the supervisory process.” Negotiating personal relationships can be especially challenging to a new child welfare supervisor who is promoted from within the unit or the agency (Salus, 2004). Possibly the most difﬁcult challenge can be transitioning from unit peer to unit supervisor. On one hand, this person has the advantage of having direct knowledge of the unit culture and the unit members. Although there are often changes that the new supervisor makes, it is rare that the changes are a drastic shift in the unit culture. On the other hand, the supervisor is faced with having to move from a peer relationship to a supervisory one. It is important that the new supervisor take the time to discuss and clarify how the relationship will change and how it will not. The new supervisor must embrace the leadership role and not attempt to maintain the peer relationship while carrying out the supervisory role. Attempts at maintaining the peer relationship open the door to boundary violations and often lead to role confusion and eventual conﬂict within the supervisory relationship (Salus, 2004). INTERGROUP PEER RELATIONSHIPS During this author’s tenure as a child welfare supervisor, often the analogy between supervising a child welfare unit and parenting a sibling set was made. While all agreed that unit members were not really children and therefore should not be treated as such, certain behavior dynamics within the unit often resembled sibling rivalry. Unit members would seem to vie for attention from the supervisor and some would complain about not receiving enough attention or about the supervisor paying too much attention to someone else. At times, unit members would squabble among themselves over seemingly petty things and would each take turns coming to the supervisor and “telling on” one another. Lastly, it was often noticed that unit members took turns being the “problem child.” For many supervisors, trying to manage the relationships within the unit can be more stressful than managing the work itself.

The Child Welfare Unit

103

Research has shown that relationships in the workplace, both positive and negative, impact the performance of supervisory groups (Sparrowe, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). Keeping this in mind, unit supervisors should be concerned about not only their relationship with unit members but also peer relationships within the unit. Lau and Murnighan (1998) suggest that the diversity of the organizational unit plays a role in the social dynamics among group members. As in the larger society, many of us tend to socialize and gravitate towards people with whom we have shared identities or backgrounds. Lau and Murnighan (1998, p. 328) state that diverse organizational groups will often form group faultlines, which are “hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes.” In high school, we call these “cliques.” According to Lau and Murnighan, research has shown that faultlines exist when a group has low to moderate diversity. Although it is helpful for unit members to have persons in the group with similar backgrounds and interest, fault lines within a unit can cause intergroup conﬂict. Supervisors need to be aware of the level of diversity within the group and recognize that fault lines form across several levels of diversity beyond race, gender, and ethnicity. Similarities in attributes such as values, education, family dynamics, and class can also help form fault lines within the unit. Supervisors have to not only be aware of the existence of any faultlines within the unit but also be careful not to align themselves with one group or the other because of shared attributes. For example, a younger supervisor may ﬁnd that she has more in common with the younger supervisees in the unit. Given their similarities, the supervisor may spend more time socializing (taking breaks, having lunch, etc.) with these workers or simply talking to them in the ofﬁce about non-work-related issues. The older workers in the unit may interpret this as favoritism when the supervisor makes a decision that could be seen as beneﬁcial to a younger worker in the unit. It is important that the supervisor be aware of this temptation to spend more time with workers with whom they may feel more comfortable on a social level and try to equalize the time spent with individual unit members. For some supervisors, the alternative is to not to socialize with any unit members outside of the work environment, including breaks and lunch; however, as discussed previously, because social workers value relationships, this is easier said than done (Tsui, 2005). As a leader, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to set the stage and promote an environment of mutual respect and accountability (Kaiser, 2004; McKenna & Maister, 2002). This can be done by establishing ground rules early in the development of the unit. Ground rules should address behaviors that support unit cohesion and enhance unit productivity. They should be behaviorally deﬁned, agreed to by all members, always visible, consistently observed, and speciﬁc about consequences. While the supervisor should facilitate the discussion about ground rules, it is important that the unit collectively develop them and manage them. When units

104

child welfare supervision

successfully participate in this process, the ground rules will manage unit members’ behaviors and the supervisor can focus on managing the work of the unit (McKenna & Maister). Some examples of ground rules are the following: • Unit members will be respectful of each other at all times both within and outside of the unit. • Every unit member will work to maintain standards of integrity in case management and interactions with clients and other constituencies. • Gossiping, whining, and complaining will not be tolerated within the unit. Legitimate concerns will be addressed appropriately either one on one, with the supervisor, or in unit meetings.

WORKER SAFETY The setting of ground rules serves to create an open and safe environment for everyone, both emotionally and physically. One area of great concern for many child welfare workers is physical safety. The concern for worker safety is one of the leading contributors to turnover in child welfare (GAO, 2003). The involuntary nature of child welfare services inadvertently fosters a potentially hostile relationship between worker and client (American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees [AFSCME], 1998). Supervisors need to be aware of their workers’ fears and concerns, recognizing that the reality of recent events support these concerns (NASW, 2007). While supervisors may not be able to protect workers from potentially hostile and dangerous encounters, they can support protective ground rules or behaviors such as the following that address the issue of worker safety and support both accountability and group cohesion. • Unit members will ask for help if needed when they do not feel safe making a home visit; however, they will be respectful of other unit members’ commitments and time. As all members may ﬁnd themselves in need of this kind of assistance, all unit members, including the supervisor, will be willing to help whenever possible. • Unit members will document the purpose, client information, dates, times, locations, and estimated time of return when in the ﬁeld in a manner that is easily accessible to the supervisor or others in charge in case of emergency. The unit may agree on a central location for this information or, at minimum, agree on a consistent manner in which all unit members will let others know where they are. It is important that the supervisor emphasize that this is not a micromanaging tool but rather a safety precaution in case the unthinkable happens.

The Child Welfare Unit

105

GROUP MANAGEMENT The supervisory role is one of leadership and management (Austin & Hopkins, 2004). In most public agencies, the supervisor serves as the leader of their unit and is responsible for creating a unit vision in line with the agency mission. Leaders inspire, empower, and support individual unit members as they complete their daily tasks. To be effective, a relationship of trust, openness, and respect must be established with the unit members (Salus, 2004). It is important that a new supervisor be honest, open, and sincere from the beginning. Without minimizing his or her earned right to be in this new position of authority, the new supervisor must acknowledge personal limitations and be willing to listen to and solicit information from existing unit members. This is especially important if the new supervisor is promoted from a different program area. It is vital to recognize that some unit members may have expertise that the supervisor lacks. This acknowledgment communicates to all the workers the supervisor’s acceptance and valuing of different strengths, qualities, and backgrounds (Salus, 2004). Through this process, the new supervisor will be able to assess the organizational culture of the unit and be more effective in making changes. Supervisors who come into a unit with lots of ideas for change without ﬁrst learning the culture of the unit are often frustrated by resistance that may be openly hostile. For example, many states require that documentation of all case contacts be entered and up to date by the last day of the month. Depending on each worker’s style, some may do this on a daily basis, some weekly, and some biweekly, and some enter all their contacts on the last day of the month. The previous supervisor may have supported this practice and stated that as long as they were entered on time it did not matter. The unit has a reputation for always meeting the deadline and providing thorough and acceptable documentation. The new supervisor may feel a need to review the contacts and be concerned that this current culture does not allow him or her sufﬁcient time to do so. One approach would be to tell all workers that they are to enter all contacts daily, so that the supervisor can review the contacts daily to make sure they are being done correctly. This approach immediately places workers on the defensive and can be interpreted as harsh and judgmental. The new supervisor is not recognizing the fact that the unit has been successful in meeting the deadline and that their documentation has always been acceptable in the past. The scheduling can also be disruptive to the workﬂow for those who have been successful entering information weekly, biweekly, or on the last day of the month. An alternative approach would be for the supervisor to tell the workers that he or she would like to review the case contacts to get a sense of their individual styles and to provide feedback where needed. The supervisor could then ﬁnd out who enters contacts when and stagger review of them on the basis of that schedule. For the workers who choose to wait until the last day of the month, the supervisor could implement an internal due date two or three working days prior to the end of the month,

106

child welfare supervision

thus allowing time for review. This approach is more likely to be seen as expressing mutual respect and cooperation than the ﬁrst approach. SUPERVISION WITHIN THE UNIT STRUCTURE The child welfare unit is a group that serves as “the vehicle through which visions and missions are realized; the basic unit of organization by which the work gets done; and the fundamental source of social interaction within and between agency departments, divisions, and other entities in the task environment” (Menefee, 2004, p. 140). Within this organizational structure, the supervisor is responsible for providing both individual and group supervision. In much of the social work literature, supervision is discussed in terms of the process by which new and inexperienced social workers learn clinical skills from consultation with more experienced social work supervisors (Munson, 2002). The child welfare supervisor is expected to have supervisory training, child welfare or family service experience, administrative skills, teaching skills, and clinical skills sufﬁcient to provide workers with emotional support and inspire conﬁdence (CWLA, 1984). Supervision within the human service agency is a combination of the casework and group supervision models (Tsui, 2005). The casework model is the oneon-one supervisor-to-supervisee relationship in which the supervisor functions in administrative, educational, and supportive roles on an individual basis (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Tsui, 2005). Group supervision is the process by which the supervisor functions in these roles simultaneously to a group of supervisees. Among the list of supervisory responsibilities (CWLA, 1984, p. 47), child welfare agency supervisors are expected to • Provide regular supervision or consultation to every staff member regardless of length of experience and maturity • Coordinate the activities of supervisees with responsibility for the quality of delivery of service • Share in coordinating the unit’s and/or department’s work with that of the agency in a way that carries out agency policies, goals, and objectives • Participate in the employment of staff within the unit and in the assignment of their duties

Menefee (2004) has identiﬁed three major skill areas that supervisors need to master in order to organize a unit and ensure that the work is performed effectively. These three skill areas are team building, coalition building, and meeting management, including individual case conferences. In child welfare, a fourth skill required to promote an effective work unit is caseload management, or the ability to assign and manage caseloads within the unit in a way that is fair and equitable.

The Child Welfare Unit

107

TEAM BUILDING The terms team and group are often used interchangeably (Vinokur-Kaplan & Miller, 2004). A team, as deﬁned by Robbins, Coulter, and Langton (2005), is a group that works together intensely towards the accomplishment of a common goal. A group, by contrast, is one that interacts as necessary to share information and supports everyone to do their job more effectively or efﬁciently (Robbins et al., 2005). Using this deﬁnition, the child welfare unit would be deﬁned as a group, not a team; however, when the day-to-day interaction that occurs within a unit is considered, it’s clear that team-building activities that address role clariﬁcation and interpersonal relations are applicable. Team building is a term that has recently become very popular in the workplace. The literature is mixed regarding the impact of team building on performance (Salas, Rozell, Mullen, & Driskell, 1999). Although many case studies have been published lauding the success of team building within individual groups and organizations, using a meta-analytic process, Salas et al. found that team building does not affect performance signiﬁcantly. They did ﬁnd, however, that there might be some small beneﬁt of team building that emphasizes role clariﬁcation in small groups. As discussed previously, Salus (2004) emphasized the need for group cohesion and the importance of the coworker relationship to group effectiveness. This concept, paired with the beneﬁt of clarifying member roles, supports the importance of team-building activities for the child welfare unit. Robbins and Coulter (1999) deﬁne team building as an opportunity for individual members of a team to learn how other members think and work. Although team building has not been found to have a signiﬁcant impact on performance, group cohesion has been found to have a signiﬁcant relation to productivity (Robbins et al., 2005). It would thus stand to reason that team-building activities for the child welfare unit would serve to build group cohesion, clarify group roles, and minimize intergroup conﬂict. There are several Web sites available that identify team-building activities appropriate for individual units (for example, www.wilderdom.com; www.businessfundamentals.com; and www.dsa.csupomona.edu). To maximize team-building opportunities, several factors should be considered. • First, the activity should be fun and enjoyable. This is not the time to have a unit meeting, discuss policy changes, or chastise unit members for unacceptable behaviors. • If at all possible, the activity should occur away from the ofﬁce, far from work-related distractions. Often, unpredictable caserelated emergencies arise; it would be helpful to have coverage for unit caseloads while the unit participates in the activity. For instance, two separate supervisory units could agree to cover for each other at different times. If it is not possible to take a day

108

child welfare supervision away or to leave the ofﬁce property, reserving a space in the ofﬁce complex that is private and out of the way is sufﬁcient. • All unit members need to participate. Supervisors should stress that this is a mandatory event, allowing absence only in case of sickness or something beyond the worker’s control. In cases where intergroup conﬂict exists, the supervisor might need to be sensitive to the possibility that someone will “call in” to avoid the event. Everything should be done to encourage all group members to participate. For reluctant members, an individual conversation and assurance that the group member has support from the supervisor would be warranted. • The activity needs to be structured. Although some unstructured time is acceptable, team building is more than a day off or a day away from the ofﬁce. There should be a purpose behind the interaction. For example, if the goal is to help the group learn to work together, an activity that requires solving a puzzle might be appropriate. If the goal is to help members understand each other better, a training exercise designed to explore personality differences might be warranted. Creative training offered by the public agency can be an easy way to accomplish team building. For example, many public agencies offer a “ropes” course (www.adventureassoc.com) to employees. These courses are designed to build trust and cohesiveness within groups. • Lastly, the activity needs to be fun, enjoyable, and memorable. As time passes, unit members will often refer back to the activity and events that occurred. They will remember the nuances they learn about other individuals in the group and begin to see each other through different lenses. This shared memory of the event promotes group bonding and cohesiveness. As the group changes and evolves, it may be necessary to repeat the experience using either the same activity or a different one that serves the same purpose.

COALITION BUILDING Team building focuses on the internal relationships of the unit; coalition building focuses on the external relationships (Menefee, 2004). If one considers the child welfare unit as a system within a larger system (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Lewin, 1947), the need to be competent in coalition building is clear. By deﬁnition a system is “a set of interacting parts (subsystems) contained within a boundary . . . [that] must remain permeable enough to permit needed exchanges within the environment, yet ﬁrm enough to maintain its integrity” (Germain, 1994, p. 104). Within the larger child welfare system, child welfare units are subsystems that are interdependent on one another to complete the overall mission of the agency. The supervisor of the unit is the primary person responsible for

The Child Welfare Unit

109

maintaining the integrity of the unit while navigating the interactions of the unit with other units. This means that the supervisor must understand how the units interact, the role each plays within the larger system, and the means by which information and resources are shared. Coalition building includes building relationships with other unit supervisors as well as key persons in the administration and the community. The supervisor serves as an advocate for the unit within the system and the larger community (Menefee, 2004), as well as a buffer between the unit and the administration (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). In order for a supervisor to effectively fulﬁll these roles, the relationship between the supervisor and supervisees must be one of trust and honesty. Supervisors cannot be caught unaware when negotiating on behalf of unit members or clients in their care. This means that supervisees must feel comfortable enough with the supervisor to let him or her know ahead of time about any errors in judgment or mistakes they may have made. With honest communication, the supervisor and supervisee can agree on the best course of action to achieve positive client outcomes. The supervisor uses coalitions and external relations with key persons to help the worker obtain the necessary services and resources they need to provide effective and efﬁcient resources. MEETING MANAGEMENT As stated previously, unit supervisors are responsible for both individual and group supervision. Individual conferences and unit meetings are often the most structured component of unit supervision. Within the sometimes chaotic crisis-focused world of child welfare, it is tempting to let both of these tasks fall by the wayside over time. It is important to remember, however, that both of these serve as ways to communicate with workers, disseminate important program information, and keep abreast of the progress of cases within the unit. If done regularly and consistently, the supervisor will often see a decrease in unanticipated crises and in job-related stress. Individual conferences are the one time when child welfare supervisors can offer clinical supervision. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) have identiﬁed three phases of the individual supervisory conference. The ﬁrst phase involves structuring, scheduling, and preparing. Depending on the unit size, the child welfare supervisor may want to schedule weekly conferences with each worker. If the unit size or demands of the unit’s work assignment prevent consistency with a weekly structure, the supervisor may opt to have weekly conferences with newer, less experienced workers and biweekly conferences with more experienced workers. The actual structure of the conference can vary depending on what works best; however, the conference should, at minimum, include time for reviewing the worker’s caseload, either partially or entirely; time for the supervisor to address any speciﬁc issues he or she may have with the supervisee; and

110

child welfare supervision

an opportunity for the supervisee to ask questions or address speciﬁc issues they may have. Once the structure is established, the time frame for the conference should be identiﬁed. Conferences should be scheduled when both the supervisor and the supervisee can commit to an uninterrupted block of time. One hour is customary for most conferences; however, there may be occasions when more time is warranted. Preparation for the conference should include making a list of agenda items that the supervisor feels must be addressed, reviewing any notes from previous conferences, and reviewing any relevant case documentation. The middle phase of the conference (Kadushin and Harkness, 2002) aligns with the educational component of supervision. Here the supervisor provides helpful feedback to the worker and, in the process, provides continuing education to the worker that serves to foster professional growth. This is the clinical portion of the conference. To be effective, supervisors need to stay abreast of current literature regarding best practice in child welfare and speciﬁcally in the area they supervise. Again, as much as possible, this meeting should take place during an uninterrupted period of time. Supervisors can place signs on doors stating that conferences are in progress and should use voice mail to answer phone calls. Pagers and cell phones should be kept on vibrate and answered only in a case of emergency and with agreement by both parties. The ﬁnal phase is the ending of the conference. Supervisors should use this time to recap the highlights of what has been discussed in the conference. It is important that the supervisor take notes during the conference so that they can be referred to at this time. Any tasks that need to be completed or items that require follow-up should be reiterated with timelines emphasized. If not already scheduled, a date for the next conference should be set. For some supervisors it may be helpful to block off an additional 15 minutes or so after the conference ends to organize notes and ﬁle them in a designated ﬁle. Another option is to use this time to summarize the conference in an e-mail and send it to the supervisee. This or a copy of the notes given to the supervisee is a helpful way of documenting the conference and assuring that both parties are clear about what was discussed and what was decided. There are many beneﬁts to having regular unit meetings. The ﬁrst unit meeting for the new supervisor is often a time of introduction and a way to begin to identify the organizational structure of the unit. It is also an opportunity for the new supervisor to make unit members aware of expectations related to work behavior within the unit. For example, some supervisors prefer that workers contact them only by pager after hours, while others may prefer that workers call their cell phone directly. Some supervisors may have parameters regarding what they consider an appropriate after-hours call and what they do not consider appropriate. These are the little things that may seem insigniﬁcant but can have a great impact on the effectiveness of the unit as a whole.

The Child Welfare Unit

111

Subsequent unit meetings are an effective way of disseminating information that all workers need to know at one time. These meetings can be policy or personnel related. Many supervisors will put copies of interofﬁce memoranda and policy changes in the individual mailboxes of unit members or forward informational e-mail. While it may not be necessary to read each and every one of these at a unit meeting, mentioning them or summarizing them may be warranted. A supervisor has no way of knowing if individuals have actually read the memos or the e-mails. The unit meeting is a way of documenting dissemination of the information as well as providing an opportunity for questions to be addressed. The unit meeting is also an ideal opportunity for educational supervision (Kadushin & Harness, 2002). Training on agency policies and procedures, cross-training from other areas of child welfare, and training regarding available community services are just a few educational possibilities. Unit meetings can also be an opportunity for unit members to share innovative ideas about practice with each other or used as a time for workers to brainstorm possible services or different approaches for difﬁcult cases or workplace issues. As with individual conferences, the supervisor needs to prepare and structure the unit meeting. An agenda that highlights the topics to be addressed and time frames is recommended. Copies of any memoranda covered in the meeting can be attached to the agenda. At the end of the unit meeting, the supervisor should summarize the meeting, reiterate any assigned tasks and emphasize timelines, and remind members of the date and time of the next meeting. As with individual conferences, the supervisor can take notes, and summarize and distribute them in an e-mail to unit members as a form of documentation. Ofﬁcial minutes can be taken and kept as a record of who was present and what was said. Taking of attendance is advised, as this is a safeguard for both supervisee and supervisor should a disagreement occur as to whether or not a supervisee was made aware of a policy change. The frequency and length of unit meetings are up to the individual supervisor. Some units will meet once a week whereas others will meet once a month. As with the individual conferences, the most important quality is that the meetings be regular and consistent. They should be scheduled at a time when all workers are available and, as much as possible, uninterrupted. CASELOAD MANAGEMENT One of the most daunting tasks of the child welfare supervisor is the assignment of cases. When workers are already overburdened, the assignment of cases is not a pleasant task. Often it means handing a case to a worker who is already overworked and struggling to keep up with mandated time frames and paperwork. Many factors affect how cases are assigned, the ﬁrst one being the area of child welfare supervised. The assignment of investigations

112

child welfare supervision

is often determined by availability and the priority of the investigation. If a high-priority investigation comes in at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon and the agency does not have weekend or after-hours staff, the worker who happens to be in the ofﬁce trying to tidy up some loose ends before the weekend may very well be the one handed the investigation. In agencies where on-call workers are used for after-hour referrals, organizational practice may mean that any referrals that come in while that worker is on call are automatically assigned to that worker. Or they may only be assigned the cases that actually require the worker to physically begin the investigation with an interview or home visit. This process varies from state to state, county to county, and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The investigatory supervisor is responsible for knowing the procedures and doing his or her best to assign investigations in a way that minimizes overload and uses the strengths of the workers. For instance, even if this worker is the only person in the ofﬁce at the time, if agency practice allows, a supervisor should not assign a critical physical- or sexual-abuse case to a worker who has only been with the agency for a couple of weeks and has not yet had experience with this type of abuse. If the luxury exists, the supervisor may assign the case to a more seasoned worker and assign the new worker to shadow the seasoned worker as part of on-the-job training. In family-preservation/home-based services, foster care/permanency, and adoption, cases involving children and families are often assigned or transferred to units from other units. Again, this process is as varied as agencies, counties, and jurisdictions. Most often there are agency guidelines that dictate which unit is appropriate for that stage of the case. Supervisors need to be aware of these guidelines and may ﬁnd themselves having to rely strongly on coalitions built as they advocate for cases not to be transferred to their unit. It can be difﬁcult enough to have to add to the unit’s caseload, but it can be even more difﬁcult if the worker feels that the case has been unfairly assigned and is not appropriate for the services he or she is prepared to provide—for example, if the investigative unit transfers a case to voluntary home-based services when it is clearly documented that the parent is refusing services and has been uncooperative up to this point. Once a case is accepted, the supervisor must then determine which individual unit member to assign the case to. A number of factors need to be considered during this process, including, but not limited to, the following: • The average worker’s caseload within the unit. Depending on how cases are counted, by family or by child, the cases may be assigned in a manner that maintains a relatively equal number of cases within the unit. • The worker’s caseload capacity in relation to their experience— for example, are new workers protected from larger caseloads for a period of time?

The Child Welfare Unit • The level of responsibility needed to manage the case. In some states, workers carry cases because the county has jurisdiction, yet the child is placed elsewhere and most of the case management is done in the county of placement. • The expertise needed to provide effective services to the child or family. Even if the unit is not organized in such a way that workers are specialized, case assignment can be warranted because the needs of the child and family can best be met by a certain worker in the unit. For example, if the family only speaks Spanish and you have one worker who is bilingual, the family’s needs may be best served by that worker. The danger here is that you do not want that worker getting all the Spanish-speaking families unless that is a predetermined designation of their caseload. Similarly, there are times when the personality of the worker or certain characteristics of the worker make that person a better ﬁt for the child or family. For example, a worker who is known for being able to reach the most difﬁcult teenagers may be assigned the child whose case history indicates that most workers have become frustrated with the child and states that the child is uncommunicative and rebellious. • Are there any vacancies within the unit? If so, cases that existing unit members are covering need to be counted in their overall caseload. • Is there a new or replacement worker coming? If so, is the time frame such that the new case can be assigned to the new worker without negatively affecting the client? • The task organization of the unit—for example, are all workers assigned the same types of cases or do they have specialized caseloads? In some units, the focus of the work may determine how cases are assigned. For example, in foster-care and adoption units where the focus is on the recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive parents, cases are often assigned on a rotation as applications come in. Workers will usually be assigned that case through the application and approval phase. Sometimes these same workers will keep the case and “supervise” the home, providing support services to the foster or adoptive family. An alternative approach is to have one or more workers dedicated to the application and approval processes and another worker or workers assigned to provide supervision of the home. Depending on the agency, the adoption worker may maintain case management of the adoptive-family case through placement ﬁnalization of an adoption. Considerations for case assignment listed above are similar for this type of units as with other units, particularly if vacancies exist or if workers within the unit are specialized.

113

child welfare supervision

114

BUILDING MORALE Organizational climate represents the unit’s members’ level of agreement in perception of the impact their work environment has on their personal well-being (Glisson et al., 2006). Unit socialization plays an important role in the creation of this organizational climate. Markham and McKee (1995) have addressed the effect that a group’s social identity has on members absentee behavior, stating that unit socialization affects the level of absence an employee sees as acceptable. Using this logic, it could be suggested that the social identity of the group can affect many other aspects of individual behavior, including values, commitment to the agency mission, and relative attitude or collective mood of the work group (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000). All of this is connected to worker morale and turnover. Workers who feel good about their work and are able to take pride in their profession have been found to be more likely to stay employed with public child welfare agencies (Rycraft, 1994). The supervisor plays a vital role in building morale and supporting workers. Along with building strong interpersonal and professional relationships with unit members, advocating for unit members, and providing team-building opportunities, supervisors can build unit morale by fostering an environment that focuses on the strengths of the unit as a whole and on individual strengths. Both unit and individual successes should be celebrated. This can be done in inexpensive ways, such as making computer-generated awards for “unit worker of the month” or rewarding a worker for a job well done with a special treat or trinket during a unit meeting. Unit celebrations can include unit lunches, either potluck or going as a unit to a favorite restaurant (with each individual paying for their own meal, unless your ofﬁce has a fund available to pay for such an event). Recognition for a job well done is important; however, it needs to be a special recognition and not a “good job” note for every little thing, given to everybody on an almost daily basis. This practice can minimize the recognition and often backﬁre on supervisors, who are then perceived as trite and not genuine. Just as important as recognition is visible emotional support from the supervisor. Workers should see that the supervisor is there to support them in good times and bad. Supervisors who pitch in at times of crisis or ride along with a worker who is unsure of his or her abilities or feels unsafe are often perceived favorably. CONCLUSION From a worker’s perspective, the job of the child welfare supervisor is to provide professional guidance and case consultation. As with many organizations, promotion to supervisor comes after workers have proven themselves to be excellent workers and achieved a level of expertise in child welfare. Often the super worker is promoted with little training or guidance on what it means to be a manager of people (Anderson, 1993). It is usually

The Child Welfare Unit

115

not the clinical supervision of workers that stumps the new supervisor. Rather, it is often the group dynamics and the change in interpersonal relationships that pose the greatest challenge. The effective child welfare supervisor will learn as much as they can about group development and group dynamics. Recognizing that one size does not ﬁt all is vital to the successful running of a child welfare unit. Supervisors play an important role in the retention of child welfare workers (Zlotnik, DePanﬁlis, Daining, & Lane, 2005). Workers who feel they have supportive and knowledgeable supervision are more likely to push through and survive the daily challenges related to being a child welfare worker. Acknowledgment of the successes and accomplishments of individual workers and the unit and celebration of those moments serve to boost and maintain morale. Case consultation, educational supervision, team building, and open, honest, respectful communication within the unit are all key in the creation of a cohesive and effective child welfare unit. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Describe the structure, cohesion, and diversity of your work unit. 2. Think of teams you have served on in the past. Describe situations that illustrate each stage of team formation. What strategies were or could have been employed during those stages to strengthen the team? 3. Consider your current unit. Which roles do members of your unit play? 4. How could team-building activities be integrated into your agency? 5. How is the morale in your unit? What ideas do you have for supporting and improving morale? REFERENCES

Agazarian, Y. M. (1999). Phases of development in the systems-centered psychotherapy group. Small Group Research, 30(1), 82–107. Akan, O. H. (2005). The role of concrescent conversation in the performing stage of work groups. Team Performance Management, 11(1/2), 51–62. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). (1998). Double jeopardy; Caseworkers at risk helping at-risk children: A report on the working conditions facing child welfare workers. Washington, DC: Author. American Public Human Services Association. (2005, February). Report from the 2004 child welfare workforce survey: State agency ﬁndings. Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, D. (1993). When superworker becomes supervisor. Supervision, 54(10), 6–9.

116

child welfare supervision

Austin, M. J., & Hopkins, K. M. (2004). Deﬁning the learning organization. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services (pp. 11–18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods. Administration Science Quarterly, 45(2), 197–231. Bennis, W. G., & Shepard, H. A. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations, 9(4), 415–437. Child Welfare League of America. (1984). Child welfare league of America standards for organization and administration for all child welfare services. Washington, DC: Author. Crainer, S. (1998). Key management ideas: Thinkers that changed the management world (3rd ed.). London: Prentice Hall. Fine, B. D. (1971). Comparison of work groups with stable and unstable membership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(2), 170–174. Germain, C. B. (1994). Human behavior and the social environment. In F. G. Reamer (Ed.). The foundations of social work knowledge (pp. 88–121). New York: Columbia University Press. Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of the ARC organizational culture intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(8), 855–880. Glisson, C., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of organizational culture and climate on the access to mental health care in child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Administration and Policy in Mental Health Services Research, 33(4), 433–448. Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human services teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 767–794. Gummer, B. (2001). I’m in the mood for work: Current perspectives on work group dynamics. Administration in Social Work, 25(2), 81–101. Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A ﬁeld study of diversity, conﬂict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763. Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work (4th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Kaiser, T. L. (2004). Supervisory relationships. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services (pp. 21–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81–104. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 325–340. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. Markham, S. E., & McKee, G. H. (1995). Group absence behavior and standards: A multilevel analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 1174–1190.

The Child Welfare Unit

117

McKenna, P. J., & Maister, D. H. (2002). Playing by the rules. Industrial Management, 44(5), 8–13. Menefee, D. (2004). The managerial roles of the supervisor. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services (pp. 137–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2002). Socialization and trust in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5(3), 185–201. Munson, C. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.). New York: The Haworth Social Work Press. National Association of Social Workers. (1999). NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. National Association of Social Workers. (2007). Social work safety. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/events/safety1006/default.asp National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2006, February). Relationship between staff turnover, child welfare system functioning and recurrent child abuse. Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids. O’Reilly, C. A., III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21–37. Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conﬂict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (1999). Management (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Robbins, S. P., Coulter, M., & Langton, N. (2005). Management (8th ed.). Toronto: Pearson Education. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_robbins_management_8 Rycraft, J. R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The public agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75–80. Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B., & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance: An integration. Small Group Research, 30(3), 309–329. Salus, M. K. (2004). Supervising child protective service caseworkers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Children’s Bureau, Ofﬁce of Child Abuse and Neglect. Sarri, R., & Galinsky, M. (1967). A conceptual framework for group development. In R. D. Vinter (Ed.), Readings in group work practice (pp. 75–95). Ann Arbor, MI: Campus Publishers. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. Strom-Gottfried, K.J. (1999). Professional boundaries: An analysis of violations by social workers. Families in Society, 80, 239–449. Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Development sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages in small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

118

child welfare supervision

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families/Children’s Bureau and Ofﬁce of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2003, May). National study of child protective services systems and reform efforts: Findings on local CPS practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofﬁce. U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce (GAO). (2003, March). Child welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child welfare agencies recruit and retain staff (GAO-03–357). Washington, DC: Author. Vinokur-Kaplan, D., & Miller, P. (2004). The collaborative practice of workplace teams. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services (pp. 59–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Malik, S. D. (1984). Organizational socialization and group development: Toward an integrative perspective. Academy of Management Review, 9(4), 670–683. Wheelan, S. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Whitaker, T., Reich, S., Reid, L. B., Williams, M., & Woodside, C. (2004, June). If your’e right for the job, it’s the best job in the world: The National Association of Social Workers’ child welfare specialty practice section members describe their experiences in child welfare. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers. Zlotnik, J. L., DePanﬁlis, D., Daining, C., & Lane, M. M. (2005). Factors inﬂuencing retention of child welfare staff: A systemic review of research. Washington, DC: Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research.

6 MAXIMIZING THE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT ROLE IN CHILD WELFARE B ECKY A NTLE , A NITA B ARBEE , & M ICHIEL A DRIAAN

VAN

Z YL

s will be discussed in a later chapter, ne of the primary roles of the A frontline supervisor is to provide clinical supervision of the assessments, plans, and interventions provided by frontline workers for clients in O

the child welfare system. Another role that takes much of the frontline supervisor’s time is administrative in nature. The frontline supervisor must communicate and execute policies, procedures, and principles determined by upper management and sent down through a series of middle managers. In some ways, the frontline supervisors are middle managers, in the sense that they relay information from the front lines up the line in the organization and bring information that originates at the top down to the front lines. So while frontline supervisors are not classic middle managers, they need to have some of the skills of middle managers and understand the role of middle mangers in large bureaucracies. In so doing they can buffer their workers from the politics of the organization while facilitating necessary and productive change that originates from the top and middle ranks in the organization. To that end, in this chapter we seek to describe the ways in which public child welfare agencies are organized and how that organization translates into various middle-management roles in executing child welfare practice. We then discuss the training, technical assistance, and professional development available to middle managers in child welfare.

119

120

child welfare supervision

The next part of the chapter views the role of the middle manager and the areas middle managers need to master to be maximally effective. These areas include the following: 1. Understanding of the larger organization at the federal, state, and local levels. 2. Thorough knowledge of federal and state laws and policies and use of data to determine compliance. 3. Competence in the program area, including an understanding of resources in the geographic or substantive area, cultural variations that can impact practice with local clients, characteristics of clients, and support needed as a result of those characteristics. Supervisors must also be able to build relationships with other community agency leaders and use collaboration skills to create more resources to meet the needs of clients. 4. Knowledge of current practice innovations and of additional partners with whom to collaborate in order to execute such innovative practices. 5. Ensuring that staff members receive the training they need to do the best job possible, and advocating for appropriate supervisory and worker training that aligns with the strategic plan and supports training initiatives in the state. 6. Understanding of how the middle-management position affects personal and organizational well-being. Managers need to know how to keep healthy by ﬁnding balance in handling interpersonal issues in the agency and managing constant change in the agency. They must also stay the course in the face of reducing resources and manage the conﬂict between the need to get approval by upper administration and the need to serve workers.

THE IMPORTANCE OF MANAGEMENT IN CHILD WELFARE In the area of workforce issues, the child welfare literature has focused primarily on the plight of frontline workers. There have been numerous studies on the education and training necessary for frontline workers to competently execute their job (e.g., Abramczyk & Lieberman, 1994; BoozeAllen & Hamilton, Inc., 1987; Dhooper, Royse, & Wolfe, 1990; Dickenson & Perry, 2002; Fox, Miller, & Barbee, 2003; Perry, 2006; Phillips, 1994); the creation and implementation of effective recruitment and retention strategies for frontline workers (e.g., Cicero-Reese & Black, 1998; Nissly, Barak, & Levin, 2005; Smith, 2005); the necessary standards of practice for frontline workers (e.g., American Human Association, 2000; Child Welfare League of America [CWLA], 1999, 2001; Usher, Wildﬁre, & Gibbs, 1999);

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

121

the best caseload size for frontline workers (e.g., Albert & King, 1996; Mills & Ivery, 1991; Stein, Callaghan, McGee, & Douglas, 1990; Wulczyn, 1991); and support of frontline workers to prevent burnout and increase worker retention (e.g., Davis-Sacks, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1985; Decker, Bailey, & Westergaard, 2002; DiGiulio, 1995; Smith, 2005; Wagner, van Reyk, & Spence, 2001; Yin, 2004). There is also a plethora of other ﬁndings on frontline-worker demographics and on barriers to proper service to clients (e.g., Pecora, Briar, & Zlotnik, 1989; Pecora, Whittaker, Maluccio, Barth, & Plotnick, 2000; U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce [GAO], 2003). While this focus on frontline workers is justiﬁed, in that these workers are where the rubber meets the road with children and families, greater attention needs to be given to the organizational context in which they work (Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006; Lightbourne, 2004; Nugent & Glisson, 1999; Smith & Donovan, 2003). Part of this context is the particular role that frontline supervisors and other managers play in the execution of frontline work. Knowing how other personnel in the agency inﬂuence frontline work is essential to understanding the child welfare arena and particularly to making meaningful changes in the child welfare system for the betterment of the families and children that we seek to serve. In the last 10 years there has been increasing focus on frontline supervisors (Bernotavicz & Bartley, 1996; Silver, Poulin, & Manning, 1997; Ward, 2004), which has been essential to improving child welfare services given supervisors’ important role in child welfare practice. Frontline supervisors oversee the work of between 6 and 10 frontline workers and are ultimately responsible for the decisions made about cases and the outcomes of those decisions. As noted above, they also create the work environment for frontline workers and largely determine worker commitment and intention to stay with the agency (Ezell et al., 2002; Landsman, 2001; Quinn, Rycraft, & Schoech, 2002; Regehr, Chau, Leslie, & Howe, 2002; Sevicki, 1999). Some of the increase in focus on frontline supervisors has come from the distribution of training grants aimed at them, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau’s 426 grants awarded between 2000 and 2003 to train supervisors on the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and the use of data in making decisions and improving the practice of their staff. Findings from these demonstration training projects showed that, in most cases, supervisors did learn and were able to transfer their learning to supervisory practice (Antle, 2002; S. Kanak, personal communication, 2007; Moore, Rapp, & Roberts, 2000; Zimmerman, Amodeo, Fassler, Ellis, & Clay, 2003). More recently, in 2005–2008, the Children’s Bureau funded training grants to train supervisors in independent-living principles. The trend in helping supervisors be more effective continues, with more research surely forthcoming. While the expansion of work focusing on frontline supervisors has been helpful in understanding one key organizational variable in frontline

122

child welfare supervision

practice, there has been very little focus on the managers above the level of frontline supervisors. While some researchers (Ezell et al., 2002; Gustafson & Allen, 1994) focus on general redesign and orientation for the full management sector in child welfare agencies, others (Regehr et al., 2002; Sevicki, 1999; Ware, Dobrec, Rosenthal, & Wedel, 1992; Zunz, 1995) put emphasis on middle managers themselves. None of the studies that focused speciﬁcally on middle managers in social work focused on those working in public or private child welfare agencies (Austin, 1988; Bennett, 1981; Feldman, 1980; Globerman, White, Blacker, & Davies, 2006; Havassy, 1990; Haynes, 1979; Perlmutter, 1983). To begin to ameliorate this gap in the literature, this chapter will focus on middle managers in public child welfare. Much of the emphasis on the knowledge and skills necessary to execute the job well is applicable to other middle managers as well. FINDINGS FROM THE MANAGEMENT LITERATURE To understand all of the critical issues facing middle managers in child welfare, it is essential to turn to the management literature. The literature on middle management generally deﬁnes middle managers as those who have positions between the ﬁrst-level supervisor and the level of executives or top administrators (Frohman & Johnson, 1992). Their role is to serve as the link between strategy and operations, moving information upward and passing decisions down through mediation, negotiation, and interpretation (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997; Likert, 1961; Thompson, 1967). In public child welfare agencies, middle managers can be found in the ﬁeld, representing the needs of the region or county to administrators in that region or county and to other middle managers in the central administration, who in turn translate the vision of central administration to regional and county administrators and middle managers. This level of leadership, when enlightened and empowered, has been found to be essential in reaching organizational goals and creating innovation (Dopson & Stewart, 1990; Floyd & Lane, 2000). We are ﬁnding evidence that middle managers in child welfare can make or break a child welfare system. In an ongoing study of the interface between the Children’s Bureau Training and Technical Assistance Network and individual states and tribes, Barbee and Cunningham (2006) have found that middle managers are key to the change process as states build capacity to meet the standards put forth in the ASFA and the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program) through the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) (Milner, 2003). Similar ﬁndings are reported in the management literature concerning the importance of middle managers in contributing to positive organizational change through participation in making (Thakur, 1998) and implementing strategy (Currie & Procter, 2005; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992, 1994, 1997; Wai-Kwong, Priem, & Cycyota, 2001), interpreting the intent of the change for themselves and their employees (Balogun, 2003), and

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

123

implementing change, keeping business going during change, and helping others through change (Balogun). They must also manage the emotions of employees as change occurs (Huy, 2002; Rouleau, 2005) and manage uncertainty (Herzig & Jimmieson, 2006). From the literature on middle management Klagge (1998) found that middle managers need to play a number of roles and possess multiple skills to be maximally effective in organizations. He created a list of 17 skill categories that middle managers should have, with 112 speciﬁc skills listed under these categories combined (see Box 6.1). Box 6.1

Klagge’s (1998) Middle Management Skills

Personal communication: Listening, giving constructive feedback, getting good information, getting ideas across, building relationships, writing, speaking to be understood, making presentations, public speaking Conﬂict resolution: Dealing with emotional behavior, knowing steps of conﬂict resolution, understanding proﬁles of personality, recognizing and dealing with stress behaviors Leadership: Having compassion in dealing with others, promoting innovation and creativity, solving daily problems, using consensus decision-making, being decisive, keeping an open mind, respecting others’ ideas, trusting others, using the 360-degree process, doing behavioral interviewing, using panel interviews for hiring Consulting and facilitating: Asking questions, assessing the work group environment, recognizing constraints, establishing goals and objectives, doing research, designing systems and processes, estimating resource needs, evaluating results Ethical and legal issues: Understanding statutes, rules and regulations, personnel processes, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Title VI, cultural values in the workplace, and procurement processes Developing and mentoring others: Personal-development planning, setting group development targets, career goals, and career action plans, evaluating others’ skills, designing skills checklists, tutoring speciﬁc skills, giving coaching tips, serving as a mentor, encouraging others, giving constructive feedback, using a win-win strategy Technology mastery: Understanding all aspects of computing, managing calendars, projects, and other business via technological devices Business process improvement: Understanding process and process design, leading process teams, leading effective meetings, using process improvement tools, teaching process improvement and problem-solving steps Customer service: Identifying the internal customer, identifying the external customer, handling complaints, measuring customer service, handling customer politics Partnering: Identifying customer and other partner expectations, setting common shared vision and goals, setting common priorities, identifying issues and escalation processes, monitoring, and using communication processes Project management: Using Gantt charts, keeping within the budget and scope, prioritizing technical communications, negotiating, project planning, handling the project team, providing quality control, problem solving (continued)

124

child welfare supervision

Mental models: Identifying personal assumptions, communicating complex concepts, articulating your own views, learning the views of others System thinking: Identifying interrelationships among various work areas, ﬁnding the cause not the symptom, ﬂow diagramming, identifying system issues Change leadership: Identifying openness and resistance to change, understanding the challenges of change leadership, leading from the middle, creating a positive environment, setting a vision for the work area, ﬁnding the gaps and planning to ﬁll them Resource allocation: Developing a budget, resolving resource differences, ﬁnding resources, planning for future equipment needs, planning for future human resource needs, scheduling people and equipment Organizational visioning: Writing visions, making action plans, developing performance measures, aligning with the total organization, implementing strategic plans, validating progress Navigating the organization: Knowing organizational structure and systems, knowing who knows, knowing how to access the ofﬁcial leaders as well as the unofﬁcial leaders, knowing how to get things done.

Klagge (1998) conducted a study in which he asked middle managers to rate the level of criticality and current competence for each of the 112 skills identiﬁed in the management literature. He found that middle managers rated 25 of the 112 total skills as very critical, but that they did not always possess these skills. Fourteen of the 25 skills were interpersonal skills that they had not mastered (giving constructive feedback, writing good memos, reports, speaking to be understood, dealing with emotional behavior, steps of conﬂict resolution, recognizing and dealing with stress behaviors, promoting innovation and creativity, consensus decision-making, trusting others, establishing goals and objectives, evaluating results, statutes, rules and regulations, personnel process, mastering issues related to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], and Title VI), and 11 were process skills that they had not mastered (leading process teams, setting common priorities, quality control, leading from the middle, creating a positive environment, setting a vision for the work area, ﬁnding gaps, knowing organizational structure and systems, accessing ofﬁcial leaders, accessing unofﬁcial leaders, and knowing how to get things done). While this study is worth replicating with public child welfare middle managers to determine both nationwide trends and particular training needs within state or county agencies, we would venture that the types of skills and roles necessary to accomplish the job and the areas of weakness will not be that different from those found in the study. In another study examining the microprocesses of middle-manager ofﬁce interactions, Alvesson and Sveningsson (2003) found that small behaviors like listening and chatting informally with staff members make them feel more respected, visible, less anonymous, and included in teamwork. While these behaviors are not signiﬁcant in and of themselves, the

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

125

fact that they are being done by a manager makes them special and imbues them with emotional value beyond their everyday signiﬁcance. More recent research has also found that middle managers increasingly have to engage in more boundary-spanning activities by getting out of the ofﬁce and observing the local and statewide environment in order to anticipate changes and needs and be ready with solutions (Currie & Procter, 2005). TYPES OF MANAGERS The types of middle managers found in any state depend largely on how child welfare is structured in that state. All states have some level of statewide oversight, creating the need for managers in a central ofﬁce to oversee various operations. These managers in state-run systems are leaders below the secretary, commissioner, and director levels (the top administrators), who focus on policy development, programs, training, information technology (IT), personnel, and clinical concerns. Some states run as statewide systems have managers who are state employees above the frontline supervisory level in local or regional ofﬁces. For example, in Kentucky there are nine regions led by a service region administrator (SRA). The secondin-command to the SRA is known as the SRAA (service region administrator associate). These personnel oversee staff on the basis of either geography or area of expertise (i.e., child welfare or family support). Some are specialists and have responsibilities for areas within child welfare, such as adoption, out-of-home care, ongoing services, intake and investigations, or independent living. Still other SRAAs are clinical experts and serve as ﬂoaters who advise frontline supervisors and workers on practice issues. Some states, for instance, Georgia and Indiana, have added a layer of ﬁeld training specialists who serve as coaches and mentors to new workers and veteran staff as a part of training reinforcement. Finally, 24 states, including Ohio and California, have county-based systems. In this type of system, while there is a state ofﬁce that oversees child welfare services at some level, each county has a child welfare ofﬁce that is fully or partially funded by the county. The workforce is composed of county employees. County directors lead those county child welfare ofﬁces. These directors have associates who oversee certain areas, much like the regional structure described above. Thus, there are many types of mid-level management positions in child welfare across the United States. The type of management position in an organizational structure affects the information ﬂow both in the organization and externally to and from others outside of the organization. Information ﬂow is critical to making accurate and timely decisions. In general, the more management levels, the more difﬁcult it is to achieve optimum information ﬂow. If not adequately designed, ﬂat organizational structures with few managerial levels may lead to middle managers lacking the focus necessary to meet expectations. Regardless of the type of mid-level management position, all

126

child welfare supervision

middle managers have to ﬁnd ways to reduce nonessential activities and eliminate overlap or duplication. The success of any organization depends to a large extent on the capabilities of the individuals working there. Talented middle managers will perform even better if the organizational structure is well aligned with its mission and scope. Poor talent is less responsive to the beneﬁts of well-designed organizational structure. Continuous restructuring is not a solution for poor performance, and middle managers who understand and effectively communicate this can prevent organizational re-engineering for the sake of change. TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR MIDDLE MANAGERS While the private sector uses structural testing to promote people to management positions, child welfare does not use testing or other structured methods to choose managers. Thus, most managers have moved up from frontline worker to frontline supervisor to some sort of middlemanagement role. Because few of these managers have speciﬁc education or training in management or leadership, access to such opportunities is critical. While most states have a mechanism for top-level administrators and middle managers to receive training in general management skills, most agencies that oversee child welfare do not offer special leadership training particular to human services or child welfare practice (Barbee & Cunningham, 2006; but see Box 6.2). It is imperative that middle managers ﬁnd a way to receive as much training or education as they possibly can to help them perform their jobs. In addition to in-house training, educational institutions can be a resource.

Box 6.2

Kentucky’s Human Service Leadership Institute

Between 1998 and 2001, Kentucky trained top-level administrators and middle managers in the Human Services Leadership Institute (HSLI; Fox, Barbee, Harmon, Staples, & Spang, 2003). At HSLI, upper administrators and middle managers engaged in training 3 days a month for 6 months. The curriculum started with an overview of poverty and the types of clients the agency serves, then focused on an introduction to the agency, including vision, mission, and goals, as well as an understanding of Senge’s (1990) learning organization principles. All of the training was couched in social work ethics and values, and examples from human services were used to further reinforce the special nature of the work at hand. Other trainings covered organizational systems, communication, cultural competence, project management, leading change, dealing with the media, mental models, behavioral styles (using Dominance, Inﬂuence, Steadiness, Conscientiousness [DISC] assessment), time management, dealing with personnel issues, team learning, systems thinking, managing conﬂict, meeting management, and budgeting and resource development.

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

127

If managers do not already have master’s degrees, they can start enhancing their skills by enrolling in a master’s program. Most schools of social work have a track for administrative social work or macro-practice. If the nearest school of social work does not offer that emphasis, then a school of public administration specializing in governmental and nonproﬁt management programs can be ideal. An MBA may not be the best ﬁt with management practice in a public institution, but if that is the only degree available in a state, such a program would provide at least the essentials of management practice. If a middle manager is focused primarily on training and professional development, he or she may want to pursue a master’s degree in training from a business school or school of education. If a middle manager is focused on clinical supervision, then a master’s degree in clinical social work, marriage and family therapy (MFT), or counseling psychology may be helpful. Middle managers who already have master’s degrees but who have not had much training in management can look to post-master’s certiﬁcation programs in administrative social work or public administration. These certiﬁcation programs usually require between 15 and 18 credit hours and some on-the-job practice or project experience and can be completed in the evening or weekends within a 1-year period. Middle managers can also look within their broader state governments for management training courses or certiﬁcates. These courses give the middle manager training in management skills such as strategic planning; employee recruitment, management, and evaluation skills; conﬂict management skills; preliminary budgeting and ﬁnancial management skills; and skills in managing a diverse workforce, as well as training in employment laws and policies on hiring, probation, disciplinary action, and termination. For additional training in leadership skills in the practice of child welfare, some states may offer courses or training aimed at middle managers, especially if some entity in the state has received a Children’s Bureau training grant for that purpose. Attending a professional conference, such as the conferences sponsored by the Child Welfare League of America, the Children’s Bureau conferences for states and courts, the American Public Human Services Association conferences, or the National Staff Development and Training Association Annual Conference, is a great way to gain information and contacts with peers in other states. Also, the Children’s Bureau Training and Technical Assistance Network of National Resource Centers, the Child Welfare Information Gateway, and the National Child Welfare Workforce Institute can provide middle managers with state-of-the-art literature on best practices and training and technical-assistance offerings. Finally, some university–state partnerships create special training and consultation services that middle managers can access for their staffs. For example, the University of Kentucky has created the Comprehensive Assessment and Training Services (CATS) clinic, which conducts interdisciplinary assessments of extremely complex cases to help frontline workers make better decisions about removing children from the home, returning

128

child welfare supervision

children to the home, and writing applicable treatment plans (Sprang, Clark, Kaak, & Brenzel, 2004). Some states also have funding from foundations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Family to Family Initiative, which focuses on ways to enhance foster care placements, decrease disruptions, and improve child outcomes (Usher et al., 1999). Given the difﬁculty of the middle-manager role, the rest of the chapter will delineate some of the knowledge and skills middle managers should master to manage child welfare practice effectively. UNDERSTANDING THE LARGER ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT As Klagge (1998) noted, two essential areas of mastery are system thinking and organizational visioning. System thinking includes the identiﬁcation of interrelationships among various work areas and of system issues. Organizational visioning involves writing visions, making action plans, developing performance measures, aligning with the total organization, implementing strategic plans, and validating progress. To this end, middle managers need to be well versed in the vision, mission, goals, outcomes, and overall strategic plan of the agency so that they can align their own executions of policy and strategic plans for practice improvement with the overall agency plan. The advantage of such alignment is to minimize instigating too many initiatives at once, which can stretch the ﬁeld too much. Instead, middle managers should clearly focus energy on key areas to move their parts of the organization along in a positive direction. These areas also involve interfacing with local and state-level administrators and communicating the needs of the ﬁeld to them, as well as receiving critical policy and political information from them. In addition, middle managers need to engage in a full analysis of their organizations’ needs. Netting, Kettner, and McMurtry (2007) lay out a clear framework for analyzing organizations, including identifying elements of the organization’s environment, assessing the relationships between the organization and the environment, and understanding the internal workings of the organization. MASTERY OF LAWS, POLICIES, AND DATA As also noted by Klagge (1998), effective middle managers have a thorough grasp of ethical and legal issues (statutes, rules and regulations, personnel process, EEOC, ADA, Title VI, and cultural values in the workplace) and of navigating the organization (knowing organizational structure and systems, knowing who knows, knowing how to access the ofﬁcial leaders, knowing how to access the unofﬁcial leaders, and knowing how to get things done). Middle managers in the child welfare arena need to be well-versed in federal and state laws (e.g., ASFA, 1997; Foster Care Independence Act of 1999; Multi-Ethnic Placement Act of 1994 [MEPA]) and policies, but only for the purpose of understanding how to answer the questions of employees

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

129

in their county or region or throughout the state in their particular area of expertise (i.e., adoption). Managers also need to familiarize themselves with how the agency is complying at all levels with such laws and policy and whether the agency is reaching desired outcomes in safety, permanency, and well-being. This assessment involves the use of management data and the ability to develop a strategic plan to make improvements in frontline supervision and frontline practice so that clients have better outcomes. Middle managers must constantly balance understanding the uniqueness of their service regions or service area (i.e., adoption) with an awareness of statewide issues for the child welfare agency. One excellent example of this balance is the thorough understanding of the issues identiﬁed in the Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) and Program Improvement Plan (PIP) for the state. Middle managers should be knowledgeable of the state’s performance on the last CFSR, as an understanding of the state’s performance puts their regional and substantive issues into context. Middle managers in the ﬁeld must consider whether this is a practice challenge common across the state that is being addressed through statewide efforts of the PIP, or if this is a unique problem for their own region that needs to be addressed through local change strategies. In addition, data from the CFSR and subsequent continuous quality improvement (CQI) initiatives that mirror the CFSR are generally available at both the state and regional or county levels. In Kentucky, for example, quarterly reports are produced on CFSR items and outcomes at both the state and regional levels and these can be used for strategic planning and problem solving. Another important role of middle managers is to identify and use data sources other than those used in the CFSR and CQI process. This role involves a number of skills, including accessing existing data, analyzing data, collecting supplemental data, synthesizing data, and reporting data to multiple parties. These data may be used for numerous purposes, including strategic planning, program development, and practice improvements (see also Box 6.1). How to Access Data The ﬁrst skill needed for data analysis and planning responsibilities of middle managers is accessing existing data. Each state has its own data collection and reporting system, so middle managers must familiarize themselves with their own unique systems. In Kentucky there are a number of sources of existing data, including regular management reports that are routinely generated from the data management system, CQI data, Council on Accreditation data, results from the CFSRs, and quarterly PIP reports. Management reports are generated on a number of important topics, including timeliness of practice, rates of maltreatment (reports, substantiation), maltreatment decisions (substantiation, removal of children, termination of parental rights), placement patterns, well-being indicators, recidivism of maltreatment, and many more. These reports are generated

130

child welfare supervision

at state, regional, and local (team) levels. Middle managers should be aware of existing reports that are available and of the processes used to request a “special” report from these data sources for a topic that may not be routinely examined. Another source of data is the state’s CQI or quality assurance process. Each state’s child welfare system has some variation of a quality assurance or improvement process, through which certain elements of practice are evaluated. Kentucky’s CQI process involves a chart ﬁle process through which supervisors, regional specialists, and administrators from the central ofﬁce of the child welfare agency review a random sample of cases on a monthly basis using a standardized, reliable, and valid data abstraction tool. How to Ask the Right Questions Gaining awareness of existing data is an important ﬁrst step in the middle manager’s strategic use of data. However, another critical skill is knowing how to ask the right questions so that the data gathered provide information that can be used for planning, development, or practice improvement. A middle manager may know that he or she is interested in the issue of recidivism of child maltreatment. However, approaching state information systems experts and asking for general data on recidivism may prove to be very unhelpful in an attempt to increase understanding and improve practice. The manager must ﬁrst formulate the appropriate data-based question before attempting to access the data. To research recidivism, for example, a middle manager must make a number of decisions to formulate questions: • Is the manager interested in regional and county trends, statewide trends, and/or a comparison of the two? • Is the manager interested in the status quo (current rate of recidivism) or change over time? Over what period of time? Should the focus be the impact of a speciﬁc policy or a practice initiative on recidivism (e.g., the CFSR, PIP efforts, training, or some other initiative)? • Is the manager interested in group differences in recidivism? Group differences might include those based on type of maltreatment (physical abuse vs. neglect), alleged perpetrator, characteristics of the child, presence of comorbid factors (substance abuse, domestic violence), and many more. • Is the manager interested in the impact of the casework process on recidivism? For example, does prior termination of parental rights affect recidivism by the same parent with different children? Does removal of children from the home prevent recidivism? Does placement in kinship care, foster homes, private child-care facilities, or other settings affect recidivism?

Once the middle manager has speciﬁed the question in this way, he or she must present a speciﬁc data request that includes variables to be measured,

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

131

date parameters, and the target group. Basic analysis skills should also be part of the middle manager’s repertoire in order to maximize use of available data. How to Go Deeper with Focus Groups and Surveys In many cases, the available data do not provide a clear picture of the quality of practice or dynamics of maltreatment that are of concern to the middle manager. In such instances, middle managers should have the skills needed to collect new or supplemental data. These data collection techniques may include the conducting of focus groups, development or administering of surveys, and chart ﬁle review studies. When the unique perspective of clients or workers on a particular topic is needed, middle managers may want to conduct focus groups. Through such groups, middle managers can collect qualitative data on the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of clients or workers on an important topic. When there is a need for quantitative data on a particular topic that are not available through any other source, middle managers may need to develop and administer surveys. Surveys are useful when middle managers are interested in gathering data from a larger audience and allow for a summary of data in a succinct, often numeric format. Finally, when data are available through existing case records but are not summarized through management reports or quality assurance processes, the middle manger may need to conduct a chart ﬁle review study. For example, if a middle manager is interested in the risk of juvenile delinquency among youth who were abused or neglected as children but no such management report can be generated to answer that question, he or she could conduct a chart ﬁle review study on this topic. How to Synthesize Information Once middle managers access and analyze needed data, the next skill needed is the ability to synthesize information for the intended audience. The appropriate synthesis of data is determined by two factors: the target audience and the purpose. The target audience may be individual workers, supervisors or teams, regional staff, or higher-level administrators. The purposes of data synthesis may include performance improvement or trainingneeds assessment. Data can be synthesized with the individual, team, county, region, or state as the unit of analysis. When the purpose is performance improvement for speciﬁc workers or teams, the data should be summarized at the individual or team level. The synthesis should be as skill-speciﬁc as possible. When the purpose is an assessment of training needs, the synthesis should still be skill-speciﬁc but may be at the individual, team, or even county or regional level. Reporting at the individual or team level will identify training needs for small groups, which may take the form of training refresher courses or other types of remediation (e.g., repeating core

child welfare supervision

132

Box 6.3 • • • • • • • • • • • •

General Tips for Reporting Data

Be concise. Organize data in a table or ﬁgure. Use a template if you going to report the same type of data repeatedly. Clearly state the purpose of reporting the data. Have data collected by primary users of the data and acknowledge them in the report. Provide accurate and complete data. Involve others as much as possible when interpreting the data. Be explicit in explaining how you got from the data to the conclusion. If there are different interpretations, voice the perspectives of others. Remember that data become information only if understood within the context of the total organization. Ask for feedback and improve reports accordingly. Consult technical bulletins on data capturing and reporting; see, for example: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ccb/report/formhelp/techbull/index.htm

training courses). Reporting at the county, regional, or state level may help to identify deﬁcits in existing training and curricula that need to be developed (see Box 6.3). How to Report Back to Region, County, Supervisory Team, and Individual Workers, as Well as to State and Federal Offices Middle managers are not only important to their immediate superiors and frontline workers but are central to their organization in many ways, such as their ability to integrate local information into the organizational context. The silo phenomenon occurs when information is kept in only one part of an organization. Apart from the fact that others in the organization cannot beneﬁt from the information, each section is unable to understand its own information because it lacks the context of the whole organization. The centrality of the middle manager position makes it possible for middle managers to develop and share understanding of what the organization is trying to accomplish and how it is going about doing this. Much has been written about the inﬂuence of middle managers up and down the organizational structure, but their horizontal inﬂuence is often neglected. In child welfare in particular, peer communication of middle managers is of great importance. Successful middle managers build networks with their peers and access accurate, timely, and complete information from different parts of the organization. Middle managers play a crucial role in providing continuity when top management changes. Dixon (1994) reminds us how easy it is to think that once information is shared, others will learn from it and do things differently. Receiving information does not necessarily involve making meaning from it or truly knowing it. For the organization to learn from data, individuals must

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

133

interact with each other while engaging in a learning process and forming an interpretation of the data. Middle managers engage with frontline workers, peers, and superiors to inﬂuence each other and understand everyone’s views and interpretations. The aim is not so much to build consensus as to build a collective interpretation that everyone is invested in and by which the parameters of the problem are more clearly understood. Middle managers allow frontline workers the opportunity to speak openly about their interpretations without fear of punishment or coercion. In child welfare practice, middle managers will often collect and interpret data with peers across the state for training, practice reform, collaboration, and other peer work. For example, gap analysis is often used in training-needs assessment. Data are collected to deﬁne the gap between current performance and desired performance; the gap between current worker competencies and desired worker competencies; and the gap between current worker learning environment and a strong learning environment. Not all data from a gap analysis indicate a need for training. Data on effectiveness of the current practice model or approach, ﬁdelity data, and data on competencies of workers, workload, and other work environment factors all need to be triangulated to decide the best way of addressing the needs reﬂected by these data. When interpreting data from a gap analysis, the middle manager considers the most logical and cost-effective and least invasive plan of action. It is helpful to consider the four possible directions for action included in this section—training, practice reform, collaboration, and other peer work—before ﬁnalizing action plans. Gaps in competencies of speciﬁc employees compared with the abilities of other employees usually relate to a need for training. When the middle manager is convinced that employees have acceptable competency levels but outcome data are still unsatisfactory in speciﬁc areas of work, collaboration and peer work may be more appropriate. A brief Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis of (1) employee competence, (2) practice models used, and (3) collaboration and peer work practices often implemented can assist the middle manager in developing perspective on the gaps analysis. By identifying serious weaknesses and threats in one or more of the four areas, investment in areas already well developed need not occur at the expense of other areas. There are several advantages for middle managers in collaborating statewide on data and action plans. Such collaboration leads to more data being available to analyze, increases the validity of ﬁndings, and makes it easier to sell to superiors. Data from different sites assist in identifying trends across sites and specifying what is unique to speciﬁc localities. Collaboration also involves more people in making meaning out of the data, developing a common framework to understand the data better, and buying in to recommendations that ﬂow from data analyses and interpretation. In the process of collaboration, new networks are developed, used not only for data-related issues but also other organizational processes.

134

child welfare supervision

In short, statewide collaboration on data management and interpretation empowers middle managers—to guide and mentor frontline supervisors, sell the need for innovation to others in the organization, resist change for the sake of change, and be leaders in change efforts that result in overall organizational effectiveness. Use of Data for State and Regional Strategic Planning In addition to performance improvement and training-needs assessment, there are larger purposes for which data can be used, including regional strategic planning, program development, and promotion of best practices. Regional strategic planning may be based on the identiﬁcation of key outcomes that are not being met or resources that need to be developed to address needs unique to the region. Middle managers can use data to inform this strategic planning process by comparing a region’s performance on key outcomes to statewide indicators or identifying unique client demographics in maltreatment dynamics that necessitate the development of new services or resources. For example, if data reveal a particularly high rate of comorbid domestic violence with child maltreatment for a particular region, middle managers can use these data to advocate for development of additional services to meet this need. A ﬁnal use of data is for the promotion of best practices. Data can be used to identify effective practices that promote positive child welfare outcomes. For example, research on the relative effectiveness of placement types (e.g., foster care vs. kinship care) could be used to help workers make decisions regarding the best placements for children removed from their homes.

KNOWLEDGE OF REGION OR PROGRAM AREA One of the primary responsibilities of middle managers is to maintain an awareness of the speciﬁc resources and needs of their service regions or programs, including resources for services, university partners, legislators, and the press. This knowledge should also extend to cultural dynamics and other demographic variables that affect practice, prevalence rates for special problems such as substance abuse, practice innovations, and results of federal review processes. Resources needed to support child welfare practice, such as mental health or substance abuse agencies, private child-care agencies, and residential treatment or inpatient psychiatric facilities, vary from region to region. Another key responsibility of middle managers is to be aware of the existing resources in their region. They should also identify any service gaps necessitating referrals outside the region or suggest strategic service development through collaboration, part of the partnering skill delineated by Klagge (1998). Partnering requires the speciﬁc skills of identifying customer and other partner expectations, setting a common shared vision

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

135

and shared goals and priorities, issue identiﬁcation, and communication processes. Middle managers should be cognizant of the cultural dynamics of their regions. In Kentucky, for example, there are pockets of cultural diversity, such as Appalachia, that are quite distinctive from other regions of the state. In general, there may be more racial and ethnic diversity in urban areas than in rural areas, so managers in urban areas need to be particularly aware of these dynamics. While frontline workers need to be trained in the language and cultural norms of diverse groups, they also need middle managers who can provide leadership for workers in meeting these service needs (through use of some of the leadership and change leadership skills in Klagge’s [1998] model, including practicing compassion in dealing with others, using innovation and creativity, solving daily problems, and fostering a positive environment). In addition to those discussed above, there are other demographic variables and needs that should be considered by middle managers in their leadership of particular regions or service areas. For example, an area with a high concentration of immigrants or even pockets of immigrants spread over a metropolitan region will require special engagement approaches and skills. The history of the agency and services provided to these groups, the way in which the agency is perceived, the availability of languagespeciﬁc information and native-language speakers in the workforce, and culture-speciﬁc child-rearing practices are all important in shaping the decisions of middle managers to provide leadership in responsive service delivery. Demographics include the average education level, martial status, employment status, and religion of the client population. Although the vast majority of clients in the public child welfare system are of lower income status, there may be some variability in level of education and employment status by region or county. Employment status is often affected by the presence of industrial job opportunities or major corporations that employ large numbers of residents of the region. Education and employment are variables to be considered in frontline workers’ case planning. There may also be variations in regional norms in marital status. Middle managers should be aware of these demographics. Are most clients married or in divorced or blended families? Are most clients in dating relationships or are they single parents? Religion is another demographic to be considered, as religious preferences may affect case planning and available resources. Knowledge of these factors will impact management decisions and services in many ways, from planning when to offer services to discerning the nature of programs and worker development. Demographic information helps managers focus on family development phases of clients and understand their context—i.e., the political, cultural, historical, economic, and social factors associated with clients’ positions in society. This informational also assists in planning services to meet clients’ particular needs and plan training and information around client issues, including their family structure, religious afﬁliation, and

136

child welfare supervision

education level. For example, clients with limited education beneﬁt more from reading material requiring corresponding reading levels, and older clients may need written information in a larger font size. Single mothers require child care to optimize the beneﬁt of other direct services. Blended families will beneﬁt from special family programs, and clients with a history of unemployment require speciﬁc job preparation skills. Lastly, middle managers should be informed about the factors that are often comorbid with child maltreatment, such as substance abuse, mental health issues, mental capacity, domestic violence, and intergenerational abuse. The most common drug abused among clients may vary by region and change over time. For example, the recent rise in methamphetamine use in rural areas has necessitated the development of relevant training for workers and services for clients in those areas. Middle managers must be well versed in state laws on the reporting of and response to domestic violence; they should also be aware of local applications of those laws by law enforcement and the court system. What are the standard practices for the cross-reporting of domestic violence to child protection services by law enforcement? Does the witnessing of domestic violence constitute child abuse or neglect? How do judges typically handle these cases and what are best practices for child welfare workers? A ﬁnal consideration is the prevalence of intergenerational abuse or neglect. Middle managers who are aware of intergenerational abuse or neglect as a common problem in their region may caution teams to be careful in the identiﬁcation of appropriate kinship care providers. UNDERSTANDING BEST PRACTICES There are multiple sources of practice initiatives and innovations that can be maximized by middle managers to promote best practice. Again, the Children’s Bureau has the Child Welfare Information Gateway, which includes literature on all areas of child welfare, results of recent demonstration projects, and ﬁndings from federal-grant projects. Middle managers can assist workers in using evidence-based practice procedures and methods to identify and critically appraise the available evidence related to client problems. They can help workers phrase questions in such a way that meaningful electronic searches can be done and facilitate partnerships with universities and libraries to cost-effectively access quality databases. They can provide guidance to workers in engaging clients in clarifying value preferences and communicating research ﬁndings in a practical and nonjargon fashion that will empower clients when deciding on intervention options. They can lead discussions that help workers differentiate between conﬂicting research ﬁndings and use procedures to help identify the most valid and client-relevant evidence. They can share practice wisdom and provide leadership in moving away form authority-based practice to evidence-based practice. The Child Welfare League of America also has a section on their Web site that focuses on “Research to Practice” and summarizes articles in areas of interest to middle managers.

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

137

There may also be clinical leaders within the child welfare agency who can be turned to for knowledge of best practices. In Kentucky, such clinical experts have designated middle management positions, through which they provide case reviews, consultations, and supervision to frontline workers on ways to manage complex cases. There may also be university partners with expertise in child welfare practice. Again in Kentucky the statewide practice model, Solution-Based Casework, was developed by a university professor with expertise in child welfare and marriage and family therapy (Christensen, Todahl, & Barrett, 1999). Practice innovations may also emerge from federal or foundation grants. Federal grants are often used to develop or test new practice strategies for child welfare. Foundations such as the Anne E. Casey Family Foundation specialize in child welfare practice and provide grants to states to implement and evaluate their practice strategies. In Kentucky the Casey Family to Family Initiative has introduced practice innovations such as facilitated stafﬁngs (a form of family team meetings), parent advocacy programs, recruitment and retention strategies for foster and adoptive parents, and efforts to increase placement of children with kin, siblings, and in their natural neighborhoods. Middle managers should be aware of these sources of practice innovations in their own and other regions. Although there is much variability in the strength and format of partnerships between universities and public child welfare systems, middle managers should work to foster collaboration with university partners as much as possible. University partners are often the recipients of grant funding in the area of child welfare that may be used to develop new training courses or conduct research on areas of child welfare practice. University partners also serve as evaluators of core child welfare training and other program areas. University partners can assist with curriculum and other professional development activities, such as the building of capacity for leadership in child welfare agencies. ENSURING THAT STAFF MEMBERS RECEIVE THE TRAINING THEY NEED One of the key roles of middle managers is to ensure that training and technical assistance are available for their own staff members so that they are equipped to promote best practice in the ﬁeld. The understanding of best practice in child welfare is constantly evolving as basic research provides evidence on the etiology and consequences of child maltreatment. Applied research has advanced our knowledge of effective interventions. Recent studies have shown that strengths-based approaches can be particularly effective in engaging resistant families (Antle, Christensen, Barbee, & Martin, under review). In one study, we found that Solution-Based Casework (Christensen et al., 1999), Kentucky’s child welfare practice model, promotes client compliance, worker identiﬁcation of strengths, achievement of goals and objectives, and maintenance of children in their homes (Antle et al., 2008).

138

child welfare supervision

Training resources are limited, and many states have moved to a centralized approach to training that requires workers and supervisors to travel long distances for required courses. One area of advocacy for middle managers is regional access to training. While the content of training should remain generally consistent across the state, training may be offered in speciﬁc regions to accommodate the schedules and needs of teams as well as idiosyncrasies of that particular region (e.g., its court structure). In a national evaluation of state training systems, we found that the average number of hours of required training for new workers was 111.83 (SD = 96.20), while veteran workers were required to have 25.41 (SD = 11.84) hours per year and supervisors were required to have 35.71 (SD = 26.93) hours (Antle & Barbee, 2005). These minimal requirements are often not adequate to maintain knowledge of current policy and practice for workers and supervisors in the ﬁeld. Therefore, middle managers must not only advocate for essential training for new workers and supervisors and training that is accessible to their speciﬁc regions, they must also be mindful of the need for ongoing training and technical assistance and advocate for additional training hours so that their staff members have access the most cutting-edge knowledge in the ﬁeld. Child welfare training curricula are generally developed by committee. These committees may be initiated or led by the state child welfare training division, university partners, or groups with grant sponsorship. Membership in these committees is one way in which middle managers can ensure that the curriculum developed meets the needs of their regions. Examples of this role for middle managers in Kentucky include the following: • Casey Family to Family Initiative: Regional managers (middle managers) help to shape the implementation of Casey services such as foster and adoptive parent recruitment efforts and facilitate stafﬁng protocols. Middle managers identify key research questions for self-evaluation, such as, “What was the most important impact of Casey Initiative on permanency outcomes?” • Grant curriculum development: Middle managers serve on the advisory boards for federal training grants. They help to shape curriculum content and implementation of training. • Credit for Learning Program: Kentucky offers graduate-degree credit for completion of certain child welfare training courses. Middle managers are often part of the development teams for these courses and are present at ongoing management meetings that direct course offerings and balance needs across the state.

During implementation of a federal grant on best practice to promote ASFA outcomes, middle managers in Kentucky attended the trainings to show support. They gave an introductory statement emphasizing the importance of the ASFA outcomes being trained in this project. This effort showed the management’s support of curriculum, which fostered buy-in

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

139

of the training. Evaluation research found that the support of middle managers and the organization was predictive of learning and training transfer. All of these activities involve the skills of developing and mentoring others and resource allocation, described earlier in the chapter (Klagge, 1998), and are critical to the success of middle managers in supporting the frontline work of the agency. Another key lesson from this ASFA training grant was the importance of team-based training. This project trained supervisors and their workers together. This had a number of beneﬁts. First, this training approach communicated consistent messages to trainees. Workers often complain that they do not receive support from their supervisors for new training material, as their supervisors were trained at a different point in time or in a different curriculum. By training workers and supervisors together, consistency is assured. Second, the team training approach provided supervisors with an immediate opportunity to coach or reinforce skills from the training during the sessions. For the ASFA training grant, a number of training activities required supervisors to lead their workers in practicing core casework skills. Supervisors were asked to provide immediate feedback and coaching for skill improvement. This method reinforced the supervisor’s leadership role and mastery of casework skills. Middle managers served an important function in implementing this team-based training approach, as there were a number of logistical constraints such as ofﬁce and court coverage. Middle managers were able to coordinate with teams in other counties to provide the needed coverage and allow teams to be trained together. Middle managers should use coaching and mentoring to promote best practice in their regions. Some states are conﬁgured in such a way that middle managers are actually mentors themselves. In Kentucky there are different types of middle managers—some are in clinical positions, while others are in administrative positions. Those in clinical positions review cases and provide clinical supervision (coaching and mentoring) to frontline staff and feedback to supervisors regarding staff development needs. At other times, middle managers may assist with the development of coaching and mentoring programs, such as Kentucky’s Field Training Specialist program. This program partners veteran workers with new workers for a period of observation and coaching. These veteran workers provide written and oral feedback to the new workers about their skills. Middle managers helped develop this program and supported its implementation in the face of numerous logistical challenges. EFFECTS ON PERSONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL WELL-BEING The ﬁnal set of roles and skills displayed by middle managers involves managing their own staff through conﬂict resolution and ethical and legal processes as well as serving as the conduit for information ﬂowing from

child welfare supervision

140

employees to upper management and from upper management to employees. This communication role can be both exhilarating and frustrating. The activities of managing staff and serving as the go-between put the most stress on middle managers; they are also the most critical ones for the wellbeing of their own employees and of the organization as a whole. The more competently the middle manager can handle these issues, the greater satisfaction and lower turnover they will see in their units. The ability to manage climate brings us back to the importance of creating a positive work environment for those on the frontline so that the children and families are well served. Middle managers need to ﬁnd ways to build balance in their own lives, as well as the lives of their employees, so that all are coping effectively. Recent work in this area is calling for the drastic redesign of work to meet the needs arising in the 21st century (Bailyn, 2006). The new workforce, at all levels of the organization, requires a balance between work and home responsibilities so that the work gets done and families and communities also thrive. Thus, middle managers in this century will have to carefully hire staff that they trust so that they can allow greater ﬂexibility in the workday, leading to greater productivity and well-being for all concerned. Since employees in the child welfare system already have strong family values, today’s middle managers in child welfare will likely be the leaders in revolutionizing the workplace to ensure that all children, those on the caseloads and those of the child welfare staff, are well cared.for. CONCLUSION This chapter sought to describe key roles and skills of middle managers in the child welfare system. These middle managers serve as important liaisons between frontline workers and supervisors and the central management of the agency. They must translate agency vision and mission into daily practice for those under their jurisdiction, while simultaneously advocating for the needs of their speciﬁc regions with upper management. They must be aware of the unique practices and service dynamics in their service regions, as well as federal trends in policy and practice that affect daily work. They use data to inform their decisions and work proactively by building relationships with other community agency leaders and collaborating to create more resources and guide agency policies to meet the needs of clients. Middle managers keep up with knowledge of practice innovations, contextualize this knowledge, and triangulate data about workforce competence, client proﬁles, and outcome data to ensure that their staff members receive the training and innovation they need. Middle managers consider the strategic direction of the agency when advocating for supervisory and worker development and provide stability during times of agency turmoil, while being supportive of organizational growth and development. They impact both personal and organizational well-being and balance interpersonal issues of staff with upper-administration demands

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

141

for change or reduction of resources. Much research is needed to replicate and extend the already existing literature on middle management in general to the particular issues facing middle managers in child welfare. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Does your current job include activities and roles consistent with being a middle manager? 2. What are your greatest challenges as a middle manager? 3. What positive experiences have you had as a middle manager? What challenging experiences have you had? Looking back, what strategies could you have employed to manage these situations? 4. How has the use of data informed your decision making as a supervisor? How could you use data more effectively to manage your unit? 5. Do you have opportunities for working in wider arenas of collaboration or policy development? How might you prepare for these new roles? 6. What opportunities do you have to improve your management knowledge and skills? If few opportunities are available, how might you devise some creative opportunities for this?

REFERENCES

Abramczyk, L. W., & Lieberman, A. (1994). Should child welfare workers have an M.S.W.? In E. Gambrill & T. Stein (Eds.), Controversial issues in child welfare (pp. 174–186). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–89, H. R. 867 (1997). Albert, V. N., & King, W. C. (1996). Allocating resources for child welfare services: The effect of a caseload-driven approach. Administration in Social Work, 20(2), 61–77. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2003). Managers doing leadership: The extraordinarization of the mundane. Human Relations, 56(12), 1435–1459. American Humane Association. (2000). SB2030 child welfare services workload study. Englewood, CO: Author. Antle, B. F. (2002). Training evaluation for supervisor best-practice in child welfare. Dissertation Abstracts International: Science and Engineering, 24, 4601. Antle, B. F., & Barbee, A. P. (2005, May). National evaluation study. Presentation at the Eighth Annual National Staff Development and Training Evaluation Conference, Berkeley, CA. Antle, B. F., Christensen, D., Barbee, A. P., & Martin, M. (2008). Solution-based casework: A paradigm shift to effective, strengths-based practice for child protection. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2(2) 197-228. Austin, M. J. (1988). Managing up: Relationship building between middle management and top management. Administration in Social Work, 12(4), 29–46.

142

child welfare supervision

Bailyn, L. (2006). Breaking the mold: Redesigning work for productive and satisfying lives (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change intermediaries. British Journal of Management, 14(1), 69–83. Barbee, A. P., & Cunningham, M. R. (2006, November). Update on evaluation of Children’s Bureau training and technical assistance network. Grantees Meeting, Washington, DC. Bennett, A. C. (1981). Administrators must share power with frustrated middle managers. Modern Healthcare, 19(2), 126–128. Bernotavicz, F. D., & Bartley, D. (1996). A competency model for child welfare supervisors. Portland, OR: The Dougy Center. Booze-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (1987). The Maryland Social Work Services job analysis and personnel qualiﬁcations study. McLean, VA: Author. Child Welfare League of America. (1999). Minimum education required by state child welfare agencies, percent by degree type, 1998. State Child Agency Survey. Washington, DC: Author. Child Welfare League of America. (2001). The child welfare workforce challenge: Results from a preliminary study. Washington, DC: Author. Christensen, D., Todahl, J., & Barrett, W. C. (1999). Solution-based casework. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Cicero-Reese, B., & Black, P. (1998). Research ﬁndings suggest why child welfare workers stay on job. Partnerships for Child Welfare, 5(5), 8–9. Currie, G., & Procter, S. J. (2005). The antecedents of middle managers’ strategic contribution: The case of a professional bureaucracy. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1325–1356. Davis-Sacks, M. L., Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. A. (1985). A comparison of the effects of social support on the incidence of burnout. Social Work, 30(3), 240–244. Decker, J. T., Bailey, T. L., & Westergaard, N. (2002). Burnout among childcare workers. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 19(4), 61–77. Dhooper, S. S., Royse, D. D., & Wolfe, L. C. (1990). Does social work education make a difference? Social Work, 35(1), 57–61. Dickenson, N. S., & Perry, R. E. (2002). Factors inﬂuencing the retention of specially educated public child welfare workers. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 15(3/4), 89–103. DiGiulio, J. F. (1995). A more humane workplace: Responding to child welfare workers’ personal losses. Child Welfare, 74(4), 877–888. Dixon, N. M. (1994). The organizational learning cycle: How we can learn collectively. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill. Dopson, S., & Stewart, R. (1990). What is happening to middle management? British Journal of Management, 1(1), 3–16. Ezell, M., Casey, E., Pecora, P. J., Grossman, C., Friend, R., Vernon, L., et al. (2002). The results of a management redesign: A case study in a private child welfare agency. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 61–79. Feldman, S. (1980). The middle management muddle. Administration in Mental Health, 8(1), 3–11. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, J. P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Management role conﬂict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

143

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Middle management involvement in strategy and its association with strategic type: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13(Special Issue), 153–167. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1994). Dinosaurs or dynamos? Recognizing middle management’s strategic role. The Academy of Management Executive, 8(4), 47–57. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic inﬂuence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–485. Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (and the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program), Pub. L. No. 106–169, H. R. 3443 (1999). Fox, S., Barbee, A. P., Harmon, D., Staples, K., & Spang, G. (2003). Leadership: Can it really be developed through training? Training and Development in Human Services, 2(1), 8–16. Fox, S., Miller, V., & Barbee, A. P. (2003). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: Effective use of Title IV-E training funds. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 67–82. Frohman, A. L., & Johnson, L. W. (1992). The middle management challenge: Moving from crisis to empowerment. New York: McGraw-Hill. Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(8), 855–880. Globerman, J., White, J., Blacker, S., & Davies, J. M. (2006). The emerging role of professional practice leaders in social work. Canadian Social Work Journal, 42(2), 111–126. Gustafson, L., & Allen, D. (1994). A new management model for child welfare: True reform means doing things differently. Public Welfare, 52(1), 31–40. Havassy, H. M. (1990). Effective second-story bureaucrats: Mastering the paradox of diversity. Social Work, 35(2), 103–109. Haynes, K. S. (1979). Job satisfaction of mid-management social workers. Administration in Social Work, 3(2), 207–217. Herzig, S. E., & Jimmieson, N. L. (2006). Middle managers’ uncertainty management during organizational change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 628–645. Huy, Q. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contribution of middle managers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 31–69. Klagge, J. (1998). Self-perceived development needs of today’s middle managers. Journal of Management Development, 17(7), 481–491 Landsman, M. J. (2001). Commitment in child welfare. Social Service Review, 75(3), 386–419. Lightbourne, W. (2004). Five commentaries: Looking to the future: Commentary 3. The Future of Children, 14(1), 180–181. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mills, C. S., & Ivery, C. (1991). A strategy for workload management in child protective practice. Child Welfare, 70(1), 35–43. Milner, J. (2003, June). CFSR update. ASFA Training Roundtable. Portland, ME. Moore, T. D., Rapp, C. A., & Roberts, B. (2000). Improving child welfare performance through supervisory use of client outcome data. Child Welfare, 79(5), 475–497.

144

child welfare supervision

Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 [Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–382, H. R. 6 (1994)] as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 [Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–188, H. R. 3448 (1996)]. Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., & McMurtry, S. (2007). Social work macro practice (4th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley. Nissly, J. A., Barak, M. E. M., & Levin, A. (2005). Stress, social support, and workers’ intentions to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 29(1), 79–100. Nugent, W. R., & Glisson, C. (1999). Reactivity and responsiveness in children’s service systems. Journal of Social Service Research, 25(3), 41–60. Pecora, P., Briar, K., & Zlotnik, J. (1989). Addressing the program and personnel crisis in child welfare. [Technical Assistance Report, Commission on Family and Primary Associations]. Silver Springs, MD: National Association of Social Workers. Pecora, P. J., Whittaker, J. K, Maluccio, A. N., Barth, R. P., & Plotnick, R. D. (2000). The child welfare challenge. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Perlmutter, F. D. (1983). Caught in between: The middle management bind. Administration in Social Work, 7(3/4), 147–161. Perry, R. E. (2006). Do social workers make better child welfare workers than non-social workers? Research on Social Work Practice, 16(4), 392–405. Phillips, N. K. (1994). Social work education for child welfare workers: A training model. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1), 20–24. Quinn, A., Rycraft, J. R., & Schoech, D. (2002). Building a model to predict caseworker and supervisor turnover using a neural network and logistic regression. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 19(4), 65–85. Regehr, C., Chau, S., Leslie, B., & Howe, P. (2002). An exploration of supervisors’ and managers’ responses to child welfare reform. Administration in Social Work, 26(3), 17–36. Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. Senge, P. M. (1990). The ﬁfth discipline. New York: Doubleday. Sevicki, V. (1999). Cultural work values for supervisors and managers: A crosscultural look at child and youth care agencies. Child and Youth Care Forum, 28(4), 239–255. Silver, P. T., Poulin, J. E., & Manning, R. C. (1997). Surviving the bureaucracy: The predictors of job satisfaction for the public agency supervisor. Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 1–20. Smith, B. D. (2005). Job retention in child welfare: Effects of perceived organizational support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job value. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(2), 153–169. Smith, B. D., & Donovan, S. E. F. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541–563. Sprang, G., Clark, J., Kaak, O., & Brenzel, A. (2004). Developing and tailoring mental health technologies for child welfare: The comprehensive assessment and training services (CATS) project. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 74(3), 325–336. Stein, T. J., Callaghan, J., McGee, L., & Douglas, S. (1990). A caseload-weighting formula for child welfare services, Child Welfare, 69(1), 33–42.

Maximizing the Middle Management Role

145

Thakur, M. (1998). Involving middle managers in strategy making. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 732–741. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce (2003). Child welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child welfare agencies recruit and retain staff (GAO-03–357). Washington DC: Author. Usher, C. K., Wildﬁre, J. B., & Gibbs, D. A. (1999). Measuring performance in child welfare: Secondary effects of success. Child Welfare, 78(1), 31–61. Wagner, R., van Reyk, P., & Spence, N. (2001). Improving the working environment for workers in children’s welfare agencies. Child and Family Social Work, 6(2), 161–178. Wai-Kwong, F., Priem, R., & Cycyota, C. (2001). The performance effects of human resource managers’ and other middle managers’ involvement in strategy making under different business-level strategies: The case in Hong Kong. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(8), 1325–1346. Ward, H. (2004). Working with manager to improve service: Changes in the role of research in social care. Child and Family Social Work, 9(1), 13–25. Ware, D., Dobrec, A., Rosenthal, J. A., & Wedel, K. R. (1992). Job satisfaction, practice skills, and supervisory skills of administrators of Indian child welfare programs. Child Welfare, 71(5), 405–418. Wulczyn, F. (1991). Caseload dynamics and foster care reentry. Social Services Review, 65(1), 133–156. Yin, R. T. (2004). Innovations in the management of child protection workers: Building worker resilience. Social Work, 49(4), 605–608. Zimmerman, L., Amodeo, M., Fassler, I., Ellis, M., & Clay, C. (2003). Training team leaders in a child welfare setting using the SPIN leadership guidance model. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(11), 891–910. Zunz, S. J. (1995). The view from behind the desk: Child welfare managers and their roles. Administration in Social Work, 19(2), 63–80.

7 THE WORLD BEYOND THE UNIT K ATHARINE C AHN

hild welfare work does not happen in a vacuum. Keeping children safe C and connected requires a high degree of collaboration with community partners, families, treatment providers, foster parents, community advocates, courts, law enforcement, and others. Providing staff members the resources they need calls for effective connection with this external community, as well as with managers and colleagues within the same agency. Just as families thrive in supportive environments and struggle in impoverished environments, so too does a child welfare unit require a resourceful and supportive context in which to do its work. Just as an understanding of (and competency with) the political, social, and economic ecology of a family will empower a social worker engaged with the family, so too will such competence empower a child welfare supervisor engaged in supporting workers. A child welfare supervisor’s capacity to understand and work with the world outside the unit will have a direct impact on the unit’s effectiveness. A supervisor who develops strength in this area of practice increases his or her own power to access resources and reduce stress for workers and the clients they serve. A supervisor’s ability to negotiate the external environment eases the development of good collaborative working relationships that are necessary to get work done. A supervisor’s ability to understand and predict dynamics affecting the larger agency in which the unit is embedded, and in which partner agencies operate, will increase his or her ability to “dance” with changing trends and keep the unit on an even keel while serving children and families (Mulroy, 2004; Schmid, 2004). 146

The World Beyond the Unit

147

By contrast, failing to manage the impact of the external environment leads to experiences of pressure and powerlessness for the supervisor and unit alike, and interferes with the effective delivery of client services (Wagner, Van Reyk, & Spence, 2001). Operating as if the unit exists in a vacuum will cut off important information and leave the supervisor and unit at the mercy of changing dynamics, powerless to predict, have an impact, or collaborate effectively to leverage resources for workers and children (Jones, 2006). It is critical for the child welfare supervisor to have awareness of and competence in working with the world outside the unit. What is meant here by “external environment”? The world outside the unit can be mapped in two directions (Mulroy, 2004). In one direction lies the rest of the agency, including other units in the same ofﬁce and management up the chain of command. These are sources of case transfers, stafﬁng, program and policy, ﬁnancial resources, and even intangibles such as the way the work of other parts of the agency affects the agency’s reputation in the community (Darlington, Feeney, & Rixon, 2005). In the other direction lie those community partners external to the public agency who participate in the support of children and families. These partners may include formal service providers and systems such as schools, court, law enforcement, contracted service providers, and others, as well as informal partners such as families, community-based agencies, faith-based groups, civic organizations, and coalitions. More distantly, even the media and political leaders form a very inﬂuential part of the system external to the unit. The supervisor stands with the child welfare unit at the intersection of these two worlds (see Fig. 7.1). This can be a place of power or pressure, and most child welfare supervisors experience both to varying degrees. Standing at this intersection is empowering when the supervisor can be proactive and shape, inﬂuence, and tap the resources outside the unit, and when he or she can protect staff from negative or detrimental forces or at least lessen the impact so that workers are free to do their jobs. On the other hand, a child welfare supervisor standing at this intersection can also Agency Management

Community External to Agency

Unit

Outside Agencies and Service Providers

Other Units in Same Branch or Office

Figure 7.1 The intersection between the child welfare unit and external community partners.

148

child welfare supervision

feel a lot of pressure when in a more reactive position, passively receiving or dodging demands, mandates, and complaints from the external world, and when he or she feels unable to manage and moderate the inﬂuence of the outside world on the day-to-day experiences of his or her workers. Child welfare supervision can be carried out most powerfully with effective reciprocal partnerships in all directions. To the child welfare supervisor newly promoted from direct child welfare work, dynamics posed by this position at the intersection of unit and “external world” can seem overwhelming. In fact, this unexpected aspect of supervision is often listed as one of the top surprises of the job for a new supervisor (based on comments from Supervising for Excellence Training participants in the ﬁrst-day exercise, 1988–2006). One new supervisor said during training, “I never realized there would be so many meetings!” As the new supervisor is asked to attend scheduled and ad hoc meetings, respond to requests for information, implement mandates from upper management, and ﬁeld invitations and complaints from local contractors or service-providing agencies, it is easy to feel overwhelmed. Over time, as a supervisor’s practice and skill at negotiating the external environment increase, this aspect of supervision can contribute to a supervisor’s power to take care of staff and serve families and children. Research shows that when relationships with the external environment are strong, the unit will survive, adapt, and serve clients more effectively (Alter & Hage, 1993; Kraatz, 1998; Provan & Sebastian, 1998). A supervisor can get more resources from the environment to support staff and beneﬁt clients. He or she can establish partnerships that make the worker’s job easier and produce better outcomes for client families. He or she can send information up the line and out to the community to improve the quality of management decision-making (Mulroy, 2004). The purpose of this chapter is to present information that will increase the power, balance, and effectiveness of a child welfare supervisor standing at this intersection of vertical and horizontal linkages (Mulroy, 2004). The chapter presents an assessment approach that will increase supervisory ability to understand the external environment. It reviews skills necessary to communicate, coordinate, collaborate, and negotiate effectively so as to create the best working conditions for workers and get the best outcomes for clients. It also describes emerging practice models that require supervisory collaboration and discusses the supervisor’s role in implementation of these new models. First, a clariﬁcation is in order. Not every child welfare supervisor spends a large amount of time in active connection with community agencies. This external management role is sometimes seen more as being in the domain of a child welfare manager or agency executive. Certainly, representing child welfare in the external community tends to be a larger part of the role of a child welfare supervisor in a rural area, as the community has more direct access to the supervisor and is less likely to work through a manager to set up interagency connections and solve interagency problems

The World Beyond the Unit

149

(unpublished research on rural practice by the author and others, 2003– 2007). For example, in a small town, the local public high school principal worked directly with the local Child Protective Services supervisor to set up a collaborative intervention in neglect cases. Such collaboration would be more likely to be run through a manager in an urban area. However, even in an urban area, the child welfare supervisor must work effectively to troubleshoot relationships with service providers and others around speciﬁc case issues. And increasingly, new practice models such as system of care, wraparound, and family group decision-making call for line child welfare workers to function as part of cross-agency teams and decision-making processes with clients and other agencies. Supervision of staff involved in these model programs may call for new skills for both the urban and rural child welfare supervisor. Managing the environment external to the unit but within the same agency is as critical as managing the environment external to the unit and outside the agency. All child welfare supervisors must develop effective working relationships with upper management and other agency units and ofﬁces. This “intra-agency” complexity may consume more time for a supervisor in an urban area, where specialized units and case transfer issues create the need to work well with other child welfare supervisors and units. A supervisor’s power and effectiveness in negotiating this important intersection can be enhanced with the use of speciﬁc skills, starting with assessment. A skilled supervisor will be able to assess the external environment for sources of resources, aligned vision, opportunity, and possible threats or pressures. ASSESSING THE ENVIRONMENT As has been noted, the pressure and complexity of relationships with the world external to the unit can be daunting. But during a good assessment of these relationships, sources of day-to-day stress become more clear and accessible to intervention, and current or potential sources of resources and partnerships become more visible. One approach to capturing this complexity is the use of a unit-level “ecomap.” An ability to assess the sources of tension in common connections is helpful as well. An ecomap of a unit is similar to one of a family (Hartman, 1978), with the unit rather than the family being in the middle of the map. Using an ecomap, a child welfare supervisor can identify relationships with local agencies or key managers that are working well. It is also possible to identify problematic interagency or intra-agency relationships, in which arguments over funding or access drain energy, take up time, and block service delivery. The map also makes missing relationships clear by showing no line between the unit and those providers, community groups, or managers whose partnership would be valuable but to which there is either no connection at all or connection has been lost.

child welfare supervision

150 Table 7.1 Typical Unit Relationships Formal

Informal

Intra-agency

Law enforcement

Foster parents

Units transferring cases in

Courts

Ethnic or community agencies

Units receiving cases transferred

Mental health

Parents and kin

Local managers

Schools

Media

Central-ofﬁce managers

Drug or alcohol treatment

Local neighborhood and political leaders

Agency training program

Residential treatment

Landlords

Specialty units

Medical treatment

Transportation

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

Court-appointed special advocates (CASAs) Citizen review Tribes

Box 7.1

Exercise: Ecomapping the Unit

1. On a large piece of paper (ﬂip chart or regular sized), draw a circle or other symbol in the middle representing the work unit. 2. On the page surrounding that circle, draw a shape for each external group or agency that might be a source of resources or a source of other kinds of input, partnership, or stress for the unit. Be imaginative; the list attached might provide examples. 3. Draw a line between the unit’s circle and each of the outside groups in such a way that the line shows the strength, nature, and directionality of the relationship. For example, if the relationship is strong, resourceful, and reciprocal, the line can be strong and solid with arrows in both directions. If there is conﬂict, the line can be jagged. If the relationship is weak, the line can be dashed. Arrows can show the direction of energy ﬂows (funds, referrals, information, services, etc.). If there is no relationship, or the connection has fallen dormant, draw no line at all. Participants sometimes use different colors, make up their own codes, or play with other symbols to add more information or make the display even more vivid. 4. Once the map is drawn, stand back and look at the overall pattern. Where are the sources of pressure? What relationships are missing? Where is there strength? When a group of supervisors does this exercise together, it can be interesting to compare notes. Peer consultation can help if one supervisor has strength in the same relationship another ﬁnds challenging. The exercise can also be conducted individually or at a unit meeting or retreat. Source: Exercise designed by K. Cahn, based on concept developed by Pamela Day, MSW, in 1988 at the University of Washington. For a complete description, see Brittain (Ed.) (2005).

The World Beyond the Unit

151

There are a lot of players in the interagency environment. For example, most child welfare units have connections with those listed in Table 7.1. The child welfare supervisor might try the exercise in Box 7.1 to see where interagency (or intra-agency) strengths, challenges, and gaps might lie. It can be interesting to do this exercise together with fellow supervisors or to use it as a discussion point in a unit meeting. Supervisors who have participated in this exercise have reported several results. The ﬁrst is a sense of relief. Obviously, a simple map does not solve problems, but it can help identify strengths to build on, as well as gaps and challenges to address (see Fig.7.2). The unit ecomap can reveal

Ongoing Services Units

Juvenile Courts

Area Managers

Tribes Pastors

Schools

A child protective services unit

Law Enforcement

Mental Health

Legislators

Foster Parents Associations

Drug Treatment CASAs

Media

LEGEND: Strong relationship, funds, energy, good will flow here (arrows show whether one-way or reciprocal). Weak relationship, characterized by no or low communication. Stressful relationship, characterized by conflict. [no line at all]

Relationship missing, no communication at all.

Figure 7.2 Sample work-unit ecomap. Solid lines indicate a strong relationship, funds, energy, and good-will ﬂow (arrows show whether one-way or reciprocal). Broken lines indicate a weak relationship, characterized by no or low communication. Jagged lines indicate a stressful relationship characterized by conﬂict. No connecting line indicates a relationship missing, with no communication at all.

child welfare supervision

152

and name the sources of complexity and pressure, which can form the basis for planning action and intervention toward improved relationships. Some challenging relationships take so much time and energy that it is easy to forget that there is a lot that is working. And the strengths developed in one interagency or intra-agency relationship translate to other settings. Strengths-based practice (Saleebey, 1992) works well at a systems level, just as it does at an individual level of practice. INTERVENTION APPROACHES THAT STRENGTHEN RELATIONSHIPS A thorough assessment will show the supervisor opportunities to strengthen connections between the unit and the world outside the unit. Methods used to gain resources, align vision, and build stronger connections include the following: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Communication Coordination Collaboration Negotiation and advocacy

The nature of the connection between the unit or agency and other units or agencies can be described in terms of a continuum from communication to coordination to collaboration (Bruner, 1992; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). Communication forms the foundation for all other connections. Informal communication is often the place to start in reconnecting a lost or troubled relationship. Formal mechanisms of communication can maintain the connection over time and can be established by a supervisor. Once communication is in place it is possible to move to coordination, which involves more effort and some organization of one unit’s activities to suit the needs of the other agency or set of players. The third level, collaboration, calls for the most work, as it requires fundamental reorganization of ways of doing business, agency structure, and sometimes even ﬁnancing arrangements. Establishment of formal collaboration structures is more often the domain of management. However, it is important for the supervisor to be aware of dynamics of collaboration and be able to lead staff in participating when working on a collaborative project. Conﬂict negotiation skills are useful in dealing with breakdowns at any point in the continuum. There is a particular need for the skill of advocacy when managing up the organizational structure within the agency. Communication Respectful working relationships form the minimum necessary foundation for effective interagency work on the delivery of effective child welfare services. Relationships are acquired through communication, which is also

The World Beyond the Unit

153

the ﬁrst step in restoring or repairing connections and is required for all other levels of working together. Communication takes time, and in the busy world of the child welfare supervisor, time is a major barrier to effective communication with so many groups, agencies, and potential partners. One look at the complexity depicted on the organizational assessment map (the ecomap) shows that it is probably not possible to maintain constant communication with all parties. However, taking the time to establish, improve, and maintain interagency or intra-agency communication yields rich results in terms of time saved when it counts. A supervisor can use informal and formal communication approaches to restore a damaged or missing interagency relationship. Informal Communication to Build Relationships When the child welfare supervisor has identiﬁed a challenging interagency relationship in need of improvement, one place to start is with an informal connection between the supervisor and a colleague at the partnering agency. Experienced supervisors in child welfare training have reported that a simple cup of coffee or conversation without any agenda other than to get to know one another can bear fruit in better collaboration over time. This seems obvious, but in the press of work, it can be too easy to get resigned to a negative relationship rather than take steps to set things right (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). Research shows that, although communication in relationships with people who are familiar is easier and more comfortable, it is the relationships with those from other communities that yield greater results in terms of new resources and problem solving (Rogers, 1995). Extra effort to communicate across difﬁcult boundaries is going to pay off more than staying with familiar and more comfortable connections. Though lack of time can be a barrier, there are solutions for even the busiest of child welfare supervisors. For example, one experienced supervisor noted that she had developed the practice of arriving early to meetings, so that she could participate in small talk with colleagues who had been hard to reach by phone or e-mail. She said she often covered more ground in the 10 minutes before or after a meeting than she had in weeks of efforts to connect by voicemail or e-mail. For communication inside the agency, an occasional lunch or coffee date with a peer supervisor or regularly scheduled meetings with the supervisor next up the line will yield results over time. Informal communication calls for social work skills such as a capacity for empathy, a willingness to take the ﬁrst step, the ability to listen, a willingness to not take things personally, and a sense of humor (see Box 7.2). Listening When initiating connections with community partners with whom communication has been missing, the ﬁrst step is to listen. While the child welfare supervisor cannot single-handedly change the agency’s history, culture,

child welfare supervision

154

Box 7.2

Case Study 1: The Cup of Coffee

A child welfare supervisor in a small town wanted to improve relationships with local law enforcement. Tensions had been growing around the issue of after-hours placements. Law enforcement and child welfare staff didn’t see eye-to-eye on how pick-ups were to be handled after the child welfare ofﬁce closed. Law enforcement didn’t like “doing child welfare’s job for them” and child welfare staff members believed that ofﬁcers were overzealous in removal and didn’t understand the threshold for child welfare intervention. A new sheriff had just been appointed. The child welfare supervisor asked if they could meet for coffee. When they got together, they compared notes about agency missions, challenges, and goals, and what it was like to be new in the job in that community. The supervisor ﬁlled the sheriff in on the history of the relationship between their agencies, and they both shared candidly the frustrations their staffs had conveyed. They discovered a common interest in the local college’s basketball team and noted that both followed the season. The conversation was so useful that the sheriff invited the child welfare supervisor to attend roll call the following week. She came, bringing doughnuts and one-page ﬂiers on the mandates of child welfare. She talked, but mostly she listened. Tensions were considerably reduced just by her listening. Over time, the relationship grew, and a formal program of cross-training was implemented, with a Child Protection Services (CPS) worker from the unit offering training on recognizing signs of child abuse and law enforcement providing personal safety training for the child welfare staff. When the methamphetamine epidemic hit this community, the investment in relationship paid off as the child welfare supervisor and sheriff were able to work out a collaborative protocol. Questions 1. Would this story have been different if there hadn’t been a change in personnel? Would you have approached it in the same way or differently? 2. Do race or gender differences or differences in perceived community status between the two agencies make a difference in how the supervisor should approach such an invitation? How does this work in your community? 3. Are there legal, role, or conﬁdentiality barriers to such communication? Can the supervisor have coffee with a judicial ofﬁcer in the same way she can have coffee with the local school principal? 4. Should management be notiﬁed about the meeting? 5. Is there a difference in approach if the issue is with another child welfare supervisor? What might work to improve communication in that kind of relationship?

or policies and practices, the supervisor can improve local relationships considerably by listening and playing an educational role. To community partners, child welfare agencies can seem monolithic, inaccessible, frustrating, and hard to understand. The child welfare agency sometimes appears to have all the resources and power, and decisions that make sense internally can appear capricious and inconsistent from outside the agency. The conﬁdentiality required to protect children and respect family privacy can aggravate this difference in perception. Some public child welfare agencies do not have a good track record of transparency or of

The World Beyond the Unit

155

sharing information or resources, although this can vary dramatically from county to county or from ofﬁce to ofﬁce depending on ofﬁce culture. Merely the act of listening can be an intervention. One of the biggest complaints in communication with child welfare is the failure to return phone calls (unpublished ﬁndings from foster parent relationships task force, 1998). In a series of action seminars conducted by the author and others, foster parents said that taking the time to return a call, even if only to say, “I don’t know, but I’m working on it,” went a long way toward improving relationships. Answering or returning phone calls and attending community meetings in person signal a willingness to connect and work collaboratively in solving problems. It can be very hard at ﬁrst for a child welfare supervisor to listen to what a community partner has to say about child welfare. Negative experiences stand out more than positive ones, and in a ﬁrst conversation, complaints often outweigh the kudos. Defensiveness is natural, but supervisors report that keeping an open mind and getting a full picture of the partner’s experience and worldview is the best way to keep the door open to problem solving. Basic social-work listening skills will be useful. For example, giving the speaker undivided attention, taking notes on what he or she says, nodding, repeating or paraphrasing the concern to check for accuracy of perception, and asking open-ended questions are all effective ways of assuring that you are really hearing what the person intends to communicate and will convey to the speaker that you are really listening. Importantly, listening does not require agreeing with the person who has a complaint, nor does it require making promises on the spot. Supervisors report that responses such as “Thank you for letting me know about this. I’ll investigate and get back to you,” or “I don’t know, but let’s try to ﬁnd out,” are sometimes the most conﬂict-defusing responses and the most accurate ones. Such responses protect the agency’s interests and unit staff while still leaving the door open to community relationships and ongoing communication. Of course, it is important to follow through as promised with more information and next steps so that these comments are real and not an inauthentic manipulation. Personal trustworthiness and keeping one’s word are consistently mentioned by clients as the most important competencies a child welfare worker can have, and this applies to work in the interagency arena as well. No communication skill will make a difference if it is used only as a technique and is not standing on the foundation of an authentic commitment to improve the relationship. Another aspect of communication is the ability to communicate and even model the agency’s mission, goals, and values. In many areas, the supervisor is the public face of the agency. When new practices are introduced, the child welfare supervisor can build community good will by conveying the basic information to community partners. As cuts or expansion happens, keeping lines of communication open over time can go a long way toward building the agency’s reputation and its ability to serve

156

child welfare supervision

children and families. It is important to communicate in a way that keeps the door open for ongoing dialogue and maintains good will. Avoiding the Use of Jargon As the supervisor ventures out into the community to strengthen partnerships, attention to the use of language becomes more and more important. Child welfare, like any profession, has jargon, abbreviations, and linguistic shortcuts. But jargon can be meaningless to others, and many acronyms even mean something else in other professional settings. For example “CPS” means “Child Protective Services” in child welfare, “Collaborative Problem Solving” (Windle & Warren, 1999) to K-12 educators, and “Classroom Performance Systems” in the world of training (Pearson Assessments, 2007). Or sometimes the same word carries very different connotations for different people. These need to be explored because they have impact on clients. For example, “relapse” in some child welfare ofﬁces or to some judicial ofﬁcers can mean something shameful and wrong—the end of the line for reuniﬁcation planning. But drug treatment professionals and other child welfare staff members understand that relapse is a normal part of recovery. This is an area in which working to learn together and come to a common understanding will be important. Education and dialogue can increase the effectiveness of both systems. Communication with Those Often Left Out Relationships between a public child welfare agency and speciﬁc ethnic, linguistic, or racial groups in the community or tribal nations whose children have come to the attention of the agency often show up on the ecomaps as nonexistent or troubled (in supervisory training conducted by the author, 1988–2003). Because of the history of mistrust or worse between child welfare and many communities of color (Hill, 2004; Roberts, 2002), such communities may be cautious or actively opposed to being in communication with the agency. Yet communication is very necessary in addressing the needs of children and can be very powerful in improving services and reducing disproportionality (see Useful Web and Print Resources, especially System of Care, at the end of this chapter). No individual person can single-handedly undo a history of mistrust, and the supervisor may not be in a position to change current policies that make it challenging to connect with communities of color. However, in reaching out to such communities, it is useful for the child welfare supervisor to be aware of the history and of challenging agency policies. It is important to understand the role the supervisor plays as a gatekeeper of resources and the power he or she has to strengthen or disrupt families from that community. By understanding how child welfare is perceived by the community, the supervisor will understand in a different way the anger, frustration, or fear expressed by the community.

The World Beyond the Unit

157

Child safety is always the goal, and access to the services and supports afforded by the child welfare system is a service that must be equal for all children. To serve this goal, the child welfare supervisor will beneﬁt from walking gently into such communities, listening to the voices of elders and activists, and taking time to understand the history of the relationship between that community and the agency. It takes a long time and patience on both sides to establish trust when relationships have been troubled. The communication skill of ethnographic interviewing is one way to approach “learning to be a stranger.” Leigh (1998) suggests that the same care and attention to manners be used when entering a neighboring community as would be used when traveling to another country. Not just language but also decision-making patterns, conversational rhythms, the use of space and time, and expectations of the role of government agencies differ from the culture of the child welfare agency (which tends to reﬂect dominant North American values) and the culture of particular groups. Child welfare professionals understand the value of engaging family, cultural, and faith-based networks in child safety and permanence. In practice, however, the relationship between faith and cultural communities and child welfare is still too often underdeveloped or nonexistent. In fact, because of a history of ignorance or very damaging relationships (Hill, 2004; Roberts, 2002), many communities of color have an actively suspicious and antagonistic relationship with child welfare agencies. Agencies working primarily with Hispanic and Latino families may exercise caution in reaching out to the community for partnerships or support given the reluctance to bring visibility to members of extended families in these communities. Similarly, it has been hard to develop parent voice in child welfare. Historically, child welfare has pitied or blamed mothers and excluded or ignored fathers (Gordon, 1994; Leashore, 1997). However, current practice has found empowering ways to involve parents in case planning and agency advising, at both the program and policy level (O’Donnell, Johnson, D’Unno, & Thornton, 2005; Saint-Jacques, Drapeau, Lessard, & Boudoin, 2006). The involvement of parents in meetings and other communications processes requires particular attention to conﬁdentiality, use of respectful language, avoidance of acronyms, and attention to strengths-based language (see Box 7.3). The national system of care movement, through children’s mental health, and the Federation of Families (which is also based in children’s mental health) have useful resources for making empowering connections with parents. Coordination In managing external relationships, coordination is the next step beyond communication. Once communication has been established, it is possible to move on to coordination. Compared to communication, coordination takes a higher level of effort and greater risks are involved. Coordination

child welfare supervision

158

Box 7.3

Case Study 2: Making Cross-Cultural Connections

An example of cross-cultural communication occurred when there was an inﬂux of refugees from a war-torn country into a child welfare supervisor’s community. Myths about child welfare arose in the community. Immigrant parents were terriﬁed that Child Protective Services (CPS) would take their children away if they applied what in their country were common, traditional healing practices. They were unsure about the difference between American standards of discipline and standards back home and lacked the language ﬂuency to ask questions or test statements their children or others made. There were cases in which children became “the experts” on the system and threatened to call CPS if parents exerted normal parental control. Concerned about the lack of connection with the community, the local supervisor arranged with community leaders to speak to a gathering of a Mutual Assistance Association. She told community leaders that her agency wanted to support them and their community in their commitment to parent successfully in this new country. She let them know that she honored them as parents and knew of the strength of their culture and their cultural tradition of strong extended family support. She asked them to help her learn about how children were raised and supervised back home, and what challenges they were facing in the United States. She listened to and answered their questions, and asked questions of her own. When it seemed the right time to do so, she told them about Child Protective Services’ mandate and shared examples of what would be considered abuse (and what wouldn’t) and what resources would be offered to help a family stay together or reunify if it was having problems. She left ﬂiers and her card. In exchange, members of the community came to talk to her unit and shared some aspects of their culture and some of the history of what brought them to immigrate. They invited the supervisor and several workers to come to a community festival. Even though it was on a weekend, staff members attended and enjoyed themselves. Later, when a serious case was referred from the community, the supervisor and her workers had some connections to build on and a measure of understanding of the community culture. Questions 1. How would a white supervisor raised primarily in the mainstream white culture avoid being rude in other cultural communities? If misunderstandings are inevitable, how would a supervisor address them? 2. Are the dynamics of cross-cultural communication different if a supervisor shares some cultural identity with the community in question? Why or why not? 3. Cultural community events often happen outside of work hours. Can a supervisor require staff to attend evening or weekend events? 4. What happens to communication when a supervisor’s professional culture and ethnic culture have different value systems?

can involve the sharing of resources but does not require sharing of power or alteration of structure. Some planning and division of roles is required, and formal communication channels may be established (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). A supervisor can set up coordinating mechanisms at the local level and can empower coordinating processes that are in place. For example, almost all coordination involves meetings, and a supervisor can help meetings work well in the role of facilitator or participant. Cross-training is a common

The World Beyond the Unit

159

and very useful coordinating mechanism that generally doesn’t require the involvement of upper management. Memoranda or written protocols are sometimes used to capture the terms of coordination. Meetings Working with community partners or partners inside the agency involves lots of meetings. According to estimates from supervisors in the author’s trainings over the years, it is not uncommon for a supervisor to spend as much as 60% of his or her time in meetings. It can be frustrating to attend meeting after meeting with no experience of forward progress. As a participant or facilitator of the meeting, it is possible for a supervisor to help shape the meeting to be most effective. Using and building on the categories offered by Dobbin, Gatowski, and Maxwell (2004), some strategies for effective meetings include the following: 1. Make sure you need to have the meeting. If a meeting has no clear purpose or work to do, people will soon stop coming and will not be in place when needed. This is particularly an issue with standing meetings. 2. Set a clear goal for the meeting and clarify at the beginning of the meeting what it will look like if the meeting is a success. Research on teams that work shows that a clear common purpose is the single most important ingredient (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). At the end of the meeting, acknowledge success or schedule when the group will deal with incomplete issues. 3. Establish relatedness. Identify who needs to participate in the meeting and, in advance, take time to invite personally those who are not already at the table or in regular working relationships with others who will attend. If there will be newcomers, prepare them for the meeting. At the meeting, introduce everyone with at least their name and whom they represent. Ask, “Who is not at the table who needs to be?” This can counteract the tendency for meetings to systematically exclude marginalized and thus very important voices, such as those of youth, parents, or communities of color (Peterson, 2005). Some committees have taken on the practice of asking this question (“Who is not at the table who needs to be”) at every meeting. 4. Create an agenda. This can be done ahead of time, or the agenda can be created as a group at the start of the meeting and put up on a ﬂip chart or white board. An agenda should include key topics and note whether the item is information only (a report), for discussion (brainstorming but no decision), or for action (decision to be made). Leave more time for action items. Limit the number of reports to leave time for discussion and action. Put the overall objective of the meeting at the top of the page.

child welfare supervision

160

5. Arrange the room to facilitate discussion. Take the time to arrange chairs so that everyone can see everyone else. If possible, have the meeting in a politically neutral place with parking and transit access. Consider rotating meeting locations so people can get to know one another’s agencies. For example, in one tribalstate project, meetings alternated between the tribal gathering room and a meeting room in the state ofﬁce building. 6. Encourage discussion. Watch to see who is and who isn’t contributing to the discussion. Invite more quiet participants to share their views before closing off a topic. 7. Conclude by identifying actions in terms of who is going to do what and by when. If it is not a standing meeting, schedule the next meeting before people leave. 8. Have someone take meeting notes and distribute them later. Notes should at least capture action promises and who was at the meeting. It is also useful to document who was at the meeting and the key points of discussion.

Every person has their own particular style of running a meeting, and there are good resources available to assist in development in this area (Straus, 2002). There are many “right ways” to run a meeting, but the elements above tend to be common across the board. Cross-Training To operate effectively in an interagency environment, it is critical for the supervisor and the unit to keep up with how practice is unfolding, agencies are changing, and healing and treatment technologies are evolving. It can seem as if there is never enough money or time for formal training. Cross-training is a cost- and time-effective approach, in which each agency agrees to provide training for others on how its agency works. For example, a child welfare supervisor can develop a short presentation for delivery at partner agency unit meetings or community group meetings on how child welfare works. In exchange, someone from the partner agency can come to discuss agency resources and referral criteria. In this way, child welfare staff members can increase their knowledge of such things as educational access for foster children, the range of substance abuse treatment in the community, domestic-violence dynamics and options, and cultural competence. At the same time, the corresponding agencies can learn more about child welfare. Cross-training increases everyone’s “interagency I.Q.” without costing a lot of money. Interagency savvy was identiﬁed by a University of Washington study as one key competence for effective interagency work (Teather, 1992). It is common for a supervisor to designate one worker as a specialist in a particular discipline; having a lead worker on mental health, substance abuse, Indian child welfare, or education is a way to increase the interagency savvy of the unit as a whole.

The World Beyond the Unit

161

Shared training can also work well to increase interagency information across the community. A child welfare supervisor can work with community partners so that each agency creates room in special topic trainings for staff from other agencies to attend. Or if there is a community-wide challenge, each agency can contribute funds, staff time for planning, and staff members to participate and use the resulting day for education and planning around the issue. Participating in work like this can seem “extra” to a supervisor, but in the end, it will pay great dividends in terms of community support and collaboration. Informal and formal communication and training are excellent approaches to strengthening a relationship that is underdeveloped or missing in the supervisor’s assessment of the unit’s relationships with the external environment, but sometimes coordination needs to be formalized. Protocols Coordination can be the result of a formal process, such as the development of a protocol or list of agreements to clarify working relationships. A written document can capture decisions made in collaborative problem solving so that the gears between agencies and child welfare units (or among child welfare units) run better. A written document guides future connections and serves as a point of reference. One supervisor noted that “even if the written protocol sits in the ﬁle and no one ever looks at it” (a quote from a supervisor in training), there is also real value in the relationship building that comes from working together on developing the agreement. For example, one supervisor described a challenging relationship she experienced with her local juvenile court. Her workers returned from court saying they felt attacked, pressured, and unable to be heard. The court was not happy with the relationship either. On several occasions, the local court administrator complained to the child welfare supervisor about her staff, often identifying one in particular. Of course, the supervisor had worked on the issue internally with staff training and coaching on how to present professionally in court and the importance of meeting court deadlines for reports. However, she was convinced that some of the problem lay in misunderstandings between systems, not in personalities or skill. In fact, the previous supervisor had warned her that “the juvenile court is hard to work with here. They just don’t like child welfare.” The supervisor suggested to the court administrator that a workgroup be formed to develop a formal protocol between child welfare and juvenile court personnel. The supervisor attended every meeting, but also had several staff members there, including the one who had been the target of the most complaints. During the workgroup’s ﬁrst meeting, the group set a common goal of improving the timely disposition of cases. They identiﬁed strengths and challenges in the relationship and began to think about what could be done to build on the strengths and address the challenges.

child welfare supervision

162

At the end of the ﬁrst meeting, they set a goal of ﬁnishing a protocol by the end of 6 months. After successfully meeting this goal, the group met on a monthly basis at a regular time each month to keep planning and problem solving together. Over time, the task force identiﬁed interagency protocols, brought in some outside speakers from other jurisdictions, and eventually hosted a training together. The staff person who had been targeted as “the problem” gained insight into how court worked and what was needed, and became one of the most competent collaborators in the unit. Collaboration Of all forms of connection, collaboration calls for the most commitment and the most fundamental structural change. Resources (staff and money) are sometimes pooled and products shared. Greater risk is involved as each agency’s outcomes rest on the performance of others (Mattessich & Monsey, 1992). While a supervisor may not initiate such changes, it will often fall to the supervisor to implement collaborative mechanisms and to empower or even supervise staff members who are assigned to carry cases served by the new structures. Co-location and Liaisons One of the most common forms of collaboration is the co-location of services or the placement of a liaison from another discipline or ﬁeld of practice within the child welfare ofﬁce. For example, with a growth in understanding of the prevalence of substance abuse in the population served by child welfare, more jurisdictions are locating a substance abuse specialist in child welfare ofﬁces. In other instances, child welfare workers have been placed in welfare ofﬁces, and domestic-violence specialists have been placed in child welfare ofﬁces. The supervisor can empower such structures by negotiating the introduction of the new worker, creating room for the person at staff meetings, and trouble-shooting issues if they arise. Collaborative Structures Protecting children and keeping them connected to safe families requires the collaboration of many players and is not within the exclusive control of child welfare. Certain relationships are particularly challenging, and for each of these there is a literature detailing challenges and successful collaborations: • • • •

Mental health (Darlington et al., 2005) Education (Altshuler, 2003) Juvenile justice (Wiebush, Freitag, & Baird, 2001) Substance abuse (Carlson, 2006; Ryan, Marsh, Testa, & Louderman, 2006)

The World Beyond the Unit

163

• Domestic violence (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005; Mills et al., 2000)

Captured in these articles are examples of working collaborations in which interagency partnerships smooth the way for child safety, family reconciliation, or timely decision making. Collaborative structures are often needed to ensure good working connections between child welfare and agencies such as domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental health. In these connections, differing mandates are a source of tension. Despite the intersecting interest around family safety and health, tensions form around differing goals and timelines. Child welfare’s core policy, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, provides clear timelines for decision making based on a child’s need for safety and timely permanence. Other agencies focus on the time the adult will need to recover. New program models such as wraparound, system of care, and family group decision meetings that emphasize holistic planning, kinship placement, and collaboration provide the opportunity to work together to resolve the problem. Although the supervisor may not have been at the table to develop the initial collaboration, it will fall to the supervisor to empower the model and often to supervise staff in participating effectively in such work. Supervisors involved in such models have acknowledged the importance of having a clear idea and working knowledge of the new practice model, effective communications skills, and a concrete deﬁnition of each worker’s role (unpublished workgroup proceedings, National Wraparound Initiative Meeting, spring 2007). The time management involved in a blended caseload is one challenge for supervisors in collaborative models. Emergencies on existing cases for which workers use regular child welfare approaches can eat up the time needed to participate in the more elegant and time-consuming practices involved in the new models. Supervisory support can help the worker protect the time necessary to participate in the collaborative programs. The supervisor will need to coach the worker in how to be strengths based, not punitive. Another necessary skill is coaching the worker in how to engage in collaborative planning without succumbing to “group think,” which can put children at risk. The supervisor will need to sort out with the worker which funds can be tapped and put on the table, and may need to help clear barriers to accessing family supports. Child welfare supervisors play an important role in supporting staff to contribute effectively in such settings. A supervisor must start by becoming very familiar with the practice in use in the local jurisdiction. This is critical given the important role the supervisor plays as coach and mentor. The tendency is to send workers to training, but it is as important, if not more so, for the supervisor to attend training to gain the familiarity required for trouble-shooting and for

164

child welfare supervision

coaching workers to deal with the range of challenges and opportunities presented by the new models. What are some of the supervisory skills needed to supervise from this standpoint? 1. Listen for a strengths-based approach with partners and families. Strengths-based planning and collaboration are core principles of most emerging practices. Even if the supervisor does not attend the actual planning session with the worker, the supervisor can help workers participate effectively by using one-on-one supervisory sessions for practice coaching. In these sessions, the supervisor can listen for the worker taking a strengths-based approach. One consultant (Conklin, personal communication, 2007) noted that the worker who takes a strengths-based approach with colleagues is more likely to do so with clients. Listening to whether a worker builds on strengths with partners may shed light on whether the worker can build on strengths with families. 2. Coach workers in how to represent the agency mandate for safety. These collaborative models work well, although “group think” is one of the pitfalls that must be avoided (Gambrill, 1994). A supervisor can empower staff members by coaching them to present safety concerns in a way that educates and involves all players at the table in building the safety plan. 3. Educate the public on service parameters without becoming defensive. The world of child welfare funding and service availability can be confusing and hard to understand even for workers inside the system. Coaching workers on how to serve as educators for others at the table and help the team to navigate the system is one way a supervisor can increase the unit’s effectiveness in these interagency situations. 4. Understand and deal effectively with community frustrations. The child welfare worker who is in the ﬁeld participating in interagency planning sometimes becomes the recipient of accumulated public animosity and frustration directed towards child welfare. Just as the supervisor learns to listen to and understand these frustrations without taking them personally, so too can he or she coach staff to do the same. 5. Access resources for families. Flex funds and timely delivery of resources are hallmarks of emerging models. The supervisor can back up the child welfare worker in securing resources and removing barriers.

The World Beyond the Unit

165

Advocacy and Negotiation Advocacy is a key skill in the interagency environment at the level of both case and systems change. The supervisor often plays an important role at the level of case advocacy by supporting workers as they seek resources for clients from community partner agencies. Examples of case advocacy include working to ﬁnd a placement for a child or youth, advocating for acceptance of a case plan before a court or citizen review board, and working to resolve interagency issues around case planning or implementation. Advocacy skills are also employed when working to develop new resources in the community or when seeking resources from upper management. Through the administrative role (Kadushin, 1974), the supervisor carries out the policies and practices developed at higher levels of the agency. One aspect of this linking role is to relay information to staff, and this is a “downward” ﬂow of information and decision making. But it is equally important that information ﬂow back up to decision makers to inform the development of new practices. To do the best job of serving clients, a supervisor may need to advocate with upper management for resources or policy changes. While large bureaucracies can encourage compliance and discourage this kind of advocacy, Block (1991) invites supervisors to assume an “entrepreneurial contract” with the agency in which they work. In such a contract, the supervisor assumes responsibility for the quality of services delivered by his or her unit and works actively within the larger system to procure the resources, permissions, relationships, and staff necessary to do a good job. This approach is distinguished from a more passive one in which the supervisor only reacts (not acts), implementing instructions and accepting resources, time, stafﬁng, or other constraints as a given. Block argues that the supervisor who operates with entrepreneurial style will be the most effective at meeting client and, ultimately, agency purposes. “Managing up” is the term used for taking responsibility for getting quality information from the line up to management in a way that effectively communicates concerns so that management can take action (Badowski & Gittines, 2003). For example, the supervisor may wish to communicate the need for a new position, additional training, or additional resources, or may even need to communicate the implementation difﬁculties with or negative impact of a new policy. Sometimes the supervisor is the ﬁrst to notice changing client demographics that will require a change or redeployment of agency resources. The ability to communicate the need for change and advocate for action is important for supervisory effectiveness. Negotiation skills are a good foundation skill set for advocacy in all settings. Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) wrote the classic, Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, based on their work with the Harvard Negotiation Project. They caution that, in negotiations, people

166

child welfare supervision

have a tendency to dig into ﬁxed positions and start to argue back and forth from those positions. Instead of this approach, the authors propose moving from positions to principles. The four steps in doing so are as follows: 1. Separate the people from the problem. What starts as tension between agencies (stemming, for example, from scarcity of resources) can become personal and erode relationships. Though the problem is between the agencies, it is easy to begin to dislike the other person involved or attack their motives or intent. For example, “He just doesn’t care about these kids [and we do],” is an assessment about the person, rather than, “He is trying to make his budget last over a whole year; I can appreciate the dilemma,” which is an assessment of the problem. Negotiation will proceed more successfully if the supervisor attends to the person and problem separately. In this case a sense of afﬁnity and connection is restored at the personal level, and it is possible to join around solving the problem. Simple steps that can be taken to improve the personal relationship (ﬁnding something in common, sending an acknowledging e-mail, thanking someone for making an effort) can give the negotiation wings. Fisher et al. (1991) note that this is not something that happens just once; relationships must be maintained over time. 2. Focus on interests, not positions. A “position” is a ﬁxed attitude about a solution. People may never agree on positions. At best, struggling over positions is a win–lose proposition. The common and sustainable solution is often found by identifying the interests underlying each party’s position. The confusion between positions and underlying interests will be familiar to anyone involved in ﬁnding resources for children. Shrinking budgets and conﬂicting agency mandates can put agencies with common interests in opposing positions. Though their underlying interests overlap, agencies whose client is the parent (domestic violence, mental health, substance abuse, adult probation/parole) can have different immediate case plan goals from those of child welfare agencies, whose client is the child. Dueling timelines, conﬂicting case plans, and withheld information all contribute to frustration for clients and agency workers alike. The supervisor can break a logjam by identifying underlying common interests and basing problem solving on them. For example, a probation ofﬁcer has an interest in compliance with terms of release. A focus on parenting can help the client

The World Beyond the Unit follow the terms of release. And the child welfare worker knows that the children need consistent parenting and will beneﬁt if the parent stays out of trouble and out of jail. The supervisor can come up with collaborative solutions between the dependency court and adult criminal court to consolidate cases or combine conditions. Supporting collaboration can help maintain child safety and stability (child welfare’s interest) and keep the community safe and the parent on a steady path (the interest of probation and parole). Structural solutions such as consolidated court processes can often grow out of such conversations (the example is based on work on collaborative court processes in Oregon). 3. Invent options for mutual gain. The art of brainstorming is taught in many basic communication courses, but is too often forgotten on the job. Having only one ﬁxed position obscures creativity. In child welfare, people often rush to closure on a solution because they have “no time for process.” Everything feels like an emergency. Take the time to slow down the crisis and think of a variety of ways in which the interests of both parties might be met. For example, a school system insists that a child welfare client be expelled immediately due to behavioral issues. The child welfare worker knows that school is the only source of stability in the child’s life and comes to her supervisor for support. Brainstorming yields a way to keep the classroom safe and ensure safety for the youth by ﬁnding mental health funds for additional classroom aides. Struggles over money are often the source of ﬁxed views in the interagency environment of child welfare, and brainstorming before taking a position can help get a variety of options out on the table. 4. Insist on using objective criteria for observing success. Principled negotiation deﬁnes success and aids in selecting a solution based on objective, agreed-upon criteria, rather than on subjective grounds. For example, a supervisor may have to lobby for additional positions for her unit, putting her in a competitive position with other supervisors in the branch or with other ofﬁces. Far too often, such conversations devolve into personal attack (“they just don’t get it”) or an urban–rural dispute with ﬁnger pointing and victimization as the emotional tone. Selecting an allocation formula based on objective criteria lifts the conversation out of the personal realm and into an impartial approach (see Box 7.4). Even if the outcome doesn’t match the original position, the process is fair and transparent for all.

167

child welfare supervision

168

Box 7.4

Negotiation

Frequently, child protective units work with agencies involved in parents’ assessments or service provisions. Often, supervisors get involved in negotiating these relationships because the two agencies ﬁnd themselves in opposing positions on individual cases, as illustrated by the example below. A CPS worker made a referral to a local mental health agency for a parenting assessment. The agency-based therapist wrote a report to the court documenting a very different view of the parent than what CPS expected. The child welfare worker came to her supervisor in frustration. The initial reaction of the supervisor was, “We’re just not going to use that agency anymore because they don’t understand us.” However, using the four rules of principled negotiation opened up a very different result. 1. Separate the person from the problem. First, the supervisor reached out to the director of the mental health agency. Even though she was frustrated, she decided to step past that to make a personal connection. When sitting down for the appointment, she acknowledged the director of the agency for being willing to meet and expressed her appreciation of the difﬁculty of starting the conversation. She asked the director to share what mental health agency workers needed when doing an assessment and what they looked at. She asked the director to help her understand how child welfare came across to the other agency. She asked about mental health’s conﬁdentiality requirements. The two professionals commiserated on the challenges they both faced in ﬁnding qualiﬁed professionals for their rural area. This conversation established a connection. 2. Focus on interests, not positions. The worker held the position that “the mental health agency doesn’t care about child safety.” The therapist held the position that “this parent deserves a chance. Child welfare is anti-parent.” Getting beyond the positions, the supervisor and agency director were able to reach a mutual understanding of the mental health agency’s ethical guidelines and conﬁdentiality laws and under which conditions they could share parental assessments and what exactly in those assessments could be shared. The mental health director learned about the child welfare timelines and understood the child development needs that the timelines were based on. She was able to understand where the worker’s sense of urgency came from and how it was related to the child’s needs. 3. Invent options for mutual gain. The supervisor and mental health director declared a “brainstorm period” in the conversation and jokingly promised no voting until the period was up. They thought about solutions that could meet each agency’s interests and result in an assessment that CPS could take to court. They thought of many possibilities, including ﬁnding opportunities to jointly view the family and come to an assessment of whether the family was safe for all members, written information or cross-training for all staff on both agencies’ needs, a more explicit statement from CPS on what was needed in the assessment with background information for mental health, and the mental health agency not being used as an assessment resource for CPS. 4. Use objective criteria for observing success. The supervisor and director decided that ensuring “family safety” was their common goal, as was establishing a smoother process. They set a goal of at least 80% of reports being completed on time and usable in court. To reach this goal, they set up a protocol for making requests for assessments and agreed that part of new worker orientation for both agencies would be a visit to the other agency to learn how it operated. They both contributed to a yearly report to the county commissioners of this rural county on what families needed for all family members to be safe and healthy.

The World Beyond the Unit

169

SPECIAL CHALLENGES AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES Child welfare services and case planning have evolved from a monolithic one-size-ﬁts-all form of service delivery under child welfare’s control to incorporate a variety of model practices that recognize and engage community networks that can help a family succeed (Adams & Nelson, 1995). Many of these models involve collaborative case planning. Examples of such approaches include family group decision-making, wraparound planning, and systems of care. In some jurisdictions, traditional child welfare roles are contracted out to private agencies that offer foster care, case management, and even protective services. In all these situations, supervisors increasingly ﬁnd themselves supervising workers whose plans are developed and carried out with teams of people outside the agency. Skills for supervising in such models have been described above. Each of these models is described brieﬂy below, and resources to learn more are provided at the end of the chapter. For child welfare, there are many beneﬁts to participating in such models. A case plan that is developed collaboratively with other agencies and engages families is more likely to produce good results in terms of safety and permanence. Brief Descriptions of Models Family Group Decision-Making This is the general term for a variety of planning processes in which parents and extended family are at the center of and driving the case planning, with formal and informal resources also at the table. Meetings are developed in a variety of case-planning formats. In family group conferencing, the family owns the meeting and, following a presentation by professionals to the family describing concerns, resources, and nonnegotiable issues, there is a private family time for planning. In other family decision meetings, the facilitator stays in the room and assists with the family’s planning process. In all models, the facilitator plays a key role in the identiﬁcation and preparation of family members and professionals to participate in and assure a strengths-based process. The child welfare worker attending these meetings holds the accountability for safety and permanence. He or she can educate the family on resources available, help them understand the concern for safety, and explain system mandates and deadlines. System of Care This is a set of principles developed originally in children’s mental health that have been extended to case planning for children with multiple needs who tend to be involved in multiple systems. Many systems have systemof-care projects, and willing and skilled child welfare participation is critical. One county’s statement of the core principles of system of care is provided in Box 7.5.

child welfare supervision

170

Box 7.5

San Diego’s Children’s System of Care (CSOC) Principles

CSOC Council vision: San Diego children and youth are healthy, safe, successful in school, and law abiding, while living in a home and community that supports strong family connections. Mission: The purpose of the System of Care Council is to ensure that all agencies serving San Diego County children have coordinated services resulting in improved child, family, and system outcomes consistent with System of Care values and principles. 1. Collaboration of four sectors: The cornerstone of the Children’s System of Care is a strong partnership between families/youth, public agencies, private organizations, and education. 2. Integrated: Services are coordinated between the four sectors; respond to the multiple needs of children, youth, families, and caregivers; are coordinated with multiple systems—both formal and informal; and ensure an appropriate and clear transition between levels of care and between the youth and adult mental health systems of care. Services strive to be seamless and easily accessible. 3. Child and youth focus, family centered: Service delivery, service planning, program, and policy development include the full participation of families and caregivers and their children and youth. 4. Individualized: Services are designed to meet the unique set of needs and build on the unique strengths for each child, youth, family, and caregiver. Services are guided by an individualized service plan, which is comprehensive and responds to the evolving needs. 5. Strength-based: Plans and services identify and build on strengths, which help facilitate the child, youth, family, and caregiver in attaining their goals. 6. Community-based: A continuum of care is identiﬁed, developed, and provided in the local region where the child, youth, family, or caregiver lives. 7. Outcome driven: Outcomes for children, youth, families, caregivers and service delivery systems are clearly stated, measurable, and used to drive decisions to further improve outcomes for the CSOC. 8. Culturally competent: Services are culturally, linguistically, and developmentally appropriate. Source: County of San Diego, Health and Human Services Agency (2005). Retrieved from San Diego System of Care: www2.sdcounty.ca.gov/hhsa/documents/CMHS_84.pdf.

Wraparound Planning Similar to system of care, this is a planning process often provided for youth or children involved in multiple systems, such as mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and others—children whose challenges call for coordinated care. Wraparound planning is conducted according to 10 principles (Bruns et al., 2004). Family voice is key, and all planning is conducted with a team process involving natural supports and professional resources. Planning is collaborative, strengths based, unconditional, and culturally competent, and is individualized to the particular needs of the child and family.

The World Beyond the Unit

171

Contracting Out Child welfare agencies have traditionally contracted out for services to support parents and/or children in care, and much of this chapter reviews skills to make those relationships work. However, the practice of contracting with nonproﬁt agencies for child welfare service delivery is growing (Malm, Bess, Leos-Urbel, Green, & Markowitz, 2001; Salamon, 2003). In some jurisdictions the majority of child welfare functions are contracted out to private agencies (Kramer, 1994; Smith & Lipsky, 1993; Petr & Johnson, 1999; Van Slyke, 2003). Managed-care models have been pilot-tested in some jurisdictions (Meezan & McBeath, 2003; McBeath & Meezan, 2006; Wulczyn, 2000). These expanded forms of contracting place additional demands on the supervisor, as child welfare staff are increasingly dependent on the work of other agencies to achieve mandated goals for children. The skills of communication, coordination, collaboration, and negotiation described in this chapter will help the supervisor manage this environment and develop new skills in workers. The supervisor will need to work with staff to develop skills in selecting the right service to meet a child’s needs and to negotiate the development of services in a lean service environment. The supervisor may also need to show staff how to serve as educators and advocates when collaborating with agencies that may not be familiar with ASFA timelines or safety concerns. Negotiating and collaborating around the development of new services may also fall to supervisors, especially in smaller communities where interagency partnerships are part of the supervisor’s role. When contracts are already in place (negotiated by others), a supervisor plays a vital role in sending feedback on agency quality up the line to contracts ofﬁcers and management. By observing patterns of quality across the many cases in the unit, a supervisory is in a position to observe closely the quality of contracted agencies and shape the agency’s contracting environment. CONCLUSION: ON THE HORIZON “Person-in-environment” is a core idea of the profession of social work (Karls & Wandrei, 1994), but all too often this has been applied only to the considerations of an individual client. Organizational units are clearly shaped by their environments (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Gummer, 1990; Hasenfeld, 1989), and an “organization-in-environment” approach (Mulroy, 2004; Schmid, 2004) will beneﬁt our understanding of supervision in child welfare. Attending to the external environment of a unit is increasingly an important part of the day in the life of a supervisor. Competence in balancing the competing demands of the external community and internal agency management is key to supervisory strength and unit effectiveness. Skills in assessment communication, coordination, collaboration, advocacy, and negotiation are all called for in providing better services for clients. And the

172

child welfare supervision

beneﬁts are not reserved just for clients. There is evidence that the workunit culture will be stronger for workers if supervisors increase their competence in managing the impact of the external environment (Wagner et al., 2001). No longer a marginal skill set reserved only for the more advanced child welfare supervisor, such skills should be taught in basic coursework and supervisory training. To an increasing degree, new and emerging models of child welfare practice require supervisory competence in negotiating relationships with the external environment and helping workers to do the same. Staff members no longer work in islands of child welfare practice tucked neatly at the bottom of pyramid-shaped organizational charts. Instead, they ﬁnd themselves at the intersection of partnerships and collaborations that are better mapped with Venn diagrams and mind maps. They need the best coaching and supervision a supervisor can provide in negotiating these interagency waters. Little research is available on this topic for the supervisor level, though much has been written for agency managers, executives, and the nonproﬁt sector (Schmid, 2004). Perhaps the readers of this chapter will add to our understanding of this arena. Over time, it is hoped that scholars, trainers, and supervisory learning circles will continue to develop skills and understanding of competencies necessary to child welfare practice using evolving new collaborative models. The skills outlined in this chapter should serve as a place to start. The ability to assess, communicate, coordinate, and collaborate, as well as skills in advocacy and negotiation, have always been key to social work practice. It can now be seen that these are core competencies for effective supervision in child welfare. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Construct an organizational ecomap for your unit. Where are the strong, positive relationships? What contributed to making them strong? Where are the conﬂicted relationships? What precipitated the conﬂict? Where are there no relationships? Why? 2. What changes would you like to make in your unit ecomap? What strategies might you use to strengthen strategic relationships? 3. What opportunities do you currently have for cross-training workers? What new opportunities might be useful for your team? 4. What new collaborative relationships could be strategically important for you and for your unit? USEFUL WEB AND PRINT RESOURCES

• American Humane Association, Protecting Children Web Site on Family Group Decision Meetings: http://www .americanhumane.org/. Click on “Protecting Children” and then

The World Beyond the Unit

•

•

•

• •

173

on “FDGM” to access publications, videos, a conference, research results, and technical assistance. National Wraparound Initiative: http://www.rtc.pdx.edu/nwi/. This is the Web site for the National Wraparound Initiative. On this Web site you will ﬁnd publications, training materials, conference announcements, and access to information about implementing wraparound planning. System of Care: http://gucchd.georgetown.edu/programs/ ta_center/. This is the technical assistance center for the National System of Care movement. With information in both Spanish and English, it offers training, publications, national conferences, and conference calls. Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health: http:// www.ffcmh.org/. This organization has excellent training on family-driven case planning. Although it is based in mental health, the information still has value for child welfare. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges: www .ncjfcj.org. This Web site offers a variety of training and resource materials on court collaboration in child welfare cases. National Indian Child Welfare Association: www.NICWA .org. This is a national training and resource association dedicated to the improvement of services for Indian children and families. REFERENCES

Adams, P., & Nelson, K. (Eds.). (1995). Reinventing human services: Community and family centered practice. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Altshuler, S. J. (2003). From barriers to successful collaboration: Public schools and child welfare working together. Social Work, 48(1), 52–63. Badowski, R., & Gittines, R. (2003) Managing up: How to forge an effective relationship with those above you. New York: Doubleday. Block, P. (1991). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brittain, C. (Ed.). (2005). Ecomapping the external environment. Exercise designed by K. Cahn (2003) based on concept developed by Pamela Day, MSW, in 1988 at University of Washington. In Supervisory training: Putting the pieces together, Unit I. Denver, CO: Butler Institute for Families, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver. Bruner, C. (1992). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Bruns, E. J., Walker, J. S., Adams, J., Miles, P., Osher, T. W., Rast, J., et al. (2004). Ten principles of the wraparound process. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, Portland State University.

174

child welfare supervision

Carlson, B. E. (2006). Best practices in the treatment of substance-abusing women in the child welfare system. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 6(3) 97–115. County of San Diego, Health & Human Services Agency. (2005). Children’s system of care principles. Retrieved September 21, 2007, from www2.sdcounty. ca.gov/hhsa/documents/CMHS_84.pdf Darlington, Y., Feeney, J. A., & Rixon, K. (2005). Interagency collaboration between child protection and mental health services: Practices, attitudes and barriers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29(10), 1085–1098. Dobbin, S., Gatowski, S., & Maxwell, D. (2004). Building a better collaboration: Facilitating change in the court and child welfare system. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Permanency Planning Department. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York: Penguin Books. Gambrill, E. (1994). Social work research: Priorities and obstacles. Research on Social Work Practice, 4(3), 359–388. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and inter-organizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401–421. Gordon, L. (1994) Pitied but not entitled: Single mothers and the history of welfare, 1890–1935. New York: Free Press. Gummer, B. (1990). The politics of social administration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hartman, A. (1978). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Social Casework, 59(8), 465–476. Hasenfeld, Y. (1989). The life cycle of human service organizations: An administrative perspective. Administration in Social Work, 13(3/4), 243–269. Hill, R. B. (2004). Institutional racism in child welfare. In J. Everett, S. Chipungu, & B. Leashore (Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective (pp. 57–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Jones, J. M. (2006). Understanding environmental inﬂuence on human service organizations: A study of the inﬂuence of managed care on child caring institutions. Administration in Social Work, 30(4), 63–90. Kadushin, A. (1974). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Karls, J. M., & Wandrei, K. E. (1994). Person-in-environment system. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers Press. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kohl, P. L., Barth, R. P., Hazen, A. L., & Landsverk, J. A. (2005). Child welfare as a gateway to domestic violence services. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1203–1221. Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621–643. Kramer, R.M. (1994). Voluntary agencies and the contract culture: “Dream or nightmare?” Social Service Review 68, 32–61. Leashore, B. R. (1997). African American men, child welfare, and permanency planning. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5(1/2), 39–48.

The World Beyond the Unit

175

Leigh, J. (1998). Communicating for cultural competence. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Malm, K., Bess, R., Leos-Urbel, J., Green, R., & Markowitz, T. (2001). Running to keep in place: The continuing evolution of our nation’s child welfare system. (Occasional Paper 54). Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work: A review of research literature on factors inﬂuencing successful collaboration. St. Paul, MN: Amherst Wilder Foundation. McBeath, B. & Meezan, EW. (2006) Nonproﬁt adaptation to performance-based managed care contracting in Michigan’s foster care system. Administration in Social Work, 30(2), 39–70. Meezan, W., & McBeath, B. (2003). Moving toward managed care in child welfare: First results from the evaluation of the Wayne County foster care pilot initiative. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Social Work. Mills, L. G., Friend, C., Conroy, K., Fleck-Henderson, A., Krug, S., & Magen, R. H. (2000). Child protection and domestic violence: Training, practice, and policy issues. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 315–332. Mulroy, E. A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on the social environment to guide management and community practice: An organization-in-environment approach. Administration in Social Work, 28(1), 77–96. O’Donnell, J., Johnson, W. E., D’Unno, L. E., & Thornton, H. L. (2005). Fathers in child welfare: Caseworkers’ perspectives. Child Welfare, 84(3), 387–414. Pearson Assessments. (2007). Classroom performance systems. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http://formative.pearsonassessments.com/formative/cps/ Peterson, G. (2005). Who speaks for Wolf? Unpublished keynote presented at West Coast Child Welfare Trainers Conference, Portland, OR. Petr, C. G., & Johnson, I. C. (1999). Privatization of foster care in Kansas: A cautionary tale. Social Work, 44, 263–267. Provan, K. G., & Sebastian, J. G. (1998). Networks within networks: Service link overlap, organizational cliques and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 453–463. Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Civitas Books. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Ryan, J. P., Marsh, J. C., Testa, M. F., & Louderman, R. (2006). Integrating substance abuse treatment and child welfare services: Findings from the Illinois alcohol and other drug abuse waiver demonstration. Social Work Research, 30(2), 95–107. Salamon, L. M. (2003). The resilient sector: The state of nonproﬁt America. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonproﬁt America (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press. Saint-Jacques, M., Drapeau, S., Lessard, G., & Boudoin, A. (2006). Parent involvement practices in child protection: A matter of know-how and attitude. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 23(22), 196–215. Saleebey, D. (1992). The strengths perspective in social work practice. White Plains, NY: Longman. Schmid, H. (2004). Organization–environment relationships: Theory for management practice in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 28(1), 97–113.

176

child welfare supervision

Smith, S. R., & Lipsky, M. (1993). Nonproﬁts for hire: The welfare state in an age of contracting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Straus, D. (2002). How to make collaboration work: Powerful ways to build consensus, solve problems, and make decisions. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Teather, E. C. (1992). Training for interprofessional collaboration. Unpublished ﬁndings, University of Washington in Seattle. Van Slyke, D.M. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296–315. Wagner, R., Van Reyk, P., & Spence, N. (2001). Improving the working environment for workers in children’s welfare agencies. Child & Family Social Work, 6(2), 161–178. Wiebush, R., Freitag, R., & Baird, C. (2001, July). Preventing delinquency through improved child protection services. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Windle, R., & Warren, S. (1999). Collaborative problem solving and dispute resolution in special education: Training manual. Hood River, OR: Hood River County Schools. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from http://www.directionservice .org/cadre/cover.cfm Wulczyn, F. W. (2000). Federal ﬁscal reform in child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 131–159.

8 WORKING IN CHANGING ENVIRONMENTS K ATHARINE C AHN & D AVID B ERNS

hild welfare services are in a state of constant change. In fact, it might C be said that change is the only constant in child welfare. New practices, new programs, and changes in organizational structure and policy, both planned and unplanned, are constant and often overlap. It is this ongoing change that makes the ﬁeld interesting as it evolves over time to better meet the needs of children and families. Change can be a source of new energy, new resources, and increased effectiveness. But the constant pace of change can also be a source of stress. When poorly managed, change at this pace can be distracting, confusing, and even upsetting to child welfare staff. Managing change processes well is key to effectiveness as a child welfare supervisor. This chapter explores change in two ways. The ﬁrst part introduces a basic understanding of the dynamics of change in child welfare organizations. The second part reviews seven aspects of the supervisor’s role in managing change. The reader should ﬁnish the chapter with a thorough appreciation of the importance of the child welfare supervisor in understanding and managing change, having reviewed the areas where the supervisor can make a difference and encountered practical suggestions for managing change successfully to the beneﬁt of children and families. THE DYNAMICS OF CHANGE Accelerated Pace of Change The accelerated pace of change is not exclusive to our ﬁeld. The corporate world, too, is grappling with what it takes to manage effectively in a world 177

178

child welfare supervision

of constant change. A quick review of current corporate management literature reveals best sellers with titles like Learning as a Way of Being: Strategies for Survival in a World of Permanent Whitewater (Vaill, 1996); The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (Gladwell, 2000); and Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change (Bridges, 2003). In their classic handbook on planned change, Bennis, Benne, and Chin (as cited in Smale, 1998, p. 78) remark that the debate no longer concerns whether or not to change but rather how to control and direct change in ways that maximize human dignity and realize social outcomes. Lessons learned from studies in the corporate sector can and do apply to child welfare. However, there are some differences in the public sector and these will be noted where applicable. Understanding the overall dynamics of change will help a supervisor use his or her skills most appropriately. Reactive, Proactive, and Evolutionary Change Three kinds of change typically occur in child welfare: 1) reactive, 2) proactive, and 3) evolutionary. In each type, the supervisor has an important role in framing the change for staff and working with staff to assure good services for clients. Reactive change is common in child welfare. Policy and practice seem to swing suddenly in response to high-proﬁle cases or media attention. As a public service agency, public child welfare has a uniquely sensitive relationship to legislative, media, and public attention (Altshuler & Benn, 1997). Executive management must move quickly to demonstrate responsiveness to the concerns of public constituencies and funders, and this reactivity inﬂuences the ﬁeld. In reactive change, workers in the ﬁeld are less likely to be asked to participate in designing the change. Staff engagement and buy-in are left to the supervisor to manage. The attitude and approach a supervisor takes are key in determining whether the unit resists the change or adopts it with skill. The primary approach a supervisor can take to introducing a change is working with staff members to help them understand what is being asked of them, guiding them in building commitment over time. It is helpful to frame the change in terms of practice values and skills that the unit already holds (Rogers, 1995). Identifying what workers can control in this kind of change and then addressing implementation collaboratively with the unit increases the team’s experience of involvement and ownership. In these ways, the supervisor can give staff members a way to stay resilient and focused as they adapt to the new way of doing business. At the Arizona Department of Economic Security (the umbrella agency that includes child welfare), the director sent a video to all ten thousand staff members in which he reminded them that, for everyone, the vast majority of the things we do each day at work are not within our control. No matter what our level or position, we are all subject to rules, regulations, and budget constraints. But the director also reminded employees

Working in Changing Environments

179

that many of the most important aspects remain in our control. Such factors as attitude, how we respect others, how we organize our work, and the relationships we cultivate often make the difference between success and failure. According to the Arizona director, this philosophy is perhaps best articulated by the substance abuse treatment community, in the Alcoholics Anonymous traditional Serenity Prayer: “God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change the things we can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” As social workers, we should never accept unacceptable conditions, but we need skills to target our interventions toward realistic goals. When reacting to change imposed by others, supervisors play a key role in assisting staff members to direct their efforts toward productive and meaningful contributions to the change process. A second kind of change is proactive and oriented toward a plan. Examples of this are the planned introduction of a new practice approach or a change in organizational structure that was designed collaboratively with input from the ﬁeld, the community, and clients. This kind of change offers more opportunity for staff and supervisory engagement and may result in a higher-quality product and greater buy-in, since more people have contributed to designing the change. In proactive change, the supervisor may have input into the shape of the change by serving on a task force or contributing to local planning meetings representing the voice and experience of the unit. Skills in engineering and contributing to a change process and representing the voices of workers are essential for supervision during proactive change. In fact, the supervisor can encourage staff to serve on task forces and neighborhood groups to assist with planning. Not only does this result in greater engagement with any plan that might occur, it is also excellent training and development for staff and offers them the chance to be proactive. Such planning can occur within the agency, with external community initiatives, or both. Early in his career, one of the authors of this chapter, David Berns, was hired as a frontline worker in a small county ofﬁce of the Department of Social Services (DSS). At that time, many community agencies were seeking DSS representation on various councils and work groups. Most of the staff members at the ofﬁce, including the director, saw their role exclusively in terms of providing services directly to the children and families on their caseloads. Most of the community activities progressed without input from the Department. As a new (perhaps naïve) worker, Berns volunteered to be on several of the community initiatives. Within 3 years, several new programs ranging from a big-brother-type mentoring service to a community center for the elderly were started in the county. These programs had a positive impact on the ability of the agency to serve children. Berns saw not only the results of his own contribution but also the power of working together for social change. Throughout his career, he has found that these opportunities still abound in communities and that

child welfare supervision

180

many of these can be ﬁlled by frontline workers and supervisors who are willing to see their mission as extending beyond their own caseloads. In proactive change, supervisors need to encourage staff members to venture out of their day-to-day routines and embrace opportunities to serve as leaders for social improvement. A third kind of change is evolutionary—that is, it comes about in the normal course of business. Examples of change like this include the introduction of a new employee into the unit, a change of ofﬁce location, or a new way of distributing workload. A supervisor can help workers understand and predict this kind of change, and has many more opportunities to engage workers in planning when the change is at the unit level. One supervisor in an urban child welfare unit set up an all-day meeting to invite the staff to brainstorm how to manage a growing number of cases. They came up with a workload assignment approach that was fair, but was one that she never would have been able to enforce without their consent. They also added dimensions to workload assignments that she would not have thought of, such as a peer case consultation model for the times she was out of the ofﬁce at meetings. With this simple approach, reinforced by similar meetings over time, she watched her unit evolve from depending on her authority to a collaborative participatory professional child welfare staff. Though other changes were imposed from outside, this was one part of the natural evolution of the unit that was planned and driven by workers with supervisory support. The larger agency will evolve as well, particularly as leadership changes. Each new generation of leaders will introduce its own practice priorities and themes, though a long-range perspective may reveal evolutionary trends underlying the many short-term shifts. The average tenure of a state child welfare director is said to be less than 2 years. This 2-year ﬁgure is often cited by the National Association of Child Welfare Administrators and the Child Welfare League of America and is based on the author’s personal knowledge and experience. With this constant turmoil at the top of an organization, a supervisor plays a central role in providing a sense of stability and continuity toward more evolutionary change. Supervisors and mid-level managers tend to be the anchors of an organization. Supervisors play a key role in maintaining an atmosphere that is somewhat insulated from the ﬂux of constant shifts in political and media pressure. Stages of Change It is useful for a supervisor to understand the predictable stages of change. Armed with this knowledge, a supervisor can predict and participate appropriately in what is happening and help staff members understand what is likely to occur so they can do the same. Understanding the stages of change can provide a larger context and defuse the sense of crisis that can be present particularly at the beginning of a change process.

Working in Changing Environments

181

Organizational scholars have studied and described the phases of change process in many ways. Early organizational development writers applied systems dynamics to organizational change and emphasized the initial “unfreezing” of the system (Lewin, 1951) and the importance of feedback loops (Argyris, 1982; Argyris & Schön, 1978; Senge, 1990) through stages of change. Later writers (Kanter, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Wheatley, 1992) focused on leadership roles and stages in the leader’s work in mobilizing vision and commitment. Reardon, Reardon, and Rowe (1998) also focused on leadership style, deﬁning ﬁve stages of change— planning, enabling, launching, catalyzing, and maintaining—and showing how each of the four styles of leadership (inspirational, commanding, logical, and supportive) could apply at each stage. In The Change Book: A Blueprint for Technology Transfer (2004), Velasquez applies the stages of change from motivational interviewing to organizational change. In “pre-contemplation,” people are content with the status quo. In “contemplation,” interest is building. In “preparation,” people are getting ready to make the change. In “action,” the change is underway. In “maintenance,” the behavioral change is continued, supported, and encouraged. Conner and Patterson (1982) describe stages of change as the development of commitment over time, and use the three simple phases of preparation, acceptance, and commitment. At each stage, a supervisor will manage threats to commitment and provide supports for growing commitment. Common to all models are stages at which thought changes to action (stage 1: motivation to change), change efforts are launched (stage 2: introducing the change), the change is under way (stage 3: implementation), the change is maintained (stage 4: building the change for sustainability), and the change is completed (stage 5: recognition of accomplishment). Stage 1: Motivation to Change Kurt Lewin and colleagues (1951) developed the ﬁeld of “organization development,” or planned organizational change. Drawing from systems theory, they started with a notion that applies directly to child welfare— that systems are designed towards homeostasis, and bureaucracies in particular are designed to be very stable over time (Hagedorn, 1995; Kanter, 1983). That is, they are designed not to change. Others also comment on the likelihood of maintaining the status quo, or the “pre-contemplation” stage of change (Velasquez, 2004). For most systems, intentional or proactive change would call for a gradual raising of consciousness regarding the value of change over the value of maintaining the status quo (Velasquez, 2004). Kotter (1996) describes the need to establish a sense of urgency. But in child welfare, change is often launched by a crisis. In contrast to the inherent stability of bureaucracy, the nature of the work in protective services is crisis driven. Reform in child welfare is often launched by a catalytic event—a highly publicized case, a stormy legislative hearing, or a report from an outside consultant—to unfreeze the system.

182

child welfare supervision

This ﬁrst destabilizing event is important to getting the change process moving (Lewin, 1951; Smale, 1998), but it can also cause discomfort. In fact, the catalytic event is often greeted with fear, anger, ﬁnger pointing, defensiveness, and blame. A defensive mentality can surround change coming in reaction to a crisis. Typical phrases staff members will use include, “This too shall pass,” “This is not possible given [workload, resources, or time],” and “This is just good old-fashioned social work and we’ve been doing it for years.” Assertive attention is needed at this stage to avoid slipping back into old behavior. Velasquez (2004) notes that in moving workers from contemplation to preparation for change, a supervisor can provide a “taste” of the change and evidence of its effectiveness. It is important for a supervisor in this stage to provide a sense of perspective to staff members and reassure them of their competence. The supervisor can remind staff members of the many changes they have already negotiated successfully. He or she can point out the useful aspects of the change, or how the change ﬁts into and empowers staff practice values and long-term practice goals. Clear information and accurate data, including accurate information about what is not known, will reduce hysteria and distracting worry, since much of what staff will be reacting to will be inaccurate or not yet decided. Social work skills learned on the line in CPS practice, such as the importance of slowing down a crisis, are useful in supervisory practice as well. A supervisor’s calming explanations can be key to engaging staff and building commitment (Conner & Patterson, 1982). There is often a period of time between the agency’s decision to change and the start date of implementation. While it may be clear that change is coming, it may not be clear exactly what is entailed. This “transition” period has been powerfully described by Bridges (2003), who encourages the leader not to rush the transition period, but to acknowledge that it is normal and even required to experience a period of disengagement from the old ways of doing things and disorientation with present conditions. He notes the discomfort of this stage, but cautions against rushing to make things certain again, which can lead to half-baked measures or a return to old practices in reaction to the threat of change. Bridge’s research underscores the value of extending the transition period as long as possible, not jumping too quickly to design and implement the new way of doing things. Even when managers have had some time to adjust, workers in the organization will need time for the change as well. Conner and Patterson (1982) note that supervisors at this stage should provide frequent, personal, and factual communication, and check to make sure their messages are heard. Stage 2: Introducing the Change The new way of doing business is introduced next in the process. Essentially a matter of communication or “marketing,” the method of introduction

Working in Changing Environments

183

will either build or discourage commitment (Conner & Patterson, 1982). Formal ways of introducing a change include announcements at management team meetings, staff brieﬁngs, trainings, internal communication (via manuals, memos, e-mails, edicts, announcements on a Web site, and so on), pilot projects, staged introductions, and, almost always, consultation and training. A supervisor plays a key role in passing communication along to staff members, ensuring that they get to training, and providing coaching and consultation. Staff meetings to discuss the change, ask questions, and dispel rumors can deepen the learning and be used to collect feedback for management (Conner & Patterson, 1982). At the preparation stage, it is important to be sure that the language of the new practice is clear and that the change plan is known (Velasquez, 2004). Though a supervisor has little control over how the change has been “packaged,” he or she can assist by offering question-and-answer forums, seeking clarity about roles, and increasing his or her own knowledge about the practice so as to be prepared to coach others. In helping workers through the initial stages of change, it is important to recognize that, for adults, change is often upsetting. The introduction of a new practice, form, case management software, or policy will require new skills and therefore automatically bring the experience of being outside one’s comfort zone. Adults do not like to feel incompetent and will revert to areas of comfort. The human tendency to resist uncertainty and avoid risk-taking is the fundamental barrier to the implementation of new changes (Rogers, 1995). In child welfare, it is common to hear, “We can’t do this, because of [workload or time pressures or lack of resources],” and at the same time to hear, “I don’t know what’s new about this; it’s just good old-fashioned child welfare practice and we’ve been doing it for years.” The skilled supervisor will understand both statements as normal, and know that neither is all true or all false. It is important to normalize resistance and at the same time avoid getting stuck in it or adding agreement to it. Ultimately, it is the supervisor’s job to know how to “roll with resistance” (Velasquez, 2004), just as a worker would do with a client when facilitating change. In order to reduce discomfort and build commitment at initial stages, the familiar social work skill of “building on strengths” works well (Saleebey, 1992). Tying the proposed change to existing skills and values has been shown to improve acceptance (Rogers, 1995). It is important to realize that upper management, and even supervisors, may know and hear about possible changes far in advance of the staff and will thus be further along in the adjustment process. It will take time and patience as the staff becomes familiar with, committed to, and competent in changes that managers have already had time to absorb. Staff members should not be labeled resistant because it takes them time to gain commitment; it is a normal part of the process. During the introduction phase, a supervisor plays a key role in coaching people through the adjustment process. While staying the course, the

184

child welfare supervision

supervisor can help the staff understand and make meaning out of the change as it is introduced, coach staff members on their participation, and give them a safe space to communicate and wrestle with the change as they move through exploration into commitment. This supportive role of supervision (Kadushin, 1974) is also a marketing or symbolic communication role, in which the supervisor helps workers make meaning out of confusing messages (Smith & Peterson, 1988). Stage 3: Implementation—Learning, Application, Feedback, and Adjustment While classroom training and workshops are the most common ways of introducing the change to workers, the supervisor plays an important role in helping staff to get the most out of training and to implement the classroom principles back in the ﬁeld. Research on transfer of learning shows that the child welfare supervisor is the critical link in the application of skills learned in the classroom to practice (Drake, 1999). A child welfare supervisor can increase worker learning from trainings and conferences by meeting with the worker in advance to identify learning goals and by asking him or her to share what was learned with the unit or in case conferences afterwards. Supervisors who understand the practice can coach as well as intervene in the “teachable moment” when a worker begins to grapple with implementation. Several years ago in Michigan, the Department of Social Services was implementing a new risk and safety assessment system. The process was very innovative, changed practice signiﬁcantly, and required not only a new practice but also a revised computer input system. A great deal of resistance from workers and supervisors was anticipated. To help overcome the resistance, the supervisors were trained ﬁrst in the new system, and their training included techniques on how to monitor and work with staff. Much of the training focused on the supervisor’s role in helping staff to accept and implement the new system. As a result, much of the resistance was minimized and the approach was implemented more quickly and with fewer problems than originally anticipated. Other less formal ways to support learning include practices such as setting an agenda item in each unit meeting, during which the child welfare unit reviews an article together, shares video educational resources, or listens to educational teleconferences (sometimes available from national resource centers). A unit with a learning and development culture will be one that can embrace change. As a change unfolds, new information will emerge regarding what is working and what about the new practice or process doesn’t work and needs to be adapted. Usually workers spot this kind of information ﬁrst, and supervisors can be their voice. It is critical to the health of the agency that a supervisor send feedback up the larger system and advocate for what workers need (to serve clients) as the change unfolds. The role of offering

Working in Changing Environments

185

constructive feedback and advocacy, sometimes called “double-loop learning” (Argyris, 1982), “managing up” (Badowski & Gittines, 2003), and in human services originally called “change from within” (Resnick & Patti, 1980), is empowering to staff and essential to the health of the agency and the successful implementation of any change. Stage 4: Sustaining the Change Sustainability of practice change has proven to be challenging (Light, 1998; Senge, 1999), and supervisory support is key. Once the new practice has been introduced, it is necessary to sustain the commitment of workers in the face of other distractions, including the next new change. If this phase is managed well, over time, workers will gain competence with the new practice and it will become “business as usual,” with new workers coming in already trained in the new practice and supported in that practice by agency culture and norms. Organizational research identiﬁes key factors related to sustainability over time, and the supervisor can advocate for these by asking the following questions. Have resources been allocated to support the change, or are they redirected to other initiatives (Senge, 1999)? Are community stakeholders (families and cultural or community groups, contracted service providers, advocacy agencies, university partners, the courts, local government) engaged in and supportive of the change (Cahn, 2003)? Is the change “hardwired” into agency structures such as program evaluation, contracting processes, purchasing, case management forms, and data systems (Light, 1998)? Is the change limited to only a few pilot sites, or is there a plan for phased implementation, and where is this unit in that change process (Smale, 1998)? The supervisor who participates in the design of a change process can advocate for attention to these factors. Even if the change implementation plan does not include support for the change, key supervisory practices can sustain implementation. Providing ongoing coaching, monitoring, maintaining visibility for the commitment, tracking, rewarding success, gently confronting “relapse,” and setting up a structure to capture and address lessons learned are all supervisory skills that help at this stage (Velasquez, 2004). For example, when an agency had an adoption initiative, one permanency supervisor promoted the sustainability of attention to legal adoption with a tapestry on the wall that gained a star for every adoption ﬁnalized. In another change, designed to implement family-centered decision making, the supervisor provided opportunities in unit meetings to address dilemmas in implementation as they arose and come up with solutions. Stage 5: Recognition of Accomplishment There will come a time when the new practice or policy is implemented and becomes common. Because of the pace of change in child welfare, with the changes coming one after another without pause, it is rare for this

186

child welfare supervision

moment to be acknowledged or rewarded. A supervisor can contribute to a culture of healthy change by taking note of progress made, saying things like, “Remember when we hardly ever involved fathers? Well, this month over half our case planning processes had fathers or paternal side relatives involved!” or “We placed more children with kin than any other unit in this area this month. Congratulations!” New changes work better if they stand on a foundation of successful past change processes. Supervisors can help child welfare workers claim and develop pride in their own history of innovation. Roles People Play in a Change Process: Bringing Staff Along When managing change in the unit, the supervisor must factor in the differing relationships and experiences staff members will have with any change process. If a child welfare supervisor understands his or her workers and their variable reactions to change, the supervisor will be a more effective guide for the process. Understanding the role played by the temperament and background of each worker will also be useful to a supervisor in a planned engagement process. In his classic work, Diffusion of Innovations, Everett Rogers (1995) summarizes research on when and how different people adopt an innovation. He describes the process of bringing a practice up to scale, and shares the characteristics of those most likely to be implemented early, in the middle, later, or not at all. He also notes the kind of communication strategy that appears to work best for each, summarized below. Some staff members jump on board right away. Every organization and unit will have a few of these early adopters (Rogers, 1995). Research shows that these workers tend to be “cosmopolitans”—those who have had varied experience and/or education, including experience and contacts outside the child welfare agency. For example, these staff members will attend conferences and travel, read journals, and in general be curious about and open to new ideas. The early adopter learns well from training, written materials, and coaching. They can generalize from other state organizations’ experiences or abstract theories into the current practice. It is useful to have early adopters to ﬁnd and bring innovations back to the unit. However, most child welfare staff members engage in the training very differently (Rogers, 1995). Rather than learning from outside experts or trainers, the adopter in the early majority (approximately one-third of a workforce) tends to learn best from trusted peers, needs an opportunity to try the practice out or observe someone else, and will need coaching and support. These are deliberate people for whom change takes more time. Training alone will not engage those in the early majority. They prefer local knowledge and sometimes reject trainers or consultants who don’t appear familiar with local terms. On the other hand, they will respond well to success stories and word of mouth from peers whose practice they value

Working in Changing Environments

187

or admire. A supervisor can build such approaches into the change process, setting up peer coaching, pilot testing the new practice with one case, and providing lots of chances for hands-on engagement. Too often, a supervisor will rely on outside training, and this will not produce the best result unless supported with opportunities for peer consultation and sharing. Even as the early majority begins to engage and experiment with the new practice, there will still be the later part of the majority (another third, according to Rogers’ research summary, 1995) who wait. These late majority adopters are skeptical. They hold fast to the notion that “this, too, shall pass.” This attitude can be an excellent survival skill in child welfare and part of a healthy approach to slowing down a crisis. But it can also be a way to slow down or stop the adoption of desired new behavior. Latemajority adopters may beneﬁt from the methods of introducing the new practice listed above, but they also need to hear a strong message from management that this change is not a passing fancy and that their job security, paycheck, and promotions depend on participation. Sustained supervisory attention to the new practice over time in one-on-one and group supervision will reinforce this message. Resistors (Smale, 1998), called “laggards” by Rogers (1995), are those who are persistently reluctant to adopt the practice. Though often criticized and perceived as disruptive to the change process, the resistor can also be valuable. It is important to hear what the resistors have to say, as their resistance might be well founded and their feedback useful. For example, Rogers notes that the resistor may be a person with knowledge of agency history, who can pass along instructive tales from previous change efforts. The resistor may have good reasons not to move forward with the change, and recognizing those objections and solving the problems they bring up might improve the effectiveness of the process and practice. Conveying respect for and seeking out the resistor’s opinion is certainly a good engagement strategy but can also be a way to get information critical to successful implementation. Once engaged respectfully, the resistor may adopt the innovation and can become an ally to the change process. In fact, sometimes “the converted” are the best champions. The most effective supervisory approach is not to ignore or criticize the resistor, but to hold the individual accountable for participation, to draw out and address objections, and to allow the person to express ambivalence so that it can be dealt with. As the change is implemented across the unit or agency, the resistor will either adopt the new practice or leave for another agency or unit with a culture more consistent with his or her practice preferences. Some staff turnover is predictable and sometimes even desirable when building a new practice culture. Drawing on his research on the adoption of innovation in child welfare, Gerald Smale (1998) notes particular roles present when an innovative practice was brought up to scale in the large bureaucracies delivering child welfare services. One was the role of champion. A champion is a person who is a strong supporter of the new practice. They “not only adopt new

child welfare supervision

188

methods, but take on the cause of spreading the message to others” (p. 110). Champions can be found throughout the agency and the role is not limited to a particular formal place on the organizational chart. A supervisor can support champions within the unit with extra training and provide opportunities for them to take lead roles by asking them to serve as mentors or coaches for other staff members or as liaisons to other units or partner agencies involved in the change. Those designing change strategies can build community or informal communication networks among change champions. The term champion has been selected rather than the more traditional terms of committee chairperson or lead worker because champion extends to a person with enthusiasm for the practice regardless of role. A champion is self-identiﬁed, leads with passion, and is on a mission. A champion does not see this role as extra work but rather as a portion of the job that makes coming to work worthwhile. It is the role of the supervisor to cultivate this passion in him- or herself and in others. Smale (1988) also recognized the important role of minders—those who speak well of the change and protect it from attack behind closed doors, such as in budget processes or the setting of training agendas. Minders will need information and answers to frequently asked questions so that they can defuse objections and provide accurate information as to the value of the new practice. He also points to the importance of identifying and engaging recognized opinion leaders early in a change process, as others in the organization look to them for informal signals of whether to support the change or not. An effective change management strategy will Case Example 8.1

Change Roles in Action

The spread of family group conferencing in Washington State is a good example of how the various roles Rogers (1995) describes unfolded in a change process. Early adopters in a permanency unit heard about the method, originally developed by the Maori people, at a professional conference hosted by a local university. With the support of their supervisor, they made changes in their unit’s stafﬁng pattern to experiment with the model. They were pleased with the success and wrote a one-page document that described what worked. Several central ofﬁce managers (opinion leaders) found resources to establish a facilitator position in many ofﬁces. Workers in other units in the early majority heard about the effectiveness of the model and were open to trying it when the facilitators arrived on site. Their peers in the late majority, after hearing about the success of the model from peers, ﬁnally turned to the model when their cases got stuck and no other approach had helped. Minders in central ofﬁce were able to preserve the positions when others questioned the advisability of taking workers away from casecarrying responsibilities. With grant funds, a local university maintained a network of those champions across the state interested in promoting the practice through funding, evaluation, and training. Having these roles in place was important contributor to the longevity of the practice of family group conferencing in Washington State. Unfortunately, there was not an effective communication strategy for hearing resistors and addressing their concerns, so despite good evaluation outcome results (Gunderson, Wirth, Viyasilpa, & Cahn, 2000; Shore et al., 2001), the practice was never brought fully up to scale or made available to all children or families who might have beneﬁted. Source: Example from professional experience of author.

Working in Changing Environments

189

provide information about the change to minders and opinion leaders in the form of clearly written materials, early training, and one-on-one communication early in the process (see Case Example 8.1). SUPERVISORY ROLES IN MANAGING CHANGE Vision Keeper Since as early as the 1980s, much has been written about the value of a clear and centering vision in the face of the complexity of organizational life (Bennis & Nanus, 1988; Kanter, 1989; Spears, 1998; Wheatley, 1992). There are so many changes happening in child welfare that it is rarely possible to stage them sequentially or to make them ﬁt logically one after the other. Success as a child welfare supervisor depends on the ability to construct a powerful “through-line” or narrative that makes sense of all the changing and overlapping practices. The supervisor needs to be prepared to answer the key questions and explain the rationale and context behind the impending change. In the end, what is all this practice for? What are the key principles of all best practices? Child welfare supervisors can keep child welfare caseworkers effective, focused, productive, and resilient by helping them and their unit have a clear sense of being involved in meaningful work that makes a difference. Research consistently shows that the child welfare supervisor who can help child welfare workers keep their eye on practice outcomes for clients and provide a context of pride and meaning will be the supervisor with the best client outcomes, the lowest worker turnover, and the healthiest unit overall (Samantrai, 1992). The supervisor can establish a sense of vision in a variety of ways, from sharing his or her own vision to inspire others, to organizing unit retreats, to convening planning meetings to come up with a vision and goals for the year (see Box 8.1).

Box 8.1

Worker’s Voices on Change

Over the years, one of the authors, Katherine Cahn, has asked training participants for examples of how favorite supervisors provided a sense of centering vision. Examples heard include the following: • “My supervisor just repeated again and again, ‘Don’t forget, the client comes ﬁrst.’ That helped me prioritize my time.” • “In our unit, it was like a broken record: ‘Is this child likely to be in care more than 30 days? If so, is he placed in a home that could be permanent? If not, get busy!’” (This worker’s unit was known for implementing concurrent planning well and moving children to permanency quickly.) • “We just had a sense of pride in our work. We would never do less than our best for the supervisor, and she conveyed her expectation that we excel.” (This unit was known and trusted by the courts and community partners and, because of its sense of pride, was able to attract a highly competent staff.) Source: Supervising for Excellence participants, 1989–2007.

child welfare supervision

190

Culture Builder The most important role a supervisor can play in managing change is independent of any speciﬁc change. Research shows that particular kinds of organizational cultures are more resilient in the change process and predictably capable of embracing, participating in, and “surviving” change in healthy ways (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Ryan & Oestreich, 1998). Such a culture, sometimes called a “learning organization” (Senge, 2006), is characterized by a staff who feels free to try new things, has a clear sense of mission and outcome, experiences rewards and support, and has room to grow. Vaill (1996) has stated that the only way to keep upright in the permanent white water of organizational change is to “learn how to learn” and develop a culture of ongoing learning. The supervisor has many opportunities in day-to-day practice to build such a culture. A learning organization culture is built by how one approaches hiring, coaching, and individual reward and by team development activities (see Case Example 8.2). The ﬁrst step in shaping such a culture is hiring individuals for the unit who are most likely to ﬁt a learning culture. To support a resilient unit, a supervisor can select a staff that has a demonstrated commitment to learning and growing. Sometimes this includes people who have pursued their education or attended conferences and workshops to advance their skills, similar to the “early adopters” described above. To support change in a particular direction, a supervisor can also hire for an underlying value base consistent with the kinds of practice changes desired. For example, a supervisor can hire people who are strengths based, collaborative, and culturally responsive, if the supervisor is trying to improve the ability of the staff to engage clients by using such practice. A diverse unit is also more likely to change than a homogeneous group of workers (Gardenswartz & Rowe, 1998; Smale, 1998; Wheatley, 1992). In biological sciences, the more response options a system has, the greater the resilience and likelihood of effective adaptation and change. To create a unit that is nimble and resilient in a changing world, extra effort should be taken to hire for diversity along the dimensions of race and ethnicity, as well as background, temperament, and skills. Each distinct worldview present on the team will provide another approach to problem solving or adaptation. Active efforts to combat sameness and build diversity will give the unit more ﬂexibility, greater combined expertise and skills, and the opportunity to move with change. Though some research shows that people listen and learn best from people “just like them” (Rogers, 1995), the development of empathy through relationships with others who are different creates a new deﬁnition of who is “just like me,” and research shows that a more diverse unit will innovate more over time (Smale, 1998). In learning to work together, the unit will engage each other, share, stretch, and ﬂex in ways that add to the overall resilience of the unit as well as the capacity to dance with change (Ayers-Lopez & McCrory, 2004). The way in which a supervisor chooses to shape performance has lasting impact on workplace culture. A positive, strengths-based coaching

Case Example 8.2

Managing for Change

An experienced child protection supervisor had a clear organizing principle for all his work, one he’d developed ﬁrst as a child protection worker. “I just think people shouldn’t be mean to people,” he used to say. He had years of experience in child protective services, advanced professional training, and a master’s degree in social work, and all of this education and experience gave him depth in his practice. Throughout his clinical skills and years of experience, this was as good a summary of his core values as any. Maintaining a clear and coherent vision for practice was key to his ability to support planned and unplanned change. For example, when offered the chance to start a unit in a new branch, the supervisor hired CPS workers who were known for their alignment with this value, people who had the ability to assure child safety by working respectfully with parents. He supported them, and they supported families by holding them accountable and calling for their best. Change was expected and resourced, and families were made responsible for the safety of their children. One fall, the agency introduced a new practice initiative, calling for parental engagement and building on strengths in case planning, offering concrete funds for workers to spend, and using family meetings for case planning. New timelines and forms were introduced and a particular terminology was introduced and required to access funds. The supervisor saw an opportunity to tie this new practice to the team’s core practice values. He sat down with the unit, who expressed anger at yet another initiative. “What’s so special about this?” some said. “It’s just good old-fashioned social work. When are they going to stop rolling out new initiatives and let us get to work?” Another worker said, “We can’t take the time to do everything on this list; our caseloads are too high, there’s too much paperwork, and we have to spend too much time in court.” The supervisor pointed out that many aspects of the practice as described in the rollout training were things the unit had been doing all along. “We can do this,” he said. “In fact, you have been doing it all along, and those folks in Central Ofﬁce just ﬁgured it out. All we have to do is use their language and they’ll see your good work. And the ﬂex funds will actually be a good addition.” He used unit meeting time for staff members to share what they were learning and tell stories about how the new practice helped them better serve families and made their jobs easier. As staff members returned from training, he invited them to share what they had learned and how they were using it. New staff members entered the unit having been taught the new practice in new-worker training, and found the unit’s practices consistent with (and therefore reinforcing of) what they had learned. One worker didn’t like the new practice. He thought it was esoteric, airy-fairy, and soft on families. The supervisor helped him ﬁnd a job that was a better ﬁt for his approach to promoting child safety, and he left with honor. Within 2 years, the unit scored at a percentage of 98% implementation of the practice across all cases sampled by the evaluation team. Questions 1. What aspects of creating a learning organization culture were present in this example? 2. Would it have made a difference if the supervisor hadn’t handpicked his staff? What changes in approach might be used if the supervisor had a unit with a wider range of practice approaches and values? 3. Was it disloyal to the new practice to say, “This is what you’ve been doing all along?” Was it manipulative to workers to imply this when there were real changes expected as well? What would you have done? 4. What might have been the natural reaction to the worker who resisted? What might you have done? 5. Would the practice approach required have been different if more of the workers in the unit were brand new?

192

child welfare supervision

style with a high proportion of rewards to criticism will lead to a culture that supports innovation and change (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Such a coaching style allows child welfare workers the safety to exercise their criticalthinking skills and creativity and to try new behaviors. It promotes their self-efﬁcacy and awareness of the difference their work makes, which is a powerful antidote to burnout (Azar, 2000). A punitive or reactive coaching style in which mistakes are the only occasion for attention will lead to a fear-based culture (Ryan & Oestreich, 1998). In such a culture, child welfare workers will remain careful and reduce risks with routines and checklists. While consistency of core practices is important in child welfare, it is important to recognize and reward effective critical thinking. Child welfare work is not factory work, and a certain level of discretion is exercised with every family. Rewards for the effective and insightful use of this opportunity are a critical component of a learning organization. It is important to make certain that praise is genuine, accurate, and very speciﬁc. Workers will see through global general platitudes and will not be motivated by supervisory comments seen as insincere or inaccurate. In fact, workers may feel manipulated or unmotivated by praise that does not reﬂect a speciﬁc behavior or effort. As an example, recent research has demonstrated that praise such as “you are so bright” or “you are very creative” actually leads to lower performance. By contrast, praise such as “you obviously worked very hard in involving the parent in this case plan” rewards effort and not innate qualities. As such, in the next situation more effort is more likely to be forthcoming (Dweick, 2006). Another way to build a competent and learning organization culture is to develop a unit norm around ongoing training and development. There are many practical ways to do this. The most formal way is to send child welfare workers to trainings and conferences, which takes planning for case coverage and the willingness to work around the absent worker. However, the rewards back to the unit in terms of practice skill and staff loyalty are considerable. Including a supervisory conference before and after the training, during which a worker sets training goals and reports on learning, also increases the emphasis on learning as an activity important to the unit, as well aiding in the transfer of learning. Giving child welfare workers a taste of change is another way to build a learning environment. Let workers try something new in their practice or with an individual client ﬁrst. Allow experiments with individual workers or with the unit as a whole. The simplest model for change is “plan, do, study, act,” so that the planning process builds in the opportunity to stop to see what was learned and change the plan mid-course. In this approach, a supervisor may help the unit to identify an outcome that they are having difﬁculty in achieving. As an example, one unit noted that most of their youth in foster care were up to 3 years behind in their reading level. Rather than looking at major systems changes or complex partnerships with school districts, the supervisor asked the unit to focus on one youth and to plan an intervention that would increase his

Working in Changing Environments

193

reading level by at least one grade level in the next 6 months. Various strategies were brainstormed, several were considered, and a couple of approaches were selected to do. The workers wrote up their strategies and a brief summary of the steps they could implement. As the strategies progressed, their effectiveness and any unanticipated barriers were studied. As a result of this review, corrective actions were taken. Successes and challenges were documented. When the youth actually exceeded the goal for improved reading, the unit, with guidance from the supervisor, acted to try the approach with several other youth. This time, based on lessons learned in the ﬁrst round, many problems were avoided. As the “plan, do, study, act” process was expanded, the documentation provided an avenue for sharing this approach with other units for possible spread to the entire organization. Another example involves a child welfare agency that introduced a practice shift designed to improve family engagement and effectiveness of case plans by use of family meetings. Workers initially objected that they didn’t have time for meetings. A supervisor suggested that each worker in her unit try out the meeting with one case. At each unit meeting, she invited someone to share how their family planning meeting had gone. Workers shared stories of success and challenges. They shared their relief at having others involved in supporting child safety, and told stories of the elegance of the customized case plans that came out of the meetings. They talked honestly about their uncertainty and places where the meetings had not gone as well as they hoped, and the supervisor encouraged the workers to keep trying. She reminded them that these family meetings were new, and that it took time to learn any new practice well. As staff members discovered how to approach the meeting with different kinds of family situations, they began to coach one another as case issues arose and didn’t wait for the supervisor. Gradually, this unit became a model for others. Co-Designer and Change Initiator Much of this chapter has been written assuming that the supervisor is managing a change imposed by others, but that is not always the case. A child welfare supervisor can ﬁnd ways to be at the table designing agency change initiatives or collaborative community projects. Even though a supervisor may think he or she is too busy to participate in such extra task forces or workgroups, being involved is a good way to gain early information about changes that are going to happen and to inﬂuence changes in a direction that is informed by expertise. In other words, it may be worth the extra time to participate or assign staff members to participate in planning for changes under way. The supervisor and the unit may design change initiatives within their unit as well, and planning skills will beneﬁt such initiatives. For example, the unit may wish to take on new ways to assign workload, assign teams on cases, or conduct orientation of a new staff member. This proactive and

child welfare supervision

194

participatory approach can be empowering, inspiring a sense of self-efﬁcacy and pride in workers (Ryan & Oestreich, 1998). There is much that cannot be controlled at the line level. Research on retention shows that child welfare workers who have the experience of having some control over the design of changes that affect them are more likely to be engaged and to stay with the agency (Levy-Zlotnick, DePanﬁlis, Daining, & McDermott Lane, 2005; Rycraft, 1994; Withers, 2001). The value of learning to change is not just restricted to workers. To participate in and manage change effectively, it is useful for the supervisor to stay current on changing practice and stay informed about changes in evidence-based and promising practices to serve children and families. The informed supervisor can support the implementation of best practices or, equally important, modify planned implementation of ineffective practices (see Box 8.2). In the face of the demands of most supervisory workloads, the recommendation to stay on top of practice may not seem very realistic. Often the supervisor will stay behind and cover cases while sending workers to training. But there are practical ways to maintain exposure to the ﬁeld. These include attendance at trainings, workshops, and conferences; browsing research-to-practice Web sites; and subscribing to listservs that share new information. In areas with limited training dollars, a supervisor can set up cross-training opportunities with local agencies that possess specialized knowledge (such as culturally based knowledge, drug treatment, domestic violence, mental health, education, or developmental disabilities). Recent research (Collins-Camargo, 2007) shows the value of learning circles

Box 8.2

A Learning Organization

In one ongoing permanency planning unit, before the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), a supervisor held a meeting and enrolled workers in a team goal to get average time to permanency resolution down to 24 months. The supervisor invited the staff to brainstorm ideas on how to move children more quickly to permanency, and they implemented several of them over time. As staff members attended conferences and trainings (which the supervisor encouraged), they were invited to return to unit meetings and share ideas with colleagues. The supervisor used an Excel spreadsheet for tracking and aggregating case progress. Within 4 years, the unit had stabilized the average length of time to permanency (safe reuniﬁcation or termination of parental rights and adoption) at their goal of 24 months, and had implemented several innovative practices that became models for the ﬁeld. Questions • How does this example reﬂect the value of a learning organization to practice outcomes? • What did the supervisor do to engage team members in learning? • How did the supervisor shape the goal of the unit and motivate people to learn?

Working in Changing Environments

195

among supervisors to increase practice knowledge and the ability to lead the unit through change. The relationships established by exchanging knowledge about child welfare for other areas of expertise will pay off in stronger networks for implementation, a common vocabulary, and improved ability to negotiate related systems as they change. Gatekeeper Given the velocity and volume of changes coming at child welfare workers, it is inevitable that rumors will abound. Unsubstantiated rumors (such as those focusing on staff changes, loss of positions, program cuts, organizational changes, or new policies) can spread through the ofﬁce like a virus. Despite the fact that many are never fulﬁlled in reality, soon people are reacting to each one as “true.” Such rumors can be more destabilizing and anxiety promoting than the change itself will eventually prove to be. Rumors inspire fear, anxiety, and distraction from work, and, in general, promote a toxic environment. This can lead to burnout and staff turnover, as well as interfere with creativity, skill of service delivery, and willingness to experiment with new practices. The supervisor plays an important role as a gatekeeper of information. Communication through formal channels is often preceded by informal communication along secondary channels of relationship networks and word of mouth. While such informal communication can help in the preparation stage, rumor control is an important task for the supervisor in keeping the team centered and moving forward with the change. Upon returning from management meetings, the supervisor will make choices about whether to share the information just learned and what portion to share. It is useful to pass along some particulars to give the staff a chance to prepare for change and to provide clear, accurate information on what is true and what is unfounded. And it is not necessary to pass along information that is not yet certain. For example, rumors of staff cuts circulate through an agency on a fairly regular basis. Staff members worried about losing their jobs will not be able to devote their full energy to clients. If the rumors are not stopped, staff members will begin to seek work elsewhere as self-protection. This can be very destructive to the unit. It is as important to tell staff what changes are not happening as to introduce those under way in an empowering fashion. (For example, one of the authors saw an e-mail recently with the subject line, “Can we just stop making things up?”. It then provided accurate information about anticipated changes in stafﬁng and calmed down the buzz.) Builder of Engagement, Ownership, and Commitment Each unit, and each individual child welfare worker within the unit, is unique. Because the supervisor knows his or her workers well, the supervisor is in the best position in the agency to market the change by creating

196

child welfare supervision

a communications strategy to build commitment. The supervisor understands the values and pulse of the unit and worker and can select suitable engagement approaches and timing for each. Introducing change with a communication approach that promotes engagement of workers by building a sense of ownership, conﬁdence, and pride is most effective. Innovations research (Rogers, 1995; Senge, 1999, 2006; Smale, 1998) provides helpful insight on approaches to engage workers in the learning of a new practice. Some of these insights follow. Tell the truth about the challenge of change. Acknowledge that change is challenging, and that there will probably be additional pressure or confusion as the new practice or policy is implemented. Allow people to communicate what they feel. For example, a supervisor could say, “For a while, ‘til we get the bugs worked out, this new computer system is going to take more time, and it might even be more frustrating. But hang in there. Remember how we dealt with [the last change] and now it’s second nature.” Position the change within ongoing unit goals and strengths. Workers are more apt to adopt new practices when the practices are perceived as consistent with long-held values and call on skills the workers already have (Rogers, 1995). If workers see that they can bring current strengths to bear in the new practice, this will reduce the uncertainty that often underlies resistance. They will understand that the new practice is an opportunity to display their competence. For example, one supervisor was able to position a new change in this way: “This practice is what we’ve been doing all along, trying to build on strengths. It just gives us a speciﬁc new vocabulary to use, so let’s go ahead and do that, so what you already know is more visible.” Offer opportunities for low-risk trials, observation, and story telling. “Trialability” or “observability” is linked with engagement and adoption (Gladwell, 2000). An innovation is more likely to be implemented if the child welfare supervisor can offer workers the chance to try the innovative approach on one case ﬁrst (and debrief) before implementing it across the board. It also works to allow the child welfare worker the opportunity to observe someone else use it ﬁrst. Even hearing about others’ success with concrete examples through word of mouth is tied to implementation. All of these approaches give the child welfare worker a chance to experience the new practice with relatively low risk and therefore increase the chance a worker will adopt the practice down the road. As noted earlier, this approach is particularly important with the largest group of staff members—the “early and late adopters”—who are often experiential or relational learners. Give workers the chance to own or customize the practice. The new practice or policy may be captured in close detail in a manual or may consist of guiding principles with very little advice regarding application. In either case, the child welfare supervisor can engage workers more effectively by promoting the core features of the practice and then ﬁnding aspects of the model that the unit can customize. If the practice itself cannot be customized, at least workers can have a say in the process of implementation.

Working in Changing Environments

197

For example, the supervisor can engage workers in a discussion about where and how they would like training to take place, whether they’d like unit meeting time set aside for discussion, if they’d like to hear from a particular consultant, or how else they could approach the learning process. Debate and dialogue around customization is an effective means of engaging child welfare workers in owning the practice. In fact, Smale (1998) has stated that local reinvention is critical to the adoption process. He cited research on the adoption of innovation in a wide variety of organizations showing that adult learners do have to reinvent the wheel to be engaged in using it (p. 111). Monitor and reward. Implementation will go more smoothly if there are rewards for participation in the new practice. Concerted attention in supervision and mention of the new practice during unit meetings and in monitoring, accompanied by rewards, will work the best. For example, a supervisor can take one case and ask the staff person to explain how the new practice played out on that case. The respect of peers is a powerful and meaningful reward. Coach, Trainer, Educator Training and developing staff is the point of greatest access for managing change. Of the three roles of supervision in Kadushin’s (1974) classic work (educational, administrative, and supervisory), the educational role is the supervisor’s most important role in guiding the implementation of change. From formal education (such as supporting staff to attend training or bringing training to unit meetings) to hands-on coaching, the child welfare supervisor can inﬂuence child welfare workers as they try the new practice. Though ideal, it is rare for the child welfare supervisor to be able to directly observe practice. Occasionally it is possible to watch a worker present in court, to sit in on a family meeting, or to travel with a worker to visit a family. But direct observation is hard to maintain in the face of busy schedules, long travel distances, and multiple workers to supervise. In addition to direct observation, the supervisor can observe a child welfare worker’s process by reviewing written documentation and considering comments and responses in face-to-face consultation. The supervisor can identify particular aspects of the practice to listen for and coach as the worker reﬂects on the case. For example, one supervisor was working on a practice change towards greater client involvement in case planning. In case conferences, she always asked, “What does the family think about this plan? How were they involved in developing this plan?” Workers knew that the question was coming, and this began to shape behavior. Formal case review protocols can help at ﬁrst with a detailed practice; for example, the supervisor can go through a case with the child welfare worker with a checklist to see whether all aspects of the new practice are

198

child welfare supervision

present. Alternatively, selecting one aspect of the practice or policy to focus on for mastery can help. For example, the child welfare supervisor can review all cases for their use of a particular decision protocol or for the use of a particular line of questioning or planning. Asking open-ended questions to encourage worker reﬂection or to draw out particular aspects of the practice can also be helpful. For example, a particular new practice might call for asking, “What strengths did this family bring?” or “How will the child stay connected with relatives and extended kin in this placement?” or “What works for you to connect with the parent in this family?” Closed questions (“Did you do this? Did you do that?”) are helpful for monitoring and structuring, but do not encourage learning as much as open-ended questions. The supervisor is not the only person who can coach to change. Senior staff, local consultants, or peers with particular experience related to the change can be engaged in coaching others. It is not possible for a child welfare supervisor to have equal levels of competence in all practice. If a particular child welfare worker in the unit has developed expertise in a new practice, it can help to ask that worker to serve as a coach or mentor to peers or new workers. Bringing in an external coach for monthly unit supervision or case reﬂection and asking the training program to provide someone for in-house coaching are approaches that some supervisors have taken. Cross-training (exchanging training with a local agency) can be a way to develop interagency relationships and bring in new knowledge required for the new practice being implemented. Provider of Feedback and Advocacy to Agency The child welfare supervisor is in a powerful position—perhaps the most signiﬁcant in the agency—serving as the link between practice in the ﬁeld and management. Executives and ﬁeld managers see supervisors as key in achieving compliance with the desired change. But supervisors are also in the best position to understand what workers are learning about the change. They will have a day-to-day grasp of what is happening with clients and the real impact of the practice as it unfolds. The previous section discussed how the supervisor passes along, even “sells,” the new practice to workers on behalf of management. But it is also critical to examine the practice imperative of managing up—getting feedback from workers’ experience with implementation up to management (Badowski & Gittines, 2003). Managing up starts with collecting information regarding the change. Encourage workers to document their successes and any challenges they have in implementing the practice, listing barriers the supervisor or management could address. Collect information from child welfare workers on how the change is unfolding. What’s working? What isn’t? Provide a summary of the patterns that emerge to the manager. If there are signiﬁcant barriers to implementation, such as lack of time, need for concrete resources, or pieces of the practice that need to be

Working in Changing Environments

199

redesigned, management needs to know what these are so they can address them. However, sometimes an individual supervisor’s feedback to management can be viewed as disruptive or disloyal. To increase effectiveness in communicating information from the ﬁeld, supervisors may wish to join forces and combine what they have learned about the change under way, or they may wish to ask for a meeting or use a supervisors meeting to hold a dialogue. Not all feedback will produce immediate results. In fact, some feedback can inspire defensiveness (Smale, 1998), but passing feedback along is the ethical thing to do. Agency change can take a long time. Results from such feedback may come about further down the road than expected. CONCLUSION The pace of change in child welfare is likely to continue to accelerate. New practice research, new crises with children, and new leadership will continue to stimulate the demand for change. The fast pace of change can be daunting and a source of stress, discomfort, and burnout, with the worker never feeling quite competent. With appropriate supervisory guidance, however, each new change can be a source of new resources and expanded sense of meaning and learning for the staff. The child welfare supervisor is key to managing the reaction to any change so that it will beneﬁt clients and work effectively for the agency. No matter how chaotic the larger agency may seem to be, it is possible for the supervisor to create a positive “micro-climate” in which workers are safe enough to learn, change, grow, and get on with the business of serving children. Just as child welfare is in the business of individual and family change, a child welfare supervisor can develop knowledge and mastery to manage the dynamics of organizational change and help his or her team of workers do the same. Change does not have to be debilitating; it can be a source of pride and increasing effectiveness. This chapter describes stages of change, using a variety of models and ﬁnding the commonality among them. With some grounding in the pattern by which the change is likely to unfold, a supervisor can predict behavior at each stage and reduce uncertainty for staff members. A variety of skills and approaches appropriate to each kind of change, each stage of change, and the range of types of staff members have been discussed. The supervisor who develops skills appropriate for each stage and each worker can help the unit stay on an even keel and grow stronger through the storms of change. Child welfare supervision is both an art and a science. Mastery of what Senge calls “the dance of change” in his 1999 book by that title will provide balance and stability for the child welfare supervisor and the work unit. In this way, the supervisor can best support workers in keeping their eye on the real prize: a safe permanent home for every child in our care.

200

child welfare supervision REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. What kinds of changes are most challenging for you? For workers in your unit? 2. Consider a recent change in your ofﬁce. What stage of change best describes this situation? 3. Think of your unit. What are the roles individuals typically assume when addressing a change? What strategies can you employ with each person to move them along in the change process? 4. How do you manage the “dance of change”? PRACTICAL WEB AND PRINT RESOURCES

• The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/tta/nrc/ ncwrcoi.htm) strengthens and supports state and tribal agencies committed to the welfare of children, youth, and families through training, technical assistance, and evaluation. The aim is to improve management and operations, bolster organizational capacity, promote service integration, and develop supervisory and management systems, resulting in improved outcomes for children and families. • Annie E. Casey Foundation (http://www.aecf.org/) offers ﬁnancial support through grants, as well as technical assistance through strategic consulting and other partnerships, for systems change in child welfare and beyond. • Casey Family Programs (http://www.casey.org/Home) has a series of initiatives as well as resources designed to promote strategic change in child welfare. • The Change Book and The Change Book Workbook (http://www .nattc.org/resPubs/changeBook.html) offer easy-to-understand information about managing change. Developed for the ﬁeld of addictions, the book has wide applicability to other systems and is available at no cost on the Web or by order from the Addiction Technology Transfer Network, part of the Federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). It is also available in Spanish. • Servant Leadership (http://www.greenleaf.org/) is an organization based on the works of Robert Greenleaf, who coined the term “servant leadership,” an afﬁrming model for those who have chosen a public service career in child welfare. • Society for Organizational Learning (http://www.solonline .org/). Peter Senge and others have written two accessible, useful handbooks on change, which are listed under References at the end of this chapter. This Web page shares core concepts from their approach to change.

Working in Changing Environments

201

• “Rethinking Child Welfare Practice Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, November 2000. Available from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect (www.calib.com/ nccanch.)

REFERENCES

Altshuler, A., & Benn, R. (1997). Innovation in American government: Challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ayers-Lopez, S., & McCrory, J. (2004). Fostering personal, client, and family resilience, parts I & II. Protection Connection, 11(3/4). Azar, S. T. (2000). Preventing burnout in professionals and paraprofessionals who work with child abuse and neglect cases: A cognitive behavioral approach to supervision. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56, 643–663. Badowski, R., & Gittines, R. (2003). Managing up: How to forge an effective relationship with those above you. New York: Doubleday. Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1988). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row. Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group. Cahn, K. (2003). Getting there from here: Variables associated with the adoption of innovation in child welfare. Unpublished dissertation, Portland State University, School of Social Work. Collins-Camargo, C. (2007, April). Evidence-based practice in CPS supervision. Presentation at the 15th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Portland, Oregon. Conner, D. R., & Patterson, R. B. (1982). Building commitment to organizational change. Training and Development Journal, 36(4), 18–30. Drake, B. (1999, May). The role of supervisors in transfer of learning. Presentation at the Third Annual National Human Services Training Evaluation Symposium, sponsored by the California Social Work Education Consortium, Berkeley, California. Dweick, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House. Gardenswartz, L., & Rowe, A. (1998). Managing diversity: A complete desk reference and planning guide (Rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401–421. Hagedorn, J. M. (1995). Forsaking our children: Bureaucracy and reform in the child welfare system. Chicago: Lakeview Press.

202

child welfare supervision

Kadushin. A. (1974). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kanter, R. M. (1985). Change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. London: Allan and Unwin. Kanter, R. M. (1989). When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenges of strategy, management, and careers in the 1990s. New York: Simon and Schuster. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Levy-Zlotnick, J., DePanﬁlis, D., Daining, C., & McDermott Lane, M. (2005, June). Factors inﬂuencing retention of child welfare staff: A systematic review of research. Report from the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research, Washington, DC. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. Light, P. C. (1998). Sustaining innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Reardon, K., Reardon, K., & Rowe, A. (1998). Leadership styles for the ﬁve stages of radical change. Acquisition Review Quarterly, 131–145. Resnick, H., & Patti, R. (Eds.). (1980). Change from within: Humanizing social welfare organizations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Ryan, K. D., & Oestreich, D. K. (1998). Driving fear out of the workplace: Creating the high-trust, high-performance organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rycraft, J. R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39, 75–80. Saleebey, D. (1992). The strengths perspective in social work practice. White Plains, NY: Longman. Samantrai, K. (1992). Factors in the decision to leave: Retaining social workers with MSWs in child welfare. Social Work, 37(5), 454–458. Senge, P. (1990, 2006). The ﬁfth discipline (Rev. ed.). New York: Doubleday. Senge, P. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday. Smale, G. (1998) Managing change through innovation. London: The Stationery Ofﬁce. Smith, P. B., & Peterson, M. F. (1988). Leadership as the management of meaning. Chapter 8 in Leadership, Organizations, and Culture. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Vaill, J. (1996). Learning as a way of being: Strategies for survival in a world of permanent whitewater. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Velasquez, M. M. (2004). The change book: A blueprint for technology transfer [Electronic version]. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from SAMSHA’s Addiction Technology Transfer Center Network: http://www.nattc.org/ resPubs/changeBook.html Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications. Withers, P. (2001). Retention strategies that respond to worker values [Electronic version]. Workforce, 80(7), 36–43.

9 BEYOND THE QUESTION OF COLOR Diversity Issues in Child Welfare Supervision D EBORA M. O RTEGA & D EBRA A. M IXON M ITCHELL

iscussions about diversity issues in supervision occur in a variety of D child welfare arenas. Diversity in child welfare most often refers to culturally responsive services delivered by workers when engaging families of color or the need for a diverse workforce. This chapter focuses on a third area that tends to receive less attention, which is the presence of complex inter- and intracultural processes that occur in the supervisory relationship. These processes include communication styles, expectations, dynamics of power, and roles. The processes are inﬂuenced by organizational values, community values, and individual experience. In addition, the context of child welfare, which is fraught with high levels of stress, short timelines, and the possibility of hostility at multiple levels, further increases the stakes in an already high-stakes social service environment. This chapter will make a case for the value of a diverse workforce, highlight communication frameworks for individual and group supervision, and provide best-practice examples for effective supervision with diverse workers and work groups. While entire books have been written about aspects of diversity in child welfare practice (Everett, Chipungu, & Leashore, 2004; Thoburn, Chand, & Procter, 2004), this chapter speciﬁcally addresses the supervisor–supervisee relationship (see Box 9.1). 203

child welfare supervision

204

Box 9.1

Reﬂection 1

Sitting at my desk waiting to conduct my ﬁrst supervisory session as a new supervisor, I experience a momentary surge of anxiety. In an instant I am not only questioning my own abilities to provide good clinical supervision but am also wondering whether I have the competence to respond to the diverse needs of my staff, as well as the clients they serve. Speciﬁcally, I wonder how my staff members (who are white) will respond to me as an African-American woman. How will such differences in raceand ethnicity, age, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation impact the supervisor–supervisee interaction, development of relationships, and, ultimately, case outcomes? (A worker later revealed to me that she secretly wondered how my being African American might inﬂuence my style of supervision and whether she would be responsive to it). It is at this moment that the weight of my responsibilities as a supervisor feels massive, and rightfully so. Source: Debra Mixon.

PROMOTING DIVERSITY IN THE WORK PLACE: THE ROLE OF MULTICULTURALISM Like most institutions, child welfare organizations are founded on policies that are a result of social norms, cultural (in this case, American) values, and beliefs. As such, child welfare policies and practice have historically been inﬂuenced by at least three multicultural values orientations: conservative, liberal, and pluralistic. These orientations cannot be placed on a time continuum, but rather are interwoven throughout policies that guide modern child welfare professional practice. For instance, conservative values–based multiculturalism views American values as the value system. Poor children and non-white children are culturally deprived and this deprivation is the basis for their plight in life (i.e., poverty and involvement in the child welfare system) (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997). Culture is not “whitewashed” from people of color but rather exorcized, like a spirit of possession. This conservative approach to diversity echoes the melting-pot approach to culturally and ethnically different groups. While in most circles, polite company is aware that the melting pot is passé, these long-standing beliefs continue to inﬂuence (albeit to varying degrees) our approach to policy and practice. The most poignant example of a conservative-values approach is the federal policy that coerced and recruited Native children to federally run off-reservation boarding schools, beginning in the late 1800s. The goals of this policy were to civilize Indian people by forbidding the use of native language, dress, and religious practices and exposure to other tribal and cultural customs and values (Lomawaima, 1993). Another more current example is the placement of young Spanishspeaking children in the early stages of language development in monolanguage, English-speaking foster homes. A consequence of this practice was the Illinois class action lawsuit Burgos v. Suter (1977), which resulted

Beyond the Question of Color

205

in state mandates changing infrastructures, policies, and practice to ensure language access for Hispanic families (Mezey, 1998; Suleiman, 2003). Liberal values–based multiculturalism approaches diversity from a belief that there is shared connection between people of different racial, class, and gender groups, based on a shared humanity. The concept of color blindness is commonly associated with this approach. It most often reveals itself when a person expresses the following: “I accept everyone and I do not see people’s color, I see everyone as the same.” Economic and social inequity is understood to occur because of lack of education and of social opportunities (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997). The policy that predominantly exempliﬁes liberal multiculturalism in child welfare is the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994. In 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Ofﬁce (U.S. GAO, 1998) reported that that 60% of children in foster care were ethnic minorities, many of whom waited twice as long for permanent placement as white children. In reaction to this overrepresentation and, as some have argued, a shortage of white adoptable children, regulations that favored placements based on a race match between foster children and foster and adoptive parents were prohibited. In short, MEPA prohibited any state from delaying or denying placements, in an attempt to match the race of the child to prospective foster or adoptive parents. MEPA also required states to engage in diligent recruitment of foster parents of color. Essentially, this particular policy, and the resulting child welfare practices, legitimizes the belief that race and culture are not signiﬁcant for children in foster care. In other words, the difference between an African-American and a white foster parent raising an African-American child is not important to the child’s well-being, nor does an African-American family add value to the child’s overall experience in a predominately white world. Several articles address the history and controversy behind MEPA (e.g., Carter-Black, 2002; de Haymes & Simon, 2003; McRoy, Mica, Freundlich, & Kroll, 2007); space prohibits a more detailed discussion of these complex issues here. Sufﬁce it to say that the solution to overrepresentation of children of color in child welfare did not include an examination of the structural, societal, and economic barriers impeding adults of color from engaging in the provision of substitute care. Nor did it provide any ﬁnancial investment to engage in a funded recruitment plan to increase the number of diverse foster parents. In addition, solutions did not include a review of system policy and practices that created an overrepresentation of poor children who, more often than not, are children of color. Pluralist values–based multiculturalism moves from color blindness to a celebration of diversity. In this model, diversity can be seen as adding to social currency. Being diverse is valuable, not everyone has it, and, as such, it is exotic (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1997). Historically, schools of social work and diversity training programs have used this approach as their sole mechanism to expose learners to culturally enriching activities whose content reﬂects curriculum on the knowledge, values, and beliefs of speciﬁc

206

child welfare supervision

cultural groups. The intention of this cultural-tourism approach is to expose and build empathy in students toward people with whom they have limited or no exposure. Current child welfare practice provides a plethora of examples rooted in this values approach. Most frequently, this occurs in cultural-competence training (which both authors have designed and/or delivered). The intent of this approach in training is to provide basic knowledge and promote joint understanding—a place from which to start—in addressing issues for families (birth, foster, and adoptive) of color. Most often, training becomes bogged down in goals about knowledge acquisition and perhaps attitude change. Training goals often fall short of demonstrating a change in practice or workers understanding the inﬂuences of their own power and privilege on the structural inequalities for clients who have historically experienced oppression. Other examples of the celebrate-diversity approach to understanding culture include cultural fairs, recruitment policies that focus on diversity hiring (without real thought about the integration of diverse people into predominately white systems), and supervisors using workers of color as experts on the cultural group they most resemble. All three of these values approaches, conservative, liberal, and pluralistic, avoid addressing structural inequality. They reduce race to a celebration with the ethnic food of the month. There are many problems associated with this lack of critical evaluation of consequences of these approaches in maintaining an inequitable system of power. Sadly, solving the problems of social inequity is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, this chapter will propose a fourth alternative framework, critical multiculturalism, as a values approach with which to frame supervisor–supervisee interactions. Implementing critical multiculturalism in child welfare requires a complete paradigm shift. Critical multiculturalism, by deﬁnition, is transformative and inclusive of multiple voices and perspectives, and encourages an understanding at all levels of the social economic and political forces that shape the lives of workers and clients. This type of shift requires an evaluation of the use (and misuse) of power, understanding of the effects of monocultural laws and policies, intervention in aspects of the system that penalize families for their status (i.e., poor, undereducated, diverse), and change in discriminatory practices while engaging the family in creating safe and supportive environments for children. While all of this is unlikely to happen in the near future, the supervisor–supervisory relationship is one area that can be inﬂuenced and, as a result, improved by the use of practices informed by critical multiculturalism. An example of a child welfare intervention that reﬂects in its purest form elements of critical multiculturalism is family unity meetings (the precursor to family group conferencing), as practiced in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Family group conferencing was designed on the basis of incorporation of Maori cultural values and cosmology (Love, 2000). One of the ingrained values brought to family unity meetings was the Maori

Beyond the Question of Color

207

sense of unity (as in oneness and wholeness) and that no member of the whole is dispensable. Family unity meetings created the potential for a shift that reﬂects the transformative process inherent in a critical multicultural paradigm. This was accomplished by ﬁrst providing a sanctioned space for the “gathering of people” (hui) to express their thoughts, feeling, and concerns for the disruption to the wholeness (the family unit as deﬁned by the family) (Love, 2000). Second, the gathering provided an opportunity for the hui to recognize strengths and work toward rebuilding the wholeness. Finally, the focus of the gathering was not on the professionals; in fact, in its purest form, professionals were excluded from the decision-making (planning) process. Family unity meetings were brought to Multnomah County, Oregon, in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Even as the process was transplanted from New Zealand it began to morph and mold, limiting (if not silencing) some of the diverse voices brought by the families to those ﬁrst Maori family meetings. The monocultural structure began to impose its own dominating system so that some of the most important features of the meetings were diluted, indicating a lack of trust in the families (and the hui), who represented ethnic, cultural, gender, and socioeconomic differences. Despite this setback, for one of the authors (Deb Ortega), participating in some of those very ﬁrst family unity meetings, prior to their regional adoption by the child welfare agency, was one of the most powerful experiences in her career as a social worker. Defeated families discovered hope that their families could be reunited into a loving, successful, and supported unit. The families heard their names associated with strength and desirable characteristics, often for the ﬁrst time. Parents (birth, adoptive, and foster) heard that their families had value and worth. The responsibility for the breakdown in the case was assigned not only to the families but also to other key players (i.e., workers whose caseload interfered with returning phone calls quickly and therapists who did not complete assessment in a timely fashion). The families had a support network, of their choosing, to help them address problems in their family. Most importantly, in the end, because the participants reﬂected the family hui, the family’s plan included issues and resulting solutions that reﬂected each individual family, support from the family’s selected support system, and the ofﬁcial sanction of professionals. The responsibility and power shift that occurred in those ﬁrst family unity meetings was palpable. The idea that the deﬁnition of family can extend beyond the nuclear family to include extended and chosen family members is somewhat counter to American cultural values of individualism, competition, and the primacy of the nuclear family. While the family unity meeting model was susceptible to change because of the culture it was transplanted into (American), the components that remained unchanged continued to create an opportunity for diverse voices to be heard in a respectful manner. Perhaps because the value of individualism is so strong in American culture, the Maori values imbedded in family unity meetings were destined to

208

child welfare supervision

shift or be lost. We therefore cannot expect to transplant wholly the interventions from other cultures without them undergoing inﬂuence from our own cultural values. It is not a surprise that as this approach was adopted nationally the word unity, and the meaning associated with it, dropped from its title. Regardless of the co-opting of and changes to the original model, family unity/group conferencing continues to be a useful tool and creates the possibility of creating a web of support for families whose safety net consists of more holes then net. Similarly, values and contextual-based approaches to supervising workers can move workers beyond reductionist thinking. While the American system could beneﬁt from internalizing cultural values from indigenous groups that reﬂect a sense of collective responsibility, it is probably too much to ask that child welfare professionals adopt a sense of Maori unity with families and communities. It is nonetheless important to understand the children whom we serve in a larger context. Often child welfare professionals are reduced to thinking about their clients in a decontextualized environment. Therefore, when faced with a Latino male adolescent, for example, who is not attending school, the understanding is that this is a particular youth’s or his family’s (or even perhaps just the worker’s) “problem.” When workers understand this youth’s experience in the context of national, state, and local graduation rates and school funding, the problem of school dropout becomes more than the client’s personal failing. School dropout rates can be as high as 80% for Latino males in some areas of the country (Mitchell & Hubbard, 2007). The question then becomes, “What are the reasons for Latino dropout rates being so high?” This question allows workers’ knowledge, attitudes (and possible biases), and beliefs to surface. For instance, supervisors may be surprised to ﬁnd the following answers among the reasons given by workers: Latino parents do not care about education; the youth is lazy; the parents have poor parenting skills; they live in a culture of poverty; their parents do not support the use of English at home (Martinez, DeGarmo, & Eddy, 2004; Rodriguez, 2004; Saracho & MartinezHancock, 2004; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004). These reasons are based on stereotypes and not supported by research ﬁndings (Pew Hispanic Center, 2004). Understanding the Latino school dropout from a systemic viewpoint means that workers can validate youths’ experience in a poorly funded school, acknowledge racist events and biased attitudes toward Latino families, and create case plans that support youth to remain in schools that connect with their realities. Finally, the most important feature of the family unity meeting is the environment that creates or reinforces a sense of community for families. In family unity meetings, the environment is one of respect, which is set explicitly within the ﬁrst 5 minutes of the meeting. In addition, facilitators model respectful behavior and are clear about the goals of the meeting. For most families, this sense of respect allows them to address and solve

Beyond the Question of Color

209

difﬁcult problems. Likewise, the workplace is a community, and supervisors are responsible for the environment created in this community. The supervisor is responsible for creating a climate where workers are clear about the agency’s beliefs, and about the values and meaning in the organization’s mission, goals, and objectives. In this context, climate refers to the shared perception of how the organization operates (Agarwal & Malloy, 1999). The supervisor can inﬂuence the workers’ perception. If this is thoughtfully done with intentionality, the supervisor can create a respectful, open climate with the support of, or despite, the agency culture. At this point in the chapter the reader may be intrigued to know why the authors would continue to discuss macro- and mezzo-level practices and policies in a supervision book. Often it is easier to view those practices that reside outside of us in order to understand the underlying values and implications of these practices. In other words, it is easier to point a ﬁnger at the system to ﬁrst understand the inﬂuences of conservative, liberal, pluralistic, and, possibly, critical multicultural approaches on practice. The more difﬁcult exercise is to recognize the inﬂuences of these values in our work, because so often we are our work. CREATING CLIMATE IN A DIVERSE WORKPLACE Difference is always present in child welfare, yet it is often an absent topic from the supervisory relationship (Burkard et al., 2006). It is the proverbial elephant in the living room. Supervisors have taken a colorblind approach to supervision, focusing on case issues in a manner devoid of some of the more poignant features of the key players (judge, guardian ad litum, supervisor, worker, foster parents, and families). At a recent presentation describing critical multicultural approaches in education, Dr. Maria Salazar, University of Denver College of Education, said, “I don’t want (teachers) to be color blind; being color blind means that they are erasing essential parts of who I am, my identity” (personal communication, October 6, 2007). Likewise, erasing difference from the supervisor–supervisee relationship leaves all participants “unacceptably vulnerable” (Banks, 2001, p. 421). Clearly, when supervisory units have members who are from ethnically and racially diverse groups, the principles of culturally respective practice would apply to the supervisors engaging their diverse workers. Just as the supervisor expects that workers have a working knowledge of the diverse cultural values of their families and apply appropriate practice approaches, so too should the supervisor address how these values come into play in supervising their workers (see Box 9.2). For instance, for Latino workers, values such as respect, “personalism” (a sense of collectivity and honor), and family will be a part of their professional identity. Supervisors may be deceiving themselves if they associate their workers’ connection to their culture as being based on generations residing in the United States and English language facility. Acculturation is a dense and complex topic that cannot be addressed in this chapter;

child welfare supervision

210

Box 9.2

Reﬂection 2

I further consider whether my white peers encounter similar anxieties when faced with the supervision of staff whose culture differs from their own. For instance, do supervisors who are members of socially dominant groups fret about how to respond when the professional values of a marginalized staff person conﬂicts with those of the supervisor or the agency? Do such supervisors experience apprehension when considering how to support and educate culturally diverse staff in a work setting (institutional and community) that may at times discount or demean not only the worker but also the community that the worker represents? Source: Debra Mixon.

sufﬁce it to say that the markers of culture that are in one’s life or social interactions can operate even though the worker may appear to be “acculturated.” As a supervisor, one may appear brilliant in one’s knowledge and skills for educating staff about child welfare work processes. Many supervisors ﬁnd themselves in supervisory roles because of their talent as caseworkers. However, when confronted with the supervision of culturally diverse staff, a child welfare supervisor may be seriously ill prepared. The lack of preparation is not a surprise, given the nature of training about diversity (as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter) in child welfare. Being illequipped to manage diverse workers with diverse needs then becomes the norm of practice across the child welfare agency. Caseworkers rely on their supervisor to provide quality consultation regarding the assessment, decision making, planning, monitoring, and service intervention that relates to each case. A supervisor also plays a prominent role in helping staff to experience professional development and competence as a child welfare worker. The ability of the supervisee to build a productive relationship with his or her supervisor can be difﬁcult given the demands and pressures inherent in the child welfare profession. Further, the supervisory relationship can be particularly challenging to navigate when the interaction involves the intersection of cultural difference. Child welfare supervisors manage teams or units of staff that replicate features common to groups in general. These teams or groups establish their own norms, values, rituals, and acceptable consequences (see, e.g., Parker, 1996). Communication (verbal and nonverbal) is a strong tool used to enforce and reinforce group norms. Through communication information is exchanged, meaning is assigned, and messages are encoded and decoded (Gudykunst, 2005; Hall, 2002; Ulrey & Amason, 2001). A common culture can be the unifying factor—the dictionary of sorts—that provides the basis for shared interpretation or meaning (Hall, 2002). Common culture can reﬂect a work context (child welfare), a profession (social work), race or ethnicity, or even a family. These are ways that experiences and language unite to assist in interpreting meaning in roughly the same way (Hall, 2002). For the worker, the context in which

Beyond the Question of Color

211

the department’s and the supervisor’s values are transmitted is mainly individual and group supervision. Thus, the supervisory relationship is of profound importance to the caseworker’s ability to gain competence as a service provider, and effective communication is the foundation of a good supervisor–supervisee relationship. Differences in communication style can result from differences in cultures, gender, socioeconomic levels, and role within the department or agency. Each of these characteristics also contains dynamics of power and privilege. As such, in any given interaction between a supervisor and supervisee, some voices are more valued (in-group) than others (out-group). The value assigned can result from the legitimized voice having the right accent, vocabulary, information, societal or institutional authority, or any combination of the above. Thus, the power and privilege inherent in the hierarchically structured supervisor–supervisee relationship can position the supervisor as the in-group member (within the managerial system) and the supervisee as the out-group member (external to the managerial system). The supervisee may also be relegated to out-group status by virtue of his or her gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Multidimensional imbalances in power and position can leave the supervisee marginalized in their team and the social service agency. When child welfare workers interact within the context of the agency or unit, they are involved in an intercultural communication event, given the broad deﬁnition of culture. Differences in culture, deﬁned as a combination of contextual identiﬁcations, representations, and relationships in which interactants are speaking, acting, and producing (Collier, 2005), converge, providing opportunities for individual and departmental achievements. Intercultural communication is a symbolic process in which people from different cultures create shared meanings (Lustig & Koester, 1999). Divergent understanding is common in intercultural interactions, since attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, and behavior often differ among the interactants, resulting in tension and anxiety (Gudykunst, 2005). While a moderate level of anxiety generates excitement for the interaction, too much anxiety or tension is overwhelming and requires the individual to seek some form of relief. Too often this comes in the form of defenses, such as basing actions on simplistic or stereotypical perceptions, withdrawal from the interaction, or hostility (Samovar & Porter, 1997). Thus, basic understanding of how cultural difference can impact communication is critical knowledge for the supervisor who strives to be more culturally competent. CULTURAL DIFFERENCE AND THE SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP Effective communication is fundamental to a successful supervisory relationship. When a supervisor and supervisee are culturally different, communications that occur between the two can produce divergent and,

212

child welfare supervision

at times, conﬂicting perceptions and interpretations resulting in miscommunication. Each interactant may conclude that he or she was either not heard or was misunderstood, creating stress in the interaction. In highly stressed times, communication is more than unproductive but counterproductive. Speciﬁcally, when the supervisor lacks the knowledge, skills, or desire needed to adjust his or her communication to evoke a more positive response, intercultural interaction can be fraught with frustration, tension, anger, and anxiety (Gudykunst, 2005). Miscommunication is part of the human condition, especially in high-stakes environments such as child welfare. Thus, to promote professional growth for both the supervisor and his or her staff, and to enhance the competent delivery of services, supervisors must develop effective skills for communicating with diverse individuals and groups. The skilled supervisor is not someone whose communication is perfect. Instead, the skilled supervisor has miscommunication events that he or she fully attends to, by making modiﬁcations as needed to promote effective communication, rather than permitting communication faux pas to become embedded patterns of ineffective communications. In addition, the skilled supervisor works to silence internal communications that are based on distorted generalizations that can hinder effective intercultural communication. In doing so, the supervisor can communicate more successfully with individual workers and a group of workers, eliciting information appropriately and conveying respect to those who are involved. It is the responsibility of supervisors to provide an environment that evokes communication from diverse staff members and thereby results in a more comprehensive collection of information that enhances the attainment of case and agency goals. Thus, the supervisor and supervisee’s communication behaviors are an important area of focus when striving to understanding and manage an intercultural supervisory interaction (see Case Example 9.1). Communication behaviors are not only overtly observable, external actions and reactions but also covert, internal actions and reactions (Kim, 2005). Another area of focus is the historical and current context as it relates to the impact each may have on the intercultural communication occuring between the supervisor and supervisee. Co-cultural communication theory, as described by Orbe (1995), provides a framework for understanding the ways in which marginalized, outsider, or co-cultural group members communicate in dominant societal structures. The theory focuses on the communication experience from the perspective of the marginalized or co-cultural group member in an effort to understand how nondominant group persons adapt communication when interacting in social systems with dominant group members. This may assist us in understanding the interactions commonly observed in intercultural supervisory interactions but from the nondominant perspective, which is seldom discussed. The theory is based on two assumptions. First, reality is a subjective social construction; that is to say, reality reﬂects a human perception.

Beyond the Question of Color Case Example 9.1

213

Communication

The caseworker, a lesbian, has been working with a 15-year-old male. The youth reports that he is growing increasingly depressed over derogatory remarks made by residents in the group home in which he resides about his sexual orientation. The youngster conﬁdes to his worker that he suspects that he might be gay but is uncertain. The worker tells the supervisor that she would like to refer the youth to a highly regarded therapist in the GLBTQ community, but the supervisor disagrees, saying the youth appears confused. The supervisor expresses concern that counseling with a gay or lesbian therapist will reﬂect a bias in support of a gay sexual orientation that may further confuse the youth. Instead, the supervisor instructs the caseworker to secure a regular therapist for the youngster to provide him with a neutral venue in which to explore his identity. The caseworker expresses insult by the supervisors’ reference to a “regular” therapist, as well as disagreement with the notion that counseling provided by someone from the GLBTQ community would inherently be biased. The supervisor responds by expressing concern that the worker is being overly sensitive, perhaps to the point of countertransference. The frustration, tension, and anxiety are evident by the time this supervisor and caseworker conclude their interaction with one another. As stated earlier, when anxiety increases during intercultural communication, the coping strategies for reducing anxiety and resolving communication issues may decrease, leading to people interrupting one another, a dismissal by the empowered communicant of the dissenting voice, or steps taken by either person to prematurely end the conversation. We can see why both the supervisor and caseworker in this scenario may quickly take steps to prematurely end the conversation before the situation escalates into an angry exchange. The language used by the supervisor reﬂects stereotyping and the imposition of a dominant version of reality that dismisses the worker’s perception as implausible and may in turn silence the worker. As a result, ineffective communication may prevail, ultimately compromising the quality of intervention for the client. To salvage this communication event, it is important that the supervisor do the following. First, after allowing time for tempers to calm, the supervisor should attempt to engage the caseworker in a private dialogue, acknowledging that he or she may have made statements that were hurtful or insulting. Explain that that was not the intent and that there is a desire to resolve any miscommunication. The supervisor must then prepare to engage in communication that reﬂects mindfulness. Rather than communicating from a position of “automatic pilot” in which old schemata or frames of reference for understanding are consulted and used as a means of interpreting behavior, the supervisor must employ communication that includes attentive listening that allows him or her to receive new information from the caseworker, interpret it from the caseworker’s perspective, and respond respectfully. Thus, the supervisor listens in an effort to seek additional information from the caseworker that relates to the point(s) of contention or misunderstanding and leads to improved understanding and a sense of appreciation of the caseworker’s point of view. The underrepresented caseworker, who feels heard and understood, is thereby validated.

Perception, while real to the perceiver, is not necessarily “the truth” but, rather, a truth. Consequently, each interactant constructs a representation of his or her reality that is subjective and inﬂuenced by his or her own historical and present cultural context. The second assumption of co-cultural communication theory contends that a marginalized group member chooses a communication

214

child welfare supervision

approach that is most apt to achieve the outcome the individual desires. Efforts to adapt or adjust an intercultural communication event are essentially coping strategies adopted by those who view themselves as outsiders, to gain desired outcomes. For instance, a child welfare worker uses one style of communication for court testimony to achieve the desired outcome of having his or her recommendations accepted by the judge. The same worker may employ a different style among his or her colleagues at an after-work party where issues of status and positioning are not important. Child welfare workers at all levels of power and privilege use strategies designed to gain the desired outcome in their professional and personal lives. The degree or frequency with which adaptation of communication style must occur to gain an outcome is inﬂuenced by one’s marginalized status. Supporting the Outsider Who Is Within The primary tool the supervisor has to address intercultural communication is through individual and group supervision. Ironically, this most important tool is often the ﬁrst to be given up to seemingly more important meetings, events, and crises. The improvement of communication skills between the supervisor and worker, among workers, or in the child welfare unit is based on a foundation of engagement and relationship. The best environment in which to develop the supervisor–worker relationship is in a dedicated supervision time. The supervisor–worker relationship is the vehicle that communicates that good child welfare work is supported and rewarded. The quality of this professional relationship creates an opportunity for the growth of the supervisor and the worker. When a strong and trusting relationship is developed between the supervisor and worker, the intercultural communication events can weather communication errors. Workers, in truth, do not work for an organization; they work for a supervisor. Steps for Achieving Effective Intercultural Communication When an interaction between a supervisor and supervisee involves intercultural communication, the awareness of racial or cultural difference results in a sense of anxiety from feeling uneasy, tense, worried, or apprehensive about what might occur during the interaction (Gudykunst, 2005). Anxiety may display itself in a minor way, such as not being “tunedin” to the conversation at hand, ﬁnishing other’s sentences to speed up the conversation, or rushing the conversation. As anxiety increases, coping strategies to reduce anxiety and resolve communication issues might increase, leading to interrupting, dismissing of a dissenting voice, or prematurely ending a conversation. These strategies are not only used by the supervisor but also by the worker. The supervisor, by the nature of their role, bears the weight of understanding and intervening in these problematic communication events as well as assisting with managing the anxiety.

Beyond the Question of Color

215

The ﬁrst step to achieving effective communication is to recognize differences in communication styles used by interactants. One’s style of acquiring and delivering information is profoundly impacted by one’s cultural upbringing. Communication style includes verbal and nonverbal communication. It plays a major role in how effectively shared interpretations occur. Communicators who rely on contextual factors to convey and gain meaning are referred to as high-context communicators. This style of communication reﬂects a more indirect approach in which the communicator’s true intentions, needs, wants, and desires are disguised (Martin & Nakayama, 2004). Conversely, those who rely on explicit language to convey and extract meaning are said to have a direct style of communicating and are referred to as low-context communicators (Martin & Nakayama, 2004). For example, a worker of color may sit in a unit or team meeting with his or her colleagues and maintain silence. The colleagues might assume that the worker lacks an opinion regarding the matter discussed or lacks the conﬁdence to express a point of view. In fact, the worker’s silence may communicate quite clearly, to those who know the worker’s style, that he or she holds a dissenting opinion but is choosing silence to maintain harmony within the unit. The second step in managing communication is to recognize patterns that silence or inhibit the exchange of ideas. Ineffective patterns of interaction can be recognized by being cognizant of, and taking time to analyze, unproductive communication events. In recognizing the communication events that consistently frustrate interactants or result in unexpected negative outcomes we can begin to intervene in these counterproductive patterns. The third step to managing communication is to acknowledge and discuss the unequal power relations that operate within the supervisory relationship. The traditional supervisor–supervisee dyad in child welfare is hierarchical, positioning the supervisor above the supervisee. The degree to which power dynamics are managed productively depends on the degree to which both parties share goals and expectations related to power. These power dynamics can then be further complicated when supervisors are dealing with issues of racial and cultural differences. According to Hall (2002), stereotyping tends to occur under conditions of unequal relations in terms of class, knowledge, and authority. The supervisory relationship may reﬂect inequity in all three areas. DIFFERENCE IN THE FACE OF CULTURAL SAMENESS: SEXUAL AND GENDER ORIENTATION There are similarities and differences between the experience of workers who reﬂect racial or ethnic diversity and workers reﬂecting differences of sexual and gender orientation. Unlike race and ethnicity, sexual orientation in child welfare is still treated as a “dirty little secret.” It is perhaps the one area in child welfare where parents who put their child at serious risk

216

child welfare supervision

of harm have societal and agency support for discriminatory views toward a characteristic (sexual orientation) possessed by their worker, foster parent, therapist, or other professional. Some states continue to work toward enacting public policies prohibiting the placement of children with gay, lesbian, or bisexual foster and adoptive parents (Gates, Badgett, Macomber, & Chambers, 2007). When these discriminatory policies are coupled with current practices in child welfare pertaining to safety and permanency, there is a clear message: children are safer with parents who have histories of abusing and neglecting their children than with families having no record of abuse and neglect and whose “harmful behaviors” are expression of love toward a same-sex partner. Ultimately, the child welfare supervisor must understand the environmental context for the gay, lesbian, and bisexual worker. As with workers reﬂecting ethnic and racial difference, the child welfare context is fraught with small and large aggressions based on bias against GLBT workers. The difference is that child welfare professionals are socially and professionally normed to accept racial and ethnic differences with at least lip service against racially discriminatory language and behaviors. Tragically, it is still perfectly acceptable and, in fact, a social norm that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are not afforded policy protections about employment, housing, and marriage. Thus small and larger aggressions are considered “business as usual” in some, if not most, states. Consequently, the responsibility of the child welfare supervisor is to create a supervisory experience of safety and dialogue about current practices and expected unit norms about issues facing gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers, families, and youth. In this sense, the supervisor’s role is to set the tone of acceptance and recognition of the organizational policies that may or may not facilitate acceptance and best practices for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender youth and families. We struggled with the decision to include gender orientation in this section. The struggle was not about whether there are particular needs in supervision for workers who are gender nonconformists but whether the ﬁeld of child welfare was prepared to entertain the possibility of creating a safe and supportive work environment for transgender people. Unfortunately, with many transgender people still needing a mental health diagnosis to meet their medical needs to transition or maintain their transition, the space for gender difference in our society is still relegated to a mental health disorder. Historically, child welfare has not been the arena where topics of sex, sexuality, and gender are met with openness and acceptance. Perhaps this subtle and not so subtle hostility toward sexual and gender expression stems from the leftover vestiges of a ﬁeld of practice that has consistently confused sexuality and gender nonconformity with childhood sexual abuse or, more speciﬁcally, sexual aggression. Arguably, child welfare has become more accepting of gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers because of staff hearing the discriminatory and painful experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth who were receiving

Beyond the Question of Color

217

services in child welfare. Attention to the discriminatory practice and hostility toward gay lesbian, bisexual, and transgender workers in the child welfare workplace has not been the impetus, however, for change of policy affecting the child welfare context. In 1999, Gary Mallon encapsulated the experience of gay and lesbian youth in foster care in the title of his book, We Don’t Exactly Get the Welcome Wagon. In 2008, the child welfare system has not yet equipped itself to address the needs, experiences, fears, and care of transgender youth, let alone provide a supportive work environment for child welfare professionals who are gender nonconformist. CONCLUSION This chapter discusses the very ﬁrst steps supervisors can take to think about the values context of child welfare, provides speciﬁc skills of communication, and underscores the importance of intentionally creating a climate as a foundation for the work of the unit. Ultimately, the supervisory relationship based on a history of thoughtful communication as a foundation for an authentic relationship creates a sense of graciousness that can absorb misunderstanding. These occasional but inevitable misunderstandings that occur do not then deﬁne the relationship but, in fact, promote deeper trust and professional growth. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. As you examine your current agency and unit, what examples of conservative, liberal, pluralistic, and critical multiculturalism do you identify? 2. How do you assess the cultural climate in your unit? 3. Can you identify recent interactions in which a co-cultural communication lens might have been useful? REFERENCES

Agarwal, J., & Malloy, D. C. (1999). Ethical work climate dimensions in a notfor-proﬁt organization: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(1), 1–14. Banks, A. (2001). Tweaking the Euro-American perspective: Infusing cultural awareness and sensitivity into the supervision of family therapy, The Family Journal, 9(4), 420–423. Burgos v. Suter, N0.75 C 3974 (N.D. Ill. January 17, 1977) Burkard, A. W., Johnson, A. J., Madson, M. B., Pruitt, N. T., Contreras-Tadych, D. A., Kozlowski, J. M., et al. (2006). Supervisor cultural responsiveness and unresponsiveness in cross-cultural supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 288–301. Carter-Black, J. (2002). Transracial adoption and foster care placement: Worker perception and attitude. Child Welfare, 81(2), 337–370.

218

child welfare supervision

Collier, M. J. (2005). Theorizing cultural identiﬁcations: Critical updates and continuing evolution. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 234–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. de Haymes, M. V., & Simon, S. (2003). Transracial adoption: Families identify issues and needed support services. Child Welfare, 82(2), 251–272. Everett, J. E., Chipungu, S. P., & Leashore, B. R. (2004). Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Gates, G. J., Badgett, M. V., Macomber, J. E., & Chambers, K. (2007, March). Adoption and foster care by gay and lesbian parents in the United States. Washington DC: The Urban Institute. Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communication. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 281–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hall, S. (2002). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kim, M. (2005). Culture-based conversational constraints theory: individual- and cultural-level analysis. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 234–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kincheloe, J., & Steinberg, S. (1997). Changing multiculturalism. Philadelphia: Open University Press. Lomawaima, K. T. (1993). Domesticity in the federal Indian schools: The power of authority over mind and body. American Ethnologist, 20(2), 227–240. Love, C. (2000). Family group conferencing: Cultural origins, sharing, and appropriation—a Maori reﬂection. In G. Burford & J. Hudson (Eds.), Family group conferencing: New directions in community-centered child & family practice (pp. 15–30). New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competence (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2004). Intercultural communication in contexts. New York: McGraw Hill. Martinez, C. R., Jr., DeGarmo, D. S., & Eddy, J. M. (2004). Promoting academic success among Latino youths. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26(2), 128–151. McRoy, R., Mica, M., Freundlich, M., & Kroll, J. (2007). Making MEPA-IEP work: Tools for professionals. Child Welfare, 86(2), 49–66. Mezey, S. G. (1998). Systemic reform litigation and child welfare policy: The case of Illinois. Law & Policy, 20(2), 203–230. Mitchell, N., & Hubbard, B. (2007, May 30). Hispanic boys have lowest grad rate in DPS. Rocky Mountain News. Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 [Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103–382, H. R. 6 (1994)] as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 [Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–188, H. R. 3448 (1996)]. Orbe, M. P. (1995). African American communication research: Toward a deeper understanding of interethnic communication. Western Journal of Communication, 59(1), 61–78. Parker, G. M. (1996). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pew Hispanic Center. (2004). National survey of Latinos. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation.

Beyond the Question of Color

219

Rodriguez, R. (2004). The state of Latino education: A war against ignorance. Black Issues in Higher Education, 21(9), 84. Samovar, L. A., & Porter, R. E. (1997). Intercultural communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Saracho, O. N., & Martinez-Hancock, F. (2004). The culture of Mexican Americans: Its importance for early educators. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(3), 254–269. Suleiman, L. P. (2003). Beyond cultural competence: Language access and Latino civil rights. Child Welfare, 82(2), 185–200. Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. High School Journal, 87(3), 15–26. Thoburn, J., Chand, A., & Procter, J. (2004). Child welfare services for minority ethnic families: The research reviewed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Ulrey, K. L., & Amason, P. (2001). Intercultural communication between patients and health care providers: An exploration of intercultural communication effectiveness, cultural sensitivity, stress, and anxiety. Health Communication, 13(4), 449–463. U.S. Government Accounting Ofﬁce. 1998. Testimony before the Subcommitee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Foster Care: Challenges Faced in Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act (GAO/T-HEHS-98–241). Washington DC: Author. Retrieved October 28, 2007, from http://www.gao.gov

10 GETTING AND KEEPING THE BEST PEOPLE N ANCY D ICKINSON & A NNE C OMSTOCK

hildren and families served by the public child welfare system face C complex and life-changing conditions. These clients deserve the bestqualiﬁed and most committed staff possible that can provide the intensive, comprehensive services families need to ensure their children’s safety and well-being as they become more resilient. Yet those most committed to helping children and families often do not apply for public child welfare jobs, and the most capable staff members do not always continue working in child welfare (see Box 10.1). Child welfare supervisors are key to the development of a competent, stable child welfare workforce (American Public Human Services Association [APHSA], 2001; Dickinson & Perry, 2002; McCarthy, 2003; U.S. Government Accountability Ofﬁce [GAO], 2003). However, the training and professional development of supervisors— as well as their job descriptions—typically focus on the general process of supervision and not on speciﬁc skills of staff recruitment, selection, and retention. The purpose of this chapter is to help child welfare supervisors value their critical role in the development of a qualiﬁed and committed child welfare workforce and learn effective strategies for getting and keeping the best people. Retention Problems and Costs in Child Welfare With the estimated national turnover rate between 20% and 40%, child welfare worker recruitment and retention are serious problems (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). In a 2004 child welfare workforce survey of 220

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.1

221

The Child Welfare Staff Recruitment and Retention Challenge

The J family has been in and out of the child welfare system for decades. Currently, Mrs. J is battling a powerful methamphetamine addiction, and related criminal activity has left her in jail and her children in placement. She still isn’t sure she has a serious problem and certainly doesn’t want intervention from child welfare. Susan is a newly hired and trained child welfare worker. She’s young, fresh out of college, and in her ﬁrst job. The J family, along with 11 others, is now a part of Susan’s caseload responsibility. She’s already feeling the pressure of all she needs to do to meet the needs of the J’s, the other families on her caseload, the expectations of the system, and her own self-preservation. Susan ﬁnds herself thinking that this job might have been more than she bargained for. As a supervisor, you can play a critical role in helping Susan ﬁnd her way and continue in her career as a child welfare worker.

42 states, the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) (2005) found that the average vacancy rate for child protective services (CPS) workers had improved slightly from an earlier study (9.3% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2004), while vacancies stayed open longer. At the same time, average turnover rates rose from 19.9% to 22.1% for CPS workers, far higher than the 9.6% rate for other state and local government workers (APHSA, 2005). Retention problems have ﬁnancial and human costs. Financial elements include separation costs, vacancy costs, replacement costs, and training costs. At each stage, the direct and hidden expenses are related to time, payments, and materials. There is also the cost of the difference between the performance of the employee who leaves and the replacement. Estimates of ﬁnancial costs vary by geographical location. According to the authors of Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em (Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2005), a minimum of 70% of the vacant position’s annual salary is the cost of that vacancy, while a more conservative estimate is one-third of a worker’s annual salary and beneﬁts package, with hidden costs inﬂating that ﬁgure substantially (Insightlink Communications, 2005a). More troubling, however, are the human costs of turnover. There is growing documentation indicating that reduced retention and high turnover impair the provision and outcome of services (U.S. GAO, 2003). Agencies that must focus time and resources on replacing workers, rather than providing services, cannot adequately serve children and families. For example, turnover can cause delay in the timeliness of investigations, which can be detrimental to the child at risk and interfere with states’ ability to meet federal guidelines (U.S. GAO). Also, the burdens on remaining staff members include higher caseloads, insufﬁcient time to do assessments, and less time to make home visits, as well as increased stress, low morale, and grief. In a study of the impact of organizational climate on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems, Glisson and Hemmelgarn (1998) characterized agencies with less effective organizational climates as having high rates of worker turnover.

child welfare supervision

222

Most disturbing is the impact of turnover on families and children in the public child welfare system (see Box 10.2). Studies have shown a direct relationship between worker turnover and signiﬁcantly longer stays in foster care (Flower, McDonald, & Sumski, 2005; Ryan, Garner, Zyphur, & Zhai, 2006) and higher rates of foster care re-entry (Hess, Folaran, & Jefferson, 1992). One California study found that child welfare agencies with the highest turnover rates also had the highest rates of repeat reports of neglect and abuse (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 2006). Speciﬁcally, this study found that agencies with a turnover rate exceeding 15% had a 6-month recurrence rate that was 125% higher than those with turnover rates below 8.5%. Workforce Trends in the United States and in Child Welfare According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006b), the demand for social workers is projected to grow by 18%–26% through 2014, greater than the 15% projected national average. The projected workforce growth, however, will not keep pace with this projected growth in jobs. This growing gap between available social work jobs and available social work job applicants is leading to a “sellers” market for social workers, in which agencies will increasingly compete for limited numbers of available social workers. This gap may partially explain the fact that vacancy rates for public child welfare workers are signiﬁcantly higher than those of other state and local government workers, and vacancies in 2005 stayed open longer than they did in 2000 (APHSA, 2005). Within the context of these labor market conditions, child welfare supervisors have reason to be concerned about child welfare workforce issues that make the job less appealing to potential applicants.

Box 10.2

The Effect of Worker Turnover on Children

To understand how worker turnover affects kids in foster care, listen to the voices of these young adults answering the question, “How did getting new workers affect you?” William: “You get upset, you get angry. That usually carries over into your social life, your school life. . . . It’s not like your DHS worker is some little block you can remove and put back in any time you want.” Bryanna: “I thought it was my fault, that I did something that they didn’t like or disappointed them. . . . You’re passed on to the next person and the next person. . .each time you’re starting all over again. . .they ask you the same questions and you have to keep repeating your story.” Brystle: “I’ve had 12 social workers in 20 years. . . .At some point I just started feeling like they’re not competent enough to handle my situation.” To learn more about the video that highlights these voices, go to www.cwti .org/RR. Source: Child Welfare Training Institute (2005b).

Getting and Keeping the Best People

223

Salaries for child welfare positions are a major workforce issue. While these salaries are increasing, they are not competitive with salaries of other human service professions. For example, in May 2006, the average annual salary of child, family, and school social workers was $40,640, more than $9,000 less than that of a teacher and $19,000 less than that of a registered nurse (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006a). Also telling is the fact that the average annual salaries of CPS workers increased by 6.3% from 2000 to 2004, while the consumer price index rose 9.7 percent (APHSA, 2005). A broad workforce issue that affects new and potential child welfare workers is the reality that priorities of the contemporary workforce are changing. In their major workforce study, Spherion Atlantic Enterprises LLC (Spherion) (2005) surveyed 502 senior human resources executives at U.S. companies between March 21 and April 27, 2005. They also conducted monthly online surveys from May through September 2005, with sample sizes varying between 2,500 and 3,100 employed adults age 18 or older. After weighting, the data are representative of the entire U.S. population of employed adults. Results show that the U.S. workforce is increasingly mobile, focused on personal fulﬁllment, and motivated by professional aspirations, rather than organizational loyalty. Forty-six percent of the workers responding to Spherion’s survey indicated a desire to change jobs in the next 6 months, 75% in the next 12 months. The top priority for 86% of the respondents was work fulﬁllment and work–life balance, while only 35% cited being successful at work and moving up the corporate ladder as priorities. Ninety-six percent of workers agreed that an employer is more attractive when it helps them meet family obligations through options like ﬂextime, job sharing, or telecommuting (Spherion, 2005). This shift in the U.S. workforce has been described as the shift from the predominance of traditional workers to that of emergent workers (Spherion, 2005). A traditional worker values tenure, a career path within the same agency, and job security as a driver of their commitment. In contrast, the emergent worker values the contributions he or she can make to the agency but, rather than needing job security, feels that job change is a vehicle for professional growth. Nearly 40% of U.S. workers are likely to look for a new job or work situation. Even with the same employer, 45% of workers want to change jobs at least every 3 to 5 years, up from 26% in 1999. Because of this shift in worker attitudes, motivations, and work behaviors, child welfare supervisors who alter the way they supervise may be more effective in recruiting and retaining child welfare workers. In line with the differences between emergent and traditional workers, emergent supervisors seek to understand what motivates their workers, and they attempt to create opportunities to support workers’ goals and practices. Traditional child welfare supervisors, by contrast, are often threatened by the new workforce priorities and may resort to a downward cycle of retrenchment that leads to skyrocketing turnover. The following recruitment,

224

child welfare supervision

selection, and retention strategies will illustrate how child welfare supervisors can become emergent managers. SUPERVISORY SKILLS FOR RECRUITING QUALIFIED CHILD WELFARE STAFF Deﬁned narrowly, effective recruitment practices describe and target information about open positions in ways that attract a large pool of qualiﬁed applicants. More broadly, recruitment strategies also inform the general public about child welfare work. In either case, child welfare supervisors who take seriously their recruitment responsibilities can effectively increase the availability of a qualiﬁed and committed child-welfare applicant pool. Child welfare agencies increasingly employ marketing strategies to recruit foster and adoptive parents but rarely use similar tools to recruit candidates for child welfare positions. Child welfare supervisors may feel that negative job aspects—inadequate salary and beneﬁts, high workloads, unpleasant work environments, liability, and safety issues—are too powerful for marketing strategies to overcome. Yet, many competent workers remain in child welfare in spite of these negative aspects, and the reasons for their retention—commitment to the well-being of children and to society, a desire to help, personal fulﬁllment—can be effective in a recruitment marketing campaign (Ahluwalia, Burgess, & Adams, 2001; Network for Excellence in Human Services, n.d.). Child welfare supervisors often feel that they have no responsibility, little time, and few resources for recruiting candidates for child welfare worker positions. Yet supervisors are in unique positions for successful recruitment. They know what child welfare workers do and can readily identify the characteristics that candidates need to be effective in that job and speciﬁc work unit. Also, through their middle management positions, child welfare supervisors can mobilize their own units as well as other supervisors and upper-level administrators to facilitate the development of an agency-speciﬁc recruitment plan. Finally, supervisors are integral members of the community and county where many potential candidates reside; therefore, they can devise recruitment plans based on unique community characteristics. Research on the Effectiveness of Recruitment Practices Child welfare agencies, like many others, recruit job applicants through a number of different sources, including newspaper ads, employment agencies, Web sites, job fairs, in-house notices of job openings, and referrals from employees, among others. Wanous (1992) distinguishes between the effectiveness of inside versus outside sources for recruiting job applicants. Inside sources include current and former employees and others who have direct knowledge about the job, while outside sources include advertisements, job fairs, and employment agencies, where the information is more general. Summarizing 12 studies, 2 of which focused on human services,

Getting and Keeping the Best People

225

Wanous points out that the number of months a new hire stayed on the job was 24% higher for employees recruited through inside sources than for employees recruited from outside sources. A 1995 study of recruitment success in a human services setting found that 57% of new hires who stayed a year had heard about the job from an inside source, compared with only 36% of new hires who left during that ﬁrst year (Larson, Lakin, & Bruininks, 1998). The message of these studies is that new child welfare workers recruited from inside sources have more realistic expectations about the beneﬁts and challenges of the job and the agency, while it is likely that recruits from outside sources may have considerable amounts of misinformation and inﬂated expectations. The child welfare supervisor walks a ﬁne line between traditional recruitment practices of “selling” the agency to outsiders and more realistic recruitment activities that present accurate information about the nature of child welfare work. Supervisors who deal daily with the effects of child welfare turnover on remaining workers and families and children may be tempted to try to attract as many applicants as possible and hire anyone with the minimal qualiﬁcations who expresses an interest in the job. With focused effort and targeted recruitment strategies, however, child welfare supervisors will ﬁnd that they can attract a pool of applicants who truly understand the nature of the job and apply for all the right reasons. The key is to learn recruiting techniques that provide realistic job information while at the same time appealing to positive reasons why potential candidates may want to work in child welfare. For example, research shows that people who are attracted to child welfare positions possess such characteristics as the desire to help others, feeling that they can make a difference in the lives of children and families, persistence in the face of multiple challenges, thriving in a fast-paced work environment, and agreeing with the values and mission of the agency (Ellett, 2000; Harrison, 1995; Light, 2003). Using these characteristics and those of the emergent worker, child welfare supervisors can craft a recruitment plan to market job opportunities realistically to potential applicants. Recruitment Strategies Increasingly, job descriptions of child welfare supervisors include responsibilities for developing and pursuing recruitment opportunities. The following recruitment plan, adapted from Larson and Hewitt (2005), involves the coordinated efforts of child welfare supervisors, managers, and workers. The plan is based on communicating a consistent message through different media and to multiple audiences. Developing the Agency Marketing Plan Because social work is a high-growth occupation but lacks the projected workforce growth to ensure a readily available cadre of recruits, agencies providing child welfare services need to develop a marketing plan for letting

child welfare supervision

226

potential applicants know more about the agency and the child welfare program (see Box 10.3 and Figure 10.1). Even within the fairly prescribed ﬁeld of child welfare, where so many policies and procedures constrain agencies, there are major differences from one agency to another in organizational climate and culture. These differences provide great latitude for developing agency-speciﬁc marketing plans. Child welfare supervisors are vital to the development and implementation of the marketing plan. Through regular conversations with their workers, supervisors will learn what attracted them to apply for child welfare positions in their agency and hear about their challenges as well as reasons for remaining employed there. These realistic insights are fodder for the development of the agency’s image. Once staff members help to develop the agency’s organizational identity, child welfare supervisors can work together and with program staff to plan ways to implement a marketing strategy. Marketing materials should package the agency’s message in concise and eye-catching brochures, ﬂyers, Web sites, and slide presentations, among other materials (see Box 10.4). Working together with their units, child welfare supervisors could target local and regional sites for distributing these recruitment materials, such as health clubs, retail shop windows, libraries, service clubs, and high schools and community colleges. Recruitment cards are a practical tool to develop and are easy to use. The same size as business cards, recruitment cards contain a shortened version of the agency’s recruitment message, an invitation to consider applying for a position, and the name and phone number of the agency’s human resources contact. These cards are convenient to carry around and hand out, and employees can write their own names on the back of the card to get credit for the referral if their agency has implemented an employee referral incentive program, which will be described later in this section. For more expensive television, radio,

Box 10.3

Many Heads Are Better Than One!

Consider holding a creative brainstorming session with managers, supervisors, and line staff members to explore the messages of a marketing plan. Solicit the group’s freeﬂowing and unedited responses to questions such as the following, which an effective marketing plan should be able to answer: • What speciﬁc values, vision, mission, and history set this agency apart from others? • What is important or exceptional about this agency that would attract potential job applicants? • What does this agency want to be known for, in comparison with other community agencies and other public child welfare programs? This process has a twofold beneﬁt of both developing the message and generating excitement and ownership for a marketing plan.

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.4

227

Attention-Grabbing Recruitment

Figure 10.1 Poster Encouraging People to Think About Working in Public Child Welfare Services. The Jordan Institute for Families (2007) developed recruitment brochures, ﬂyers, and posters based on research showing that people with certain attitudes and values want to work in child welfare despite negative job characteristics. Who says that research results can’t be gripping?

and video recruitment messages, a group of child welfare agencies could share expenses together or in conjunction with their professional association. Traditionally written paid advertisements in local and regional newspapers are not very appealing and are less effective with emergent workers. Rather than beginning the ad with the job title and a general description of the responsibilities, child welfare supervisors should use the agency’s marketing plan to write an ad about the appealing uniqueness of the

228

child welfare supervision

agency, and that includes characteristics of the child welfare worker most likely to ﬁt in with their unit and remain effectively employed. Try an ad like the one presented in Box 10.5. Expanding the Pool of Potential New Recruits Traditional recruitment strategies have typically appealed to people already interested in human services work. With greater competition for human services workers, child welfare supervisors need to develop long-term strategies to boost the pool of potential recruits. For child welfare, this means strategies for attracting both younger recruits and older secondcareer workers. Presenting information about child welfare work to middle and high school students and cultivating relationships with school guidance counselors will increase the likelihood that students will seriously consider the ﬁeld of child welfare as a profession. Development of volunteer and parttime employment opportunities in the child welfare agency would also increase interest among students. Presentations by child welfare supervisors and workers that target community business, religious, and service organizations should be geared toward not only educating members of these organizations about child welfare work and recruiting among members but also recruiting their sons and daughters for future employment. College students and recent graduates, often called Millenials, embrace technology and would be more likely to respond to less traditional recruitment strategies. To reach out to this young population, one author (Grubb, 2008) recommends that agencies distribute ﬂash drives with organizational information; use text messaging to communicate with potential recruits; create agency Facebook and MySpace pages linked to the organization’s Web site; develop blogs on the agency’s Web site, and ﬁnd a reason to be on YouTube. Millenials don’t look ﬁrst at the newspaper want ads but go to Web sites for job postings (see Box 10.6). In addition to students and Millenials, older workers could be targeted for child welfare jobs. Professionals who are currently employed in such allied occupations as education, law enforcement, or medical social work positions, among others, may be attracted by media campaigns and presentations that stress the professional beneﬁts of child welfare work. Former armed forces personnel who are eligible for college support might

Box 10.5

Challenging and Meaningful Social Work Jobs Available

[CW Agency] is a fast-paced, supportive, and stimulating place to work. We are looking for child welfare workers who desire challenging, meaningful work and welcome the opportunity to make a difference for families and children. If this describes you, consider applying for a public child welfare position at [CW Agency]. You’ll never be bored!

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.6

229

Post Innovative Recruitment Ads on These Web Sites

www.CareerBuilder.com www.Monster.com www.LiveDeal.com www.CraigsList.org

www.HotJobs.com www.MySpace.com www.LinkedIn.com www.StudentList.com

also be interested in considering a future career in child welfare. Finally, occupations with declining employment may perhaps be successful targets for child welfare recruitment. Factories, mills, farms, and other industries that are closing or scaling back will lay off some workers who might be interested in second careers in child welfare. While recruiting among these populations may not yield many applicants quickly, interested workers could use layoff packages to pay for social work degrees that would lead to child welfare employment. Using Inside Recruitment Sources As noted above, inside sources tend to recruit applicants who become employees with a better understanding about the job and a longer retention rate. Internal candidates can become applicants for the job of child welfare worker, either by making lateral moves or by being promoted from within the agency. Child welfare supervisors are usually aware of the strengths and limitations of internal candidates, so there’s little need to guess about how well this candidate might perform. A major plus is that internal candidates are already familiar with the agency and need little orientation. Another is that an internal candidate is often looking for a position that matches their skills and goals, so a supervisor can be assured that this candidate will be more satisﬁed with the job and, therefore, more likely to remain on the job. Current employees are more likely to recruit friends, relatives, and acquaintances for child welfare jobs if they receive bonuses for effective recruitment. But recruiting just anyone for the job is not enough. Employees must be rewarded for recruiting candidates whose skills and characteristics match the job and the agency, a match that child welfare supervisors can best document. It might be, for example, that the bonus is awarded if the new recruit successfully passes a probationary period. Or, employees could receive a bonus once a new recruit has been on the job a year, since much voluntary turnover occurs within the ﬁrst year of employment. The bonus could also be given in time increments, instead of all at once, so that an employee receives an immediate reward, but the value of their referral is rewarded as it unfolds over time. An overlooked advantage of this incremental approach is that experienced employees may be more likely to help the new recruits through their initial adjustments and difﬁculties, to encourage their job tenure.

230

child welfare supervision

Hiring bonuses are less prevalent in child welfare agencies than in the private sector especially, and in other human services agencies, such as education and nursing. Child welfare supervisors who are able to implement hiring bonuses should, as with recruitment bonuses, pay the hiring bonus in increments to encourage retention and job performance Recruitment bonuses can be monetary or not. Gift certiﬁcates for restaurants, travel, special purchases, or theater and sporting events could also be important enticements. Child welfare supervisors should consult with unit staff to determine the most meaningful amount and type of incentives. Whatever form the the bonus program takes, there should be clear, simple, written procedures, and employees should be kept informed about the status of their referrals. Other Financial Recruitment Strategies Loan forgiveness programs, signing bonuses, and agency–university education partnerships are also systematic strategies for child welfare recruitment. The College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 provides loan forgiveness for individuals who participate in important public service careers, including child welfare workers (J. Sciamanna, NASW co-signs letter on HEA, personal communication, September 10, 2007). Since 1990, Title IV-E of the Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 has been a major funding source for recruiting and preparing social work students for child welfare careers (Zlotnik, 2003). Currently more than 40 states have state– university partnerships that provide Title IV-E ﬁnancial support for students in BSW and MSW programs who agree to work in child welfare positions for a certain amount of time after graduation. These programs have been shown to improve child welfare worker retention and performance (Fox, Miller, & Barbee, 2003; Jones, 2002; Rosenthal & Waters, 2006). Part of the effectiveness of these programs has to do with the specialized child welfare focus of students’ education and their ﬁeld placements in child welfare agencies, which provide a realistic understanding of child welfare employment. Barriers to Effective Recruitment Time and cost are the most obvious barriers to developing and implementing effective recruitment strategies. Child welfare supervisors and their workers are extremely busy with the day-to-day activities of child welfare work. While supervisors might agree that time invested in recruitment practices will reap the beneﬁts of a higher quality and eager pool of child welfare applicants, the reality of their daily jobs often intervenes. However, this kind of activity and involvement can create not only a diversion from very challenging and emotional work but also a sense of energy, enthusiasm, and ownership in improving staff recruitment. Organizational changes need to occur so that a recruitment plan is developed program- or agency-wide and recruitment responsibilities are accepted and rewarded as

Getting and Keeping the Best People

231

part of everyone’s job. Also, agency and county administrators may resist the expenditures suggested for recruitment and hiring bonuses, marketing materials, and media outlays. The best way to counter this resistance is to collect evaluation data about the effectiveness of recruitment activities. SUPERVISORY SKILLS FOR SCREENING AND SELECTING QUALIFIED CHILD WELFARE STAFF Scant attention has been paid to supervisory strategies for systematically screening and selecting child welfare staff. County and state agencies are tied to state personnel systems that are often cumbersome and inefﬁcient (Bernotavicz & Wischmann, 2000). Many supervisors have little understanding of or interest in translating the complexities of child welfare work into a competency-based selection process that would match the best candidate with the job. The ﬁelds of industrial and organizational psychology offer skills and tools that could help agencies deal with their workforce needs (Graef & Potter, 2002). Job analyses, selection testing, and competency-based interviewing approaches (Bernotavicz & Wischmann, 2000) are not familiar to child welfare supervisors. But as Graef and Hill (2000) report, these are investment strategies that save the agency money in the long run. One estimate is that nearly 80% of turnover is due to hiring mistakes (Larson & Hewitt, 2005). That is, if agencies are able to recruit, select, and hire the right people for the job, turnover will be reduced substantially and retention will increase. A study of 356 child welfare workers in 33 North Carolina departments of social services found that workers who expressed the intention to leave their jobs within 6 months were signiﬁcantly less likely to feel that they were given an accurate picture of the job they were hired to perform and less likely to feel that there was a good match between the duties of their jobs and their skills and interests (Dickinson, Painter, & Lee, 2007). In other words, when an applicant has a clear understanding of the characteristics of the job for which he or she is applying and when the agency selection team can be sure they are selecting the applicant who is the best match for that job, there is a greater likelihood that the applicant will become a child welfare worker who will remain on the job. Research on the Effectiveness of Selection Strategies Realistic Job Previews Realistic job previews (RJP) are both recruitment and selection activities. These previews can be written (brochures), verbal (panel presentations), experiential (job shadowing), or audio/visual (radio interviews or videos). Realism is used in recruitment to prevent inﬂated expectations and ward off newcomer dissatisfaction (Popovich & Wanous, 1982). An RJP includes information about positive and challenging aspects of the job, so that an

child welfare supervision

232

applicant can make an informed decision about whether or not to begin or continue with the selection process. Child welfare supervisors may be reluctant to disclose fully the difﬁculties of child welfare work and the challenges of working in public agencies, especially when the applicant pool is small. This kind of “wishful thinking,” however, overlooks research results that show signiﬁcant relationships between RJPs and the retention rate of new hires. While this research has occurred most often in ﬁelds other than child welfare, the results are instructive for child welfare supervisors. Several meta-analyses comparing the ﬁndings of many studies have reported that use of RJPs to inﬂuence expectations improved retention rates by as much as 9%–17% (McEvoy & Cascio, 1985). Other studies have shown RJPs to be most effective in organizations with high turnover rates (Premack & Wanous, 1985) and increasingly more effective as time passed (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 2000). Selection Process The aim of the child welfare selection process—screening, interviewing, and hiring new employees—is to choose from among all of the possible candidates the child welfare worker who is the best match for the job, the work unit, and the agency. This time-consuming process is worthy of careful consideration, since hiring decisions affect the quality of the services provided. Supervisors should also know and comply with fair hiring laws and policies, since lawsuits can occur when applicants challenge the fairness of the selection process. More important for child welfare worker selection, making mistakes in the interviewing and hiring process can lead to practice mistakes with dire consequences for children and their families. The goal of a well-designed selection process is to hire candidates who are able to do the job and contribute to the organization. Valid selection practices are those that correspond with overall job performance or length of time on the job. The following are selection procedures with high to medium research validity that are most useful for child welfare worker selection. Structured Interviews Child welfare supervisors who use structured interviews ask the same questions of each applicant and apply a standardized method for scoring the responses. This type of interview has a high ability to predict job performance and retention, in contrast to an unstructured or spontaneous interview approach (Wanous, 1992). Wanous describes two different types of structured interviews: (a) the situational interview, in which interviewers ask applicants how they would respond to hypothetical job situations (“What would you do in this situation?”); and (b) the patterned-behaviors description interview, in which applicants are asked how they have actually

Getting and Keeping the Best People

233

behaved in speciﬁc job-related situations in the past (“What did you do in this situation?”). Those who argue that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior in similar situations prefer the patterned-behaviors description interview. Proponents of the situational interview refer to the goal-setting literature showing that people will do what they say they will do. Wanous points to research showing that an effective structured interview process can combine both approaches. In any event, this process is far superior to the unstructured interviewing approach. What makes the structured interview process so valid, however, is the job analysis work that supervisors need to participate in to be sure that the candidate who scores highest on the interview is actually the best person for the child welfare worker position. For selection purposes, a job analysis identiﬁes the knowledge, skills, characteristics, and attitudes needed by new child welfare employees to begin their jobs. Child welfare supervisors and workers can best identify those dimensions of the job. Wanous (1992) then recommends a “critical incident” method of collecting examples of worker behaviors that represent good and poor performance on these job dimensions. The effectiveness of each critical incident is then rated on a scale from poor to excellent. Other approaches to job analysis are also suitable (Bernotavicz & Wischmann, 2000; Graef, Paul, & Myers, in press). While supervisor input is critical to the job analysis, the process is time consuming, highly technical, and best left to professional human resources personnel. Biographical Data Child welfare supervisors often consider seriously the education, work history, and experience of applicants. In some cases, they apply points to certain biographical data that are assumed to predict future employment success. Research has shown that such biographical data as prior child welfare experience (Balfour & Neff, 1993) and specialized social work education funded through Title IV-E (Jones, 2002; Scannapieco & Connell-Carrick, 2003) correlate with worker retention and performance. In fact, Title IV-E preparation is both an educational advantage and a personal factor, since participants are committed to the social work profession and to serving children and families (Zlotnik, DePanﬁlis, Daining, & Lane, 2005). So, for example, supervisors could give points to applicants with child welfare experience, as well as to those who are graduates of Title IV-E-supported social work education programs. Work Sample Tests This realistic selection method (Wanous, 1992) approximates important tasks that are part of a job. An example of a work sample test in child welfare includes asking a job candidate to read a typical case and write an analysis of the strengths and risks present in the hypothetical but realistic family situation. This work task not only tests the candidate’s ability to

234

child welfare supervision

evaluate the kind of situation they will face on the job but also allows the selection panel to review the candidate’s writing skills. Moreover, if the candidate writes the analysis on a computer, supervisors are able to evaluate an important work environment skill. Innovative Selection Tools In their chapter “Recruiting and Selecting Child Welfare Staff,” Graef et al. (in press) recommend consideration of alternative selection techniques less commonly used in, but applicable to, child welfare agencies. One such technique is the cognitive-ability test, which assesses such thinking processes as reasoning, language comprehension, memory, and word ﬂuency. In a study of the predictive ability of a cognitive-ability test for CPS workers in one state, Graef, Potter, and Rohde (2002) found that high cognitive scores correlated with employees’ job performance ratings on critical child welfare tasks, such as evaluating and monitoring safety, risk, and progress. Personality assessments commonly measure the “Big Five” dimensions of conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, and openness to experience (Barrick & Mount, 1991, as reported in Graef et al., in press). In their study of CPS workers, Graef et al. (2002) found that workers high in agreeableness were highly rated on performance of such tasks as collaborating with other professionals, sharing information with families, and involving families in planning. While critical thinking correlates with cognitive ability, it is a unique construct and is especially applicable to the information processing of child welfare work (Graef et al., in press). Graef et al. (2002) evaluated the predictive ability of a measure of critical thinking and found that workers who had high scores on this dimension performed well on such tasks as communicating information, writing reports, and evaluating and monitoring safety. These and other innovative selection techniques have been used in other ﬁelds and seem to hold promise for child welfare agencies. Whether the agency purchases existing assessments or develops its own, experienced human resources test developers should be involved in the process. Developing and Using Realistic Job Previews Realistic job previews are not only a vital part of the recruitment and selection process, they are also an education and outreach tool that child welfare supervisors should use to inform the community about the work of child welfare. Larson, O’Nell, and Sauer (2005) describe the following components of and steps in creating an RJP. Develop an Up-to-Date and Complete Job Description Many child welfare positions are described in generalities that don’t capture in detail what a worker will be expected to do on the job. Experts suggest that supervisors base job descriptions on comprehensive job analyses that identify the critical competencies and performance indicators

Getting and Keeping the Best People

235

for child welfare positions. At the very least, child welfare supervisors should base job descriptions on the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of speciﬁc jobs. A child welfare supervisor can use the job description to develop topics that should be included in the RJP. Collect Information About Positive and Negative Job Characteristics Supervisors should seek opinions from their workers about characteristics they like and dislike about their jobs and the agency. Written anonymous job satisfaction surveys and focus group discussions produce information that can be used to develop an RJP. The information would also be of use in gauging staff job satisfaction. Suggested questions could include the following: • • • •

What do you like best about your job? What is the hardest part of your job? What makes you want to stay in or leave your job? What do you wish you had known about your job before you started working here? • What would you tell a friend who is thinking of applying for a job here? • What should your friend know about this agency?

Select Topics to Include in the RJP In discussion with current employees, supervisors should develop a list of positive and negative information that should be included in the RJP to provide a balanced picture of the realities of the job. These topics should be the most important information that applicants need to make an informed decision about whether or not to take a child welfare job if it is offered. Develop a Strategy to Present the Information to Applicants Numerous RJP strategies are available for use with potential employees. Approaches include informal meetings with current staff members, formal staff panel presentations, printed brochures, photograph albums or scrapbooks, videotapes, Web sites, internships, and volunteer opportunities. Supervisors should choose the strategy that presents the information in the most effective and affordable way. Combining strategies is also a possibility. For example, a statewide videotape could be developed and used by an agency that adds an agency-speciﬁc strategy such as a panel presentation by current staff (see Box 10.7). Larson et al. (2005) point out that all RJP strategies should have the following characteristics to be successful: • The applicant must understand that the purpose of the RJP is to help him or her choose whether or not to apply for a child welfare job or take the job if offered.

child welfare supervision

236

Box 10.7

Telling It Like It Is

As a part of the Western Regional Recruitment and Retention Project (WRRRP), the state of Arizona developed and implemented an RJP video. Using a list of critical incidents that occur in child protection work, originally developed in Nebraska and adapted for Arizona, ﬁeld staff were surveyed on the frequency and intensity of the incidents (Graef, 2006). The video-planning team then selected content to present a balanced, realistic picture of the work—from the mundane nature of computer entry and paperwork, to the emotional pain of seeing injured children, to the exhilaration of reuniting a child with their family—all in a day’s work. In an effort to provide an additional opportunity for interview candidates to obtain a realistic picture of the job, a Child Protective Services ofﬁce in metropolitan Phoenix recruited, trained, and implemented a team of current workers who were on-call to answer candidate questions and concerns. The beneﬁts were twofold: members of the RJP team enjoyed being part of the process, and interested interview candidates gained valuable knowledge to help them make informed decisions about accepting or declining the position.

• The RJP must use credible information, including real people and events and testimony from current workers about how they feel about their jobs and the agency. • The RJP should present a balance of positive and negative information. • The RJP should be used before or at the time that a job offer is made.

One summary of studies reports that RJPs presented when a job offer has been made but before an applicant decides whether or not to accept a position are more effective in reducing turnover than RJPs offered when an applicant ﬁrst makes contact with the organization or as part of the application process (Phillips, 1998). Selection Activities The selection process is complex, time consuming, and extremely important. If child welfare supervisors have followed the steps involved in systematic recruitment and RJP strategies, then the ﬁrst four steps of the selection process have been accomplished: (1) identifying the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of child welfare workers; (2) writing a complete job description for the vacant position; (3) marketing child welfare work to potential recruits; and (4) providing realistic information through an RJP about the job and the agency. The remaining selection activities require that child welfare supervisors (1) gather information about candidates to select the one most suitable for the vacancy; (2) conduct reference and background checks on applicants; and (3) justify and document hiring decisions using standardized job-related criteria. These selection activities are most effective when child welfare supervisors use the right selection team, develop criteria for screening

Getting and Keeping the Best People

237

applications, implement a structured interview approach, and base the hiring decision on objective standards. Using the Right Selection Team Child welfare agencies use a variety of staff members on a selection team. The child welfare supervisor is usually the constant team member and may also be the only person conducting the interviews in some agencies. It is advisable, however, to use at least two interviewers, to reduce errors and biases and increase the amount of information used to make hiring decisions. Selection teams may also include a human resource specialist who can document the objectivity of the process. Teams infrequently include child welfare workers, although they could add an important dimension to the hiring decision. Also, the work unit might be more accepting of new hires if one or more of their members participated in the hiring process. Finally, child welfare selection teams rarely, if ever, include current or former clients. Larson and Hewitt (2005) argue persuasively for that approach, indicating that clients have valuable perspectives on the attitudes and characteristics needed by workers. Candidates who encounter clients being involved in the selection process will experience ﬁrst-hand clients as team members in the child welfare process, a current movement in child welfare practice. It might be useful for a former foster youth, for example, to be invited to participate in the selection of a foster care worker. Screening Applications Often, child welfare supervisors have little to do with the screening of applications, even though they may have strong opinions about how well or poorly it is done. Typically, the county or state personnel system has a process for screening applications in or out, using minimum qualiﬁcations related to education and experience. Personnel ofﬁces are usually responsible for verifying a candidate’s previous employment and education, among other biographical data, during the screening process. Criminal background checks are also common procedures in child welfare agencies and may occur as part of the screening process or for candidates selected to be interviewed or hired. Agencies should be clear in the job advertisements and application information that these screening procedures occur for all child welfare applicants. Conducting the Interview Research discussed earlier in this chapter suggests that a structured interview process has excellent potential for helping child welfare supervisors choose the right person for the job. That can only happen, however, if the questions measure the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required by the job. Those job components are best identiﬁed through a job analysis and consensus by subject matter experts, mainly child welfare supervisors. In a

238

child welfare supervision

critical-incident job analysis, human resources personnel, with help from child welfare supervisors, collect examples of excellent and poor job performance in certain critical child welfare job incidents or events (Larson & Hewitt, 2005). These examples form the basis for developing questions and scoring guides to assess candidate responses. Behaviorally anchored scoring guides give speciﬁc examples of poor, average, and outstanding answers to the interview questions. Again, subject matter experts, primarily child welfare supervisors, reach agreement on what constitutes outstanding, average, and poor responses to each question (Child Welfare Training Institute, 2005a). The interview can be a situational interview, in which interviewers ask applicants how they would respond to hypothetical job situations, or a behavior description interview, in which applicants are asked how they actually have behaved in speciﬁc job-related situations in the past. Or a combination of the two approaches can be used. In summary, Larson and Hewitt (2005, p. 87) cite evidence from other authors that “the consistency of interview scores across raters can be increased if questions are based on a job analysis and are closely related to the job, if answers are rated on a question-by-question basis, if the interviewer takes notes during the interview, if an interview panel rather than a single rater is used to evaluate candidate responses, and if a scoring guide for each question is used.” The selection process can also include a work sample test that approximates a job task that the candidate will be expected to perform should they be hired. A previously cited example is having an applicant review a typical child welfare case and then type on a computer or write by hand an analysis of the case, focusing on areas of interest in child welfare, such as family strengths and risk factors. As with the structured interview, the scoring criteria for the work sample test should be determined when the test is developed, and the scoring process should distinguish among poor, average, and outstanding performers. The same scoring process should be applied to all candidates. Even the most valid and reliable structured interview process can be undermined by common errors that untrained selection team members could unintentionally commit (Child Welfare Training Institute, 2005a). These errors include the following: • Inconsistent administration—allowing more time for some candidates to complete the interview than others • Halo or pitchfork effect—scoring the applicant higher or lower on all questions, based on the applicant’s good or poor answers to a few questions • Stereotyping—making decisions about an applicant’s scores, based on appearance or behavior in the interview, rather than on his or her answers to the questions

Getting and Keeping the Best People

239

• Leniency—giving high scores to all candidates • Central tendency—clustering scores around the average rather than giving a range of scores

Making the Job Offer At the end of the selection process, ideally there will be a few qualiﬁed applicants from which the selection team can choose. The way in which the team chooses can be as simple as picking the candidate with the highest combined scores on the work test and structured interview process or as complicated as reaching a consensus of the ratings of applicants’ credentials, references, work test, and structured interview. Additionally, the selection team could choose those applicants scoring highest on the work test and structured interview, and then evaluate other factors considered important in child welfare work. These other factors to be considered include the applicant’s personality, interest in the job, and behavior during the interview process (e.g., promptness, professionally dressed, friendliness, etc.). Rating these additional characteristics, however, is a highly subjective process, since “friendly” to one child welfare supervisor could be considered “fawning” by another supervisor. Larson and Hewitt (2005) have put forward a hiring strategy called “job carving,” which provides the opportunity for candidates to be hired on the basis of their strengths and not as much according to how well they ﬁt the total requirements of the job. Job carving does not mean hiring workers who are not qualiﬁed for the job. It does mean looking at the work environment to see if there are ways to get the work done without requiring every worker to be able to do all components of the job. This approach would work with child welfare teams who share caseloads, for example. Job carving might also be a retention strategy, since more emergent workers are looking for ﬂexibility and jobs that ﬁt with their skills and professional objectives. Whatever criteria the selection team chooses to use in making the ﬁnal hiring decision, the process should be unbiased, standardized, and explicit, so that all members of the selection team will support the ﬁnal decision. The supervisor of the vacancy should notify the ﬁnal candidate by telephone as soon as possible. When the position is ﬁlled, candidates who were not interviewed should be notiﬁed in writing as soon as possible, while candidates who were interviewed should be contacted by phone. The child welfare supervisor need only say that the selection team chose the most qualiﬁed candidate. Evaluating Selection Success The structured interview selection process (Box 10.8) is complicated and time consuming, and the scoring process can be tedious—not characteristics that child welfare supervisors typically embrace, given their extremely

240

Box 10.8

child welfare supervision A Competency-Based Selection Process

This selection process for child welfare workers consists of four components: realistic job preview, standard interview, fact-ﬁnding interview, and written exercises. Realistic Job Preview (Time = 33 minutes) The ﬁrst selection activity that a candidate participates in is watching a realistic job preview (RJP) video, which features interviews with actual public child welfare workers who talk about the challenges and rewards of their work, providing a balanced and realistic overview of day-to-day experiences in a variety of child welfare positions. Preparation for Written Exercise (Time = 30 minutes) The candidate reviews a folder of materials about a typical case in child welfare and is told that he or she will be asked to write a case analysis at the end of the interview based on this case. The information in the folder is incomplete. In order to prepare an adequate case analysis, the candidate will need to gather more information. The candidate reviews the case material and takes notes in preparation for asking further questions. Standard Interview (Time = 45 minutes) During this structured interview, the team asks questions of the candidate to screen for competencies. The candidate is also given time to ask questions about the job. Fact-Finding Interview (Time = 15 minutes) The second phase of the interview provides an opportunity for the candidate to ask questions about the incomplete case materials. These questions are directed to one individual on the interview team who has additional case information, while other team members observe and assess competencies involved in this part of the interview. Written Exercise (Time = 30 minutes) The candidate writes an analysis of the case, based on both the materials provided earlier and information gathered in the fact-ﬁnding session. This analysis is then evaluated by the selection team for demonstration of certain competencies. Rating of Each Candidate Each selection team member rates the candidate’s competencies as demonstrated during each selection component. Through consensus, the team arrives at a summary composite score for the candidate. Source: Adapted from Child Welfare Training Institute (2005a).

busy schedules. Also, structured interview questions may frustrate some candidates, especially those who are less qualiﬁed. But it must be stressed that this selection strategy has a greater likelihood of producing new employees who are more satisﬁed with their jobs and perform well. The agency must evaluate the strategy itself, however, by determining whether candidates who got high scores on their selection process are high performers on the job and remain employed.

Getting and Keeping the Best People

241

SUPERVISORY SKILLS FOR RETAINING QUALIFIED CHILD WELFARE STAFF Once the right child welfare workers are recruited, selected, and hired, some of the retention battle is won. Certain issues directly related to child welfare worker turnover and retention, however, are largely unrelated to recruitment and selection. The most examined issue affecting retention is supervision—both quality and quantity. This section summarizes numerous studies about child welfare supervisors’ inﬂuence on worker turnover and retention. The implications of this research for retention efforts will also be discussed. Finally, retention strategies will be presented. Research on the Child Welfare Supervisor’s Contributions to Worker Retention Many supervisory dimensions that affect child welfare worker turnover and retention have been studied. Some of these dimensions include the supportive role of supervisors—providing emotional support, expressing approval and concern, and being warm and friendly in response to worker problems (Dickinson & Perry, 2002; Ellett, 2000; Smith, 2005). The degree to which child welfare supervisors help workers hone their practice skills also affects retention (Rycraft, 1994). Since many workers remain on the job to help children (Cicero-Reese & Black, 1998) or make a difference in peoples’ lives (Light, 2003), supervisors’ abilities to provide workrelated support (Dickinson & Perry, 2002) and clear performance expectations (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003) are critical to retention. Thus, supervisors who foster on-the-job learning through such organizational learning activities as peer mentoring, supervisory coaching, and encouraging continued professional growth contribute to the retention of workers in their units (Alwon & Reitz, 2000; Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998; Landsman, 2001). In a recent study of job satisfaction among a national probability sample of child welfare workers, researchers found that the amount of time the child welfare supervisor spent per week with a worker was signiﬁcantly related to the job satisfaction of that worker (Barth, Lloyd, Christ, Chapman, & Dickinson, 2008). Speciﬁcally, workers receiving at least 2 hours of supervision per week were more satisﬁed than their peers who received less supervision. The perceived quality of the supervision was even more robust as a contributor to worker job satisfaction. Thus, both quantity and quality of the relationship between child welfare supervisors and their workers affect retention through their impact on worker job satisfaction, since job satisfaction has been shown to predict retention (Dickinson & Perry, 2002; Mor Barak, Levin, Nissly, & Lane, 2006; Weaver & Chang, 2004). Supervisors play a critical role in creating an organizational climate that contributes to worker turnover or retention. Deﬁned as the collective perception that employees have of their work environment (Cahalane &

242

child welfare supervision

Sites, 2004), organizational climate factors include employees’ perceptions of conﬂict, cooperation, fairness, and growth and advancement opportunities in the agency (Glisson, Dukes, & Green, 2006). Additional studies have shown that child welfare workers who remain in their jobs understand the agency’s mission and feel valued as contributors to that mission (Keefe, 2003); experience clear expectations and measurable performance objectives (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003); perceive worthy recognition and rewards for their performance (Bernotavicz, 1997); and feel respected as individual staff members (Landsman, 2001). Child Welfare Supervisor Retention Strategies Individually and collectively, child welfare supervisors have great opportunities and awesome responsibilities to inﬂuence the retention rate of child welfare workers. This section describes some proven retention strategies that can stem turnover among child welfare workers. Retention Strategies to Fit the Stages of Child Welfare Worker Development Once hired, child welfare workers progress through job developmental stages: the beginning stage (up to 2 years), the middle/critical stage (2–5 years), and the end/consolidation stage (more than 5 years) (Garfat, 2001). Threats to worker retention occur at each stage, but each stage also offers turnover intervention opportunities to supervisors. The retention strategies discussed below can be adapted to counter turnover dangers for workers at each developmental stage. Salus (2004) also offers a set of developmental stages and suggests that the ﬁrst 6 months are particularly anxiety producing for new workers, who are overwhelmed with the complexities of the job and may feel inadequate in performing necessary tasks. Supervisory approaches that will be effective during this stage might include the following: • Accepting and meeting the worker’s dependency needs • Providing factual tools and information • Encouraging open discussion of worker’s feelings, including confusion and inadequacy • Building caseloads slowly • Clarifying both client and caseworker behaviors

Speciﬁc retention strategies for new workers at this stage are employeecentered orientation and the newcomer interview, discussed below. The second worker developmental shift occurs later during the ﬁrst 6 months. Here, new child welfare workers have a beginning familiarity with the job, but they experience anxiety about certain roles and responsibilities and ambivalence about the job—hence the “make it or break it” description of this stage. Salus (2004) suggests a supervisory approach

Getting and Keeping the Best People

243

during this stage that includes expecting and allowing errors; reinforcing knowledge; helping the worker organize observations and ideas; and assisting the worker in analyzing their instinctive common sense and intuitive approaches and reactions to the work. The danger at this point is that disengagement from the work could begin to occur, unless the child welfare supervisor implements motivation and support strategies that prevent ultimate turnover and increase job satisfaction. These strategies can include linking workers with mentors and helping them feel a strong sense of connection to the unit or team. Beyond this 6-month period, a supervisor should expect to see a gradual reduction in the intensity of a worker’s anxious or negative feelings. After 6 months on the job, the “basic skills” or middle stage begins, when new workers feel more conﬁdent about their core competencies and recognize the need for more advanced or specialized skills. They are also frustrated with obstacles to their effective job performance, including caseload size, paperwork, and lack of resources. During this time, supervisors should listen carefully for workers’ frustrations and possible resistance to dealing with certain clients or client behaviors. Supervisors can help these workers identify and examine possible options and choices they have to resolve their current challenges. This is the time for child welfare supervisors to focus on strategies that are part of the “learning organization” retention approach (Alwon & Reitz, 2000), including professional development and feedback and performance coaching. More experienced workers who reach the later developmental stages are also subject to turnover, unless child welfare supervisors respond appropriately to their strong sense of independence and autonomy, as well as their feelings of conﬁdence and competence. Supervisors who are tuned into these characteristics of experienced workers recognize the need to conduct “stay interviews” with them, to develop and implement retention practices that ﬁt their speciﬁc concerns and needs. Welcoming the Newcomer While the newcomer stage is marked by high anxiety, new workers are also usually enthusiastic about the challenges and opportunities of their jobs. Child welfare supervisors should build on that enthusiasm with a deliberate strategy to support retention. “Employee-centered orientation” is one such strategy (Hewitt, Larson, O’Nell, & Sauer, 2005). While pre-service training is all about policies, procedures, and child welfare practices, employee-centered orientation is designed to help new workers cope with their job stress, conﬂicts, and feelings of inadequacy. Child welfare supervisors should meet often with new workers to build commitment to the agency’s mission, promote positive attitudes about the work, encourage open communication, and foster workers’ conﬁdence in their ability to do the job. More speciﬁcally, providing general support and reassurance and helping workers learn coping skills are the elements of supportive supervision that enhance worker retention.

child welfare supervision

244

Conduct a newcomer interview In spite of realistic recruitment practices, new child welfare workers sometimes experience disappointment and even alarm that the job is not what they had expected. Even more prepared workers often feel overwhelmed by the unexpected complexities of the job. While supervisors meet frequently with new workers during their ﬁrst 6 months, the newcomer interview—conducted during the ﬁrst 2 to 4 weeks on the job—is speciﬁcally meant to engage the new worker in a discussion about expectations for the job and to develop plans to increase the worker’s chance for success on the job (see Box 10.9). The interview also creates an opportunity for the supervisor to clarify misconceptions about the job and to tailor work expectations more realistically. Develop a deliberate socialization process Socialization involves learning about the agency environment and getting along with others. Coworkers are key components of a socialization plan, and their support of new workers—or lack thereof—is a strong predictor of retention or turnover (Alwon & Reitz, 2000; Nissly, Mor Barak, & Levin, 2005). Child welfare supervisors should help experienced workers understand how critical their support of new workers is. Workers have often had to cover the vacant caseload and are eager to turn everything over to the new hire. If done too quickly or without any consultation, the new child welfare worker will feel even more overwhelmed and unsupported. An experienced worker should be assigned to mentor the new worker, under clear guidelines for what mentoring activities entail. Peer mentoring is a retention strategy for experienced workers, too, who are looking for new ways to use their knowledge and skills.

Box 10.9

The Newcomer Interview

John has been on the assessment team for 1 month. While he remains enthusiastic and eager, it becomes clear that he’s feeling a bit overwhelmed with both the intensity and scope of the work. When you and he meet for supervision and you tell him you want to conduct a “newcomer interview” to see how he’s doing, he resists, saying he’d rather just get some answers on how to write his ﬁrst court report and how to respond to an angry teenager on his caseload. Assure him you’ll help him with those concerns, but carry on in conducting his newcomer interview; it will provide both you and him with invaluable information and an opportunity to pause and consider initial expectations, current realities, and future possibilities. Typical newcomer interview questions include the following (Williams & Dickinson, 2006): • • • •

How is the job the same as or different from what you thought it would be? Of all the things you have done so far, what has been most challenging? What talents or skills would you most like to use in your new position? Given what you know about the job so far, what most appeals to you? What concerns you most?

Getting and Keeping the Best People

245

Supporting and Rewarding Workers Child welfare work is extremely complex and often stressful. Supportive supervision is a key retention strategy. Workers feel supported when their supervisors express an interest in them as individuals and not just workers. It’s not by chance that Kaye and Jordan-Evans (2005) titled their bestselling retention book Love ‘Em or Lose ‘Em: Getting Good People to Stay. Workers appreciate a supervisor who knows the names of their children, willingly allows for appropriate personal time, and expresses warmth and caring (Dickinson & Perry, 2002). A supportive supervisor also encourages a collaborative atmosphere of trust, communication, and listening (see Box 10.10). Child welfare supervisors may consider creating an employee care program (Hewitt, 1999). Here are some important reminders: (1) Respect employees’ privacy by getting speciﬁc instructions about what information can be shared and what should be kept conﬁdential. (2) Be consistent in the worker events that are to be recognized, such as family illnesses and deaths, births or adoptions of children, or birthdays. (3) Be sensitive to the worker’s wishes and lifestyle while collecting information. A priority of the emergent worker is maintaining a work–life balance. To support this priority, child welfare supervisors should advocate for ﬂexible work schedules and dedicated on-call specialists to relieve workers from job demands that take a toll on their own families and increase their likelihood of leaving (see Box 10.11). Safety measures also provide assurances to child welfare workers that their supervisors and the agency are supportive of them and concerned for their well-being. Rewards and recognition are critical retention strategies for child welfare workers at all levels of experience. While pay makes a difference in how long child welfare workers remain in their jobs (Dickinson et al., 2007; Ellett, Ellett, & Rugutt, 2003), most are not attracted to child welfare for high salaries. Workers are motivated by a desire to help others and make a difference. Child welfare supervisors should notice and acknowledge workers for persisting in their efforts in spite of the difﬁculties of their work. Child welfare workers—like other employees—respond positively to recognition of and appreciation for what they do. They want to

Box 10.10

Our Team Cares

The seven-member assessment team was a group that had a close and supportive connection. The workers had been together as a unit for over 4 years and knew each other well, both professionally and personally. When John’s 4-year-old son was diagnosed with leukemia, the team dedicated a unit meeting to planning how they could support him during what was sure to be a difﬁcult time. In addition to the supervisor arranging for caseload coverage, team members signed up to deliver meals, provide child care for his other son, and even to donate leave time to the agency “leave bank” to ensure that John’s absence wouldn’t result in a loss of income.

child welfare supervision

246

Box 10.11

We Are Family (Friendly)

In an effort to respond to data indicating that rigid schedules and lack of family-friendly policies and practices were decreasing job satisfaction, the Division of Children, Youth and Families in Jefferson County, Colorado, created an ad hoc committee to strategize on how to solve the problem. The results were exciting. Policies and practices that allowed for tele-working, ﬂex schedules, job sharing, and part-time work were developed and implemented. A follow-up survey determined that these changes were critical and much appreciated and, in fact, were reasons why staff might want to be hired in that county. Source: Western Regional Recruitment and Retention Project (2006).

feel that they are an important part of the work unit and make a valuable contribution to the agency’s mission. Child welfare workers especially want the appreciation of their supervisors (see Box 10.12). A supervisor’s simple “thank you,” communicated either verbally or in writing, is important. When a supervisor tries to catch workers doing something right, the tone of the unit becomes more supportive and positive. Many agencies have formal employee recognition programs, such as “employee of the month” awards, employee appreciation picnics, or employee spotlights in the agency newsletter. To some child welfare workers informal recognition may be more satisfying than formal programs. It is important to personalize the recognition—making it public for some workers and private for others. Recognition strategies range from no cost to a higher cost (see Box 10.13). When child welfare supervisors treat their workers as professionals and acknowledge their unique skills and contributions in any way, workers are

Box 10.12

Supervisor Self-Assessment

How are you doing in recognizing and rewarding your staff? Rate the following statements on a scale: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = frequently, 4 = always. 1. I know what each individual on my team would consider valued reward or recognition. 2. I regularly catch my workers doing something right and let them know either verbally or in writing. 3. I highlight individual staff member’s successes within the team and the organization. 4. I encourage a team climate of reward and recognition among members. 5. Providing ongoing support through reward and recognition is a regular and consistent part of my supervision with staff. Use the insights you’ve gained to improve and grow in this area of your supervision!

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.13

247

Rewards and Recognitions You (and Your Agency) Can Afford

No cost: • Note of thanks for a speciﬁc accomplishment on agency letterhead that is placed in the worker’s personnel ﬁle • Certiﬁcates of achievement • Recognition of birthdays or anniversaries • Appreciation notes posted on a bulletin board • Recognition of tenure benchmarks Low cost: • • • •

Gift certiﬁcate Team dinner or outing Flowers Baked treats

Higher cost: • • • •

Small cash award Money for the most innovative solution to a problem Agency-wide picnic or party Financial support for attending a professional conference

Source: Nelson (1994).

more likely to feel that their work is important enough to the agency for them to stay. Feedback and Performance Coaching Child welfare workers are often motivated by their drive to make a difference. Child welfare supervisors who know what skills are effective with children and families and who know how to coach workers in developing and implementing those skills foster workers’ motivation and commitment to the job. Emergent workers take charge of their careers and want to learn new skills (Spherion, 2005). Child welfare supervisors who facilitate that kind of learning will see their workers making signiﬁcant contributions to the job and agency. Child welfare workers who stay on the job experience clear expectations and measurable performance objectives (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). These activities are important at every stage of the child welfare worker’s development, but different strategies apply at various stages. During the ﬁrst 6 months of employment—the high-anxiety stage—new child welfare workers feel overwhelmed with everything they have to do and may feel that their performance is inadequate. At this stage it is important for the supervisor to focus on the concrete tasks of the job and give feedback about the worker’s ability to accomplish those tasks. Later, as the worker develops some degree of conﬁdence in accomplishing these concrete tasks, the supervisor should increase performance expectations and coach the worker for greater skill development and application.

248

child welfare supervision Training and Professional Development

Child welfare workers at the basic-skills stage of development recognize their need for more advanced skills (Salus, 2004). At this point, child welfare supervisors should help workers create a staff development plan that will encourage and support their professional development through training and other specialized learning activities. Studies have documented the contribution of training and development activities to child welfare worker retention (Curry, McCarragher, & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2005; Kleinpeter, Pasztor, & Telles-Rogers, 2003). Providing opportunities for knowledge and skill development throughout a worker’s career in child welfare is a hallmark of an emergent organization that recognizes the importance of training and development to retaining workers (Spherion, 2005). Workers tend to leave prematurely when their knowledge and skills are underutilized (Harrison, 1995) or languish, and this happens more often with relatively independent workers. These workers seek opportunities beyond traditional training activities to grow and develop professionally. For example, when child welfare workers are tapped by supervisors to be peer mentors and subject matter experts, they develop more advanced skills as they teach others. Also, assisting with professional membership dues, subscribing to professional journals, and offering tuition assistance for job-related degrees are retention-supporting actions. Other appealing professional development activities include attending, and maybe presenting workshops at, professional conferences, developing curriculum for interagency trainings, and speaking at community meetings. Recognizing and Responding to the Emotional Toll of the Work Stress, Burnout, and Secondary Trauma Burnout and secondary trauma can be realities of child welfare work and a signiﬁcant challenge for staff retention. Supervisors play a critical role in both recognizing and responding to these concerns for their workers. Experts in the ﬁeld of secondary or vicarious trauma make a distinction between burnout, which is a process and generally occurs over time, and vicarious or secondary trauma, which is a condition and can occur over time or as a result of a particular event (Maslach, 2003). A number of organizational factors can increase the likelihood of burnout, including unsupportive administration, lack of professional challenge, low salaries, and difﬁculties in providing services. These factors undoubtedly increase staff stress and can exacerbate both the likelihood and impact of secondary trauma. Current research suggests that effective interventions to neutralize secondary trauma require a comprehensive, purposeful, and multidimensional approach. Responding to secondary trauma includes creating an organizational climate that provides support, safety, and resources to the workers. The supervisor’s role in this involves the monitoring of workload, ensuring group support, providing caring supervision, offering education on secondary trauma, and encouraging worker selfcare (Bell, Kulkarni, & Dalton, 2003).

Getting and Keeping the Best People

249

Secondary trauma is a speciﬁc condition that results from empathic contact with traumatized people or material that contains graphic images of trauma. This condition can result in such physiological symptoms as ﬂashbacks, nightmares, intrusive or obsessive thoughts, numbing, and disassociation (Beaton & Murphy, 1995). In addition to the personal toll this condition takes, there is a very real organizational impact, potentially including less effective work, absenteeism, and, ultimately, staff turnover (see Box 10.14). Both prevention and intervention strategies are necessary to support workers in their work with clients. Bell et al. (2003) have suggested a multi-pronged approach: • Create an organizational culture that openly acknowledges the reality of secondary trauma and fosters an environment that encourages self-care, training, and group and supervisory support. • Monitor workload for intensity, size, and need for external resources. • Provide a work environment that is safe, comfortable, and private. • Ensure that workers receive education about secondary trauma and concrete information about how to prevent and recognize this condition and intervene when it occurs. • Offer opportunities for structured and consistent group support. These groups can be peer or professionally led and can take a variety of forms, including consultation, treatment teams, case conferences, and clinical seminars.

Box 10.14

Case Scenario

Julie has been working on the ongoing child protection team for almost 2 years. As a young, somewhat idealistic new worker, she joined the team full of energy, optimism, and enthusiasm. During supervision over the past 6 months, she has expressed anger and frustration with her clients and serious doubts that the families she is working with will really be able to change. She states that her efforts seem futile and her clients’ problems overwhelming. She has been working long hours, often taking work home on weekends, to prepare for two very difﬁcult court hearings on termination of parental rights. She has called in sick twice in the past two weeks, complaining of ﬂu-like symptoms. Recently, you have overheard a comment she made to a coworker: “My husband wonders where the fun-loving person he married has gone.” Discussion Questions • What are your concerns for Julie? • How can you approach her in a supportive way to ascertain both her needs and possible solutions to her problems? • What types of interventions might you suggest for Julie?

child welfare supervision

250

• Provide regular and supportive supervision that creates opportunities for expressing fears, concerns, and inadequacies. • Offer resources for self-care including peer support, therapy, stress management, and physical activities (see Box 10.15).

Critical-Incident Debriefing Another reality of child welfare work is the necessity of experiencing and responding to critical incidents—a child death in foster care, an incident of re-abuse after a child returns home, threats or acts of violence to a worker by a client—that occur with children, clients, and staff. These incidents can be difﬁcult and traumatizing for all involved. A supervisor provides the pivotal role of providing support and intervention to allow workers to debrief and recover from the crisis. In Colorado, advanced secondary trauma training for supervisors highlights a successful intervention approach (Conrad, 2005). The training encourages supervisors to use a model originally developed for emergency and disaster workers to effectively debrief critical incidents. Called the SAFE-R Model, it provides a concrete framework for supervisory response (Mitchell & Everly, 1995; see Box 10.16). Responding to the Disengagement Process One of the ways in which workers respond to the emotional toll of child welfare work is by disengaging. In a recent study of Maryland child welfare workers, Hopkins et al. (2007) describe behaviors that individuals exhibit while still on the job that reﬂect disengagement. They label behaviors such as absenteeism, lateness, neglecting tasks, failing to attend meetings, and making excuses to go somewhere else as work withdrawal. Such behaviors often occur when workers experience the stress and burnout that are common in child welfare. In particular, the kind of burnout known as

Box 10.15

A Team Approach to Self-Care

Dedicate a team meeting to exploring the effects of secondary trauma and self-care. Have team members discuss the following: • What makes this work difﬁcult? • How do you know you are struggling? • How do you know your teammates are struggling? Encourage each team member to create a list of 10 self-care strategies. These should be posted in a visible place around each person’s desk or work area, and team members should be encouraged to support and remind each other to be responsible for their own self-care. Source: Adapted from Conrad (2005).

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.16

251

The SAFE-R Model

Step One: Stimulation reduction. Remove the individual from the crisis situation— take a walk, get a cup of coffee, etc. Step Two: Acknowledgement of the crisis. Ask the person who experienced the crisis: 1. “What happened?” 2. “How are you doing?” Step Three: Facilitation of understanding and normalization of symptoms and reactions. The supervisor actively seeks to understand the worker’s emotions and to normalize the event and his or her reaction. Step Four: Explanation of basic concepts of crisis, stress, and stress management. Discuss stress management options with the worker and make a plan for employing self-care techniques. Step Five: Restoration of independent functioning or referral for provision of additional assistance. If further assistance is necessary, the supervisor should help the worker make the necessary arrangements through either agency contacts or the employee assistance program. Source: Mitchell & Everly (1995).

emotional exhaustion is signiﬁcantly related to a worker’s intention to leave the job (Dickinson & Perry, 2002; Glisson et al., 2006). Christina Maslach (2003, p. 3) describes emotional exhaustion as “people feeling drained and used up, lacking the energy to face another day. Their emotional resources are depleted and there is no source of replenishment.” Clearly, as a worker reaches a state of emotional exhaustion, leaving the job might seem like the best or only option. Before leaving, however, some workers protect themselves from further stress and emotional exhaustion by disengaging from heartfelt work with clients and meaningful interactions with supervisors and coworkers. Child welfare supervisors should gently, but ﬁrmly, challenge workers who appear to be disengaged to participate in resilience-building sessions with them (see Box 10.17). Through listening and communication, the supervisor begins to learn from the worker the reasons for their disengagement. The supervisor then should invite the worker to develop a plan for building or rebuilding resilience, the ability to bounce back from difﬁcult experiences that will protect the worker from the need to disengage in the future. The resilience plan could include the following (Williams & Dickinson, 2006): • • • • • • •

Improving relationships with family members and friends Accepting help and support from others Avoiding seeing crises as insurmountable problems Developing some realistic goals and taking action to achieve them Keeping things in perspective Maintaining a hopeful outlook Taking care of yourself

child welfare supervision

252

Box 10.17

What Promotes Employee Engagement? The Five “I’s”

• Interesting work. Workers want to be challenged by diverse tasks. • Information. Open channels of communication give workers the information they need to do their jobs better and more effectively. • Involvement. Workers want to be involved with decision making, especially when the decisions affect them directly. • Independence. Workers want ﬂexibility to do their jobs without having their every action closely monitored. • Increased visibility. Workers want opportunities to perform, learn, and grow, and recognition for doing a good job. Source: Insightlink Communications (2005b).

The “Stay Interview” Child welfare staff members who leave often experience the exit interview. Child welfare supervisors who are retention focused should occasionally have a “stay interview” with workers. This strategy conveys to workers that the supervisor cares and that each worker is valued and important. It also provides an opportunity for the supervisor to discover what an individual worker values about his or her job and what motivates each one to remain employed there (see Box 10.18). Finally, the stay interview helps the supervisor and the worker to develop together individualized strategies to respond to factors that the worker mentions that might push them away from their current job. An important question to ask early in the stay interview is whether or not the worker intends to leave the agency in the near future. Studies show that the strongest predictor of job turnover is a worker’s stated intention to leave (Mor Barak, Nissly, & Levin, 2001; Weaver & Chang, 2004). Subsequent questions should uncover the reasons why the worker intends to stay or leave their job. Retention Strategies at the Organizational Level Child welfare supervisors not only have individual inﬂuence over whether workers stay or leave their jobs, they also inﬂuence organizational contributions to turnover. In particular, supervisors can help to improve agency climate and create a learning organization, both of which improve worker retention. Improving agency climate As noted earlier, the agency climate is the collective perception that employees have of their work environment (Cahalane & Sites, 2004). This perception can be inﬂuenced by active steps that agency administrators should take to show that employees are valued. When workers perceive that the agency is fair in determining recognition, promotions, and other types of rewards, they are more likely to remain. Also, workers who

Getting and Keeping the Best People Box 10.18

253

The Stay Interview

Andrea has been a child protection worker for 3 years. She brings many strengths to both the job and the team. She is thoughtful, competent, organized, creative, and committed. Within the team, others look to her for guidance and support. Andrea is clearly an employee you want to motivate and keep. Consider a supervision session with Andrea that allows both of you to explore why she stays. The following list of questions can begin the discussion. You might give them to her beforehand, so that she has time to consider her responses before your stay interview session. • What will keep you here? What will cause you to stay? What might entice you to leave? • Are we fully using your talents and skills? • Looking at your total compensation package, do you think that you are fairly compensated for the work you do? Why or why not? • What would you like to be doing a year from now? • Give an example of one or two incidents that make you want to stay at this job. • What about this job makes you either jump out of bed in the morning or hit the snooze button? • If you were to win the lottery and resign, what would you miss most about this job? • If you had a magic wand, what one thing would you change about this work team? • What would be the one thing about working here that would cause you to leave if it changed? • What are you overdue for? • If you were the supervisor, what would you do differently? • How does this job ﬁt you? Source: Williams & Dickinson (2006).

stay understand the agency’s mission, feel valued as contributors to that mission (Keefe, 2003), and feel respected as individual members of the agency (Landsman, 2001). Workers tend to leave prematurely when they have limited professional discretion and participation in decision-making (Hopkins, Mudrick, & Rudolph, 1999). Child welfare supervisors, together, can work with agency administrators to improve agency climate by such tactics as establishing clear guidelines for promotions and raises; allowing more professional discretion and participation in decision making; making the agency’s mission more visible and clarifying how it is relevant to child welfare work; and instituting a rewards and recognition program so that workers have tangible evidence of the agency’s respect for their accomplishments. Since emergent workers rank time and ﬂexibility as most important in a job, the emergent agency responds by implementing personally appealing and family-friendly job supports such as ﬂextime, job sharing, case teaming, and telecommuting. Programs and beneﬁts that respond to workers’ developmental stages and increase retention include child care support and elder care support. An agency’s concern for worker safety certainly relates to worker retention (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

254

child welfare supervision

[AFSCME], 1998). To demonstrate that concern, agencies can provide safety training, teaming policies, law enforcement collaborations, and available cell phones and other equipment. Other tangible evidence of a supportive agency climate includes adequate workspace and functioning, readily available computers, and other ofﬁce equipment. Creating a learning organization The tenets of a learning organization include the following retention strategies: encouraging communication and teamwork, providing opportunities for professional growth and education, developing cooperative learning and internal career ladders, and promoting personal feelings of accomplishment. More speciﬁcally, child welfare supervisors and agency administrators can implement the following initiatives to support a learning organization (Network for Excellence in Human Services, n.d.): • Allocate funds for staff development and training to meet the needs of all child welfare workers. • Provide professional development opportunities that can lead to career advancement. • Provide workers with opportunities to practice new skills and mentor other workers. • Provide ﬁnancial compensation after the worker completes advanced training or earns a higher degree. • Pay dues to professional organizations and keep current professional books in the agency library. • Encourage supervisors to discuss career goals with workers. • Provide opportunities and incentives for advancement. • Involve workers in determining caseloads, assignments, and workloads. • Encourage workers to help and support each other. • Give recognition for success, achievement, and longevity. • Encourage participation by workers in agency planning and decision making. • Provide opportunities for workers to develop ownership of the agency’s mission and goals and understand their role in achieving them. • Set up clear communication channels throughout the agency. • Set up staff committees or task forces to address personnel and agency concerns. • Foster opportunities for developing teamwork. • Promote a positive, friendly atmosphere in the workplace.

Taking the pulse of the agency The best way for child welfare supervisors and their agencies to evaluate what kind of job they are doing to promote retention is to ask child welfare

Getting and Keeping the Best People

255

workers directly. Organizations that regularly survey workers to determine their opinions and satisfaction are more keenly aware of what motivates workers to remain on their jobs or, conversely, what dissatisfactions might lead to their turnover. Surveys can be conducted face-to-face in small focus groups or large town-hall meetings. Written questionnaires distributed occasionally or opportunities for ongoing anonymous feedback also ensure that all voices are heard. While surveys convey interest on the part of employers, unless there is follow-up action, workers will become disillusioned and even more intent on leaving their jobs. When workers do leave, there is still the opportunity to solicit their opinions through an exit interview. Unless the worker is comfortable with the conditions under which an exit interview is conducted, however, the information will be too general and incomplete to be useful. Face-to-face interviews with an agency employer or human resources staff member will not enable the worker to disclose the true causes for their decision to leave, as workers often give socially acceptable reasons such as better pay or promotional opportunity. A standardized written or computer-based survey can more easily be made anonymous. In developing an effective exit interview questionnaire, the following guidelines may be helpful (Gray, 2006). • Do not focus solely on the worker’s reasons for leaving. Rather, include broader measures of the worker’s attitudes and experiences. Incorporate measures of worker satisfaction with the job, an assessment of the agency’s work climate and effectiveness, and perceptions of opportunities for growth and development, among other retention-related factors. • Be sure that there is more than one way for workers to describe their reasons for leaving, including open-ended questions, to get a full perspective on their decision to leave. • Examine the results not only for individual surveys but also for the agency as a whole and use the results to make real, constructive, and visible organizational changes to improve retention.

CONCLUSION Getting and keeping the best people in child welfare requires a collective effort to recruit, select, and retain quality staff. As this chapter has identiﬁed, the supervisor has a critical role, ﬁlled with challenges and opportunities, to decrease staff turnover within their team and the organization. By employing a holistic approach that includes speciﬁc strategies to impact how staff members are recruited, how they are selected, and how they are retained, a supervisor can hire and support his or her staff in accomplishing the demanding work of child welfare. We have suggested that the work begin with knowledge of current workforce trends and worker characteristics and that building strategies on the basis of individual workers’ needs, expectations, and developmental level will be key to success.

child welfare supervision

256

The supervisor also has a role in advocating for and creating an organizational climate and learning organization that embrace staff recruitment, selection, and retention as evidenced by policy, practice, and commitment of time and resources. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. Have you considered yourself in the role of staff “recruiter”? In what ways can you strengthen your own recruiting skills and those of your workers? 2. What is your process for hiring or selecting employees? Does it result in positive outcomes? How can it be improved? 3. Do you have emergent or traditional workers? How can you consider the characteristics of these different types of workers in your supervisory approach? 4. How does your supervision approach change depending on the developmental stage of your individual staff? 5. How does your team welcome and orient new workers? 6. What words would your staff use to describe your supervision approach and style? 7. Do you know what might motivate or reward your individual employees? 8. On a scale of 1 to 10, rate your ability to respond to secondary trauma issues for your staff. How can you strengthen this skill? 9. How would you describe the organizational climate of your agency? What would your staff say? 10. What can you and your colleagues do to create a learning organization? REFERENCES

Ahluwalia, U., Burgess, T., & Adams, C. G. (2001). Competitive strategies in public child welfare: Attracting and keeping our best workers. Paper presented at the 2001 Finding Better Ways Conference, Child Welfare League of America. Alwon, F., & Reitz, A. (2000). The workforce crisis in child welfare: An issue brief. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. (1998). Double jeopardy: Caseworkers at risk helping at-risk kids: A report on the working conditions facing child welfare workers. Washington, DC: Author. American Public Human Services Association. (2001). Report from the child welfare workforce survey: State and county data and ﬁndings. Washington, DC: Author. American Public Human Services Association. (2005). Report from the 2004 child welfare workforce survey: State agency ﬁndings. Washington, DC: Author. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). The unsolved challenge of system reform: The condition of the frontline human services workforce. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Getting and Keeping the Best People

257

Balfour, D. L., & Neff, D. M. (1993). Predicting and managing turnover in human service agencies: A case study of an organization in crisis. Public Personnel Management, 22(3), 473–486. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big ﬁve personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barth, R. P., Lloyd, E. C., Christ, S. L., Chapman, M. V., & Dickinson, N. S. (2008). Child welfare characteristics and job satisfaction: A national study. Social Work, 53,199-209. Beaton, R., & Murphy, S. (1995). Secondary traumatic stress of crisis workers: Research implications. In C. Figley (Ed.), Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder in those who treat the traumatized (pp. 51–81). New York: Brunner/Mazel. Bell, H., Kulkarni, S., & Dalton, L. (2003). Organizational prevention of vicarious trauma. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84(4), 463–470. Bernotavicz, F. (1997). Retention of child welfare caseworkers. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, University of Southern Maine. Bernotavicz, F., & Wischmann, A. (2000). Hiring child welfare caseworkers: Using a competency-based approach. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 33–45. Cahalane, H., & Sites, E. W. (2004) Is it hot or cold? The climate of child welfare employee retention. Unpublished paper, University of Pittsburgh. Child Welfare Training Institute. (2005a). Child welfare caseworker competencybased screening resource guide. University of Southern Maine: Author. Child Welfare Training Institute. (2005b). When the child speaks: Impact of caseworker turnover on children and youth. University of Southern Maine: Author. Cicero-Reese, B., & Black, P. (1998). Research suggests why child welfare workers stay on the job. Partnerships for Child Welfare, 5(5), 5, 8–9. Conrad, D. (2005). Secondary trauma curriculum. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Curry, D., McCarragher, T., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2005). Training, transfer, and turnover: Exploring the relationship among transfer of learning factors and staff retention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 931–948. Dickinson, N. S., Painter, J. S., & Lee, J. S. (2007, January). Child welfare worker turnover: Understanding and predicting who actually leaves. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research, San Francisco, CA. Dickinson, N. S., & Perry, R. E. (2002). Factors inﬂuencing the retention of specially educated public child welfare workers. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare, 15(3/4), 89–103. Ellett, A. J. (2000) Human caring, self-efﬁcacy beliefs, and professional organizational culture correlates of employee retention in child welfare. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. Ellett, A. J., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (2003, June). A study of personal and organizational factors contributing to employee retention and turnover in child welfare in Georgia: Final project report. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, School of Social Work.

258

child welfare supervision

Flower, C., McDonald, J., & Sumski, M. (2005). Review of turnover in Milwaukee County private agency child welfare ongoing case management staff. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://www.uky.edu/SocialWork/cswe/documents/ turnoverstudy.pdf Fox, S. R., Miller, V. P., & Barbee, A. P. (2003). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: Effective use of training and professional development. In K. BriarLawson & J. L. Zlotnik (Eds.), Charting the impacts of university-child welfare collaboration (pp. 67–81). New York: Haworth Press. Garfat, T. (2001). Developmental stages of child and youth care workers: An interactional perspective. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.cyc-net.org/ cyc-online/cycol-0101-garfat.html Glisson, C., Dukes, D., & Green, P. (2006). The effects of the ARC organizational intervention on caseworker turnover, climate, and culture in children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 855–880. Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 401–421. Graef, M. I., & Hill, E. L. (2000, September/October). Costing child protective services staff turnover. Child Welfare, 79(1). Graef, M. I., Paul, M. E., & Myers, T. L. (in press). Recruiting and selecting child welfare staff. In F. Alwon, K. Greenhill, A. Reitz, & B. Schmitt (Eds.), Child welfare in a time of scarcity: Recruiting, retaining, and compensating a competent child welfare workforce. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Graef, M. I., & Potter, M. E. (2002). Alternative solutions to the child protective services stafﬁng crisis: Innovations from industrial/organizational psychology. Protecting Children, 17(3), 18–31. Graef, M. I., Potter, M. E., & Rohde, T. L. (2002). Selection test validation. Unpublished study, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Gray, R. D. (2006). Exit interviews and employee turnover. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.insightlink.com/exit_interviews_employee_turnover.html Grubb, V. M. (2008) Managing the New Generations: Why understanding Xers, Yers and Millenials is Key to Motivating your Workforce. Springﬁeld, PA: Business 21 Publishing. Harrison, S. G. (1995). Exploration of factors related to intent to leave among child welfare caseworkers. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Hess, P. M., Folaron, G., & Jefferson, A. B. (1992). Effectiveness of family reuniﬁcation services: An innovative evaluative model. Social Work, 37(4), 304–311. Hewitt, A. S., Larson, S. A., O’Nell, S. N., & Sauer, J. K. (2005). Orientation, socialization, networking, and professionalization. In Staff recruitment, retention, & training strategies for community human services organizations (pp. 105–123). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Hewitt, M. (1999). Finding and keeping the best: 3 ways to ensure that employees stay. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://www.workforce.com/archive/ article/24/62/99_printer.php Hopkins, K. M., Cohen-Callow, A., Golden, G., Barnes, G. J., Salliey, A., & Morton, C. (2007). Maryland child welfare workforce recruitment, selection and retention study. Baltimore: University of Maryland, School of Social Work.

Getting and Keeping the Best People

259

Hopkins, K. M., Mudrick, N. R., & Rudolph, C. S. (1999). Impact of university/agency partnerships in child welfare on organizations, workers, and work activities. Child Welfare, 78(6), 749–773. Insightlink Communications. (2005a). Employee turnover costs: R01 calculator. Retrieved March 7, 2006, from http://www.insightlink.com/employee_ turnover_costs.cfm Insightlink Communications. (2005b). Employers and employees—making the marriage work: The importance of employee commitment. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.insightlink.com/employee_commitment.html Jones, L. (2002). A follow-up of a Title IV-E program’s graduates’ retention rates in a public child welfare agency. Evaluation Research in Child Welfare, 15(3/4), 39–51. Jordan Institute for Families. (2007). Staying power! Recruitment Toolkit. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2005). Love ‘em or lose ‘em: Getting good people to stay (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Keefe, L. (2003, June). How to overcome organizational indifference. Policy & Practice, 61(2), 24–27. Kleinpeter, C., Pasztor, Em. M., & Telles-Rogers, T. (2003). The impact of training on worker performance and retention: Perceptions of child welfare supervisors. Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(3), 39–49. Landsman, M. J. (2001). Commitment in public child welfare. Social Service Review, 75(3), 386–419. Larson, S. A., & Hewitt, A. S. (2005). Staff recruitment, retention, & training strategies for community human services organizations. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Larson, S. A., Lakin, K. C., & Bruininks, R. H. (1998). Staff recruitment and retention: Study results and intervention strategies. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation. Larson, S. A., O’Nell, S. N., & Sauer, J. K. (2005). What is this job all about? Using realistic job previews in the hiring process. In Staff recruitment, retention, & training strategies for community human services organizations (pp. 47–74). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Light, P. (2003). The health of the human services workforce. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Maslach, C. (2003). Burnout: The cost of caring. Cambridge, MA: Malor Books. McCarthy, M. (2003). Workforce retention research in New York State. Paper presented at the Council on Social Work Education, Atlanta, GA. McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 342–353. Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & DeNisi, A. S. (2000). A meta-analytic examination of realistic job preview effectiveness: A test of three counterintuitive propositions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 407–434. Mitchell, J., & Everly, G. (1995). Critical incident stress debrieﬁng: An operations manual for the prevention of traumatic stress among emergency services and disaster workers. Ellicott City, MD: Chevron Publishing Corporation. Mor Barak, M. E., Levin, A., Nissly, J. A., & Lane, C. J. (2006). Why do they leave? Modeling child welfare workers’ turnover intentions. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 548–577.

260

child welfare supervision

Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A. (2001). Antecedents to retention and turnover among child welfare, social work, and other human service employees: What can we learn from past research? A review and metanalysis. Social Service Review, 75(4), 625–661. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (2006). Relationship between staff turnover, child welfare system functioning and recurrent child abuse. Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids. Nelson, B. (1994). 1001 ways to reward employees. New York: Workman Publishing. Network for Excellence in Human Services. (n.d.). Stafﬁng human services: From recruitment to retention. San Diego, CA: Author. Nissly, J. A., Mor Barak, M. E., & Levin, A. (2005). Stress, support, and workers’ intentions to leave their jobs in public child welfare. Administration in Social Work, 29(1), 79–100. Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673–690. Popovich, P., & Wanous, J. P. (1982). The realistic job preview as a persuasive communication. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 570–578. Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706–719. Rosenthal, J. S., & Waters, E. (2006). Predictors of child welfare worker retention and performance: Focus on title IV-E-funded social work education. Journal of Social Service Research, 32(3), 67–85. Ryan, J. P., Garner, P., Zyphur, M., & Zhai, F. (2006). Investigating the effects of caseworker characteristics in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(9), 993–1006. Rycraft, J. R. (1994). The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75–80. Salus, M. K. (2004). Supervising child protective services caseworkers. Child abuse and neglect user manual series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Scannapieco, M., & Connell-Carrick, K. (2003). Do collaborations with schools of social work make a difference for the ﬁeld of child welfare? Practice, retention and curriculum. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 35–51. Smith, B. D. (2005). Job retention in child welfare: Effects of perceived organizational support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job value. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 153–169. Spherion Atlantic Enterprises LLC. (2005). Spherion emerging workforce study. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Author. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www. spherion.com/about_us/emerging_workforce/emerging_workforce.jsp U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006a). Occupational employment statistics. Retrieved July 20, 2007, from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci. htm#62 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006b). Occupational outlook handbook. Retrieved July 19, 2007, from http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos060.htm#emply U.S. Government Accountability Ofﬁce (GAO). (2003). HHS could play a greater role in helping child welfare agencies recruit and retain staff. Washington, DC: Author.

Getting and Keeping the Best People

261

Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison Wesley. Weaver, D., & Chang, J. (2004). The retention of California’s public child welfare workers. Berkeley, CA: California Social Work Education Center, University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Work. Western Regional Recruitment and Retention Project (2006). Child welfare recruitment, selection, and retention ﬁnal report: Jefferson County Division of Children Youth and Families. Denver, CO: Author. Williams, E. S., & Dickinson, N. S. (2006). Staying power! A supervisor’s guide to child welfare retention. Chapel Hill, NC: Jordan Institute for Families. Zlotnik, J. L. (2003). The use of Title IV-E training funds for social work education: An historical perspective. In K. Briar-Lawson & J. L. Zlotnik (Eds.), Charting the impacts of university-child welfare collaboration. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Social Work Practice Press. Zlotnik, J., DePanﬁlis, D., Daining, C., & Lane, M. (2005). Factors inﬂuencing the retention of child welfare staff: A systematic review of the research. Washington, DC: Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research.

11 DEVELOPING WORKER COMPETENCE C HARMAINE R. B RITTAIN & C ATHRYN C. POTTER

primary role for the supervisor is to teach workers so that they develop A competence in their jobs to better serve children and families. Educational supervision focuses on helping workers acquire the knowledge and skills that are essential to the job, and assisting them to integrate their thinking and actions into a coherent approach to case practice (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Supervisors are on the frontline, and through their teaching, mentoring, and coaching they ensure that workers have sufﬁcient competence to perform their jobs and achieve the agency’s mission and goals. Workers themselves often cite the role of teacher as the most important component of supervision (Tsui, 2005). While much child welfare training takes place in formal training sessions delivered by others, supervisors can “make or break” that training by the ways they handle transfer of learning, on-the-job learning, and coaching. In addition, there is a strong teaching element inherent in the supervisory relationship itself. Thus, supervisors have important direct and indirect roles in developing and sustaining worker competence. Teaching and learning take place in the larger organizational environment as well. Some have suggested that child welfare agencies should pay greater attention to the learning organization literature (Austin & Hopkins, 2004). The staff at a learning organization display skill and nimbleness at acquiring and then applying new knowledge and insights (Garvin, 1998). At learning organizations staff members are encouraged and expected to continuously improve themselves and their organization. 262

Developing Worker Competence

263

A learning organization has high-performing workers and units who ultimately create more effective means of organizing and managing the organization itself, so that it may “continually expand its capacity to create its future” (Senge, 1990, p. 13). In this context, increasing worker competence is seen as just one component of increasing organizational health and effectiveness. Austin and Hopkins (2004) have articulated several key functions of a learning organization: • Information gathering and problem solving: a process of decision making based in identiﬁcation and use of critical information • Experimentation: searching for and using improved approaches to the work • Learning from the past: consciously locating decisions in historical learning and the wisdom of those with experience • Transferring knowledge: a commitment to sharing new information within the organization, such that everyone in the group beneﬁts from an individual’s learning

Each of these functions ﬁts well with work in child welfare settings, where the work itself is centered in an assessment and problem-solving model, and where the evidence base for practice is developing. However, many child welfare agencies operate more as crisis management organizations than as learning organizations (Faller et al., 2004). Several organizational impediments may get in the way of taking a learning-organization approach, including inertia, cultural conﬂicts between old and new approaches, self-interest, and the challenges of making a compelling case and building community buy-in for change (Faller et al., 2004). Still, supervisors may create mini-learning cultures in their units, even in the face of larger organizational obstacles. The supervisor’s role in creating and supporting this learning culture is a critical and creative one. In this chapter, we focus on theory and practice in four important areas that support this work: considering adult learning styles, taking a developmental approach, interfacing with formal training opportunities, and using the supervisor–worker relationship. CONSIDERING ADULT LEARNING STYLES Adult Learning Principles Some educators have used the analogy of a sponge to describe teaching young children: pour information in and then wring it out in practice and testing. Indeed, children do learn through rote memorization and practice. However, memorization, recitation, and pattern-making are not the most effective tools to use when teaching adults. Adults bring knowledge and life experiences to the learning process, which provide enriching contexts to learning experiences. They bring approaches, adapted from

child welfare supervision

264

years of classroom and life experiences, to learning that work for them. The teacher in an adult learning situation may be more of a facilitator than a teacher, as he or she helps learners connect new ideas to experience (MacKeracher, 2004). Adult learners are typically independent, self-directed, and interested in practical information that is immediately useful. Learning experiences are more effective when they relate to life experiences, including culture, knowledge, biases, age, gender, and education. Most adults have capacity for generalized, abstract thought, and can be engaged in complex learning activities that call for integration of thought and action to achieve critical thinking and thus higher levels of learning. In fact, it is the development of critical thinking that helps to increase the probability of a desired outcome (Halpern, 1996). In this era of child welfare accountability, such a focus is paramount for the the mindful supervisor. Critical thinking, as deﬁned by the National Council on Excellence in Critical Thinking, is the “intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reﬂection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action” (Foundation for Critical Thinking, 2004). Most adults learn best through interaction and discussion with others and with a focus on content that is practical and useful in their jobs and everyday life. Consequently, the teaching of adults requires an ability to engage in joint thinking and skillful guidance to promote critical thinking, rather than the more one-sided, didactic approach used when teaching children. Learning Styles People learn differently, and efforts to educate or train them must acknowledge and accommodate different learning styles (Dunn & Dunn, 1999; Kolb, 2000; MacKeracher, 2004; Sarasin, 1999; Tileston, 2005). A learning style is deﬁned as the way a person focuses on, processes, and integrates new information. Some adults adhere more rigidly to one style, while others are able to adapt to multiple styles. Still, adults learn best when using their preferred styles, and a person’s compatibility with the instructional mode predicts success in learning new information (Sarasin, 1999). Classroom or one-on-one content that is compatible to the learner’s style results in better knowledge and skills integration. There is more than one paradigm that describes an individual’s approach to learning. Here we discuss the work of Kolb and the commonly used approach articulated by Sarasin and Tileston. Kolb’s (2000) learning style model differentiates learning into two dimensions: • The perception of new information: In new situations, some people prefer to sense and feel their way, while others prefer to think their way through the situation.

Developing Worker Competence

265

• The processing of the information perceived: Some people prefer to take the information and do something with it, while others prefer to watch and absorb.

The integration of these two dimensions, that is, how information is perceived and then processed, results in four main learning styles (Kolb, 2000). • Concrete experience (experiencing). People who emphasize this mode of learning ﬁnd the tangible, felt qualities of the world as their favored means of perceiving, grasping, or taking hold of new information. They perceive the world through their own senses, immerse themselves in the concrete reality, and rely heavily on their intuition, rather than stepping back and thinking through the elements of the situation analytically. • Abstract conceptualization (thinking). People who emphasize this mode of learning tend to grasp new information through symbolic representation. They tend to think about, analyze, or systematically plan, rather than use intuition or sensation as a guide. • Active experimentation (doing). When processing new information, these people would prefer to jump right in and try it out. • Reﬂective observation (reﬂecting). This group prefers to carefully watch others who are involved in the experience and reﬂect on what has happened.

A similar approach by McCarthy (1990) uses a typology that classiﬁes learning styles into four quadrants, which roughly approximate Kolb’s (2000) schema. • Proactive learners. This learner needs to touch and feel when learning new information and be quite concrete in making connections. • Creative learners. Information is integrated in a holistic fashion using images. • Practical learners. Integration requires an application or practical use of new information. • Abstract learners. This learner processes sequentially and in an empirical fashion.

The similarities of the models of a varied group of researchers and their genesis being from the Jungian archetypes give credence to the notion of differing learning styles. Another model that is useful when considering the varying ways that adults process and integrate new information emphasizes their preferred

266

child welfare supervision

ways of sensing information—either visually, auditorially, or kinesthetically (Sarasin, 1999; Sinha, 1996; Tileston, 2005). • Visual learners prefer to see things as a way of integrating them. These people need to see a written word, review diagrams, see charts, or look at outlines and may take copious notes to help remind them of the content, as the act of writing down the word acts as a trigger. This learner may also form mental images while listening to material as a strategy to process new information. The visual learner prefers to learn a concept completely before trying it and uses the ﬁve senses throughout the process. Visual learners may make lists to help guide their learning process. • Auditory learners depend on hearing new information, typically through a lecture, and take in new information as individual facts before understanding it as a whole concept. This person tends to be more analytical in nature and thinks abstractly, reﬂectively, and sequentially (Sarasin, 1999; Tileston, 2005). They may mentally repeat tasks over and over again to grasp new information (Sarasin). • The tactile or kinesthetic learner needs a hands-on approach and prefers to learn by doing something within a concrete experience to master a concept and then apply it to other situations (Sarasin, 1999; Tileston, 2005). Learning activities for the tactile or kinesthetic learner should be diverse, engaging, and hands-on.

Table 11.1 describes these styles in more detail and identiﬁes learner attributes and corresponding instructional strategies. Although very few child welfare supervisors have formal training in concepts of adult learning or ofﬁcial training as teachers and educators, it is essential to have the core understanding that adults learn differently than children and, more importantly, that many individual differences exist. By adapting the leaning environment to the preferred leaning styles of a worker, the supervisor may increase the opportunity for successful professional competence. Assessing Worker Learning Styles Sometimes when supervisors teach workers new information, tasks, or skills, they fall into the trap of teaching them using their own learning preferences. Using one’s own style when workers have a similar style will be a positive learning experience. However, using one’s own style to teach someone who has the opposite style can be a frustrating experience for all. It is wise for supervisors to understand their personal styles and develop the ability to adapt to the styles of their workers. The “Quick & Easy Learning Style Checklist” (Sinha, 1996) found in Box 11.1 is one

Developing Worker Competence

267

Table 11.1 Overview of Sensory Learning Styles Descriptors

Learner Behaviors

Pre-instructional Strategies

Teaching Strategies

Need ample process time Interact with information orally Request oral repetitions Rephrase Expand on topics Request additional information

Verbal questioning Focusing & directive questions Continued verbal sharing Verbal rewording

Lectures Oral directions Discussions Independent tasks Objective presentations and practices Programmed instructions Tasks with speciﬁc answers Memorization & memory work Verbal sorting Sequential presentations Thinking time

May seem aloof Beneﬁt from repetition Fail to exhibit mastery Prefer visual imaging Do not pay attention Use outlining

Using focused techniques in writing Using focus questions in writing Providing adequate information for holistic learning Altering instructions or directions by adding visual aids Exposing learners to whole concepts Using visual stimuli Using diagrams and charts

Auditory Learners Abstract sequential Reﬂective Independent Achievement oriented Memory oriented Field independent Competitive Perceptual & conceptual Concrete sequential Skill oriented

Visual Learners Abstract random Concrete random Concrete Active Affective Field sensitive Field dependent Concept oriented

Visual formats Environmental inﬂuences Social cues Group learning Graphic organizers Modeling Demonstrations Role-playing Student presentations Field trips Motivational accounts or stories Computer-aided instruction Internet Activities that allow freedom and emphasize creativity Open-ended questions Teaching to senses

(continued)

child welfare supervision

268 Table 11.1 Overview of Sensory Learning Styles Descriptors

Learner Behaviors

Pre-instructional Strategies

Teaching Strategies

Supplementing commercial materials with manipulative components Using manipulatives Focusing on techniques that include interaction with objects Questioning based on physical interactions with objects

Internships & practicum Field trips Direct contact Experiential learning Simulations Demonstrations

Tactile/Kinesthetic Learners Dependent and independent Concrete sequential Concrete random Creative Behavioral Need interaction Hands-on Physical by nature Sensory Learn by doing Active Concrete

Use exploration & experimentation time Enjoy interaction with resources & materials Prepare in advance Apply concept Prefer ﬁrsthand experience Participate

Source: Sarasin (1999).

such inventory. Section 1 assesses a learner’s sensory style, while Section 2 considers learning time preferences, and Section 3 evaluates preferred learning environments. Scoring instructions can be found in the appendix to the chapter. Short of using a formal instrument to help assess a learning style, consider asking the questions in Box 11.2 to begin to assess a worker’s personal sensory learning style (Sarasin, 1999). Use of a learning-style approach to guide supervisory teaching efforts can make the supervisory teaching role more economical and sensible for both the teacher and the learner (see Case Example 11.1). Supervisors using this approach engage in the following activities (Sarasin, 1999): 1. Determine the learning styles of individual workers with either a formal or informal method. 2. Help workers understand how their individual learning styles impact their own learning. 3. Customize and integrate learning opportunities to incorporate workers’ learning styles. 4. Help workers expand their scope of learning into other learning styles to become more versatile learners.

Developing Worker Competence

269

Box 11.1 Quick & Easy Learning Style Checklist Name: ______________________________ Location: ____________________ Date: _______________________________ ID #: ________________________ Instructions: For each sentence rank how it describes you when you are learning something new at work. Write the number that corresponds to that response. 3 = Best describes you 2 = Somewhat describes you 1 = Least like you Section 1. _____ I like trainers to present material verbally by lecture or by group discussion. (A) _____ I like to build, construct, or feel things with my hands. (K) _____ I like to create pictures or make images in my mind of new ideas. (V) _____ I like to move my body or parts of my body when I sit in a training session. (K) _____ I like to look at and inspect instructional materials and handouts. (V) _____ I can learn from listening to audiotapes. (A) _____ I like to look at pictures and diagrams to support presentations. (V) _____ I like to listen to others talk about ideas. (A) _____ I like to doodle or take written notes. (K) Section 2. _____ I like to study or learn at work in the morning. (LT) _____ I like to study or learn at work in the evening. (LT) _____ I like to study or learn at work in the afternoon. (LT) Section 3. _____ I like to study or learn at work in a warm room. (E) _____ I like quiet surroundings when I study or work. (E) _____ I like face-to-face interaction. (E) _____ I like learning collaboratively in cross-functional groups. (E) _____ I like a room that is brightly lit when I study or work. (E) _____ I like to study or work in a cold room. (E) _____ I like to learn or work by myself. (E) _____ I like a couch or soft comfortable chair to sit on while I study. (E) _____ I like a room that is softly lit when I study or read. (E) _____ I prefer experts to teach, no matter how they instruct. (E) _____ I like to eat or drink when I study or work. (E) _____ I like a hard chair to sit on while I study or work. (E) _____ I like background music or noise when I study or read. (E) _____ I like a supportive, encouraging trainer or teacher. (E) A, auditory; K, kinesthetic; V, verbal; LT, learning time; E, environment. Source: National Environmental, Safety and Health Training Association (www.neshta.org). Copyright © 1996 by National Environmental Training Association, Inc., and S. Merris Sinha. Used with permission

child welfare supervision

270

Box 11.2 The Really Quick Learning Style Test 1. Think about a typical day both personally and professionally. Think of six tasks that you have to remember to do during a typical day. 2. Think about the process used to remember these tasks. Do you make a list? Do you repeat the tasks over and over to yourself? Do you assign a number to each task? 3. Discuss this process with someone who has also completed steps 1 and 2 to begin identifying emerging patterns and dominant styles. Source: Sarasin (1999).

TAKING A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE Stages of Worker Development Intuitively, supervisors know that workers with different lengths of service have different needs and strengths, and it is necessary to adjust supervision efforts accordingly. This developmental approach assumes that the supervisor and the worker will teach and learn together in differing ways as the worker’s skill and experience increase. Child welfare workers move through a series of identiﬁable stages with speciﬁc characteristics when learning to be professional workers and in developing professional identities (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Knowing more about these stages enables a supervisor to more readily assume a developmental role in promoting workers’ individual growth and development. Complex and critical-thinking skills require a developmental approach to hone skills and acquire mental habits for this type of thinking. Targeting of developmental capacities and readiness for workers to grow results in better-prepared

Case Example 11.1 Different Strokes Rolando is providing orientation for two new workers to his adolescent unit. Juliana and Katie are very similar in that they are both in their mid-20s, have acquired BSWs, and previously worked at residential treatment centers. Rolando’s approach to orienting these new employees is to give them a few teaching case ﬁles and the agency policy and practice manuals. After 3 days, he meets with them both and asks if they have any questions. Both stare at him with completely blank looks and tell him they don’t understand what they’re supposed to be doing on a day-to-day basis. Juliana asks if she can shadow a new worker, while Katie wants to sit down and discuss the casework process with a senior staff person. Rolando tells them to go back over the materials and then he’ll sit down with them again. Questions • From this limited amount of information, what is the issue? • What learning styles could be represented here? • How could Rolando have made the orientation process more meaningful?

Developing Worker Competence

271

workers (Krueger, Austin, & Hopkins, 2004) who will be more equipped to sustain the vicissitudes of child welfare work. Beginning Stage A worker in the beginning stage typically has worked at the agency for less than 2 years and has the following characteristics (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • • • • • • • • • •

Requires higher levels of instruction, structure, and support Is comfortable with a hierarchical supervisor–worker relationship Prefers a didactic, one-on-one instruction to supervision Imitates supervisor or other mentors Asks many questions Is highly motivated to acquire new skills Possesses a variable sense of professional identity May exhibit awkward performance May lack conﬁdence Exhibits behaviors that are dependent, anxious, and insecure May be risk-adverse, due to insecurity May be over-involved with clients

For these workers, one primary supervisory task relates to ensuring worker performance relative to agency standards (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). In addition, the supervisor is building a supportive relationship with the worker and helping the worker to understand their own learning styles and to identify areas for professional growth. Supervision of the new worker will be more frequent, perhaps formally once a week, with many more “doorway” consultations between sessions. Supervision may have a more tutorial feel, with the supervisor acting as a teacher to help the worker consider, organize, and prioritize the work. Middle Stage (Critical Stage) This stage is critical because the worker either achieves success in integrating knowledge and skills or never quite gets to that point. Also, the worker often makes a decision to stay with the agency and in the child welfare ﬁeld based on his or her experiences during the beginning and middle stages. This stage might be called the make-or-break-it stage. Worker characteristics include the following (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • • • •

Exhibits comfort with job tasks Expresses increasing conﬁdence Anticipates behaviors and plans accordingly Recognizes patterns and makes intuitive decisions Needs less structured learning experiences Learns through identiﬁcation and internalization

child welfare supervision

272

• May revert to earlier dependent behaviors when stressed • May become somewhat disillusioned and more accepting of the idea that not all clients can be helped

At this stage, the supervisor–worker relationship becomes more comfortable and collegial. As the relationship strengthens, the supervisor is able to use more in-depth discussion and self-disclosure when providing supervision (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). End Stage (Consolidation Stage) In this stage, the worker consolidates their knowledge and skills to achieve mastery of the critical job skills. Typically, this worker has more than 5 years experience and exhibits the following professional characteristics (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002): • • • •

Displays fully developed boundaries Employs a ﬂexible style Possesses strong theoretical knowledge and analytical skills Exhibits a fully integrated understanding and can take appropriate action without seeming to consider alternatives • More readily accepts client participation in problem solving • Has greater acceptance of the complexity, ambiguity, and multicausality of human behavior

The supervisor–worker relationship is much more informal and increasingly collegial. The worker’s professional identity and technical skills have matured to a point of comfort with his or her role (Garfat, 2001; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). At this point, the supervisor acts more as a professional peer with regard to practice, policy implementation, ethics, and career development. The worker in the end stage will continue to rely on the supervisor to interpret organizational rules and policy but can be expected to implement them with a modicum of guidance. Workers at any stage of development need support, encouragement, and joint problem-solving from the supervisor. In addition, at every stage of development, workers need to increase their knowledge and skill in speciﬁc areas related to increased complexity in job tasks. This incremental approach to learning results in the development of key critical-thinking skills. Assessing Worker Training Needs: Individual Training Needs Assessment When taking a developmental approach, the supervisor has an important role in assessing training needs. The use of a structured approach to training needs assessment requires work with the staff member to formally assess their own professional knowledge and skills and develop a more formal plan for learning.

Developing Worker Competence

273

A formal, comprehensive approach to professional development is based on acquiring the necessary competencies through a systematic, planful, and well-organized approach to training development and administration (Rycus & Hughes, 2000). Competencies are deﬁned as the knowledge or skills, or both, that are necessary to perform various aspects of the job. When workers are “competent” (i.e., have the knowledge and skills), they are capable of performing their jobs. Whether they will subsequently do so is a performance issue, not a training or educational issue. One way of assessing worker training needs is through a formalized individual training needs assessment, commonly referred to with the acronym ITNA, to determine whether workers have sufﬁcient knowledge and skills in the competency areas related to their jobs (Rycus & Hughes, 2000). The ITNA is customized to the particular needs of the job and the worker by focusing only on those competencies relevant to the job and the worker’s training needs. The competencies can be deﬁned through a formalized process or by using the competencies already adopted by the agency that deﬁne a particular job. An ITNA pinpoints those knowledge and skill competencies necessary to proﬁciently perform the job and identiﬁes those needing further development (Rycus & Hughes, 2000). Individual training-needs assessments can be approached in multiple ways, but the most typical is to assess for two areas related to each competency (Rycus & Hughes, 2000): 1. To what degree is a particular competency important to the job? 2. What is the worker’s level of mastery related to that competency?

These questions are answered by the worker and supervisor in the context of their workplace, and provide the basis for prioritizing training needs. Some models assess each question on a scale (1 to 5) and multiply the two answers to form a prioritization score (Rycus & Hughes, 2000). Others may prefer to work with information from the assessment more qualitatively. Another approach is to rate the knowledge and skills levels individually for assessment of areas pertinent to the job (Krueger et al., 2004). The assessment process is a collaborative approach usually conducted during one-on-one supervision to mutually agree on training needs. Once the priority needs are identiﬁed, the worker or the supervisor can survey available training or other professional development opportunities to ﬁnd ways in which the identiﬁed training-need areas can be addressed. This sequential process results in a careful analysis of training needs and worker competence based on the particular issues and strengths of the job and the worker (see Case Example 11.2). On an ongoing and aggregate basis, ITNAs can inform continual professional development for workers and help to inform the focus of future training programs.

274

child welfare supervision

Case Example 11.2 Identifying Competency Gaps Ben’s case plans are just missing the point. Yolanda, his supervisor, has been working with Ben for the last 6 weeks to help him connect his client assessments to his case plans, but they’re still not addressing client needs. Yolanda decides to conduct an individual training-needs assessment to help determine whether it is a question of skill or simply lack of performance. During scheduled supervision, they sit down together and complete the individual training-needs assessment. Ben and Yolanda feel his performance in most of the core competencies is sufﬁcient, but his assessment and case-planning skills are deﬁcient. On the training needs assessment, they identify speciﬁc skill sets that Ben will work on over the course of the next few months. Yolanda matches these skill sets and competencies to courses presented by the staff development ofﬁce. She makes arrangements for Ben’s attendance and, with Ben, develops a plan to review his subsequent case assessments.

The Interface with Formal Training Opportunities Child welfare workers typically engage in a number of formal training opportunities across their careers. These training opportunities range from the orientation, on-the-job training, and new-worker training common in the ﬁrst year of work to ongoing training, seminars, and educational programs commonly offered to experienced workers. In all cases, the supervisor plays a key role in facilitating the integration of new learning into effective practice. Orientation and On-the-Job Training for New Workers Orientation to the agency and on-the-job training programs that address speciﬁc job tasks are of critical importance in the training of new employees. These employees also need a variety of supports to be successful in their new positions (Hewitt, Larson, O’Nell, and Sauer, 2005). Cyphers (2001) reported that child welfare staff emphasized that increasing or improving the employee orientation, among other strategies, are more important for workers than a salary raise when considering whether to remain in their positions. Three years later, state administrators reported that increased or improved orientation or pre-service training was one of the top three most successful strategies to retain child welfare workers (Cyphers et al., 2005). Supervisors have tremendous power to impact the work environment by providing support for new employees and initiating opportunities for professional sharing and learning—in essence, using the orientation time to build the agency’s ideal culture, that of a learning organization. Orientation programs focus on the immediate orientation to the job and the agency setting and are different from training, which focuses on job activities and tasks. Orientation focuses on welcoming new employees and

Developing Worker Competence

275

the job and agency context so that new workers will be able to perform their jobs (Hewitt et al., 2005). New employees may be oriented by means of group methods such as pre-service cohorts, or individually by being paired with experienced colleagues who can help them informally learn the ropes. Any orientation program should actively and speciﬁcally provide information to newcomers that will help them expect and deal with the stressors that come with work in child welfare (Bernotavicz, 1997). See Table 11.2 for the characteristics of an effective orientation program (Hewitt et al., 2005). On-the-job (OTJ) training reinforces content learned in the classroom by applying it to the actual job. While orientation programs focus on immediate knowledge needs, OTJ training programs focus on structuring a set of learning experiences in the employment setting that are intended to increase knowledge and skills. OJT activities may be of a preparatory nature, e.g., reviewing a case ﬁle or real or simulated case scenario, or they may consist of structured activities that are in fact the “real work.” For example, a worker might accompany a colleague to a home visit and observe or co-conduct an interview. These OJT activities may focus on knowledge acquisition, skill practicing, or skill demonstration. Supervisors may have either directive or coaching roles (DeJong & Versloot, 1999). In some agencies, these structured experiences are used in tandem with the formal new-worker classroom training as a form of supervised “homework” between classroom sessions. In other settings, the formal OTJ training activities are separated from classroom training. In still other settings that have no formal OJT requirements, individual supervisors may independently develop a structured approach for workers new to the unit. A sample of Wyoming’s OTJ training program is presented in Box 11.3. Effective OJT exercises have several key components. First, the experience should be of manageable size. For example, observing the court process for a day may be overwhelming. A component on observing collaborative worker-agency attorney preparations, and a second component

Table 11.2 Characteristics of Effective Orientation Effective orientation should do the following: • • • • • • • •

Be distinct and separate from skills training. Welcome the new employees. Provide information on the agency’s mission, goals, values, and structure Give information on the job’s political context. Help workers understand their roles and job duties. Describe ofﬁcial policies and procedures. Offer strategies for managing stress. Connect new workers to people throughout the agency to assist them when necessary.

Source: Hewitt et al. (2005).

276

child welfare supervision

Box 11.3 The Wyoming Approach to On-the-Job Training The state of Wyoming established a formalized process that combines initial orientation activities with a structured on-the-job training program for all new child protection workers. Each step in the formalized process includes a rationale for its inclusion, goals and objectives, and a detailed list and description of the activities including speciﬁc tasks and timelines. For example, the “Welcome to the Agency” orientation session involves completing an eight-item checklist, including the following. • Take a brief tour of the building, locate your ofﬁce, and receive formal introductions to your ofﬁce and/or unit mates, support staff, and other agency personnel. • Resolve any questions you might have regarding personnel policies, including those related to salary, medical coverage, sick leave, vacation, overtime, time sheets, retirement policies, parking, mileage and travel reimbursements, and any other related matters. Read the Personnel Handbook and be prepared to ask any questions it might raise for you. • Review the agency’s table of organization with your supervisor. Identify who performs what functions in the agency. Identify those staff members with whom you are likely to have frequent contact and where their ofﬁces are located. • Review your formal position description and the expectations of your job with your supervisor. If your agency has an employee performance evaluation process, review it with your supervisor, look at the evaluation form, and ask your supervisor to explain how the agency determines and measures job performance expectations. • Talk with your supervisor about the Wyoming Child Protection CompetencyBased Program and certiﬁcation requirements and determine the schedule for your attendance at CORE training. • Locate the agency policy and procedure manual. You should refer to it as needed when doing your job. • Schedule your supervisory conferences with your supervisor. Determine how and when your supervisor will help you complete your orientation and initial training activities during the ﬁrst 6 months of your employment • Become familiar with your agency’s mission statement. A mission statement clariﬁes the values under which the agency operates in order to achieve the goal of protecting children and preserving the family unit. Source: Wyoming Department of Family Services (n.d.). Wyoming Child Protection Orientation, Training, and Resource Manual: New Worker Orientation Manual for Child Protection Workers.

on observing worker testimony, would be easier to assimilate. Second, the OJT exercise should be structured. That is, it should contain a set of issues to consider prior to the experience, a structured way of focusing observation or action during the experience, a structured way of recording information and reactions, and a set of thoughtful debrieﬁng questions to guide the supervisor and worker after the experience to help the worker integrate the new experience into a cognitive framework. This debrieﬁng time is very important. Teachable moments are often evident immediately following a new experience. This is a time when

Developing Worker Competence

277

supervisees are clear about the importance of the teaching because the experience is still very real. Supervisors have the opportunity to help workers process the experience and draw the appropriate conclusions for thinking and practice. Promoting critical thinking helps workers move through the developmental stages discussed earlier. Supervisors should be careful not to let too much time pass between the experience and the debrieﬁng supervision time. Box 11.4 illustrates one simple OJT exercise for interacting with angry and hostile clients. OJT activities may also be structured to build competence over time. For example, a new intake worker might shadow an experienced worker as an observer, and then participate in gathering a speciﬁc set of information during the next session, followed by taking full responsibility for interviewing, with the experienced worker acting as an observer. Structured

Box 11.4 Interacting with Angry and Hostile Clients Activity Accompany an experienced worker on a visit to a client where the helping relationship has not been well established and conﬂict is expected. This may be either an intake or ongoing supervision case. The new worker’s job is to watch the interaction between the worker and the client. Remember, there is no right or wrong approach. There is nothing magical that a worker can do to diffuse anger, yet learning how to deal with it is important for the development of clinical skills. • Before the visit, talk with the worker about the situation and the nature of the conﬂict. • Ask the experienced worker to talk with you about the strategies she hopes to employ, and why she thinks these strategies might work. During the visit, direct the worker to focus her observations so as to answer the following questions: • What about the client’s behavior let you know that they were angry and/or hostile? • How does the worker interpret and respond to that behavior? • What effect do these approaches have on the worker–client interaction? • How does the worker handle authority with the client? • What effects do these approaches have? • What else could have been done in this situation? After the visit, direct the new worker to discuss the visit with the experienced worker, using the following questions as a guide: • How does that worker assess the visit and her effectiveness? • What advice does she give in preparation for the next contact? Later, the new worker should debrief the visit with the supervisor, answering questions such as the following: • What did you learn from this observation? • What information or skills would you like to develop in preparation for these types of situations?

278

child welfare supervision

programs that culminate in skill demonstration should include earlier building-block experiences for that competency area. OJT programs should cover the primary duties of the speciﬁc job and the way the job ﬁts into the larger agency work and context. These activities give the new worker a chance to observe and practice a job requirement in a supported manner. OJT programs often cover issues such as the structure of the agency, the essential job components of related jobs and functions in the agency, the interface with law enforcement, court processes and roles, and community linkages. In addition, job-speciﬁc skills are developed, such as interviewing, engagement skills, and techniques for working with involuntary clients; planning and completing placement of children; and structuring and supervising visiting. Teaching workers how to be safe in the ﬁeld is also an appropriate OJT activity. Supporting Ongoing Training While supervisors typically do not prescribe ongoing training opportunities or set policy regarding workers’ receipt of ongoing training, they can advocate on behalf of their staff for availability of important training areas. Supervisors may also help workers select and obtain ongoing training, including advanced-degree opportunities. While the latter option may be difﬁcult to accommodate, many states have creative continuing-education models that support increased professionalization of the child welfare workforce. For example, Kentucky has developed collaboration with schools of social work to develop training that also qualiﬁes as credit for MSW courses (Fox, Miller, & Barbee, 2003). Supervisors can and should encourage continuous education and training to address new developments in the ﬁeld, keep skills fresh, and maintain a learning orientation. Some ways for supervisors to encourage the learning organization discussed earlier include the following: • Make sure that workers attend training on a timely basis and are given opportunities to immediately use new skills. • Advocate or arrange for nontraditional training such as mentoring, job sharing, and leadership development. For example, workers new to child welfare could be mentored by more experienced workers during their ﬁrst year of employment. • Promote job shadowing, during which staff members “spend a day in the life” of other staff to become familiar with other positions. Supply coverage while workers are away. • Explore and advocate for increased training options for experienced caseworkers. • Be cognizant of the critical “make or break” stage to help caseworkers successfully move through the 2- or 3-year transition period, possibly including reﬂective practice, stress and burnout prevention information, and encouragement of reunions of their pre-service groups.

Developing Worker Competence

279

• Establishing “lunch and learn” groups, in which employees meet on a regular basis to share information about various professional topics over an extended lunch. Ensure that coverage is available during this time or adjust ofﬁce schedules accordingly. • Offer the opportunity to learn about and use technology, including Internet access for professional articles and education opportunities. • Show support by attending training programs and doing the same kinds of sharing as other workers.

More experienced workers may need more encouragement and incentives to continue their professional development, especially in light of pressing caseloads and ongoing job demands. Supervisors can help workers devise a professional-development plan that may include obtaining specialized certiﬁcations (for example, substance abuse or team decisionmaking) or help workers obtain advanced education such as a master’s degree in social work. Other rewards and incentives that agencies can provide include rewarding workers for reporting what they have learned through reading or participating in training, approving reimbursement expenses and work coverage for conference attendance, and advocating for and maintaining a pool of funds for ongoing education of staff. Optimizing Transfer of Learning Most states have formal child welfare training programs for new workers. Some of these programs take place prior to assignment to the unit in an academy setting; others take place over the ﬁrst months or year of employment. Most use a classroom-style format, although these events might be supplemented with computer-based training as well. Training for experienced workers may take place in many settings and with varying levels of intensity, ranging from one-time training sessions in a variety of formats such as classroom or computer-based modules on speciﬁc topics, to advanced certiﬁcate and degree programs. Transfer of learning from these settings occurs when material learned in a training environment is applied to practice in the ﬁeld. Without such application support, information stays in the learning environment and is essentially wasted. Thus, the transfer of learning is the ﬁnal step in the learning process and makes training meaningful and cost-effective for the agency. Supervisors play a critical role in the transfer of material from the classroom to the on-the-job experience. Powerful forces exert inﬂuence before, during, and after formal training and affect application of learning in the work setting (Beaudin, 1987; Broad & Newstrom, 1992; Curry, Caplan, & Knupel, 1994). According to one perspective, transfer of training is dependent on three groups of key players—trainees, trainers, and supervisors; thus transfer interventions are directed at one or all of these groups (Holcomb, 1994; Marx, 1986;

child welfare supervision

280

Rae, 1991). The most inﬂuential factors affecting transfer of learning include the following (Curry, McCarragher, & Dellmann-Jenkins, 2005): • • • • • • • • • •

Trainer adult learning and transfer strategies Training relevance and applicability to the job Supervisory support for training and application Pre-training preparation Participant motivation to attend training Participant prior experience with training and application Participant perceived learning Application plan Coworker support for training and application Top management and organizational support for training and application • Congruence between training and organization

See Box 11.5 for a list of strategies for supervisors to employ before, during, and after training to facilitate transfer of learning. A structured approach to transfer of learning will more readily encourage and sustain the transfer of knowledge and skills from the classroom to the work environment. Transfer programs should begin by linking training to the agency’s overall mission, goals, and strategies and showing employees how improved performance connects to these overarching issues. Supervisors can make transfer of learning more likely by offering regular training in areas that staff say are most relevant to their work (Johnson, 2004) and connecting the classroom experience to case practice. In words and actions, supervisors communicate their opinions of the value of training, and they can single-handedly make or break trainings. This impact is vividly displayed in Case Example 11.3. MAKING THE MOST OF THE WORKER–SUPERVISOR RELATIONSHIP The interaction between supervisor and worker is one of the most powerful settings for developing worker competence. In this section, we focus on mentoring and coaching as important opportunities for workers and supervisors. Clinical consultation will be addressed in the following chapter. We explore some of the differences and similarities in these roles and discuss the necessary skills and associated tasks for child welfare supervisors. Child welfare has borrowed and adapted the concepts related to these activities from several other disciplines. Mentoring is an age-old idea, dating back to the days of apprenticeship as a primary teaching method. Coaching is a term used most recently in business contexts, but now used

Developing Worker Competence

281

Box 11.5 Transfer of Learning Strategies Before, During, and After Training Before Training • Convey training as a priority! Workers need to know that their increased knowledge and skill are valued. • Create personal development plans that build on the worker’s training needs assessment (the ITNA). Be clear about what knowledge and skills are being addressed by the training opportunity, that is, link the training to personal need and to the work before the worker begins the training program. • Discuss workshop expectations with workers to determine what they hope to learn at the training and, if that is unrealistic, provide a description of what can be expected. This implies that supervisors should be familiar with the content of training or educational programs in which workers participate. • Develop with the worker an action plan for how the new knowledge and skills will be implemented. During Training • Do not compete for workers’ time! Allow them to focus on the training. Offer clear approval for time away to attend trainings. • Cover the positions of staff attending training with ﬂoater professionals. Don’t call workers out of training to handle ongoing caseload activities. • Tell staff members not to carry their pagers or cell phones while in training. • Provide one training opportunity at a time so staff members do not have multiple conﬂicting training demands. After Training • Create regular methods, such as a sharing library, for employees to share what they learned in training with supervisors and colleagues. Another good way to keep training and learning a priority is to start each meeting by asking, “What new things have we learned recently?” • Discuss training and potential applications with the worker between sessions. Check in to make sure the training is going as expected. • Meet with the worker within a week to review key points in training and their action plan. • Provide workers with the opportunity to try out their new skills. • Provide reinforcement for using new knowledge and skills and help supervisees draw connections between the new and the familiar. • Reduce barriers to the application of new skills by countering negative arguments and making arrangements so that skills are practiced. • Be a good role model by attending trainings and modeling the sharing of new information.

in many human-service settings, including child welfare agencies (Buhler, 1998; Driscoll & Cooper, 2005; Feldman & Lankau, 2005). The tasks and role of a supervisor in case consultation come to us primarily from the mental and behavioral health-care/therapeutic world and grow out of the notion of clinical consultation (Borders & Brown, 2005; Falender &

child welfare supervision

282

Case Example 11.3 A Situation Needing a Fix Sherri’s new workers were in new-worker training again this week, which she found annoying. Their attendance meant that they were behind on conducting their routine visits to children. Last time they were at core training, Sherri had to call them several times to determine what to do on their cases. Sherri’s solution was to provide each worker with a pager so that she could reach her workers quickly about their cases. And she asked that they visit any of their children who were placed in settings near the training site. Sherri was also frustrated because, after the last training, she wound up spending time retraining the workers. They had learned things at the core training that conﬂicted with how things are done in their unit, so she had to set them straight. Sherri felt that new-worker training created more work for her and that it would be much easier if the new workers could just be trained in the unit. Questions • What does Sherri need to do to resolve her concerns about the content of the core training and whether it’s useful for her workers? • What could Sherri have done before the training? • What could Sherri have done during the training? • What could Sherri have done after the training? Situation Fixed Sherri discusses with her own supervisor her concern that the new-worker training was teaching policies and procedures that conﬂicted with those of her ofﬁce. She develops a list of questions, contacts the training manager, and asks if they could meet to discuss her questions and concerns. Once she has resolved her concerns, she takes a different approach. Sherri sends her workers off to new-worker training knowing that she’s done everything possible to make the learning experience a positive one. She had sat down and met with them to go over the learning objectives for the course and identify casework situations that might provide an opportunity to connect with material presented at the training. Sherri had also asked them to select three pieces of information learned at training and to present these at a team meeting. Strict instructions were given to turn off their cell phones and pagers and under no circumstances check work e-mail. She assured them that work would continue without them, and that their job this week was to learn, learn, and learn

Shafranske, 2004). Regardless of these disparate origins, these roles have become important in the educational supervision arena for child welfare (Bassett & Johnson, 2004; Strand & Badger, 2005). All of these roles fall into the category of developmental interactions (D’Abate, Eddy, & Tannenbaum, 2003; Stoltenberg, 2005), which are deﬁned as “interactions between two or more people with the goal of personal or professional development” (D’Abate et al., 2003, p. 361). Mentoring Mentoring relationships are typically intensely personal relationships between two staff members, one senior and one junior. True mentoring relationships often develop out of mutual personal and professional respect and regard. These relationships typically involve aspects of social support

Developing Worker Competence

283

and validation, role modeling, counseling, friendship, and career development (Zachary, 2000). A fully realized mentoring relationship is only possible when both parties are mutually committed to the relationship, communication levels are high, and personal styles are congruent. These relationships often last 4 to 6 years and transform into close collegial relationships. Many child welfare agencies have established formal programs that are described as mentoring relationships, often pairing experienced workers with new workers. However, it may be best to conceptualize these programs as providing the opportunities for mentoring relationships to develop. Certainly, not every assigned mentor and mentee will establish the full mentoring relationship, and less intense relationships are also valuable and must be enabled and supported. It is also important to have the ﬂexibility to support those who ﬁnd each other outside of the structured mentoring program activities. A mentoring relationship may exist independent of the supervisory relationship. Consequently, not every supervisor chooses to mentor one or more workers in his or her unit, and not every employee has a mentoring relationship with a supervisor. When mentoring relationships do develop, it is important to put them in context with the other developmental relationships that supervisors have with employees, and recognize the power differential that exists, particularly between a new worker and the supervisor. That is, differential mentoring relationships should be fully acknowledged and carefully examined, in order to be disentangled from the ongoing work of the unit. Although the mentoring relationship has the potential to provide enhanced opportunities for an individual’s growth and development, mentoring relationships that result in real or perceived favoritism are counterproductive. Supervisors can easily fall into role conﬂicts in the supervision process and it is important to identify boundaries to the relationship, the expectations of the supervisor and the worker, and the evaluative consequences of failing to meet expectations (Ladany, Friedlander, & Nelson, 2005). Of course, mentoring relationships are not limited to the supervisor– worker relationship. Mentoring relationships may develop between more experienced and less experienced workers. In this case, supervisors may want to offer some explicit support to this teaching relationship. Supervisors may themselves be the mentee in a relationship with a more experienced supervisor or manager. Indeed, serving as both a mentor and a mentee may help supervisors come to fully understand this kind of complex relationship. While mentoring may occur informally, a fully developed program is best structured with explicit expectations and tasks such as those listed below. 1. Articulate the agency’s goals for a mentoring program.

Determine what needs to be achieved. Is the goal to improve organizational or individual performance, or both? To improve retention of mentors or mentees, or both? To improve morale? Be clear about goals

child welfare supervision

284

and establish ways of evaluating them from the perspectives of both the mentors and mentees (Sherman et al., 2000). 2. Structure the program to meet the unique needs of an agency or a division.

Determine who will have mentors. It can be all workers, or just certain subgroups that stand to receive the most beneﬁt, such as those newly hired, those new to the profession, those who need to improve their performance, or those who show leadership potential. Determine what types of mentoring activities teams will do together. These can be derived from the needs of the overall program, the needs of the individual mentee (as deﬁned by the mentee or a supervisor), the particular skills of the mentor, or all three. Activities should develop the relationship between mentor and mentee, allow them to learn about each other as people (not just coworkers), and allow trust and mutual respect to grow from true sharing. Activities can include participating in observations and conferences regarding both mentee and mentor skills and abilities, creating a developmental portfolio, keeping a journal, sharing resources, and working together on research projects (Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2002; Sherman et al., 2000). 3. Identify possible mentors.

Mentors should be effective role models who set high standards, can be available to their mentees, and can create experiences for their mentees that promote growth. Mentors should have nurturing and encouraging attitudes, be able to empathize, and be willing to share their real selves openly and honestly. Mentors can be selected through a formal process, involving the submission of letters of recommendation, resume, and statement of personal interest. Or a more informal process can be used; prospective mentors can volunteer or be recommended (Harvard Business School Press, 2002; Kaye & Jordan-Evans, 2002; Sherman et al., 2000). 4. Select mentees.

As in the selection of mentors, either a formal or an informal process can be used. Supervisors can recommend new staff, supervisors can recommend experienced staff, or individuals can self-select through an application or needs assessment (Cappelli & Ibarra, 2001; Sherman et al., 2000). 5. Match mentoring teams.

Careful matching of mentors and mentees is extremely important; the chemistry between these two people determines the success or failure of

Developing Worker Competence

285

the mentoring program. Matches can be made by considering applications from mentors and mentees, using criteria such as the similarity of current or past positions, location, the goals of the mentee, similar philosophies of work in child welfare, and mentor availability. A less formal process could also be used, such as a simple self-selection, through which mentees choose their mentors by asking themselves: • Do I feel that the potential mentor is successful? • Would their behavior work for me? • Is their persona appealing to me, and do I want to be like them?

When matching mentoring pairs, also consider the following: how matches will be changed if needed or desired, and new matches made, with little cost to either mentor or mentee; whether one mentor will focus on a single mentee or a group brought together by a common feature; and whether supervisors may mentor their supervisees. The latter situation can present challenges for the mentee, by affecting their ability to be open and honest about difﬁculties if their performance might be judged by the disclosure (Cappelli & Ibarra, 2001; Sherman et al., 2000). 6. Require initial training, ongoing professional development, and support for mentors.

Professional development and support for mentors could take the form of meetings, or structured or open online conversations. Newsletters and a pairing of newer with more experienced mentors could also help. Training should include an introduction to mentoring and supervisory skills and instruction in adult learning theory, communication, reﬂective practice, modeling, diversity, observation, conferencing, the change process, and self-assessment skills (Sherman et al., 2000). Coaching In contrast to mentoring, coaching relationships are typically more taskoriented and focused on work situations, though they are most often assumed to take place in the context of a signiﬁcant number of interactions (as opposed to a one-shot consultation). Coaching has been deﬁned as a process of “enabling personal and professional growth leading to service improvement” (Driscoll & Cooper, 2005, p. 19). Coaches may be supervisors or outside professionals (as in executive coaching or specialized clinical coaches). The ﬁrst uses of coaching focused on improvements in performance for employees experiencing difﬁculties; however, the term is now used to cover a number of developmental goals aimed at increasing peak performance (Craumer, 2001; Feldman & Lankau, 2005). There are three primary arenas for employee coaching: skills coaching, performance coaching, and developmental coaching. These arenas are

286

child welfare supervision

congruent with the three stages (beginning, middle, and end) of development of child welfare workers. Coaching for professional growth involves integration of all dimensions (Driscoll & Cooper, 2005). Skills coaching is focused on speciﬁc skills and abilities leading to speciﬁed outcomes. The supervisor is likely to use this approach most often in the beginning stage with new workers, though it may be very appropriate with more senior staff members as they take on speciﬁc new responsibilities. Skills coaching is targeted to speciﬁc gaps in skills and is usually short term in nature. Supervisors may elect to take a skills-coaching approach to meeting needs in an ITNA. Performance coaching is focused more widely on enhancing role performance and is useful in helping good workers become great workers and intervening when workers are struggling (Driscoll & Cooper, 2005). This type of coaching is most appropriate at the middle level of caseworker development, the “make it or break it” stage. Development coaching is less directive than the other types and is aimed at challenging and stimulating growth and areas of excellence. The supervisor may challenge the worker to develop deeper levels of critical thinking to assimilate theory, research, and practice (Clare, 2007). It may be most appropriate with very seasoned workers in the end stage of their development who are looking for ways to expand their expertise and opportunities to contribute (Driscoll & Cooper, 2005). The coaching process involves observational assessment of workers to understand how they work and how their work ﬁts with the desired goals of the job. It is important to focus ﬁrst on understanding worker strengths and how these strengths can be engaged in skill development (Craumer, 2001). The coach must prepare to work with the worker, identifying areas for focus and strategies for engaging the worker. Coaching, like mentoring, is most successful when there is an agreed-upon structure in place with clear expectations. For example, it is advised that the coach ask formal permission to engage in coaching, with this permission preceding the ﬁrst engagement of a topic. Both coach and coachee may then seek to identify coachable moments, those opportunities that often occur naturally in the work environment where the participant steps outside of the experience to examine the event with the goal of integrating knowledge or enhancing a skill. Coaches may be directive or nondirective in their style of engagement. In one study in a business setting, it was found that workers preferred nondirective approaches that focused on programmatic concerns and had a holistic focus on worker skill. Most coaches actually delivered directive coaching focused on circumstantial concerns and with speciﬁc skill focus (“Nondirective Coaching,” 2003). Nondirective approaches, sometimes referred to as no-fault coaching, involve guiding behavior through a questioning style that engages the

Developing Worker Competence

287

worker as a partner in thinking. The nondirective process involves asking, listening, reﬂecting, and probing (“Nondirective Coaching,” 2003). • Asking: Design questions to engage the worker in thinking about alternative approaches and likely outcomes. “What might happen if you handled this by doing X?” • Listening: Create a relaxed atmosphere. Be fully focused on the present. Don’t rush the interaction. • Feedback: Give feedback that is objective and descriptive. Never make it personal! “May I offer an observation?” is always a good way to start. • Follow-up: Create expectations for future actions. “What is next?”

Though it has been over 20 years since Glickman’s (1981, 1985) initial discussion of directive vs. nondirective approaches to teacher supervision, his basic model is still one of the best introductions to a continuum of supervisor behaviors (Fig. 11.1). Glickman (1985, p. 122) advises that nondirective approaches are best used in the following situations: 1. When the supervisee possesses most of the knowledge and expertise about the issue and the supervisor’s knowledge and expertise are minimal: “If you don’t know anything about it and they do, let them solve it.” 2. When the supervisees have full responsibility for carrying out the decision and the supervisor has little involvement: “If they are going to be accountable for it and you aren’t, let them solve it.” 3. When the supervisees care about solving the problem but the problem doesn’t matter to the supervisor: “If they want to do it and you couldn’t care less, let them decide.”

Collaborative approaches (Glickman, 1985, p. 138) are best used when conditions are as follows: 1. When supervisee and supervisor have approximately the same degree of expertise on the issue 2. When the supervisee and supervisor will both be involved in carrying out the decision 3. When the supervisor and supervisee both care intensely about the problem. If leaving supervisees out will lead to low morale and distrust, then the collaborative approach should be used.

Following the same schema of expertise, responsibility, and care, directive approaches (Glickman, 1985, p. 152) are best used in the following scenarios:

child welfare supervision

288

1. When supervisees do not have much knowledge about the issue, and the supervisor does 2. When supervisees will have no involvement in carrying out the decision, and the supervisor will be held totally accountable for outcomes 3. When the supervisor cares intensely about the issue and supervisees do not 4. In an emergency when the supervisor does not have the time to meet with the supervisee

Presenting

7

8

Collaborative

Figure 11.1 The supervisory behavior continuum.

9

10 Reinforcing

Encouraging

6

Standardizing

Clarifying

Orientation Nondirective to Supervision

5

Directing

4

Demonstrating

3

Negotiating

2

Problem Solving

1 Listening

Directive approaches may be best suited to situations when time is short, the skill is crucial for learning, or the coachee asks for a directive. For example, with a worker who is facing their ﬁrst hearing on termination of parental rights, a supervisor might identify the most likely points the defense attorney will seek to make and coach the worker on speciﬁc language to use. Or, a worker needing to make a difﬁcult decision regarding placement might call the supervisor and ask for direction. Instead of simply giving an answer, the supervisor might use the opportunity to coach by reinforcing the agency’s safety assessment protocol. In both of these instances, the supervisor is setting the framework for interaction, rather than allowing the issues and interactions to emerge. A study at Xerox identiﬁed positive coaching behaviors (e.g., Case Example 11.4) that distinguish highly functional teams from less functional teams. While Xerox is clearly not a child welfare environment, managing teams or work groups involves some common supervisory skills across settings. In general terms, the high-functioning teams at Xerox had leaders who reinforced autonomy and responsibility, provided timely feedback and information, and focused on developing problem-solving skills. Effective leaders and coaches were more likely to 1) give clear, engaging direction; 2) design rewards for excellence; 3) ensure basic resources for the team; 4) give team members the authority to manage their own work; 5) set clear goals; and 6) create work norms that promote strategic thinking. Ineffective coaches were more likely to interfere in day-to-day work

Directive

Developing Worker Competence

289

Case Example 11.4 Nondirective Coaching Robert was hired 3 months ago as a caseworker in an ongoing services unit. He has worked in residential care for a number of years but has never worked in ongoing services. His supervisor, Alex, is meeting with Robert to review all of his cases. ALEX: Robert, you said that you think you are going to recommend that Brittany be returned to her mother’s home. Tell me more about what has changed in the mom’s living situation such that Brittany would be safe in her mom’s home. ROBERT: Well, the boyfriend moved out, and Mom has a restraining order against him. She’s made arrangements for her mother to watch Brittany after school until she gets home from her job. ALEX: Say a bit more about the plan for various contingencies. ROBERT: Mom and I have worked on a plan for what to do if her boyfriend violates the restraining order. She will check in with her neighbor and her mother when she gets home. If he shows up at the home, she will call the police, her neighbor, and her mother. We met with the victim’s advocate at the police department, and the uniformed ofﬁcers know of the restraining order. Brittany should be OK with her grandmother after school. ALEX: Tell me more about the grandmother. How has she been involved so far? What is her relationship with the boyfriend? ROBERT: I’ve only met her at court. Brittany was placed with her maternal aunt because Grandma was recovering from foot surgery then. She has been in conﬂict with the boyfriend. Perhaps I’d better meet with her and Mom about how to handle him if he shows up there. ALEX: Mom has broken up with this boyfriend before. What convinces you that this time is different? ROBERT: Yes, but this is her ﬁrst restraining order. I haven’t really talked with her about what to do if she ﬁnds herself wanting to take him back. She does have a therapist. I should know if they have worked on this. I’m meeting with her next week and will talk with her about these questions. I guess I haven’t covered every safety concern we might have. ALEX: Would it be helpful? Then next week we could look at your written safety plan.

and provide solutions rather than develop problem-solving skills (Wageman, 1997). Case Example 11.5 illustrates one supervisor’s dilemma with supervising and interacting with new workers and acting as a mentor. CONCLUSION Building worker competence is not solely the responsibility of the child welfare supervisor. Certainly, the supervisor operates in a larger organizational setting and in a particular training system that greatly inﬂuences and impacts the opportunities for professional development. However, many consider supervisors and their supervision to be the lynch pin in linking training and education to improved practice. In this chapter, we have discussed ideas that support this work: adult learning, learning styles,

child welfare supervision

290

Case Example 11.5 What Would You Do? Jenny is a new supervisor of six workers in an intake unit. Jason and Lynn are new workers, having been with the agency for less than 3 months; three others have been with the unit more than 2 years. Tamara is very experienced and is the lead worker. She is a very independent person, and her work is impeccable. She is supportive of her fellow workers but not close friends with them. Tamara is always available for pragmatic case consultation, but not for what she would call “sharing war stories.” The three other workers are very competent and help create a collegial work environment. They use both Jenny and Tamara for consultation as needed. Jason and Lynn, the new workers, have different approaches to interpersonal relationships in the unit and to the supervision process. Jenny ﬁnds that Jason thinks very much as she does, approaches case analysis and decision making similarly, and asks for case consultation regularly. He shares her interest in understanding the agency culture and what is happening around him. Lynn’s skill levels are similar to Jason’s, but she doesn’t often seek out supervision time, though she uses it well when she does seek it out. Jenny ﬁnds her a bit standofﬁsh and “all-business.” Jenny engages Lynn easily when they are focused on work, building her skills, and discussing case-related decisions, but she can’t seem to get to know her really well. Jenny is concerned when she contrasts her relationship with Jason with the one she has with Lynn, worrying on the one hand that she won’t develop a close enough relationship with Lynn to assess her skills and on the other that Lynn will see that Jenny is really more comfortable working with Jason. You are Jenny’s colleague and mentor. How might you advise her?

stages of worker development, and transfer of learning principles. We have also focused on some key action strategies for supervisors: assessing worker learning styles and training needs, conducting orientation and on-the-job training, optimizing transfer of learning from training and educational settings, and, ﬁnally, using the supervisory roles of mentoring and coaching. Ultimately, however, high-quality educational supervision aimed at increasing worker competence hinges on supervisors’ understanding of one important thing: The supervisor is often the primary and most inﬂuential teacher of a child welfare worker. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. In what ways do you act as a teacher? In what areas can your skills be strengthened? 2. In what ways do you learn best? Think about your workers. How do they learn best? 3. When you are in your teaching role, how do you use adult learning techniques? 4. At what developmental stages are the workers in your unit? What implications does this have for your supervision of these employees?

Developing Worker Competence

291

5. How do you orient new workers? What could be improved? 6. Do you have a formal OTJ training program? How can you best use and promote the success of that program? If no program exists, are there a few OTJ exercises you would like to formalize for your unit? 7. How does the agency approach new-worker training? What opportunities do you have to improve transfer of learning? 8. Who has been a coach or mentor in your professional life? What are the best qualities and skills of that person? What skills do you wish to develop in this area? RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

National Resource Center for Organizational Improvement http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/ National Staff Development Council http://www.nsdc.org/ National Staff Development and Training Association http://nsdta.aphsa.org/pro_dev_inst.htm The Learning Style Inventory can be ordered from: Hay Resources Direct, 116 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02116 Web site: www.hayresourcesdirect.haygroup.com Phone: 1 800–729–8074 APPENDIX

QUICK AND EASY LEARNING STYLE CHECKLIST INSTRUCTIONS 1. Learning Style Preference Add up all the numbers for each of the Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic (V A K) categories and place here (see Box 11.1): _________ V _________ A _________ K Notice if you have a high preference for visual (V), auditory (A), or kinesthetic (K) response. You might have one or two dominant learning preferences for learning in work situations, or you may be equal in all three styles. There is no “correct” learning preference. • Visual preference: You generally ﬁnd visual instruction helpful in learning, such as the use of modeling through videotaping, charts, graphs, diagrams, color schemes, and overheads. You seem to have a camera going internally and can easily recall faces, scenes, and places. • Auditory preference: You generally ﬁnd auditory approaches to learning effective, such as lectures, discussions, tapes, and talks.

child welfare supervision

292

You seem to have a tape recorder going internally and can recall conversations almost verbatim. • Kinesthetic preference: You generally prefer action-oriented and hands-on learning approaches that involve body movement, such as building things, model making, hands-on demonstrations, touching objects, and so on. You like to role-play, play games, exercise, and dramatize events. (Basically, if your body isn’t moving, you’re not learning.)

2. Learning Time Preference Now, notice if you prefer learning in the morning, afternoon, or evening. These are usually the times when you have high energy levels. 3. Learning Environment Preferences Finally, notice what kind of learning environment you like. Some people need nourishment such as food or drink when in a learning environment. Some people like to take breaks often and need to be mobile during a learning session. Some prefer learning through various social structures such as learning alone, in groups, with peers or with a partner, or from an expert. Some like to learn in a warm room and may ﬁnd it difﬁcult to tolerate cold, or vice versa. Some ﬁnd that a radio or music enhances learning, while others ﬁnd background noise disturbing. Some need bright light and to sit in rooms with lots of windows when learning, while others prefer dim lighting. Some need formal room design and need to learn consistently in an area with a desk and a hard chair, while others need informal, comfortable room design. 4. Take responsibility for your learning preferences. Master your personal learning preferences by using the learning strategies for those preferences. Then you can leap to other learning preferences that are not your strengths to learn new subjects. You can then learn no matter what type of instructional activity is being used and whatever the learning environment. Master as many leaning styles as possible. Good Luck! Source: National Environmental, Safety and Health Training Association (www.neshta.org). Copyright © 1996 by National Environmental Training Association, Inc., and S. Merris Sinha. Retrieved January 27, 2006, http://neshta.org/eNews/1–06/ WhatsStyle.pdf “What’s Your Style” Used with permission. REFERENCES

Austin, M. J., & Hopkins, K. M. (Eds.). (2004). Supervision as collaboration in the human services: Building a learning culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Developing Worker Competence

293

Bassett, J. D., & Johnson, J. A. (2004). The role of clinical consultation in child protection investigations. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74(3), 489–504. Beaudin, B. P. (1987). Enhancing the transfer of job-related learning from the learning environment to the workplace. Performance + Instruction, 26(9/10), 19–21. Bernotavicz, F. (1997). Retention of child welfare caseworkers: A report. Retrieved June 22, 2007, from the National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement Web site: http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/pubstext/retention.html Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Broad, M. L., & Newstrom, J. W. (1992). Transfer of training: Action-packed strategies to ensure high payoff from training investments. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Buhler, P. M. (1998). A new role for managers: The move from directing to coaching. Supervision, 59(10), 240–248. Cappelli, P., & Ibarra, H. (2001). Harvard business review on ﬁnding and keeping the best people. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Clare, B. (2007). Promoting deep learning: A teaching, learning and assessment endeavor. Social Work Education. 26(5), 433–336. Craumer, M. (2001). How to coach your employees. Harvard Management Communication Letter, 4(12), 9–11. Curry, D. H., Caplan, P., & Knupel, J. (1994). Transfer of training and adult learning. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1), 8–14. Curry, D., McCarragher, M., & Dellmann-Jenkins, M. (2005). Training, transfer, and turnover: Exploring the relationship among transfer of learning factors and staff retention in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(8), 931–948. Cyphers, G. (2001). Report from the child welfare workforce survey: State and county data and ﬁndings. Washington, DC: American Public Human Services Association. Cyphers, G., Light, A., LaRue Gertz, L., MaGowan, N., Fay Vandergrift, K., & Plummer, M. (2005). Report from the 2004 Child Welfare Workforce Survey: State agency ﬁndings. Washington, DC: American Public Human Services Association. D’Abate, C., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360–384. DeJong, J. A., & Versloot, B. (1999). Structuring on-the-job training: Report of a multiple case study. International Journal of Training and Development, 3(3), 186–199. Driscoll, J., & Cooper, R. (2005). Coaching for clinicians. Nursing Management, 12(1), 18–23. Dunn, R., & Dunn, K. (1999). The complete guide to the learning styles inservice system. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). The evolving practice of clinical consultation. In C. Falender & E. P. Shafranske (Eds.), Clinical supervision:

294

child welfare supervision

A competency-based approach (pp. 227–232). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Faller, K. C., Meezan, W., Mendez, M. M., Tropman, J., Vandervort, F. E., & Willis, D. (2004). The supervisor in child welfare. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services: Building a learning culture (pp. 294–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829–844. Foundation for Critical Thinking (2004). Deﬁning critical thinking: A statement by Michael Scriven and Richard Paul for the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking. Retrieved from: http://www.criticalthinking.org April 11, 2008. Fox, S., Miller, V., & Barbee, A. (2003). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: Effective use of training and professional development. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 7(1/2), 67–81. Garfat, T. (2001). Developmental stages of child and youth care workers: An interactional perspective. Retrieved May 25, 2005, from http://www.cyc-net.org/ cyc-online/cycol-0101-garfat.html Garvin, D. (1998). Building a learning organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Glickman, C. D. (1981). Developmental supervision: Alternative practices for helping teachers improve instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harvard Business School Press. (2002). Harvard business essentials: Hiring and keeping the best people. Boston: Author. Hewitt, A., Larson, S., O’Nell, S., & Sauer, J. (2005). Orientation, socialization, networking, and professionalization. In S. Larson & A. Hewitt (Eds.), Staff recruitment, retention, and training strategies for community human services organizations (pp. 105–124). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Holcomb, H. (1994). Make training worth every penny. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Co. Johnson, C. (2004). Upgrading the workforce: Three more successes. Advocacy, 6(1), 34–37. Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work. New York: Columbia University Press. Kaye, B., & Jordan-Evans, S. (2002). Love ’em or lose ’em: Getting good people to stay. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Kolb, D. (2000). Facilitator’s guide to learning. Boston: Hay/McBer. Krueger, M., Austin, M., & Hopkins, K. (2004). Creating a culture that supports the development of staff. In M. J. Austin & K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services: Building a learning culture (pp. 176–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., & Nelson, M. L. (2005). Negotiation role conﬂicts: If it were easy, it wouldn’t be called supervision. In N. Ladany, M. L. Friedlander, & M. L. Nelson (Eds.), Critical events in psychotherapy super-

Developing Worker Competence

295

vision: An interpersonal approach (pp. 79–87). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. MacKeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Marx, R. (1986). Improving management development through relapse prevention strategies. Journal of Management Development, 5(2), 27–40. McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT system to bring learning styles to schools. Educational Leadership, 48(2), 31–36. Nondirective coaching: A no-fault model to help people change. (2003, June). Pay for Performance Report, 3(6), 2–4. Rae, L. (1991). How to measure training effectiveness (2nd ed.). Brookﬁeld, VT: Gower Publishing Company. Rycus, J., & Hughes, R. (2000). What is competency-based in-service training? Columbus, OH: The Institute for Human Services. Sarasin, L. (1999). Learning style perspectives: Impact in the classroom. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing. Senge, P. (1990). The ﬁfth discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday. Sherman, R., Voight, J., Tibbetts, J., Dobbins, D., Evans, A, & Weidler, D. (2000, April). Adult educators’ guide to designing instructor mentoring. Washington, DC: Pelavin Research Institute. Sinha, S. M. (1996). Quick & easy learning style checklist. In Creative environmental, health & safety training. Phoenix, AZ: National Environmental Training Association. Stoltenberg, C. D. (2005). Enhancing professional competence through developmental approaches to supervision. American Psychologist, 60(8), 857–864. Strand, V. C., & Badger, L. (2005). Professionalizing child welfare: An evaluation of a clinical consultation model for supervisors. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(8), 865–880. Tileston, D. (2005). Ten best teaching practices: How brain research, learning styles and standards deﬁne teaching competencies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wageman, R. (1997). Case study: Critical success factors for creating superb selfmanaging teams at Xerox. Compensation and Beneﬁts Review, 29(5), 31–41. Wyoming Department of Family Services. (n.d.). Wyoming child protection orientation, training, and resource manual: New worker orientation manual for child protection workers. Cheyenne, WY: Author. Zachary, L. (2000). The mentor’s guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

12 CLINICAL SUPERVISION IN CHILD WELFARE S ARAH FERGUSON

he role of supervisor requires participation in many activities, one of T the most critical being clinical supervision, an area whose importance has recently been stressed in public child welfare practice (CollinsCamargo, 2006; Salus, 2004). Clinical supervision allows the supervisor to assist child welfare workers with the multitude of issues and concerns that come up in child welfare services (Collins-Camargo, 2006, 2007; Waldfogel, 1998). It creates a venue in which the child welfare worker and the supervisor investigate practice issues with the expressed goal of positive client outcomes. This chapter investigates clinical supervision by deﬁning clinical practice and clinical supervision and discussing how these concepts relate to public child welfare services. The chapter provides a brief review of various models of clinical supervision and a description of how to set the stage for clinical supervision, along with a more detailed review of the phases of clinical supervision. The chapter ends with an overview of group supervision and a discussion of the stages of development for a new supervisor. While not exhaustive, this chapter provides the child welfare supervisor with enough information to practice the role of clinical supervision. Clinical Supervision Defined In the past, the ﬁeld of child welfare services has not deﬁned itself as a clinical practice. At its onset in the late 1800s, child welfare service advocates aligned themselves with the emerging social work models of the time, with individuals such as Carl Carsten, a protégée of Mary Richmond, 296

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

297

establishing thorough standards based on Richmond’s ideas of social work (Anderson, 1989; Costin, Karger, & Stoesz, 1996). Over the years, as child welfare protective services became the sole responsibility of the public sector and public administrators adopted more business-based models of operation, the mode of practice shifted to a more case management approach (Costin, Karger, & Stoesz, 1996; Waldfogel, 1998). This approach focused more on planning, seeking, and monitoring services for clients (Barker, 1999). However, given the complexity of caseloads, over the past few years there has been a call to reconsider the clinical aspects of child welfare practice (Collins-Camargo, 2006; Waldfogel, 1998). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) deﬁnes clinical practice as “the professional application of social work theory and methods to the treatment and prevention of psychosocial dysfunction, disability, or impairment, including emotional and mental disorders” (Barker, 1999, p. 82). In a much broader deﬁnition, Munson (2002, p. 10) deﬁnes clinical practice as the organized efforts of workers to “assist people to overcome physical, ﬁnancial, social, or psychological disruptions in function through individual, group, or family intervention methods.” While all of the activities of child welfare services do not fall under this deﬁnition, certainly child welfare workers do participate in intervention methods with the intention of assisting families in overcoming various struggles that impinge on their becoming well-functioning families. Child welfare workers in the protection side of child welfare work participate in intervention methods each time they visit a family, through talking, engaging, and challenging the family to meet its goals, while child welfare workers who participate in home-based services or other long-term contracted services are actively involved in strengths-based, family-centered interventions to create positive outcomes. Given this focus on clinical practice and recent studies showing a connection between clinical supervision and a sense of worker efﬁcacy (Collins-Camargo, 2006), it is important that child welfare supervisors have the skills to assist child welfare workers in these interventions and be able to provide clinical supervision. What deﬁnes clinical supervision? Bernard and Goodyear (2004) view clinical supervision as an intervention in its own right, a model of practice with its own methodology and context for interaction. The methodology includes the evaluation of the child welfare worker’s practice, as it extends over time, with the intent of enhancing the professional practice of the worker. While Kadushin and Harkness (2002) equate clinical supervision with educational supervision (deﬁned in Chapter 2), Bernard and Goodyear stress that clinical supervision is more speciﬁc. Educational supervision involves reviewing and learning concepts that can be applied to any number of cases, while clinical supervision involves discussion and reﬂection on the dynamics of a speciﬁc case. Salus (2004, p. 61), in her manual on supervision in public child welfare, states that clinical supervision “focuses on the actions, responses, and decisions of the caseworker in providing services to the clients.” Clinical supervision thus focuses on the interventions the

child welfare supervision

298

child welfare worker uses in each individual case, addressing the dynamics of the case, family functioning, successful and unsuccessful interventions, and identiﬁcation of blind spots or biases. In reporting on thoughts of supervisees, Fall and Sutton (2004, p. 2) note that supervision is a place for growth, practice integrity, and processing of their own “feelings and reactions.” Clinical supervision involves activities having the sole purpose of assisting the child welfare worker in working with each family to meet their goals. The child welfare worker and the supervisor meet for the expressed goal of assisting the client in achieving an identiﬁed goal. For many who study clinical supervision, it is this relationship and the interactional process of this relationship that is the basis of clinical supervision (Kaiser, 1997; Munson, 2002; Shulman, 1993). The interaction of most use is the active involvement of the worker and the supervisor in discussing the case. As Schwartz (as cited in Shulman, 1993) states, supervision is about the child welfare worker’s willingness to be open about their practice and share information about successes as well as failures. The progress of the worker and success for clients emerges from the sharing of the case and practice issues between the child welfare worker and the supervisor. While the supervisory relationship mirrors aspects of therapy, it is not a therapeutic relationship; it is critical that the supervisor not let it become one (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). The content of the conversations may be about the child welfare worker’s struggles, but the focus of these conversations should always be on the professional practice of the child welfare worker and the improved outcomes for clients (see Case Example 12.1). The goal of all supervisory interactions is better service for the client, not improved personal functioning of the supervisee.

Case Example 12.1

The Case of Sally

In supervision, Sally, a child welfare worker, and her supervisor, Marcus, discuss a number of cases that she is struggling with. Sally reports that she gets no information from any of the parents on her caseload and that all of the visits are very short. Marcus knows that this worker is extremely shy and reserved and has struggled with this in her private life. In the supervision meeting, he asks Sally to think about why the parents are not sharing information, even suggesting she think about her demeanor as a possible source. They talk about how Sally can be more engaged with her clients and push herself out of her comfort zone. The focus of the supervision is on Sally’s personal issues, but Marcus keeps the discussion about how her behavior change may impact clients and increase their engagement. Questions • Why is it important to not to let the supervisor–supervisee relationship cross the boundary into a therapeutic relationship? • What are other boundary issues to be cautious of?

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

299

It is also important to identify the distinction between clinical supervision and consultation. An extremely useful tool for child welfare workers, consultation is typically pursued with coworkers or in a group setting to brainstorm how best to respond to tough cases, no member has more power than another. The dynamics in the consulting relationship are different from those in the supervisory relationship. Supervision in child welfare services is not voluntary; an element of power exists in supervision that is not present in consultation (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The relationship is not equal, as the supervisor has administrative and organizational authority over the supervisee. Also, the focus of the supervisory relationship is on the practice of the child welfare worker and their growth as a practitioner, while consultation focuses on the case itself (Shulman, 1993). It is important to remember that this chapter’s focus is supervision. Agency as Context for Supervision Understanding clinical supervision involves considering the organizational and legislative contexts in which it occurs, as each of these arenas has great impact on all aspects of child welfare supervision. Chapter 1 presents a more detailed review of these contexts. Much of the literature on clinical supervision does not acknowledge these contexts and is written for the supervision of students who are training to be social workers, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other types of social service professionals. Clinical models typically do not consider the various federal policies (Adoption and Safe Families Act [ASFA] and Child and Family Services Reviews [CFSR]) and local policies and ﬁnancial realities that supervisors must deal with in child welfare service settings (Collins-Camargo, 2006, 2007). These contexts are a reality for child welfare supervisors and have an effect on the nature of clinical supervision. With ASFA timelines to meet, CFSRs, ﬁnancial constraints, or other factors common in child welfare services, the worker and supervisor may not always have the time to pursue all of the aspects of clinical supervision. Nonetheless, participating in some form of clinical supervision is important to support successful outcomes for families served by the system. THEORIES OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION Models of supervision can be divided into four categories: interaction models and three models identiﬁed by Bernard and Goodyear (2004)— theory-based models, developmental models, and social-role models. Interaction models reﬂect the concept of supervision as “an interpersonal interaction between two or more persons” (Tsui & Ho, 1997). These models view the relationship as paramount and focus on concepts such as parallel process, trust, and shared meaning. Models in this category include Shulman’s (1993) Interactional Supervision, Kaiser’s (1997) focus on supervisory relationships, Munson’s (2002) Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision, and various other interaction-based models.

300

child welfare supervision

Theory-based models of clinical supervision are strongly tied to underlying theories of practice or therapy. For these models, the supervisory relationship reﬂects the approach taken in the therapeutic relationship. An example of this can be found in a research study looking at the extent to which therapeutic theories affect supervisors’ focus and behavior (Putney, Worthington, & McCullough, 1992). It was found that supervisors with a cognitive–behavioral perspective were far more interested in workers’ skills and strategies than those using more humanistic approaches. Included in this group of models is psychodynamic supervision, which has greatly inﬂuenced all approaches to supervision with its understanding of the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee as being parallel to the relationship between the worker and the client (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Theory-based models also include person-centered supervision (Rogers, 1951), systemic supervision (grounded in family therapy), and cognitive–behavioral supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Cognitive– behavioral supervision is of particular interest to child welfare supervision as it is a common practice model used in the ﬁeld. It is distinguished from other models by its focus on building, applying, and improving skills (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Developmental models of supervision focus on the process of professional growth of the supervisee through participation in their supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). These models offer different perspectives on the means by and pace at which supervisees transition to professional expertise. Developmental models include Stoltenberg’s Integrated Development Model (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), Ronnestad and Skovholt’s (2003) Phase Model, and Loganbill, Hardy, and Delworth’s (1982) Cyclical Model. These models give the supervisor a sense of where the child welfare worker might be in their growth as a practitioner and provide a guide for determining what interventions are needed to move the worker through each stage or phase. The third group of models is those based on social roles. These models break down the job of supervision into various tasks that must be completed. Kadushin and Harkness (2002), whose model is reviewed in Chapter 2, present such a model of supervision. They break down supervision into three separate roles or functions: administrative, educational, and supportive. While their model is much broader than clinical supervision, the educational and supportive roles are most strongly related to clinical supervision. Other social-role models break down clinical supervision in a similar fashion, with most including the role of teacher, counselor or therapist, and consultant (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Even the interactional models base their models on Kadushin and Harkness’s three roles for the supervisor (Munson, 2002; Shulman, 1993). The role-focused supervision models provide supervisors with a sense of what functions they must participate in, while the other three models provide a sense of the activities that must be done to fulﬁll those functions.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

301

PROCESS OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION This section covers the process of supervision, providing the reader with an understanding of how to engage with supervisees to enhance their professional practices and meet client needs. It includes an overview of how to set the stage for supervision, the phases of clinical supervision, content within the supervisory meetings, evaluation, and how to end the supervisory meeting. Setting the Stage for Supervision Clinical supervision often happens when the supervisor and child welfare worker are running to a meeting, grabbing a bite to eat, or driving to court. Some good work comes out of these quick interactions, but a more formal approach to clinical supervision allows the child welfare worker and the supervisor time and privacy to delve into cases and present a stronger opportunity for clinical growth for the supervisee. Frequency and Duration Child welfare settings are extremely busy, rife with emergencies that pull at supervisors’ time. Given this reality, it is important to the process of clinical supervision that the supervisor establish and maintain consistent supervisory meetings (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Tsui, 2005). Supervisors should establish weekly, one-on-one, 1-hour meetings with each child welfare worker. This is not to say that supervision cannot occur outside of these set meetings, but by setting times, consistency and structure for clinical supervision are established. Inconsistency is one factor that can lead to a sense of unsatisfactory supervision and burnout by the child welfare worker (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Physical Setting The clinical supervisory meeting should occur in a private setting (Tsui, 2005). It is important that the child welfare worker experience both privacy and the supervisors’ undivided attention. Conﬁdentiality is an important factor in supervision, and while it cannot be completely ensured, since a supervisor may have to break conﬁdentiality for protection of the agency or the client, it is important that child welfare workers have a sense of privacy. Without this, the child welfare worker may be hesitant to share those aspects of the case that are the most important for their clinical growth and client outcomes (Shulman, 1993). In this same vein, a private setting also encourages uninterrupted interaction (see Case Example 12.2). During the supervisory meeting, supervisors should provide their undivided attention to the child welfare worker. Supervisors should ignore cell phones, e-mails, and voice mail during the time set aside for formal clinical supervision. Interruptions convey a sense of disinterest to the child welfare worker, and impact their comfort level in sharing difﬁcult issues from their caseload.

child welfare supervision

302

Case Example 12.2

The Physical Setting for Supervision

Sam, a child welfare worker, and Ming, a supervisor, typically meet in the break room for their supervisory meetings, since Ming’s ofﬁce is off-site. While they engage in discussion together, Ming has the sense that they are not really delving deeply into the cases. Every time she asks deeper questions about the dynamics of the case and Sam’s practice, he grows quiet and changes the subject. Ming concludes that he is avoiding a deeper look at his cases and is defensive about his practice. She challenges him about this in their next meeting and Sam becomes even more uncomfortable, often looking at the door and toward his coworkers sitting on the other side of the room. Ming begins to pick up on this behavior and asks Sam if he is uncomfortable meeting in the break room. He responds that he is. Ming concludes that holding in the meeting in the break room with no chance of conﬁdentially or privacy gives Sam the message that the topics discussed should remain superﬁcial. Ming and Sam agree to ﬁnd an unused therapy room for their next supervisory meeting. At their next meeting, Sam is far more open, presenting detailed information about his cases and his practice responses to them. Questions • What are other issues about the physical setting that supervisors should consider? • What can supervisors do if they cannot control the setting of the supervisory meeting?

Record Keeping Supervisors need to keep detailed records of their supervisory meetings with all of the child welfare workers they supervise (Fall & Sutton, 2004). These notes assist the supervisor and the worker in the supervisory relationship by providing a chronological guide of “the scope and effectiveness of supervision” (Luepker, 2003, p. 104). In these notes, supervisors show the work that was done in the supervisory meeting to improve family functioning and move toward identiﬁed goals. Thorough record keeping also serves as evidence that supervision occurred and that the supervisor was providing appropriate supervision to the child welfare worker in the event of a lawsuit. Supervisors are responsible for the work of their child welfare workers and have a ﬁduciary duty to look after them and the families served (Luepker, 2003). Without proof that supervision was consistent and reﬂective of the child welfare worker’s learning needs and the needs of the client, supervisors leave themselves open to possible legal ramiﬁcations. Salus (2004) recommends using the state’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) as a recordkeeping tool. PHASES OF CLINICAL SUPERVISION Once the stage has been set, the supervisory meeting enters into the phases of supervision. It is within these phases that clinical work occurs. They include the establishment of a relationship, creation of a contract, and content of the meeting, evaluation, and endings.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

303

Establishing a Relationship Regardless of the approach to supervision, the success of supervision is based on the strength of the relationship between the supervisee and the supervisor. Shulman (1993, p. 14) writes, “The supervisees have a key part to play in the supervision process, and the supervisor will be unable to implement his or her functions without their active involvement.” At its core, supervision is about the relationship between two people and the give-and-take of both parties involved. Bordin (1983) refers to this connection as a “working alliance,” Shulman calls it a “working relationship,” and Kaiser (1997), the “supervisory relationship.” Without a relationship or some connection, the child welfare worker will not reveal the dynamics of the caseload. Without information about the case, the practice of supervision is irrelevant. Supervision is only as good as the information shared by the worker. Thus, the critical ﬁrst step in supervision is establishing a relationship with the child welfare worker (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Kaiser, 1997; Shulman, 1993). Shulman (1993) refers to the ﬁrst step of establishing a relationship in supervision as “tuning-in.” When a supervisor tunes in, he or she is attempting to empathize with the child welfare worker and see the world or cases through their eyes (see Case Example 12.3). When a supervisor has a better understanding of the supervisee and their perspective, communication is increased. A child welfare worker who has the sense that the

Case Example 12.3

Building the Relationship

Sharon is a supervisor in a public child welfare unit. New to her unit is George, a child welfare worker from another unit within the agency. George’s unit disbanded after the ﬁring of the unit’s supervisor and he has now been assigned to Sharon’s unit. While George has seen Sharon in the ofﬁce, he does not know her well. In their initial meetings, George presents his cases to Sharon, telling her about the members of the family, the assessment as written in the case ﬁle, and the case plan. All of the information that George has shared Sharon already knew from reading the case ﬁle. Sharon knows that George is nervous to meet with a supervisor, as he did not see his last supervisor during the last 4 months of her time at the agency. Sharon suspects that George is unsure of what to expect and fearful that his practice with clients will be questioned, as he has not received any supervision for the past few months. Knowing this, Sharon “tunes in” to George’s concerns. To respond to George’s concerns, Sharon tries to build their relationship before she begins to dig deeper into George’s cases and his work with them. She begins by letting him present his cases in the manner he is comfortable with, but engages him at a deeper level on safer topics. She will move to more in-depth practice analysis once she has established a trusting relationship. Questions • How else could Sharon promote the relationship between George and herself? • How might the larger agency and federal policy inﬂuence the establishment of a strong relationship?

304

child welfare supervision

supervisor understands them is more likely to share information about the case, thus allowing the process of supervision to occur. Kaiser (1997) takes this idea further in her concept of shared meaning, the result of the supervisor and the supervisee coming together in a mutual understanding of their perceptions. It is more interactive than the tuning-in process, as the child welfare worker and the supervisor are asked to participate in creating a shared understanding of the concepts discussed and shared in supervision. A major factor to consider in establishing a relationship is the power differential between the supervisor and the supervisee. Supervisors in child welfare have power and authority over the workers they supervise, and this disparity can either assist or lead to problems in creating a relationship or working alliance. The type of power the supervisor has inﬂuences the strength of the relationship. Coercive and positional power, that is, power that comes from the supervisor’s position within the hierarchy of the organization, is detrimental to the establishment of a strong relationship (Munson, 2002). Power that comes from the individual, in the form of referent or expert power, can lead to strong relationships (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Kaiser, 1997; Munson, 2002). It is difﬁcult to come to shared meaning or be tuned in if the supervisor’s source of authority comes only from their position in the agency; willingness to participate in supervision diminishes when child welfare workers do not recognize the supervisor’s referent or expert authority. Supervisors who only have positional power must work to establish referent power to improve their relationship. Referent power is that which the supervisor holds from his or her relationship with the supervisee and from the supervisee’s positive identiﬁcation with the supervisor (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Of course, this can be a cyclical endeavor, as it is through a stronger relationship that referential power is increased. This process can be addressed through focusing on what Shulman (1993) refers to as rapport, the ability to get along. When referential power does not exist, rapport can help build it. In an effort to establish a working relationship, it is also important that the supervisee and supervisor come to some mutual understanding of the relationship. Kaiser (1997) includes this understanding in the creation of shared meaning, which he deﬁnes as “as both a mutual understanding and, ideally, mutual agreement between supervisor and supervisee” (p. 88). Keeping with a client-centered approach, this concept of shared meaning is even more useful when extended to the client and shared meaning is created across the client, child welfare worker, and supervisor. Shared meaning also enhances cross-cultural work, as it allows the supervisor, supervisee, and client to come to mutual understanding of concepts that may be deﬁned differently given their respective cultures. Bordin (1983) calls this process establishing shared goals, which happens in the next phase, that of contracting. In child welfare, the relationship is clinical but also exists in the context of an agency with strict federal guidelines such as ASFA and CFSR. Supervisors should be clear about these roles,

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

305

providing supervision for clinical practice as well as for administrative accountability (Ferguson, 2006). After the supervisor tunes in, acknowledges the power differential, and creates some sort of mutual understanding, the supervisor and supervisee establish trust or a bond (Bordin, 1983; Kaiser, 1997). This is the ultimate goal of the relationship, as this is the point at which the supervisee is most willing to participate in supervision. Shulman (1993) highlights Schwartz’s (1968) thoughts on the importance of the relationship: “The quality of the staff education is determined by the extent to which workers feel free to reveal their problems, share their mistakes, and use the wisdom and experience of both their supervisors and their peers” (p. 14). A ﬁnal consideration in the supervisory relationship is the potential secondary impact it has on the supervisee’s relationship with the client. Certainly, a connection exists between the strength of the learning that occurs and the growth of the worker’s practice. This connection supports the concept of parallel process or isomorphism, the idea that the supervisor– supervisee relationship mirrors the worker–client relationship. In a parallel process, the dynamics of the child welfare worker–family relationship are reﬂected in the supervisor–child welfare worker relationship and vice versa (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The concept has roots in psychodynamic theory, with minimal supporting research; however, the concept is useful for assessing challenges within the worker–client relationship. Isomorphism is a similar concept, rooted primarily in systems therapy. Isomorphism focuses on relationships and repeating patterns across relationships, and while it has limited empirical support (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004), it is often used in assessing therapeutic relationships. At their core, these concepts encourage the idea that strong supervisor–supervisee relationships foster strong relationships between the child welfare worker and their clients. Contracting The intent of contracting is to “develop mutual understanding that provides structure for the work” (Shulman, 1993, p. 41). It can be thought of as a continuation of relationship building in that it formalizes the working relationship, clarifying for both the child welfare worker and the supervisor the intent of the interaction. Shulman notes that when this is not clear, the lack of clarity can create anxiety for the child welfare worker, thus reducing their willingness to participate in supervision. Osborn and Davis (1996) highlight ﬁve reasons to establish a contract in supervision: 1) clariﬁcation of methods, goals, and expectations; 2) encouragement of professional collaboration; 3) creation of a setting to attend to ethical issues; 4) documentation of services provided; and 5) protection for the child welfare worker on the methods, goals, and expectations covered. The supervisor and the child welfare worker develop the contract together after initiation by the supervisor (Osborn & Davis, 1996). While an attempt should be made for an equal negotiation, supervisors have

child welfare supervision

306

more power, which limits the negotiating position of the child welfare worker (Munson, 2002). Contracts should be in written form and signed by both the supervisor and the child welfare worker. The signing of the contracts formalizes the agreed-upon concepts for each party. Shulman’s (1993) model of contracting identiﬁes the skills needed to establish a relationship, while Osborn and Davis’s model and Munson’s model identify the items to be included in the contract; an overview of each follows. Shulman (1993) identiﬁes two types of contracts in his model of interactional supervision. The ﬁrst occurs at the beginning of the supervisory relationship and includes four skills. The second type of contract, discussed in more detail in the next section, occurs at the beginning of each meeting between the supervisor and the child welfare worker. In the ﬁrst type of contract the supervisor ﬁrst describes to the child welfare worker the purpose of their interaction and then describes their roles in the interaction. Shulman notes that these two concepts can seem ambiguous and are difﬁcult to explain, but that a thorough understanding of them is critical to the success of the supervisory interaction. He notes that the supervisor must be as concrete as possible in the description. The supervisor must then elicit feedback from the worker, assessing their stage of learning, stage of work with the client, and expectations for supervision (see Case Example 12.4). Finally, the supervisor identiﬁes and discusses his or her position of authority, speciﬁcally discussing how that position plays a role in expectations and obligations of the supervisory contract.

Case Example 12.4

Supervision Contracts

Sally has just joined the staff at a local agency that provides contracted child welfare services to the state. She has been assigned to Beth’s unit, and they are meeting for their initial supervision session. Sally, accustomed to strong and supportive supervision, jumps right in and begins discussing her cases with Beth. The sessions go well for a few weeks until both Beth and Sally begin to feel that the supervisory meetings are becoming redundant. Sally reviews her cases and Beth gives her feedback but neither Sally nor Beth feels that Sally is growing as a child welfare worker. At one of her supervisory consultation meetings, Beth expresses her frustrations with her work with Sally to fellow supervisors in the consultation group. Another member asked how Sally was doing on meeting her contracted goals. Beth is embarrassed, for she realizes that because Sally was so comfortable with her and so quick to engage about clients, they never established a contract, and she doesn’t know what goals Sally wanted to work toward. At the next supervisory meeting, Beth and Sally review contractual issues, particularly Sally’s goals and the procedures with which they would achieve them, and write up the results. Both Sally and Beth feel better about the supervisory relationship as they now know where they are going. Questions • What are some of the challenges in creating a contract? • How can agency and federal CFSR outcomes be incorporated into supervisory contracts?

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

307

Table 12.1 Comparison of Supervisor Contracting Approaches Munson (2002) 1. Timing element: In this section the concrete terms of the contract are established, such as the frequency and length of sessions. 2. Learning structure: In this section, the supervisor identiﬁes educational approaches they may take, such as continuing education or process recordings. 3. Supervision structure: Identiﬁcation of the supervision structure involves identifying whether supervision will occur individually, in groups, or a combination of both.

4. Agency conformity: This section also contains concrete items such as dress codes, work hours, holiday coverage, and licensing requirements, as well as contact information. 5. Special conditions: In this section, the supervisor identiﬁes any areas speciﬁc to the position or the worker. The areas of growth needed to meet the requirements of the position are identiﬁed here.

Osborn and Davis (1996) 1. Purpose, goals, and objectives: This section reﬂects Shulman’s (1993) list of skills used to identify the purpose of the interaction. After thorough discussion, the contract should clearly identify the purpose of the supervision and the goals to be worked on. 2. Context of supervision services: In this section, Munson’s timing elements, learning structures, supervision structures, and agency conformity are combined. Osborn and Davis recommend inserting the statement “subject to revision,” to leave the contract open to potential changes. 3. Method of evaluation: Because agency-based supervision involves evaluation for professional development and promotion, it is important to be clear about how that evaluation will occur. Contracts should contain the time when evaluation will occur, its structure, and with whom the information will be shared. 4. Duties and responsibilities of supervisor and supervisee: This is an area in which Shulman’s (1993) discussion of supervisory role can be clariﬁed in tangible terms. In this section the supervisor and supervisee identify their roles and responsibilities in the relationship.

5. Procedural considerations: This is an important section that other contracting lists do not always include. In this section of the contract, supervisors should clarify what types of information the supervisee should share during meetings, which will be the focus of their interactions. Here the supervisor clariﬁes his or her supervisory methodology, how the worker will present information, and how the worker should record their practice. Interestingly, Osborn and Davis suggest that supervisors clarify in this section of the contract the method to be used in resolving conﬂicts between supervisor and supervisee. 6. Supervisors score of competence: Supervisors should be clear about their areas of expertise, noting when it will be necessary to have the supervisee seek outside consultation if their needs move outside of the professional competence of the supervisor.

child welfare supervision

308

Supervisors use the above skills to get at tangible elements that are important to the supervisory relationship. Both Munson (2002) and Osborn and Davis (1996) have presented lists of these items that should be included in any supervisory contract. These lists are similar but are not mutually exclusive. Both are presented in the Table 12.1. Content This section presents various perspectives on the substantive aspects of the supervisory meeting, the material used by supervisors to enhance the professional functioning of the child welfare worker. It starts with a review of Bernard and Goodyear’s (2004) perspective on how to elicit information from workers. An in-depth review of Shulman’s (1993) evidence-based work phases for supervision follows, concluding with a brief overview of transference and countertransference and family systems–based supervisory content. Before a review of this information is presented it is important to ground the reader in the context of public child welfare: the context of the involuntary client and that of most clients served by the child welfare system are not voluntary. Rooney (1992) deﬁnes an involuntary client as an individual or family who “feels forced to seek or pressured to accept contact with a helping professional” (p. 4). Such clients face coerced or constrained choices (participating in parenting classes), as their disadvantaged position in the relationship (court ordered) does not allow them to choose freely (deny the offer) without facing severe consequences (loss of children) (Rooney, 1992). He notes that with involuntary clients an altered relationship exists between the child welfare worker and the client. In child welfare, a relationship exists that is highly inﬂuenced by legal mandates and procedures and overshadowed by a clear power imbalance that is accentuated by the overrepresentation of oppressed groups. Unwanted consequences can arise if the involuntary nature of the relationship is not acknowledged and guidance is not provided by the supervisor (Rooney, 1992). Involuntary relationships lend themselves to a misuse of power when values between the worker and the client conﬂict. The skills presented in this section provide tools for the supervisor to challenge and guide the worker when this situation occurs. These skills also provide tools for the supervisor to address the blaming of clients that can occur when standard therapeutic approaches based on voluntary participation do not ﬁt with the client’s involuntary perspective (Rooney, 1992). Finally, because an involuntary client is less likely to participate in their case plan, this section provides tools for the supervisor to assist the child welfare worker in identifying goals that are feasible and achievable (Rooney, 1992). In reviewing the following information on the content of the supervisory meeting, the reader should keep in mind this critical context of the involuntary nature of the client and reﬂect on how each skill could assist in informing and guiding the child welfare worker in working with such clients.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

309

Eliciting Information As stated earlier, the process or practice of supervision cannot occur if supervisees do not share information about their work with clients. Supervisors need concrete tools to elicit important information about the practice of their workers. Some of these methods involve gathering information directly from child welfare workers, while others involve observation or review of documentation (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Self-report is one of the most common ways for a supervisor to collect information, although often the child welfare worker is not forthcoming. Prompting or providing a “lead” is a useful tool for eliciting information (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). When a child welfare worker is struggling to share information about a case, the supervisor can ask questions that will help the worker think more deeply about the case and share thoughts about their practice. Some examples from Bernard and Goodyear for eliciting information (p. 214) include, “Describe other important information that was learned during your meeting, including contextual information,” “Explain changes (or expansions) to your treatment plan,” and “To what extent were your objectives for this session met?” Supervisors may also use this approach in conjunction with case note reviews or information from SACWIS systems. The supervisor reviews the notes or documentation, and then responds with probing questions to guide the child welfare worker toward thinking more critically about the case. Along with using SACWIS, more and more child welfare agencies are using actuarial-based decision-making tools in their practice. These tools provide an evidence-based approach to assessing risk (Shlonsky & Wagner, 2004). Based on actuarial models, decision-making tools attempt to control for the personal bias of the individual, the limitations of that individual in managing all the information needed to predict risk, and pressures from the environment or agency that may affect decision making (Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000; Shlonsky & Wagner, 2005). Like clinical supervision, these tools attempt to “combat the shortfalls of unassisted clinical judgment” (Shlonsky & Wagner, 2005, p. 410). While useful on their own, decision-making tools also serve as a source of data for supervision. In the supervisory meeting, the supervisor and child welfare worker should review the decision-making tool, thus allowing the supervisor greater insight into the case. As Shlonsky and Wagner (2005) stress, these tools should be supplemented by clinical judgment. Reviewing the tool in supervision allows the supervisor to probe more deeply into the case and pull out clinical aspects not captured by the tool. This process enhances the supervisor’s understanding of the case and may result in the decision to override the tool’s assessment of risk. Other data collection methods, used more often in educational settings, include recording or videotaping workers’ meetings with families, asking workers to complete a process recording of the interaction, or accompanying workers on home visits or ofﬁce visits for live observation

310

child welfare supervision

of their practice (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The information from these methods becomes the data for the supervisory relationship, allowing follow-up with more probing questions to more thoroughly examine workers’ practice. These types of techniques for collecting information are also useful for delving into workers’ more interpersonal responses. Such questions allow child welfare workers to think through their practice and come to their own conclusions, instead of having the supervisor point out where practice needs improvement (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The following is a list of useful prompts (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004, pp. 221–222). • “What would you have liked to have said to her or him at this point?” • “What were you thinking about at this time?” • “What did you want her or him to tell you?” • “What was going on in your mind at the time?” • “Were you able to say what you wanted to the way you wanted to?” • “If you had more time, where would you have liked to have gone?” • “How do you think that she or he felt about talking about this problem?”

Shulman’s Work Phase Shulman’s (1993) work phase concept provides an even more detailed description of the content of the supervisory meeting. Based on his own and other research, Shulman’s model contains nine skills for supervisors to use in their one-on-one interactions with child welfare workers. These skills continue the supervisory relationship, determine the concerns of the worker, and ultimately examine the practice of the child welfare worker at both a manifest and interpersonal level. Shulman takes the perspective that, at times, a worker needs to be pushed to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the case and for the enhancement of his or her professional practice. Following is an overview of his proposed skills. Sessional tuning-in skills Supervisors use these skills to continue building the relationship within the context of the individual supervisory meeting (Shulman, 1993). Shulman (p. 81) writes that in “tuning in,” the supervisor “anticipates concerns and feelings of the staff that may emerge during the session, as well as his or her own feelings about the encounter that could affect the work.” Supervisors must be cognizant of the issues surrounding the worker, both organizational and personal. Thinking about them beforehand prepares the supervisor to respond to them while in the supervisory meeting (see Case Example 12.5).

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare Case Example 12.5

311

Changes

Tamika, a child welfare worker, works in a child welfare organization that recently changed its method of handling placements, now requiring that placements cannot be made without meeting ﬁrst with a placement team. Tamika feels that this is an attack on her autonomy and her skills as a practitioner. Ruby, Tamika’s supervisor, and Tamika have an upcoming supervisory meeting. Ruby prepares for this meeting by thinking about these changes in protocol for placements. She tries to imagine how she would feel if this had happened while she was a child welfare worker and how Tamika may be reacting. While Ruby knows she cannot change the new protocol, she is aware that Tamika may need to talk about her frustrations with the changes and that she may come into the meeting defensive and angry. Questions • What factors impede “tuning-in” and other work-phase skills with child welfare workers? • What tactics can assist supervisors in resolving those factors?

Shulman also stresses that the supervisor needs to think about his or her response to the policy change prior to the meeting. A ﬁrm understanding of one’s own reaction assists with interpreting and responding to those supervised. Tuning-in is also useful in helping the supervisor recognize issues such as burnout in the child welfare worker. Sessional contracting skills Different from the contracting reviewed above, this contracting is speciﬁc to the supervisory meeting. In this context, contracting involves agenda setting by the supervisor and the child welfare worker for that speciﬁc meeting. The supervisor identiﬁes the issues he or she would like to cover during their meeting, leaving space open for the child welfare worker to identify important questions and concerns. Shulman (1993) notes that supervisees often have hidden agendas not presented during this time, agendas that the workers themselves may not be aware of. Supervisors should continue to use their tuning-in skills to try to identify these areas of concern and allow for their review, even if they are not on the formal agenda. While Shulman promotes both the supervisor and supervisee creating the agenda, other models leave agenda setting to either the supervisee (Fall & Sutton, 2004) or to the model itself, as in multisystemic therapy (MST) (Henggeler, Schoenwald, Liao, Letourneau, & Edwards, 2002). Fall and Sutton’s (2004) supervisee approach is geared toward the supervisee’s learning, where they serve as the expert on what they need to learn. Primarily concerned with model ﬁdelity, the agenda in MST bases itself on measures of adherence and forms to investigate the cause when adherence is not achieved (Henggeler et al., 2004). Elaborating skills Once supervisees begin to discuss their cases, they often keep their descriptions fairly vague and disjointed. Supervisors use elaborating skills to assist the worker in organizing their thoughts on the dynamics of the case, as well as more deeply analyzing what is happening.

312

child welfare supervision

Shulman’s (1993) tools are similar to the prompts from Bernard and Goodyear (2004) reviewed above, but they provide a general guideline rather than speciﬁc phrasing. Each is reviewed below. Moving from the general to the speciﬁc Supervisees often make general statements about the challenges of the clients they work with, such as “these families just don’t want to change.” Often supervisors ignore such statements as the complaints of stressed-out and overburdened workers. However, if the supervisor uses the skill of moving from the general to the speciﬁc, he or she can begin to investigate the source of such statements and assist the worker in thinking about what might be inhibiting that change. Shulman (1993) recommends that, with such statements, the supervisor ﬁrst acknowledge the feelings of the supervisee, then attempt to bring the discussion back to the speciﬁc family or client that might be the source of the statement. After the particular family is identiﬁed, the supervisor can ask more detailed questions, prompting the child welfare worker to describe the speciﬁcs of what occurred in the meeting. The worker has now moved from frustration to thinking about the details of how to respond to this family to facilitate growth. Containment Containment is the art of listening and the ability to stay quiet and let the supervisee describe the entirety of their concerns before responding. Supervisors want to help and have limited time, so they often interrupt the child welfare worker to quickly answer the question. As Shulman (1993) notes, this can lead to answering the question before it is even asked. He suggests listening to and waiting for the child welfare worker to fully express their thoughts. Focused listening Another listening tactic, focused listening, encourages centering in on the central concerns of the child welfare worker and not the irrelevant messages. This tactic is similar to moving from the general to the speciﬁc, and is used to focus on the critical issues and disregard what is irrelevant. Questioning Questioning is also similar to moving from the general to the speciﬁc, and resembles the prompts presented from Bernard and Goodyear (2004). Questions are used by the supervisor to provide clarity and depth to the content presented by the child welfare worker. Reaching inside silences Shulman (1993) notes that silences in supervisory meetings can mean many things: the supervisee may be thinking, unsure of the supervisor’s response, or even angry. It is important, therefore, that the supervisor understand the source of the silence so that he or she can respond accordingly. Shulman suggests that, to understand the silence, the supervisor should acknowledge the silence and inquire more deeply into the thoughts of the worker (see Case Example 12.6). The supervisor may even propose to the supervisee their own interpretation of the reason for the silence, leaving it open for correction by the supervisee.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare Case Example 12.6

313

Work Phase (Reaching into Silence)

SUPERVISOR: Tell me about the cases you have been working on. CHILD WELFARE WORKER: Oh, the family is ﬁne, nothing new. SUPERVISOR: How about the Smith family? How many times this month have they accessed our crisis nursery services? CHILD WELFARE WORKER: Four times, every week. SUPERVISOR: Wow, what do you think is going on with them? CHILD WELFARE WORKER (silence for about 10 seconds): Nothing. SUPERVISOR: That’s a lot of services, why so much? CHILD WELFARE WORKER (silent again, for longer, then shrugs) At this point, the supervisor is getting frustrated, as the child welfare worker does not seem to want to talk. The supervisor’s initial response is to end the meeting and provide the child welfare worker the directive to offer no more services to the Smith family. But the supervisor decides to investigate the child welfare worker’s response. SUPERVISOR: I sense from your silence that you don’t want to talk about the Smith family. Can you tell me why that is? CHILD WELFARE WORKER (again, the worker hesitates, but then begins): I know you don’t like us to provide that much service to one family, I knew you would be mad about it and tell me to follow the agency policy of one service per family a month. SUPERVISOR: Well, that is true, but let’s talk about why the Smiths need so much service right now. Can you tell me what’s going on? Questions • What are some risks involved in “reaching into the silence” with supervisees? • How can they be overcome?

Empathic skills The supervisor’s emphatic skills concern his or her ability to be in touch with the feelings or stressors of the supervisee. These skills stem from the acknowledgement that supervisees have stressors both in their own lives and on the job and have emotional responses to those stressors. This skill set is related to Kadushin and Harkness’s (2002, p. 217) idea of support: “Unless some resource is available to help [workers] deal with these stresses, their work may be seriously impaired.” Shulman (1993) presents three tactics for eliciting those feelings. The ﬁrst is reaching for feelings. This involves asking the child welfare worker how he or she feels about a particular client interaction. In the second tactic, the supervisor acknowledges the feeling through “words, gestures, expression, physical posture, or touch” (Shulman, p. 96). The ﬁnal tactic is articulating the worker’s feelings. This occurs when the supervisee is struggling to identify his or her emotions and the supervisor helps the discovery along by identifying it immediately before the worker does. Skills in sharing own feelings Also referred to as self-disclosure, this skill is about presenting oneself as authentic rather than about crossing

child welfare supervision

314

inappropriate boundaries with the supervisee. Supervisors serve as positive role models when they are comfortable displaying vulnerability, anger, or other feelings appropriately. This authentic behavior also enhances the relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee. However, supervisors must be cautious in sharing feelings, keeping the intent of the sharing—to improve practice and client outcomes—in the forefront of their minds. Skills in making demand for work Up to this point, Shulman’s (1993) model has been about building and sustaining a relationship. Diverging from that focus, he acknowledges that no matter how strong the relationship is, at some point staff members become ambivalent or even resistant to professional growth. Shulman believes that resistance is positive and a logical part of the change process as described by Lewin (1935). In Lewin’s model, based on ideas of balance and equilibrium, there are three steps to change. The ﬁrst is “unfreezing” the equilibrium, thus moving the individual to “disequilibrium,” and then “freezing” at a new equilibrium. It is the role of supervisors to assist with this “unfreezing” and subsequent movement to the new “freezing.” This role often requires a more demanding tone, and supervisors must be comfortable with the power they hold to be able to facilitate this process of growth. This “demand for work” often requires more authority than social worker supervisors are comfortable expressing. As with the other skills, Shulman offers tactics to assist the supervisor as they make the demand for work. A review of the tactics follows. Facilitative confrontation Most supervisors are uncomfortable with confrontation, as it can lead to strong emotions and accentuates their positions of authority over child welfare workers (Shulman, 1993). However, when supervisors do not confront workers on issues, they miss opportunities to move those individuals to new levels of practice (see Case Example 12.7).

Case Example 12.7

A Hard Discussion

David is a child welfare worker who has worked in prevention for a number of years. He is a high-energy worker who is well liked by the families with whom he works, but he often neglects to follow through on the case plan. As a result, the families never seem to make any progress toward their goals and continually require crisis intervention. Freja, the supervisor, needs to confront David about better case plan management and holding the families accountable for meeting their goals. The confrontation need not be negative, but must be supportive, challenging the worker to practice in the best interest of the client. Questions • How might the supervisor approach such a situation? • What tactics could she use?

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

315

Partializing the worker’s concerns A supervisor uses this tactic when a supervisee is overwhelmed with various concerns, resulting in feelings of ambivalence or complacency. To help move the child welfare worker past this, the supervisor breaks down the concerns into manageable parts. This practice allows the supervisor and the supervisee to address each of the concerns individually, reducing the anxiety and moving the worker out of the ambivalent or complacent state. Holding to focus Supervisors practice the tactic of holding to focus when they insist that the worker stay on one topic. Supervisees often bounce around from concern to concern, never delving deeply into any one issue. This is a problem because the concerns are never truly understood; they can continue, and both the family and the worker stay stuck in the same place. Forcing the child welfare worker to stay with one issue and really investigate it allows the supervisor and worker to take the time and effort required for the family to achieve their goals. Checking for underlying ambivalence Supervisors use this tactic to make sure supervisees are not merely telling them something they think the supervisor wants to hear, when in reality the supervisee is doing something else. It is not necessarily an intentional deﬁance but more likely evidence of some underlying ambivalence about the direction the supervisee and supervisor decided to go in. What Shulman (1993) recommends is that the supervisor look at why the supervisee did not follow through with the plan of action. Through an investigation of the resistance, the supervisee can be pushed to move to the next level of practice. Challenging the illusion of work The illusion of work, a concept developed by Schwartz (1968) and cited in Shulman (1993), refers to a supervisory interaction in which conversation is occurring but nothing is really said. The supervisee appears to be engaged in the process but there is no substance to the information shared. Shulman uses the example of a worker who always agrees with the feedback from the supervisor but never implements the agreed-upon changes. The worker says the right things, but the words have no meaning outside the supervision meeting. In response, Shulman suggests that the supervisor comment directly on this inconsistency and confront the worker about this behavior. This confrontation will let the worker know that they can no longer evade work and must participate in growth and change. Skills in pointing out obstacles This tactic is very similar to challenging the illusion of work, as it calls for the supervisor to point out and address with the supervisee factors that are getting in the way of both supervision and the resultant growth in their practice. While there are various factors that may be the source of resistance, Shulman (1993) focuses on two. The ﬁrst is exploring taboo subjects. Supervisees may be ambivalent about supervision because of some issue that they are uncomfortable discussing, the most common ones being issues of a sexual nature or cross-cultural

316

child welfare supervision

dynamics. They are uncomfortable in discussing their concerns but may hint at them through jokes or sarcastic comments. Shulman stresses that it is important to investigate these comments, as they may mask underlying concerns that the supervisee is uncomfortable discussing. The second factor is dealing with authority, or the fact that at times supervisees react to the supervisor having power over them. Shulman suggests that this is an ongoing issue that must constantly be addressed in supervision. Supervisors should identify instances when they feel this issue has emerged and talk about it with their supervisee, reminding them that they will need to revisit the issue and it will always be with them. Skills in sharing data Supervisors must share information with their workers, including agency policies and decisions, client information, and practice knowledge. However, supervisors must be mindful of how they share this information, as this has implications for the supervisory relationship as well as the supervisee’s practice. Shulman (1993) identiﬁes three tactics for sharing data. The ﬁrst is to only provide data to the supervisee that is relevant to their current position and tasks. The second tactic is to monitor the learning process and be aware of what the worker has taken in and what they have not. This monitoring helps the supervisor know when they have given too much information or when the worker is ready for more. The ﬁnal tactic is to present the data so that it is open to challenge. Information should not be shared in a dogmatic fashion, but in such a way that the supervisee can critically analyze the concepts so that a deeper understanding results. Sessional ending skills Shulman (1993) stresses the importance of ending the supervisory meeting in a structured way, while being cognizant of the fact that this cannot always occur. To provide some closure for the supervisee, Shulman suggests that supervisors summarize the meeting, generalize the major themes covered, identify next steps, rehearse strategies for intervention discussed, and identify “doorknob” communications. Doorknob communications occur when the supervisee mentions a major concern just as he or she is walking out the door. Supervisors should be attentive to this behavior and challenge the worker about it if it becomes a habit. Another useful source of information on the content of the supervisory meeting can be found in Fall and Sutton’s (2004) Clinical Supervision: A Handbook for Practitioners. In their chapter on the process of supervision, they highlight typical problems that can emerge in supervision and how to respond. Examples presented include what to do when your supervisee is overly dependent, feels anxious, not prepared for supervision, or fails to follow policies or supervisor recommendations. This last example can be a critical issue in the policy-focused world of public child welfare. Fall and Sutton suggest that when this occurs, the supervisor should remind the supervisee that the rule must be followed and then brainstorm with the worker on how the situation will be handled when it comes

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

317

up again. They stress following up with the worker and checking in to see whether the worker completed the task. If the child welfare worker continues to not meet the policy or supervisory recommendation, the supervisor should again stress the policy’s importance and ask pointedly what is stopping the supervisee from completing the task. Transference and Countertransference Transference occurs when a person transfers feelings about another individual to a child welfare worker (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Tsui, 2005). Countertransference, the opposite of transference, occurs when a child welfare worker has an emotional response to a client. Transference and countertransference also occur in supervisory relationships. Supervisees transfer feelings or responses based on previous relationships to their current supervisors and, likewise, supervisors experience countertransference, potentially reacting and responding to child welfare workers from their experiences with other relationships (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Munson, 2002; Tsui, 2005). Supervisors need to attend to transference and countertransference on two levels. First, they must be conscious of the dynamic of transference and countertransference in the supervisee–client relationship. During the work phase, as described above, supervisors can use the identiﬁed skills to concentrate on any transference or countertransference dynamics. Skills that may be useful in this endeavor include, but are not limited to, sessional tuning-in, containment, focused listening, questioning, and reaching inside the silences (Shulman, 1993). While transference and countertransference can be positive in nature and useful in thinking about the dynamics of the case, they are often negative and can lead to boundary violations between the worker and the client (Munson, 2002). Consequently, attending to them is of great importance. Secondly, supervisors need to be conscious of the potential transference and countertransference between themselves and the worker. To prevent transference and countertransference, supervisors need to be vigilant against entering into a therapeutic relationship with the worker (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). As another prevention method, supervisors should pay heed to transference and countertransference dynamics by watching for four cues, as identiﬁed by Ladany, Constantine, Miller, Erickson, and Muse-Burke (2000): • Experiencing a strong emotional reaction when interacting with the supervisee. This response can be positive or negative. • Reacting to a particular supervisee in a way that is different from how the supervisor reacts to other supervisees (see Case Example 12.8) • Noticing changing feelings toward a particular supervisee over time

child welfare supervision

318

Case Example 12.8

Boundaries

Patricia, a supervisor, is looking forward to her meeting with Mabel, a child welfare worker. Patricia has been supervising Mabel for the past few months and she has become very fond of her. Recently, her own adult daughter moved out of the house, and she is happy to have a close relationship with a young person about her daughter’s age. The rest of the workers she supervises are burnt out and she does not like spending time with them. She ﬁnds that she plans for and looks forward to her meetings with Mabel every week. Questions • How might supervisors prevent such a relationship from happening or recognize it when it does occur? • What are some ramiﬁcations for families served by the supervisee in such situations?

• Checking in with other supervisors on whether they notice any of these cues.

Ladany et al. (2000) further recommend that to manage their countertransference, supervisors should share their reactions with supervisory colleagues or their own supervisors. They also recommend sharing the reaction with the supervisee, presenting it as content for discussion. Supervisors should be cautious of this approach, however, as it can cause the supervisory relationship to shift from one concerning the clients and the supervisee’s professional growth to one concerning the supervisor and supervisee. Family-Centered and Family Systems While the above suggestions for content in the supervisory relationship are client focused, there are other supervisory approaches that are more explicitly client-centered or outcomes-focused. Rapp and Poertner (1992), in their text on social administration from a client-centered approach, highlight the work by Harkness (as cited in Rapp & Poertner) on clientcentered supervision. In client-centered supervision, the focus of the supervisory meeting is fully on the client and their outcomes. However, this leaves little room for the supervisee’s growth in practice. A second outcomes-focused model is multisystemic therapy, or MST, which has its history in juvenile corrections, but has been more frequently applied to child welfare (Allin, Wathen, & MacMillan, 2005; Brunk, Henggeler, & Whelan, 1987). MST is a family-systems, quality assurance–based model that emphasizes the strengths of family members and views them as full collaborators (Sheidow & Woodford, 2003). Within this model, the child welfare worker understands that problems are “multidetermined and multidimensional”

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

319

and that the family requires intervention at many different system levels (Brunk et al., 1987, p. 173). Service delivery occurs at the home and in other systems in which the family functions. This model is evidence based, with nine treatment principles that guide the worker’s intervention: 1) ﬁnding the ﬁt, 2) positive and strength focused, 3) increasing responsibility, 4) present focused, action oriented, and well deﬁned, 5) targeting sequences, 6) developmentally appropriate, 7) continuous effort, 8) evaluation and accountability, and 9) generalization (Sheidow & Woodford, 2003). At MST’s base is a quality assurance system to ensure workers’ ﬁdelity to the model (Henggeler et al., 2002). Both supervisors and practitioners play a critical role in that adherence occurs through close supervision and measures for both therapist and supervisory adherence (Therapist Adherence Measure [TAM] and Supervisor Adherence Measure [SAM]) (MST Institute, 2003). TAMs are completed by the primary caregiver to measure adherence to the model. Therapists complete SAMs for the supervisor, again measuring supervisors’ adherence to the model. The tool consists of 43 items, and workers complete it every 2 months. The tool, based on the model, reﬂects the nine treatment principles of the model. Supervisors focus the content of the supervisory meeting on providing feedback for the worker to support their adherence to the nine principles of the model (Henggeler et al., 2002). Examples of items on the TAM (Henggeler et al., 2002, p. 160) include, “My family knew exactly which problems we were working on,” and “The therapist understood what is good about our family.” Items on the SAM (Henggeler et al., 2002, p. 159) include, “We spent more time discussing cases in which progress was limited,” and “In the past 2 months, I left supervision knowing how to carry out recommended actions.” Evaluation Evaluation is often a stressful and anxiety-producing endeavor for the supervisor (Fall & Sutton, 2004). It is nonetheless critical to the growth of the supervisee and the mission of the organization. Supervisors use evaluation to let workers know how they are doing in their practice. Evaluation can be formative, providing feedback along the way to assist workers’ growth, or summative, providing overall feedback at the end of some period, which is often referred to as a performance appraisal (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). It is often unclear to supervisees what they will be evaluated on. Bernard and Goodyear recommend that supervisors create criteria that reﬂect the professional standards of the child welfare worker, values and goals of the program, and identiﬁed evidence-based practices. Supervisors must also evaluate child welfare workers on their adherence to CFSR outcomes. While adherence to CFSR outcomes is often thought of as an administrative task and not the purview of clinical supervision, it is useful to connect these important family outcomes to child welfare workers’

320

child welfare supervision

practice. Like the MST approach, including these outcomes in the evaluation process is one way of connecting them with workers’ practice. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) identify six elements that are necessary for successful and useful evaluations. They conceptualize evaluation as a process and stress the importance of adhering to each of the elements. Earlier, this chapter identiﬁed the ﬁrst part of the process, creating a contract. That contract for supervision is the same as a contract for evaluation, as both include training goals, a description of how the worker will be evaluated, description of the supervision methods, identiﬁcation of length and frequency of meetings, and identiﬁcation of how formative evaluative feedback will be provided (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The second element also follows the supervisory process, as it requires the supervisor to identify the supervisory method for evaluation. Whether evaluation occurs through self-report, a review of SACWIS case notes, or videotape, the supervisor must remember that these data collection tools are used for both instructional reasons and evaluation (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Supervisors may want to create a distinction between use of these tools for instruction and use for evaluation. The third element to a successful evaluation is the supervisor’s identiﬁcation of a tool for assessment. While programs often have performance appraisals created by the agency, these tools do not reﬂect or measure the identiﬁed professional practice goals of the supervisee. These appraisals do evaluate supervisees’ meeting of agency or CFSR goals, which is an important factor in child welfare services. Supervisors working in child welfare services may want to create some sort of hybrid evaluation tool that allows for the evaluation of workers’ administrative outcomes as well as their identiﬁed practice goals. Such an approach was presented above in the review of MST, which uses the TAMS as an evaluation tool to evaluate how practice leads to outcomes (Henggeler et al., 2002). Tools to evaluate supervisees’ identiﬁed goals are often “homegrown” (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004, p. 28), created by the supervisor. Bernard and Goodyear’s fourth element is the communication of formative feedback. This is similar to Shulman’s (1993) work phase, presented earlier, and in fact could be included as an aspect of that phase. This element involves the ongoing feedback or criticism (Munson, 2002) that workers need to improve or more thoroughly understand their practice. By providing ongoing feedback the meeting is focused on the agency and CFSR outcomes. The supervisor discusses with workers their adherence to timelines and protocols and provides feedback on how their practices may improve to meet the identiﬁed outcomes. The ﬁfth element of successful evaluation is the encouragement of self-assessment. This practice is similar to communicating formative feedback, but the intent is that supervisees learn to be critical of their own work (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). As mentioned earlier, supervisors want supervisees to improve their reﬂective-thinking skills so that, in time,

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

321

they can engage in their own self-assessment and resolve some of their own issues. The sixth and ﬁnal element is the communication of summative evaluations. Similar to performance appraisals, summative evaluations offer a summary of the workers’ practice over a certain period. While it is difﬁcult to separate the evaluation for professional growth from that for professional promotion and compensation, it is important to try to address them both, often using the same tool. This also provides an opportunity to address the connection between clinical practice with families and meeting CFSR outcomes. Ending Eventually, the child welfare worker–supervisor relationship will come to an end, on account of the worker or supervisor leaving the agency or the department, or promotion. Regardless of the reason for the departure, supervisors must assist with the inevitable transitions (Shulman, 1993). Shulman (1993) has noted that when workers leave, their departure affects three areas of work: the end of the supervisor–supervisee relationship, the end of the worker–client relationship, and the end of the worker–colleague relationship. In his text, Shulman focuses on the supervisor–supervisee relationship, as he believes that the successful ending of this relationship will allow the child welfare worker to model successful closure with his or her client and colleague relationships. Shulman (1993) suggests ﬁve strategies for successful endings. The ﬁrst is that the supervisor prepare for the impending end date by alerting the other staff of the employee’s departure. Second, the supervisor should pay attention to emotions associated with the ending phase and alert the worker to them. These may include apathy, guilt, avoidance, or excitement. In the third strategy, the supervisor acknowledges his or her own feelings about the worker’s departure. These feelings can be positive or negative, but Shulman stresses they should be honest. Fourth, the supervisor should set aside time to review and evaluate the supervisee’s experience with supervision. During this time, the supervisor and supervisee should review the positive and negative aspects of supervision and identify what learning objectives were met and what the worker has yet to accomplish. Finally, the supervisor should create an opportunity for the supervisee to have ending time with coworkers. A going-away party is often held for staff members who are leaving, but it is also important for the supervisor to acknowledge the worker’s contributions and allow time for other staff members to share their perspectives as well. Shulman (1993) stresses the importance of the same ﬁve strategies for a supervisor leaving. He distinguishes this departure as unique because of the need for the supervisor to assist workers with the transition to the new supervisor. The supervisor should allow time for the workers to discuss how they are feeling about the new supervisor: what are their fears, their expectations, or their hopes for the transition to a new supervisor?

child welfare supervision

322

If the new supervisor has been identiﬁed prior to the old supervisor’s leaving, it is useful for the new supervisor to sit in a staff meeting prior to the departure. This allows the new supervisor an opportunity to gather a sense of the dynamics of the group and the child welfare workers’ feelings about the transition. GROUP SUPERVISION While nothing can replace the importance of the one-on-one interaction that individual supervision provides, often the supervisor does not have the time or is not available on-site to provide individual supervision. In these cases, group supervision can be used in place of individual supervision. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) deﬁne group supervision as a group of supervisees with an identiﬁed supervisor who monitors the quality of their work and enhances their understanding of their clinical practices and of the clients with whom they work. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) further clarify group supervision in their identiﬁcation of the supervisory group as a closed group with a task and an agenda. Advantages The primary advantage of group clinical supervision is that it is efﬁcient. Supervisors save time when they meet with more than one supervisee at once (Fall & Sutton, 2004; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). The efﬁciency of a larger group also provides the opportunity to present more in-depth educational subject matter (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Kadushin and Harkness note that group supervision can be an easier way to reign in poor performing or workers with behavioral issues. The group, through role modeling or group dynamics, assists the worker in changing his or her behavior and practice, and sometimes this occurs more quickly than if the supervisor works individually with the supervisee. The second advantage of group supervision is that it becomes a place for mutual aid. Supervision groups offer child welfare workers a place to share with one another and ﬁnd mutual support (Fall & Sutton, 2004; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Shulman, 1993). Here they can compare their practice to others and realize that they are not unique and that they experience the same struggles as other workers (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). It is also a place where workers challenge one another (Shulman, 1993) and begin to learn the art of supervision with its critical analysis of practice. Finally, group supervision creates group cohesion among members of a unit (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). This cohesion can be useful as child welfare workers face the intense issues of their jobs. The greatest advantage of group supervision is that it involves more than one person. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) note that larger numbers of supervisees may be very useful to those individuals who are intimidated by the intensity of one-on-one supervision. By meeting in a group, members can more comfortably challenge the supervisor, as they may feel there

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

323

is safety in numbers. Shulman (1993) has observed that child welfare workers in supervision groups have a sense that they are all in the same boat, giving them comfort and support. Two ﬁnal beneﬁts of group supervision stem from the diversity of membership that can exist in such groups (Fall & Sutton, 2004). In a diverse group, more multicultural issues can be discussed, as well as other taboo subjects that might be uncomfortable when working one-on-one (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Varying perspectives can result in a more disorderly group, but ultimately they encourage more diverse and complex views of the dynamics of a case. Disadvantages In their text on supervision, Kadushin and Harkness (2002) include a list of disadvantages of group supervision. They ﬁrst note that supervision is not individualized in a supervisory group and, as such, the individual needs of any particular worker may be lost. They also stress that group supervision requires more conﬁdence than individual supervision, as groups are often more complex and demanding, and participate in inﬁghting rather than group cohesion. The supervisor’s skills must be strong, so as not to lose control of the group and allow the supervisees to fall into group think. Finally, Kadushin and Harkness express concern about the individual within the group. The individual who wants to go unnoticed can hide in a group or may be intimidated by exposing themselves in a larger group, and therefore may not participate in the supervisory process. Fall and Sutton (2004) note that other drawbacks include absent members, too much socializing, and a lack of critical feedback by the members. Process The process of group supervision is similar to that of individual supervision. The group must clarify tangible issues such as where to meet, as well as the more clinical issues of the purpose of meeting and the rules for engagement (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Shulman, 1993). Although the supervisor determines many of these issues, some are left to the group to decide together. Administrative issues such as who, what, where, and when are the ﬁrst to be addressed. The “why” question, a critical aspect of group supervision, will be discussed in the next section. Supervisors determine who will be in the group. In child welfare, this is an obvious choice, as supervision groups typically consist of those child welfare workers for whom the supervisor is responsible. When the group expands beyond the supervisor’s unit, supervisors must screen potential members to determine whom to include in the group (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The “what” question, or content of the group meeting, is determined by the rules of the group and the role of the supervisor. The group members, not the supervisor alone, typically determine how they want to interact with one another.

324

child welfare supervision

The role of the supervisor is often determined by the “why,” or purpose of the group and clariﬁed further by the supervisor (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). Finally, either the group in conjunction with the supervisor or the supervisor alone decides where the group will meet, as well as the frequency and duration of each session. The “why” question is the most important one to answer, because it determines the purpose of group supervision. Shulman (1993) identiﬁes four purposes of group supervision and stresses that it is important to clarify the differences between them, as each involves a different role for the supervisor and the members of the group. Staff meetings, the ﬁrst identiﬁed purpose of supervision groups, focus exclusively on administrative issues. In-service training, the second purpose of a supervisory group, focuses on information and can reﬂect the need to share administrative content or clinical content. The third purpose of a group, case consultation, involves primarily cases themselves, not the growth or practice skills of the supervisees. These are common in child welfare and often formalized, including team members and professional representatives from various systems related to child welfare: county attorneys, therapists, teachers, and community-based workers. Child welfare workers and supervisors use consultation groups to seek input about how to move forward with a case. The role of the supervisor in these groups is as group member, with no authority over members of the group. The purpose of consultation groups is distinct from that of supervision groups, as the intent of a supervision group, the fourth purpose presented by Shulman, is to enhance and improve the practice skills of child welfare workers. All of the skills that a supervisor would use in individual supervision are applied in this group setting, with the intent of enhancing the practice of the individual members (Shulman, 1993). Content and Method While the content of group supervision is similar to that of individual supervision, the fact that there is more than one person to respond to and engage with adds complications. Supervisors must create a relationship with each member and encourage relationships between members as well. Bernard and Goodyear (2004) remind supervisors to remember Tuckman and Jensen’s (1977) model of group development: a group goes through a process of forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. To assist with this process, they suggest a strong focus on structure along with clear guidelines for presenting cases and gathering feedback (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Munson establishes six guidelines for case presentations (as cited in Bernard & Goodyear, p. 244): 1. The supervisor should present a case ﬁrst. 2. The supervisee should be granted time to prepare the case for presentation.

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

325

3. The presentation should be based on written or audiovisual material. 4. The presentation should be built around questions to be answered. 5. The presentation should be organized and focused. 6. The presentation should progress from client dynamics to supervisee dynamics.

Kadushin and Harkness (2002) provide further structure for the group by clarifying the role of the supervisor and identifying supervisor responsibilities. The supervisor establishes the norms of the group. These norms can reﬂect a positive working relationship among members or a negative one. The ﬁrst norm necessary to create productive group functioning is to allow everyone the opportunity to speak without interruptions. The second is to listen attentively to all members and then, after intense listening, respond, which is the third norm. The fourth norm is relevance, making sure that what the supervisor contributes is relevant to the topic at hand. Finally, Kadushin and Harkness suggest that members share information that contributes to the enhancement of practice. The supervisor establishes these norms and models them for members. The supervisor may also gently remind members of these norms if the group as a whole or if individual members begin to stray from them. Individual members of a group affect the functioning of any group, and while no individual should be stereotyped, Shulman (1993) offers a list of group member characteristics and their potential impact on group functioning. The ﬁrst is the deviant member, an individual who consistently deviates from the norms and challenges the supervisor and the status quo. Shulman stresses that this individual is an ally to the supervisor, as this person voices concerns that the group is uncomfortable sharing. However, it is important that the supervisor listen to the concerns of this member but not let them dominate the group. Concerns can be shared within the structure of the established norms; reminding the member of this guideline may help in managing them. The second member type is the internal leader. This role is distinct from that of the supervisor, the external leader, because it emerges from the group (Shulman, 1993). The internal leader’s role is to assist the group through the developmental stages and be the spokesperson for the group. Often the internal leader is the same individual as the deviant member. The quiet group member is the third member identiﬁed by Shulman (1993). This member appears to be engaged in the group process but rarely speaks. Supervisors must determine the source of the silence. However, many traditional ways of bringing out a quiet member can have the opposite effect as initially intended (Shulman, 1993). Shulman suggests that supervisors meet with these members individually to determine the source of the silence, identify whether they need to address it, and to brainstorm solutions if they do (see Case Example 12.9).

child welfare supervision

326

Case Example 12.9

Reaching Out

Ilsa has been in Juan’s supervision group for the last year but never speaks much. Juan is concerned about this and decides to encourage participation by calling on individual members to speak. After 2 weeks of being called on to speak in group, Ilsa quits coming to the group, “accidentally” scheduling appointments during group time. Finally, Juan confronts Ilsa about her lack of participation. In discussion with Ilsa, Juan learns that she got a lot out of the supervision groups but was very anxious in larger groups and the threat of being called on every week made her too anxious to come. She agrees that if he would refrain from calling on her, she would try to participate more. Questions • What skills from Shulman’s (1993) work phase can be used to investigate challenging group members? • How can the group itself be used to address challenging members?

The ﬁnal member type is the scapegoat. It is easy to identify this individual because every time he or she speaks, the rest of the group rolls their eyes. Shulman (1993) cautions that the critical ﬁrst step with this type of member is not to identify with the individual or with the other group members but to stay neutral. Supervisors should investigate the source of the response to this member, as typically there is an underlying cause for their reaction. SUPERVISOR DEVELOPMENT Supervisors do not come into their positions conﬁdent and fully effective in their supervision practice. They grow and develop their skills over time, just as workers do. When supervisors transition into their positions, they experience what Watkins (1994) calls “role shock.” They are overwhelmed with their positions and have no conceptualization of their new role (Watkins, 1994). Stoltenberg et al. (1998) note that this leaves supervisors anxious, rigid, and unable to listen to or provide critical feedback to supervisees. Over time, they enter into “role recovery” and transition (Watkins, 1994), a stage characteristic of a more realistic sense of their strengths and weaknesses as a supervisor. At this stage, supervisors begin to transition into identifying with the role of supervisor. However, according to Watkins, they are still anxious about this new role and still face confusion and conﬂict (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Again, over time supervisors become even more comfortable in their roles as the transition into “role consolidation” occurs (Watkins, 1994). They begin to respond from their identity as a clinical supervisor and see themselves as a resource, albeit with limitations (Stoltenberg et al. 1998; Watkins, 1994). Finally, supervisors emerge into the master phase with a sense of being fully integrated as clinical supervisors. At this point, called “role mastery” by Watkins, the supervisor has a

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

327

sense of consistency and competence and the ability to supervise any supervisee at any level. CONCLUSION Supervisors in child welfare services participate in many activities in the pursuit of positive client outcomes, and clinical supervision can be one of the most rewarding and productive tasks. Through clinical supervision the supervisor can focus on the enhancement of child welfare workers’ practice, resulting in successful achievement of client goals, agency policies, and ASFA and CFSR outcomes and timelines. Clinical supervision is process oriented—setting the stage for the supervisor–supervisee interaction, establishing a relationship, and contracting for the content of the relationship. Clinical supervision is also a content- and task-oriented practice that involves speciﬁc tasks such as those highlighted in this chapter, including Bernard and Goodyear’s (2004) tools for eliciting information and Shulman’s (1993) work phase skills. With this task orientation comes the need for evaluation, which includes the review of a child welfare worker’s practice for professional growth and meeting of ASFA and CFSR outcomes. All activities, whether process or task oriented, focus on improved practice and improved outcomes. Regardless of whether clinical supervision occurs through individual interaction or in a group setting, the focus of the relationship is the enhancement of the child welfare worker’s practice, which results in successful outcomes for clients. The challenge, however, is ﬁnding the time for clinical supervision within an environment of heavy administrative oversight, high caseloads with large numbers of workers to supervise, and too few resources. Supervisors must negotiate and resolve these time demands to best serve the families and children served by the child welfare system. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. What model(s) of supervision describe your current practice of clinical supervision? What model(s) might you like to incorporate into your approach? 2. How often do you provide supervision? Where do you meet with supervisees? How are you structuring supervisory sessions? 3. Describe the relationships you have with your supervisees. How do these relationships differ? How does this impact the way you provide clinical supervision? 4. How have power differentials affected your supervisory relationships? 5. Reﬂect on your clinical supervision skills. What are your strengths? What new ideas would you be interested in trying?

child welfare supervision

328 REFERENCES

Allin, H., Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. (2005). Treatment of child neglect: A systematic review. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(8), 497–504. Anderson, P. G. (1989). The origin, emergence, and professional recognition of child protection. Social Service Review, 63(2), 222–244. Barker, R. (1999). The social work dictionary (4th ed.). Washington DC: NASW Press. Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance model of supervision. Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 35–42. Brunk, M., Henggeler, S. W., & Whelan, J. P. (1987). Comparison of multisystemic therapy and parent training in the brief treatment of child abuse and neglect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(2), 171–178. Collins-Camargo, C. (2006). Clinical supervision in public child welfare: Themes from ﬁndings of a multisite study. Professional Development, 9(2/3), 100–110. Collins-Camargo, C. (2007). Administering research and demonstration projects aimed at promoting evidence-based practice in child welfare: Challenges and rewards. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 4(3/4), 25–39. Costin, L., Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1996). The Politics of child abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press. Fall, M. & Sutton, J. M., Jr. (2004) Clinical supervision: A handbook for practitioners. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Ferguson, S. M. (2006). Resolution of role conﬂict in public child welfare supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Gambrill, E. & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11/12), 813–837. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., Liao, J. G., Letourneau, E. J., & Edwards, D. L. (2002). Transporting efﬁcacious treatments to ﬁeld settings: The link between supervisory practices and therapist ﬁdelity in MST programs. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 31(2), 155–167. Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2002). Supervision in social work (4th ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Kaiser, T. L. (1997). Supervisory relationships: Exploring the human element. Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Ladany, N., Constantine, M. G., Miller, K., Erickson, C. D., & Muse-Burke, J. L. (2000). Supervisor countertransference: A qualitative investigation into its identiﬁcation and description. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 102–115. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers of Kurt Lewin. New York: McGraw-Hill. Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. Counseling Psychologist, 10(1), 3–42. Luepker, E. T. (2003). Record keeping in psychotherapy and counseling. New York: Brunner-Routledge. MST Institute. (2003, August). Overview: The multisystemic therapy (MST) quality assurance program. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.mstinstitute.org/

Clinical Supervision in Child Welfare

329

Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.). New York: Haworth Social Work Practice Press. Putney, M. W., Worthington, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (1992). Effects of supervisor and supervisee theoretical orientation and supervisor–supervisee matching on interns’ perceptions of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(2), 258–265. Osborn, C. J., & Davis, T. E. (1996). The supervision contract: Making it perfectly clear. The Clinical Supervisor, 14(2), 121–134. Rapp, C. A., & Poertner, J. (1992). Social administration: A client-centered approach. New York: Longman. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin. Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research ﬁndings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30(1), 5–44. Rooney, R. H. (1992) Strategies for work with involuntary clients. New York: Columbia University Press. Salus, M. K. (2004). Supervising child protective service caseworkers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Children’s Bureau, Ofﬁce of Child Abuse and Neglect. Schwartz, W. (1968). Group work in public welfare. Public Welfare, 26(4), 322–368. Sheidow, A. J., & Woodford, M. S. (2003). Multisystemic therapy: An empirically supported, home-based family therapy approach. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11(3), 257–263. Shlonsksy, A. & Wagner, D. (2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409–427. Shulman, L. (1993). Interactional supervision. Washington DC: NASW Press. Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tsui, M. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tsui, M., & Ho, W. (1997). In search of a comprehensive model of social work supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 16(2), 181–205. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited [Electronic version]. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. Waldfogel, J. (1998). The future of child protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Watkins, C. E. (1994). The supervision of psychotherapy supervisor trainees. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 48(3), 417–431.

13 MANAGING PERFORMANCE M EGAN E. PAUL , M ICHELLE I. G RAEF , E RIKA J. R OBINSON , & K RISTIN I. S AATHOFF

ne of the primary roles of a supervisor is to manage worker perforO mance. Performance management is the “continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization” (Aguinis, 2007, p. 2). Supervisors must regularly assess current performance levels and take steps to improve performance in a way that is congruent with agency goals. The ultimate goal is to achieve agency objectives through individual and team performance. To effectively manage performance, supervisors must know what the performance expectations are for workers and clearly communicate these expectations to workers. They must regularly monitor and document performance while taking steps to facilitate and improve performance. In the event of unsatisfactory performance patterns, supervisors must analyze and address performance problems, sometimes using disciplinary measures. Finally, formalized performance management systems may include standardized performance evaluations, which supervisors will be expected to complete. In carrying out these multiple responsibilities, supervisors must be aware of and operate within legal guidelines for performance management. Child welfare supervisors with case management experience will ﬁnd themselves well prepared to manage worker performance. The responsibilities are not unlike those required to help families ensure the safety and well-being of their children. Case management skills related to assessment, collaborative planning, goal setting, problem solving, progress evaluation, 330

Managing Performance

331

and documentation are valuable assets for evaluating and facilitating worker performance. Child welfare supervisors should capitalize on these strengths as they seek to help workers succeed. DEFINING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS Job performance refers to measurable employee actions or behaviors that contribute to organizational goals (Borman, 1991; Campbell, 1990; Campbell, McCloy, Oppler, & Sager, 1993). Although some believe that behavioral results and outcomes should be included in this deﬁnition (Bernardin & Beatty, 1984; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), others ﬁrmly believe they are not a component of job performance (Campbell, 1990; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997), even though they are often the target of performance management systems. As will be discussed, this distinction has important implications for performance management in child welfare, given recent attention to outcome achievement for children and families. Although a number of models of performance exist, one widely recognized approach is to deﬁne performance in terms of two broad dimensions: task performance and contextual performance1 (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Task performance refers to core job duties and responsibilities, such as those that would appear in a job description. By deﬁnition, task performance is largely unique to a given job; in child welfare, examples include investigating allegations of maltreatment, preparing a safety plan, explaining agency policy and procedure to families, and coordinating provision of services. Critical job tasks are identiﬁed through a process of job analysis, which involves systematic examination of one or more features of tasks, such as importance, frequency, and consequentiality. One of a variety of formulas is typically used to analyze this information and pinpoint the core job tasks that contribute most to effective overall job performance. For more information on the use of job analysis in child welfare, see Graef and Potter (2002) and Graef, Paul, and Myers (in press). Contextual performance, in contrast, refers to non-job-speciﬁc behavior that affects the social and psychological climate in which tasks are performed (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). These behaviors are usually fairly similar across jobs and include providing assistance to others, investing extra effort, volunteering for extra responsibilities, supporting and defending agency goals, and complying with agency rules and procedures (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Some types of contextual behaviors might be considered an expected part of professional conduct and would therefore be an established expectation. Examples in child welfare might include helping to orient a new worker, always arriving on time for meetings with families and providers, and meeting deadlines for documentation. Other contextual behaviors are more obviously outside the bounds of the formal job description and are not likely to be treated as an expectation. Examples include volunteering to cover another worker’s caseload during extended

332

child welfare supervision

sick leave, suggesting improvements to the unit or agency, and giving public-education presentations. Whether or not they are formally required and recognized, contextual behaviors are valuable to the organization. They are associated with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, performance quantity, performance quality, ﬁnancial efﬁciency, customer satisfaction, and unit effectiveness (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In practice, performance is sometimes deﬁned in terms of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (often referred to as KSAOs). Examples include knowledge of policy and procedure; communication, decision making, and documentation skills; and enthusiasm, self-awareness, and adaptability. Although these qualities may be desirable, such competency-based approaches are largely inappropriate for assessing job performance, primarily because they do not target behaviors. A worker could have excellent knowledge and skills, as demonstrated in training or in past job performance, but may not be translating these skills into performance, perhaps due to motivational issues or situational constraints. To the extent that a worker does demonstrate behaviors that might reﬂect these competencies, there is no guarantee that the behaviors make a valuable contribution to agency goals. Although KSAOs certainly play an important role in performance, they are typically considered antecedents of performance (Campbell, 1990) and are more appropriately used as indicators of performance potential, measured at the time of hire or during training, rather than as indicators of actual performance. (For a review of how KSAOs can be used to predict performance in child welfare, see Graef et al., in press). Deﬁning performance in terms of KSAOs is therefore not recommended, except when acquisition of knowledge and skills is the primary goal, as is often the case in very early stages of employment or when workers have professional-development goals they must achieve. Yet another approach is to deﬁne performance in terms of results or outcomes. As suggested earlier, these are not typically included in the standard deﬁnition of performance, but the reality is that employees are often held accountable for them anyway. Despite their appeal as indicators of performance, outcome-based measures are problematic because their achievement frequently involves circumstances beyond the employee’s control. Moreover, in jobs where outcomes may not be achieved for some time, perhaps months or even years, more immediate indicators of performance are preferred (Aguinis, 2007). Due to the federal Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) and associated federal legislation, child welfare performance measures have shifted from focusing on procedural compliance to focusing on outcomes. For states, the desired outcomes are clear: safety, permanency, and wellbeing for children and families. In an effort to achieve these outcomes, many agencies have begun diligently monitoring associated indicators at local and unit levels, and some have even extended outcome accountability to individual workers. The successful implementation of such approaches

Managing Performance

333

will require agencies to limit outcome measures to those over which workers have direct control or to carefully account for circumstances that interfere with outcome achievement. Alternatively, agencies may want to follow the direction of the CFSR and assess the extent to which workers make concerted efforts toward outcomes. The ideal means of deﬁning and measuring performance may be to focus on a combination of task and contextual performance, along with results over which workers have control. It is not enough for supervisors to know that staff members are expected to complete certain tasks and achieve certain results. Detailed performance expectations for staff come from a variety of sources, including local, state, and federal laws and regulations; agency missions and values; agency policies, rules, directives, and guidelines; professional bestpractice standards; and judicial system standards, to name a few. Supervisors must know what, how, and when things should be done to properly direct and manage staff performance. COMMUNICATING PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS Although many child welfare workers learn about performance expectations through extensive training, supervisors need to reinforce and supplement that training and assume long-term responsibility for conveying agency expectations. In addition to communicating performance standards, supervisors should also be sure to inform workers of the procedures and timelines for performance reviews. Communication should be clear and consistent, using direct and unambiguous language. Supervisors have a variety of methods available to

Box 13.1

Communicating Performance Expectations

• Understand the rationale or purpose of the policy, procedure, or directive. • Identify the positive aspects of the policy, procedure, or directive. Specify the beneﬁts to families, workers, and the agency, as well as any potential problems that may result. • Anticipate concerns staff may have regarding implementation. • Determine the best method and time to present the policy, procedure, or directive (e.g., during a staff meeting or in a memo). • Remember that what you say (the actual words), your nonverbal messages (facial expressions, eye rolling, etc.), and your para-verbal messages (tone, pitch, and pacing of words) affect how the message is received, which inﬂuences workers’ implementation. • Be very clear about expectations regarding the implementation of the policy, procedure, or directive. • Allow time for questions. Address concerns constructively and develop a system for monitoring those concerns. • Provide a time and means for follow-up to see how implementation is going. Source: Salus (2004).

334

child welfare supervision

them to communicate expectations for staff performance, including faceto-face conversation, telephone calls, voice mail, written memos, e-mail, and staff meetings. Skilled supervisors effectively use each of these modalities when appropriate and keep records to establish evidence that workers know the standards for performance. Such proof might include records of training attendance, signatures for receipt of policy manuals, staff meeting agendas and minutes, or supervisory consultation notes. Having such documentation will be important if performance problems arise. Practical strategies for sharing expectations related to new policies, procedures, and directives are noted in Box 13.1. MONITORING PERFORMANCE Effective performance management requires supervisors to keep themselves fully apprised of workers’ conduct, behavior, activities, and progress. Supervisors can rely on a number of methods for monitoring performance at the unit, worker, and case levels. One of the most direct methods is to observe workers by accompanying them during interviews, routine home visits, court hearings, and family team meetings. This method is best for assessing casework quality and interactions with families and other professionals. One drawback, however, is that observation may not capture typical performance. An indirect method of observation that can overcome this limitation is to gather information from secondary sources, such as other workers, other supervisors, training staff, families, attorneys, law enforcement, service providers, or medical professionals. These people are likely to have many interactions with workers and can provide alternative perspectives that a supervisor is otherwise unlikely to have. For example, in Nebraska, training staff regularly provide each supervisor with reports on the classroom and ﬁeld performance of their new trainees. Another example would be when a supervisor contacts the county attorney after an important court hearing to obtain feedback on a worker’s performance on the witness stand. A third approach is to receive performance updates directly from the worker through phone calls, e-mails, and face-to-face meetings. In the process of routine supervision, supervisors should become informed of whether policy, procedures, and supervisory direction have been followed and what tasks workers have and have not completed, such as assessments, plans, and services. This is also a particularly useful means of learning about the workers’ perceptions of particular cases and their own performance. During consultation, supervisors can explore workers’ opinions about family dynamics and strengths, case progress, and next steps. Supervisors can also discover worker’s perceptions about their own needs, strengths, and concerns regarding workload, performance barriers, supervision, stress management, and job satisfaction. Although supervisors are likely to have numerous unanticipated opportunities to assess worker performance in this way, planned and structured meetings will maximize the chances of more thorough and systematic review and feedback.

Managing Performance

335

The fourth approach for monitoring performance includes reviewing records and reports. Through a review of case ﬁles and child welfare information system data, supervisors can conﬁrm what has been taking place within cases and the timeliness of those activities, including physical and mental health evaluations; children’s visits with families; and service types, providers, dates, and payment details. They can also determine upcoming deadlines and tasks that need attention, especially through electronic reminders available in many information systems. Finally, supervisors can evaluate the quality of work products like assessments, safety and case plans, visitation plans, and correspondence with families and other professionals. To obtain a broader picture of performance across cases and workers, supervisors can examine aggregate performance measures that reﬂect important patterns and trends. Table 13.1 describes the ﬁve most common types of child welfare performance measures (Moore & Bryson, 2003; National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data Technology [NRCCWDT], 2007). Performance-measure data are often conveyed to supervisors through management reports. These reports provide a valuable means of monitoring and improving worker and unit performance. To be maximally effective, reports should meet several important criteria, which can be summarized using the acronym RESULTS, described in Box 13.2 (Moore & Bryson, 2003). Supervisors can use management reports to identify exceptional, adequate, or inadequate performance and then work with their staff to interpret the Table 13.1 Child Welfare Performance Measures Type of Measure

Deﬁnition

Categories or Examples

Basic case

Amount of service being provided and to whom

• Number served • Client characteristics • Services provided • Units of service • Case status

Resource

Expenditure and acquisition • Financial of resources; efﬁciency of use • Placement

Compliance

Adherence to agency policies • Number of completed and procedures assessments and plans

Service response

Outputs or results that contribute to outcome achievement

• Parent–child visitation

Client results, either during or at the conclusion of services

• Safety

• Stafﬁng

• Number of home visits per month

Outcome

• Number of placements in familylike settings • Permanence • Well-being

Adapted from Moore & Bryson (2003) and National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology (2007).

child welfare supervision

336

reasons for the performance problems. For example, if a report shows that some children are changing placements too often, the supervisor can work with staff to examine the details about these cases (such as abuse or neglect type, race, age, speciﬁc worker, and what providers are involved) that are related to moving more often, which can provide clues about how to intervene to make improvements (Moore, Rapp, & Roberts, 2000). Many agencies are beginning to make reports a fundamental management tool for improving outcome achievement. Agencies that have limited technology may rely on specialized staff to create and disseminate reports. Others have developed management reporting systems in conjunction with their child welfare information systems so that they are more automated and readily accessible. In agencies where reports are not available, supervisors may want to advocate for their implementation. Table 13.2 describes

Box 13.2

Qualities of Effective Management Reports Relevant

• Aggregated for your management unit • Timely and up to date Easy • Are easy to read, with data presented in graphs that are easily interpreted • Provide trends to indicate whether performance is changing over time • Give rates and numbers to compare performance between and among various agency levels (e.g., state, area, county) and over time • Provide important comparisons Stress Outcomes • Emphasize outcomes through report design and provide display options (e.g., graphs, drill down capacity) for the outcome measures • Provide indicators of progress toward outcome achievement Utility • Allow for easy identiﬁcation of cases associated with a rate • Allow for further sorting and analysis to reveal greater detail Lean • Are limited to a small number of reports to avoid overload and confusion • Summarize data so no further calculation is necessary for interpretation Trustworthy • Accurate and veriﬁable Standards • Include standard or goal lines on graphs to enable users to instantly interpret their performance in relation to the standard • Show the extent to which performance is above or below the standard Source: Moore & Bryson (2003).

Managing Performance

337

Table 13.2 Specialized Reports Type

Description

Detail

Lists the worker, case, and clients on which report data and analyses are based

Exception

Indicates missing or omitted key data by worker, case, client, and data element

Distribution

Shows the distribution of clients by age, race, and ethnicity within a worker’s caseload or within a speciﬁc geographic area

Countdown

Shows the remaining number of cases or clients that would successfully meet a required measure

Trend

Shows what is happening over time for speciﬁc clients

Incident counts

Reﬂects the number of substantiated abuse or neglect reports of children in out-of-home care for a given period of time

Source: Moore & Bryson (2003).

Case Example 13.1 Tony was a new supervisor to Janelle, an ongoing services worker. Janelle was resistant to Tony’s attempts at supervision, feeling that he was relatively inexperienced. Janelle was working with a family with serious incest and domestic violence issues and the mother was becoming increasingly withdrawn and uninvolved in services. Tony directed Janelle to work with the mother to get her re-engaged with her therapist and to actively pursue locating the absent father. Tony repeatedly asked Janelle for updates on the situation, but could not get Janelle to tell him what was happening beyond, “I told you, the mother does not want to be involved. We should seek relinquishment of her parental rights.” Tony told Janelle that her position was unacceptable. She begged him not to reassign the case and gave him empty promises to meet with the mother again soon. Tony decided to check other sources of information regarding Janelle’s performance. He read Janelle’s case documentation in the ﬁle, but it provided only minimal details. So he made a number of phone calls to speak directly to the mother and to collateral contacts such as the children’s court-appointed special advocate, the judge, the children’s elementary school principal, and the mother’s relatives. Tony looked for information on the agency’s computer system to see if Janelle had authorized therapy or family support worker services and to see if family team meetings were being held and who had attended them. He also checked his management reports on every aspect of the case and compared Janelle’s case statistics to those for her other cases and those of the other members of his supervisory unit. Questions • How did Tony’s strategy for monitoring Janelle’s performance change? • Would it ever be advisable to rely solely on a worker’s self-report for performance data, and if so, when? • What are some other sources of performance information that Tony could have used?

child welfare supervision

338

key reports that have proven particularly useful in child welfare (Moore & Bryson, 2003; NRCCWDT, 2007). The ﬁnal approach to monitoring worker and unit performance is to develop a partnership with staff members who are responsible for agency quality assurance (QA) or continuous quality improvement (CQI). These staff members are responsible for ongoing, system-wide performance monitoring and improvement. In addition to possibly being responsible for summarizing and evaluating the quantitative data used in management reports, they often also collect qualitative data. Through analysis of information system data, structured case ﬁle reviews, and interviews and surveys with families and stakeholders, QA and CQI staff identify the system’s strengths and weaknesses (O’Brien & Watson, 2002). Supervisors should review QA or CQI ﬁndings and meet with reviewers to discuss performance trends and practice issues. Supervisors may also want to volunteer to participate in QA activities, such as case reviews, as the agency allows. Involvement and collaboration with QA or CQI is a valuable means of monitoring worker and unit performance (see Case Example 13.1). DOCUMENTING PERFORMANCE Just as workers must document families’ efforts and progress, supervisors must document worker performance. When supervisors create systems for recording, organizing, and tracking performance data, they facilitate identiﬁcation of performance patterns and ensure that sufﬁcient evidence exists in the event of a disciplinary action. When recording speciﬁc incidents, supervisors should follow typical documentation standards by including information about who, what, when, where, and how. Notes should include names, facts, dates, times, locations, relevant rules or performance expectations, discussions, actions taken, and any supporting records or documentation. Performance notes should be documented as soon as possible, using thorough and orderly methods. A variety of systems can be used to track worker activity and performance, including the agency’s child welfare information system, paper or electronic calendars, paper logs, electronic spreadsheets, notebooks, ﬁle folders, or card ﬁles (Salus, 2004). Other supporting documentation may include e-mails, voice mails, telephone logs, and case consultation notes. Although it may be challenging, it is best to keep performance notes separate from family case ﬁles. Supervisors should keep separate a personnel ﬁle for each worker, in accordance with recommendations from agency human resource specialists. FACILITATING PERFORMANCE Setting Goals As supervisors know from working with families, the purpose of goals is to serve as behavioral motivators. In the realm of job performance, a goal is

Managing Performance

339

“the object or aim of an action, for example, to attain a speciﬁc standard of proﬁciency within a speciﬁed time limit” (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 705). The belief is that goals enhance performance by improving the focus, intensity, and duration of effort toward goal-related activities (Locke & Latham, 2002, 2006). For the most part, speciﬁc and challenging goals lead to higher performance than vague, moderately difﬁcult, or easy goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). This relationship is most strong when employees are committed to the goal (Klein, Wesson, & Hollenbeck, 1999), tasks are less complex (Wood, Mento, & Locke, 1987), the workload is manageable (Brown, Jones, & Leigh, 2005), and performance feedback is provided (Latham & Locke, 1991). (For a review of these factors, see Locke and Latham, 2002, 2006.) Box 13.3 summarizes strategies supervisors can use to ensure the right conditions are present for goals to be effective. Giving Feedback Whether for the sake of goal achievement or for general performance improvement, workers need to receive information about the effectiveness

Box 13.3

Goal-Setting Strategies

1. Make performance goals speciﬁc and challenging (Locke & Latham, 1990). 2. Increase workers’ commitment to goals by helping them (a) understand the importance of each goal and (b) believe in their ability to attain the goal (Locke & Latham, 2002). • Explain the signiﬁcance of a goal by clarifying the beneﬁts of achieving it and the consequences of failing to achieve it. This is particularly important for goals that may appear unimportant to the worker, such as those related to documentation or other administrative tasks. • Provide opportunities for workers to have successful experiences and master necessary knowledge and skills through training and practice (Bandura, 1986). • Persuasively communicate expectations that workers will succeed (Bandura, 1986). • Provide workers with opportunities to observe desired behavior modeled by competent workers (Bandura, 1986). 3. When the tasks necessary for goal achievement are moderately or highly complex, provide additional guidance or alter the goal. • Break down the goal into smaller sub-goals that are more easily achieved (Latham & Seijts, 1999). • Help the worker identify speciﬁc strategies for accomplishing goals (Chesney & Locke, 1991). • If the task is complex because the worker doesn’t have the necessary knowledge or skills, change the performance goal to a learning goal (Winters & Latham, 1996). 4. Help workers manage their workload to avoid role overload (Brown et al., 2005). • Reduce the number of cases or provide task assistance. • Provide time management strategies. • Designate priorities.

child welfare supervision

340

of their behavior. Performance feedback can be objective or subjective and can come from a variety of sources. Workers can learn about their own performance using many of the same methods that supervisors use to monitor performance: through feedback from families, coworkers, other professionals and quality assurance staff members, and information on performance reports. Most jobs have inherent feedback mechanisms, and child welfare is no exception. Workers often know whether their efforts are successful, but supervisors can provide additional and more speciﬁc information to guide them in the right direction. Box 13.4 describes key features of effective, constructive feedback (London, 1997) and steps for implementing them with workers (London, 1997; Poertner & MassettiMiller, 1996).

Box 13.4

Constructive Feedback Features of Constructive Feedback

• • • •

Clear, speciﬁc, and easily understood Frequent and delivered soon after the relevant behavior Relevant to job-speciﬁc behavior that is under the worker’s control Provided by a credible, trustworthy source who is familiar with the worker’s job and performance • Accompanied by an explanation and suggestions about how to use the feedback to improve performance • Used in conjunction with goals, both before and after feedback • Delivered with good intentions, respect, and consideration for the worker’s viewpoint Steps for Constructive Feedback 1. Choose an appropriate time and place; plan an appointment, if necessary. 2. Describe the good or poor performance in detail, using factual information. 3. Explain the impact of the performance on the worker, coworkers, clients, and the agency. 4. When appropriate, attribute poor performance to external factors and good performance to internal factors. 5. Specify what is expected of the worker in the future; reinforce desired behavior that has already been demonstrated or clarify expectations for changes in behavior. 6. Actively listen to and acknowledge the worker’s reaction. 7. Establish goals and an action plan for future performance, drawing on the worker’s input. 8. Thank the worker for his or her time and efforts. 9. Document the discussion. 10 Monitor performance and follow up with additional feedback, reinforcement, and redirection. Sources: London (1997) and Poertner & Massetti-Miller (1996).

Managing Performance

341

Providing Resources and Removing Barriers An important part of a supervisor’s role in facilitating performance is providing resources and removing barriers to performance. Supervisors should balance the desire for worker autonomy and empowerment with the responsibility to help workers do their jobs. It’s not about being a super worker or micromanaging; it’s about paving the way for worker success. In particular, supervisors should offer resources or remove barriers associated with factors beyond the worker’s control, role, or expertise. For example, supervisors can provide resources related to equipment, space, work force, information, or expertise. They can improve worker effectiveness and efﬁciency by assigning an optimal workload, designating priorities, and offering protected time. Effective supervisors enhance relationships by acting as a liaison to internal and external partners by, for example, meeting regularly with other department or unit managers, service providers, community agencies, schools, or judges to share information and policies and discuss procedures, cases, and concerns. They can facilitate conﬂict resolution between workers and families, providers, and other staff members when workers’ efforts to do so are unsuccessful. When working with agency administrators, supervisors can advocate on behalf of workers to inﬂuence agency systems and procedures that facilitate or impede worker performance. Supervisors are uniquely positioned to help workers in ways that they cannot help themselves, and providing resources and removing obstacles is one of the primary ways to do so. Recognizing and Rewarding Performance When workers behave in desirable ways, supervisors should be the ﬁrst to recognize or reward them for doing so. Supervisors are likely to have the most control over informal rewards that are not ofﬁcially recognized by the agency’s reward system. Informal rewards are typically nonﬁnancial and can often be more powerful than their monetary counterparts (Kerr, 1999). They include such things as praise, awards, certiﬁcates, plaques, celebrations, leave, ﬂexible scheduling, parking privileges, gift certiﬁcates, conference attendance, or casual dress. Supervisors should not underestimate the power of gratitude and appreciation; workers report that support, recognition, praise, and appreciation from supervisors and administration are particularly important to motivation and job satisfaction (Graef & Paul, 2007). Although child welfare work can be exceptionally demanding, it can also be very rewarding. Many workers report that the primary reason they chose the profession was because of their desire to help others and make a difference in people’s lives (Graef, Potter, & Rohde, 2002). They also report that, once in the profession, the greatest rewards include helping children achieve permanency, helping others, making a difference, initiating change, and seeing families succeed (Graef et al., 2002). When workers have a sense of meaningfulness, choice, competence, and progress,

342

child welfare supervision

they experience their job as intrinsically rewarding, which is positively associated with performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Thomas, 2002). Supervisors can enhance the likelihood of these by, for example, inspiring a sense of purpose in all tasks, especially those that don’t appear to be important; giving workers the authority and resources to make effective decisions; building workers’ skills; and facilitating outcome achievement for families. For additional empirically based suggestions about how to increase intrinsic rewards for workers, see Thomas (2002). Although most agencies provide workers with ﬁnancial rewards such as salary and paid time off, and beneﬁts such as medical insurance and retirement plans, these formal rewards are typically inﬂexible and awarded on the basis of policies established by legislatures or the agency, often as a result of collective bargaining processes. In many cases, they are uniformly awarded to all employees, regardless of performance, and therefore do not properly recognize and distinguish good performers from average or poor performers. With some exceptions (e.g., merit or incentive pay), they are designed more for the purpose of recruiting and retaining employees and for compensating minimally expected performance; they are not intended to speciﬁcally reinforce desired behaviors or recognize excellent performance. Regardless of whether rewards are informal or formal, it is important for supervisors to understand the qualities of a good reward system, so that they can implement or advocate for one in their own agencies. Several important aspects have already been addressed, such as identifying desired behaviors aligned with agency goals and establishing a favorable environment that makes the behavior more likely (Cameron & Pierce, 2002). In addition, rewards should be contingent on meeting speciﬁc, achievable performance standards (see Case Example 13.2); effective and personally meaningful to the worker; and awarded in a timely manner (Wilson, 1995). ANALYZING PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS Faced with poor performance from one of their staff members, child welfare supervisors may ﬁnd themselves instinctively turning to their agency’s training department for assistance in “ﬁxing the problem.” In the typical response, the poorly performing staff member is enrolled in some additional training sessions and everyone assumes the problem has been resolved, until, of course, the poor performance occurs again. Although interventions to correct performance deﬁcits may ultimately involve collaboration with the agency’s training and human resources professionals, a wise supervisor will ﬁrst spend time systematically diagnosing the situation, to avoid wasting resources and to maximize the likelihood of solving the problem. Performance analysis is the systematic process of determining the reasons for discrepancies between desired and actual performance (Mager & Pipe, 1997), with the goal of better understanding the problem and correctly matching the solution to the problem.

Managing Performance

343

Case Example 13.2 Veronica was a child protective services worker. Veronica enjoyed getting to know her families and believed that her clients’ needs came ﬁrst. She made herself available to her families at all times and was on the phone with them or visiting them in person for 7 out of 8 hours a day. She did not want them to have to leave her voice mail messages and didn’t like other caseworkers covering for her. Unfortunately, making herself so available to client families left her with no time to fulﬁll her other case management responsibilities. Thus, service providers often didn’t get paid, visitations between families and state wards in out-of-home care were often delayed because transportation wasn’t arranged, and Veronica’s case timeframe statistics were typically the worst in the ofﬁce. Veronica was frustrated with the situation but couldn’t ﬁgure out how to make improvements. Her supervisor, Marcella, saw her many strengths but recognized that Veronica needed feedback about her approach and help managing her workload. Veronica agreed to work with her supervisor to set goals and learn time management skills. Together they created a checklist that Veronica could use to track case-speciﬁc timeframes and due dates according to policy. Marcella advocated with her manager for permission to purchase Veronica an electronic planning/scheduling device and helped her learn how to use it to more effectively manage her time. Marcella and Veronica agreed to meet twice a month to review all of her cases and proactively plan for case milestones. Marcella also encouraged Veronica to try putting her phone on voice mail for one protected hour per day, during which time she would complete other case management tasks. As a result of Marcella’s guidance and direction, Veronica’s case statistics quickly improved and she was able to maintain effective working relationships with her families. Questions • How would you have given Veronica feedback about her performance and her strategies for meeting families’ needs? • What goals would you have set with Veronica? • What methods of reward and reinforcement might be appropriate for Veronica?

One potential reason for poor task performance is a lack of knowledge, skill, or ability, whereas deﬁciencies in contextual performance are more likely to be associated with personality characteristics, especially conscientiousness (Borman, Penner, Allen, & Motowidlo, 2001). Beyond the individual, there are numerous other, often systemic, reasons why people don’t perform as they are expected to (Mager & Pipe, 1997, p. 3), including the following: • They haven’t been informed of the expectations for their performance. • They don’t have the resources, tools, space, or authority to do it. • They don’t get feedback about the quality of their performance. • They are punished when they perform correctly. • They are rewarded when they perform incorrectly. • They are ignored whether they do it correctly or incorrectly.

child welfare supervision

344

Illustrations of these types of causes for poor employee performance abound in organizational settings, and child welfare is no exception. For example, when child protective services workers who conduct initial assessments of abuse and neglect complete their assessment and close the case, they are “punished” by receiving a new case (or more than one, if they are perceived as competent and efﬁcient in their work). Thus, the case assignment system may actually reward poor performance, in that workers who do not close cases do not receive additional work assignments, and those

Whose Performance is Concerning You?

A

Describe Discrepancy

Worth Pursuing?

Genuine Genuine Skill SkillDeficiency? Deficiency?

NO

NO Done

YES Expectations Clear?

Clarify Expectations

NO

Provide Resources

NO

Provide Feedback

Used Used Often? Often?

Can We Apply Fast Fixes?

YES

Provide Provide Feedback Feedback

NO Provide Provide Practice Practice

YES Performance Quality Visible? YES Problem Sufficiently Solved?

YES

Can CanTask TaskBe Be Made MadeEasier? Easier?

Any AnyOther Other Obstacles? Obstacles? YES

Remove Punishment

Remove Remove Obstacles Obstacles

NO

Replace Replace Person Person

NO

YES

Person Person Has HasPotential Potential totoChange? Change?

Remove Rewards

YES Train Train

NO Are Performance Consequences Used Effectively?

YES

NO

NO Is Poor Performance Rewarding?

Simplify Simplify Task Task

Are There More Clues?

Is Desired Performance Punishing?

YES

Done

NO

Are Consequences Appropriate?

Did Didititinin The the Past? Past? YES

NO

YES Resources Adequate?

YES/ NOT SURE

NO

Do They Already Know How?

Is It Worth Solving?

What’s the Problem?

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FLOWCHART

NO

Provide/ Rearrange Consequences

Problem Sufficiently Solved?

NO

TO A

Calculate Calculate Costs Costs

YES

Select Select Best Best Solution(s) Solution(s)

Draft Draft Action Action Plan Plan

Implement Implement and and Monitor Monitor Done Done

Select and Implement Solutions

YES

Figure 13.1 Performance Analysis Flowchart ©1997, “Analyzing Performance Problems” Mager & Pipe, 3rd Edition. The Center for Effective Performance, Inc., 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 150, Atlanta, GA 30342. www.cepworldwide.com 800-558-4237. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Managing Performance

345

who are competent receive an increased workload. As another example, when an agency’s computer server is frequently out of service, staff may be unable to complete their work in a timely and thorough manner, despite their best efforts and intentions to do so. It is worth noting that many of the reasons for performance discrepancies are not the result of a lack of knowledge or skills and thus will not be resolved through additional training. The challenge for supervisors is to understand the true reasons for the performance discrepancies they encounter. Armed with this information, they can then decide which problems are worth solving and appropriately match the most feasible and practical solution to the problem (Mager & Pipe, 1997). Mager and Pipe have developed a useful ﬂowchart to guide supervisors through the performance analysis process (Fig. 13.1). In general, the main steps of this diagnostic process involve determining the nature of the performance discrepancy; deciding whether it is worth pursuing a solution to the problem; considering whether fast ﬁxes can be applied; analyzing the consequences of performance; determining whether a true skill deﬁciency exists; considering task, work environment, or stafﬁng changes; and using cost-beneﬁt analyses to select and implement solutions (Mager & Pipe, 1997). Case Example 13.3 illustrates how a supervisor can use these considerations to analyze a performance problem and the types of solutions that might result from this process. DISCIPLINE When, despite goals, feedback, and rewards, a worker’s performance or conduct does not meet standards, discipline may be warranted. Despite perceptions to the contrary, discipline is not intended to simply pave the way for a justiﬁable employee termination. The intent of discipline should be to provide reasonable efforts to rehabilitate employees (Redeker, 1989). As with efforts to help families, there should be consequences for personal choices, but there should also be guidance and support for change. Government agencies typically use one or a combination of two models of discipline, progressive discipline and positive discipline, to correct behavior and performance problems (Selden, 2006). The more common approach is progressive discipline, which addresses repeated or increasingly severe performance problems with increasingly severe consequences. Positive discipline (also known as discipline without punishment or nonpunitive discipline), in contrast, is less punitive and engages the employee in a participatory process of decision making and commitment to performance improvement (Grote, 2006; Redeker, 1989; Sherman & Lucia, 1992). The most frequent steps of progressive discipline include verbal warning, written warning, suspension without pay, and termination (Redeker, 1989). Additional steps may include additional warnings, probation, reassignment, demotion, or a reduction in salary. First-time offenses are met with a verbal warning to change the behavior or face a more serious penalty. Repeated misconduct or continuation of poor performance of the same or a similar nature is then met with a written warning, again with a

child welfare supervision

346

Case Example 13.3 Shelly supervised a team of child protection workers doing investigations of reports of child abuse and neglect. Rodney, one of her newest staff members, had joined the agency 1 year ago. He had excelled in pre-service training and received positive evaluations on all of his performance ratings during training and probation. He was keeping up with the fast pace of investigations and seemed to make reasonable decisions. After meeting with him regularly, Shelly decided he didn’t need her help very much, so she shifted her daily attention to some of her other staff. After the agency began to institute quality assurance reviews, however, Shelly was surprised to learn that Rodney’s work was not meeting documentation standards. Shelly’s management reports had always indicated that Rodney’s documentation was completed on all of his cases, and the agency’s computer system required workers to enter some type of information into each ﬁeld before they were able to advance to the next page, so she was puzzled as to how his documentation could be deﬁcient. Shelly’s cursory review of Rodney’s paper ﬁles and computer documentation revealed that Rodney kept notes in the paper ﬁles but was not entering most of the required data into the agency’s computer system. In particular, the computer ﬁelds intended for case narrative all appeared to be blank except for a period or a dash. Before jumping to any conclusions about the cause of Rodney’s poor performance, Shelly decided to consult Mager and Pipe’s (1997) Performance Analysis Flowchart, which led her to the following conclusions. Rodney’s poor performance was deﬁnitely an issue worth pursuing. Her expectations on this matter and those of the agency had been made very clear through a series of memos and in her weekly case discussions with Rodney. His resources for doing case documentation were adequate, given that he was assigned a computer for his own use and had a case aide available to assist him if needed. Shelly knew that Rodney had performed well in his pre-service training on the case documentation unit, so she was fairly certain that he had the knowledge and skills to complete his documentation. When Shelly discussed the situation with Rodney, he admitted that computer data entry seemed unimportant and took too much time away from his “real” work with families, and he told her about the computer system “work-arounds” he had discovered. Although policy dictated that computer documentation be completed, the system did not provide workers with any sort of feedback about the quality of their efforts, and there seemed to be no negative consequences for not doing the documentation. Supervisors in the agency did not routinely review their workers’ computer documentation and relied on the management system summary reports that tracked completion of the required ﬁelds. Thus, workers had learned to develop shortcuts to bypass the system controls, such as entering a meaningless single character (such as a period or a dash) into a narrative ﬁeld, which the system interpreted as sufﬁcient to allow the worker to advance through all of the required ﬁelds as quickly as possible. In short, a number of factors contributed to a situation where the desired performance was not being rewarded. Questions • How did performance analysis change Shelly’s view of Rodney’s performance? • What solutions would you suggest for this performance problem?

Managing Performance

347

caution that failure to resolve the problem will result in an even more serious consequence, and so on. Although the intent is to begin at the ﬁrst step and progress through a series of steps, a progressive discipline policy does not prevent a supervisor from starting at a later step. Discipline should be proportionate to the offense (Mader-Clark & Guerin, 2007), and more severe offenses, even ﬁrst-time offenses, can and should be met with more severe consequences. Failure to do so can put the agency at risk for liability for harm caused by the employee’s behavior. Critics of traditional progressive discipline systems argue that they have the wrong focus, rationale, and dynamic (Redeker, 1989). They lead to short-term compliance rather than long-term change and cause negative emotional reactions among employees. They focus only on the past and not the future, on punishment instead of rewards, and on problems rather than solutions. As an alternative to rigid progressive discipline, positive discipline addresses these deﬁciencies by compelling employees to take responsibility for their actions, providing encouragement, and engaging in collaborative problem solving (Redeker, 1989). The basic elements of positive discipline include informal coaching and counseling, followed by one or more formalized and structured discussions, and a ﬁnal decision opportunity for the employee (Grote, 2006; Redeker, 1989; Sherman & Lucia, 1992). According to one model (Grote, 2006), when spontaneous and unstructured feedback is ineffective, a supervisor initiates a performance improvement discussion with the employee. Should the problem not be resolved through this informal method, the formal discipline process begins. Models vary slightly, but the ﬁrst two steps generally include focused discussions about expectations, responsibilities, solutions, and commitments (Grote, 2006; Redeker, 1989). The ﬁrst step is primarily an oral reminder, and the second step includes a written reminder. The ﬁnal step is what most distinguishes positive discipline from traditional progressive discipline: in what is known as decision making leave, employees are given a day of paid leave to decide whether to make a commitment to meeting performance standards or choose to leave the organization (Grote, 2006; Redeker, 1989; Sherman & Lucia, 1992). Discipline practices in most agencies are likely dictated by federal and state statutes, agency policies and procedures, or employment contracts. Any of these are likely to require that employees be given due process or that the agency establish just cause for discipline or termination. Adherence to due process standards requires agencies to follow a set of six procedures (Redeker, 1989), listed in Table 13.3. Just cause is a related standard, typically included in labor agreements. Although it is technically open to interpretation, it is typically deﬁned according to what are known as the seven tests (Enterprise Wire Co., 46 LA 359, 1966): 1. Reasonable Rule or Order: Was the agency’s rule or managerial order reasonably related to (a) the orderly, efﬁcient, and safe

348

child welfare supervision

Table 13.3 Supervisor Role in Guaranteeing Due Process Rights 1. Notice of Standards and Effects of Violating Standards: Workers have a right to know the rules and the consequences for violating the rules. • During employee orientation, ensure that all workers receive written descriptions of the agency rules and expectations for conduct and performance (e.g., in an employee handbook or employment contract) and the agency’s discipline process. • When there is a speciﬁc performance problem with a worker, ensure that the worker is informed of a) the nature of the misconduct or poor performance; b) the reasons the behavior is unacceptable, including the rule or standard that was violated; c) the subsequent consequences for future performance problems, of the same or a different nature, during a speciﬁed time period; and d) the role of such notice as a step in the formal discipline process. • Document evidence of all such notice. 2. Factual Accuracy of Basis for Discipline: Workers have a right to discipline that is based on facts. • Thoroughly investigate the alleged misconduct or performance problem. Find out the facts related to the behavior or performance in question; the surrounding circumstances, if any; and when and where the behavior occurred. • Check relevant records (e.g., case records, court reports, e-mail, internet ﬁles, SACWIS records, attendance records, time logs, witness statements). • Review applicable laws, policies, rules, and labor contracts to determine what rule was violated. • Document all factual information gathered in the process of investigation and any action taken in response. 3. Employee Knowledge of the Facts and Opportunity to Defend: Workers have a right to know the allegations against them and the facts supporting those allegations. They have a right to prepare and present an effective defense. • Ensure that the worker is given written notiﬁcation of the alleged misconduct or performance problem, including all relevant facts used to support the allegations. • Ensure that the worker is given adequate time to prepare a defense. • Meet with the worker (and all other relevant parties, such as an administrator, human resources representative, and employee representative) to listen to the worker’s side of the story. • Solicit information and mitigating circumstances from the worker. • Document the date of the meeting, who attended, and what information was gathered during the meeting. 4. Equal Treatment: Workers have a right to consistent and predictable employer responses to violations of rules. • Before responding to a performance problem, review how similar problems have been handled in the past. Consult with the human resources department to assist in collecting this information. 5. Progressive Discipline: Workers have a right to opportunities to improve their performance before discipline is administered. • Follow the agency’s policies and procedures regarding progressive discipline, if such policies exist. • Document actions taken at each step. 6. Grievance and Appeal Procedures: Workers have a right to contest a discipline decision and have it reviewed by an impartial decision making body. • Inform workers of their grievance and appeal rights. • Explain the process for initiating a grievance or appeal.

Managing Performance

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

7.

349

operation of the employer’s business, and (b) the performance that the company might properly expect of the employee? Notice: Did the agency give the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable consequences of the employee’s disciplinary conduct? Investigation: Did the agency, before administering discipline to an employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did in fact violate or disobey a rule or order of management? Fair Investigation: Was the agency’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively? Proof: At the investigation, did the “judge” obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged? Equal Treatment: Has the agency applied its rules, orders, and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to all employees? Penalty: Was the degree of discipline administered by the agency in a particular case reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense and (b) the record of the employee in his service with the company?

Box 13.5

Strategies for Ensuring Effective Discipline

• Become familiar with and follow all disciplinary procedures outlined in employment contracts or agency policies. If the guidelines and forms are not readily available, request that they be made available, preferably in an electronic format for quick access through an agency intranet or other shared systems. • Find out if and how the rules differ for recent hires. • Ask for training on the agency’s discipline system. • Avoid the urge to dismiss problems in the hopes that they will resolve themselves. • Respond to performance problems in a timely manner. • Establish a collaborative relationship with human resources staff; consult them and the agency’s legal counsel for advice and guidance. • Consult with upper management and administrators. • Draft notes in preparation for discussions with employees. • Stay calm and avoid emotional responses; don’t take misconduct or poor performance personally. • Focus on the behavior, not the person; be speciﬁc, concrete, and objective. • Stick to the facts; avoid unwarranted assumptions or conclusions. • Avoid sharing personal opinions about the worker or the agency’s policies and decisions. • Document the details of performance issues and how they were handled, even if they weren’t a step of the formal discipline process; keep in mind that all documentation is discoverable in the event of legal action. • Maintain conﬁdentiality; only share worker performance and discipline information with those who have a legitimate need to know.

350

child welfare supervision

Unionized agencies are often held to the just cause standard for discipline and discharge, and any dispute about it in a particular case will usually be resolved through arbitration. At issue will be whether the agency passed the seven tests. Even in rare cases where due process or just cause are not explicitly required by law, policy, or a labor agreement, agencies are strongly advised to ensure fairness by adhering to the principles behind them. Supervisors are responsible for helping the agency ensure that discipline decisions meet these standards. They must understand the importance of these principles and cooperate with human resources staff to administer discipline in a way that honors the agency’s and the employee’s rights and responsibilities. Table 13.3 describes the role of the supervisor in ensuring due process. Box 13.5 presents additional strategies for ensuring effective discipline. CONDUCTING PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS An important component of a successful performance management system is a formal performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is the “process by which an organization measures and evaluates an individual employee’s behavior and accomplishments for a ﬁnite time period” (DeVries, Morrison, Shullman, & Gerlach, 1981, p. 2). Surveys consistently show that most large and medium-sized organizations have some sort of formal appraisal process in which employee performance is evaluated by an immediate supervisor, typically on an annual or semi-annual basis (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Organizations use performance appraisal results for myriad purposes, most commonly to facilitate employee development and to provide a basis for administrative decisions such as personnel actions and pay increases. Other, less frequent uses of performance appraisal information are to place employees within the organization after a probationary period, to identify hiring tools that predict future job performance, and to determine organizational training needs (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Not surprisingly, research shows that the purpose(s) for which the information will be used greatly impacts the quality of supervisory ratings that are received (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). For example, if the appraisal has important consequences for the employee, such as when the results are used to determine pay increases, supervisors tend to be more lenient in their evaluations than if the results are used solely for employee development (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Although performance appraisal systems may be used effectively for many different purposes, a single system designed to serve multiple, incompatible purposes (such as for pay raises and for employee development) is unlikely to be successful (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Performance appraisals assess performance in accordance with an organization’s deﬁnition of performance for a given job. As previously mentioned, this typically includes some combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities; task performance; contextual performance; and results. For practical

Managing Performance

351

purposes, performance appraisals are not designed to assess every aspect of performance, but rather a representative sample that can be accurately measured. For example, an effective performance appraisal tool for child welfare workers would sample an employee’s performance on tasks from a variety of dimensions, such as arranging services, consulting and collaborating with other professionals, composing reports, documenting and maintaining records, empowering and helping families, evaluating and monitoring case progress, and gathering information. The way in which performance is deﬁned and the performance appraisal tool is designed will ultimately determine what data are necessary to accurately reﬂect employee job performance. The two major categories of data are objective data and subjective, or judgmental, data. Objective data are quantitative forms of data that summarize the frequency with which an employee performs a task or achieves an outcome. Thus, when a performance appraisal addresses task performance or results, objective data may be used. In child welfare agencies, objective data regarding many aspects of individual, worker-level performance can be captured, such as the number of intakes accepted for assessment, initial assessment response time, number of home visits per month, number of cases closed, and substantiation rate. These data are most likely drawn from case record reviews, child welfare information system data, and management reports. Despite the advantage of being readily available in many agencies, these measures are often deﬁcient in that they measure quantity without quality and do not take into account factors beyond the employee’s control (Pulakos, 2007). In addition, many important aspects of worker performance, such as effectiveness of written communication, are not or cannot be systematically captured through objective means. The limitations of objective data can be overcome with subjective data, which are judgmental data that reﬂect professional opinions, usually in the form of ratings, about a worker’s performance. Ratings are typically provided by immediate supervisors, although some performance appraisal systems, known as 360-degree appraisals, incorporate feedback from several additional sources, such as peers, clients, and workers, in order to get a comprehensive view of employee performance (Smither, London, & Reilly, 2005). Subjective data can be used to evaluate all types of performance, including competencies, task performance, contextual performance, and results, and they are usually the primary form of data used in performance appraisals (Pulakos, 2007). Subjective data can be created to reﬂect qualitative assessments about a number of tasks, some of which may be partially captured by objective data. Examples might include assessing child safety and risk and providing foster families with appropriate information about the child. Although supervisors may be able to ﬁnd objective data about these tasks, such as the number of completed safety assessments or foster parent signatures on agency disclosure forms, these data may inadequately reﬂect important

child welfare supervision

352

aspects of quality. After having talked with foster parents, for example, a supervisor may have a more comprehensive view of worker performance in this area. Subjective data are also particularly suited for taking into account situational constraints that might affect task performance or results, such as failing to meet agency deadlines because of delays in the judicial system. Finally, subjective data are essential for judging behaviors that are not or cannot be objectively measured, such as making reasonable or active efforts, conducting thorough interviews, or being helpful and courteous toward others. Subjective evaluations should be informed by direct observation, consultation with workers, discussions with professional partners, case record reviews, and ﬁndings from QA or CQI staff. Careful monitoring and documentation of worker performance will help supervisors develop the most reliable and accurate evaluations of worker performance. One drawback of subjective evaluations is that when supervisors are called upon to make subjective evaluations of worker performance, errors can, and do, occur. These errors can be caused by a wide variety of factors, such as imperfect observation skills, unwillingness to give negative feedback, fear of having to justify poor ratings, abnormally high or low standards, personal prejudices, lack of clarity of dimensions on an appraisal form, or inadequate opportunities to observe employee performance (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Table 13.4 lists examples of some of the most common rating errors in performance appraisals. It’s important to remember that these errors distort the accuracy of a supervisor’s evaluation of an employee’s performance. When performance evaluations are inaccurate and biased, the performance appraisal system ceases to serve a Table 13.4 Common Rating Errors in Subjective Performance Appraisals Type of Error

Description

Halo

Raters have difﬁculty distinguishing between dimensions on a performance appraisal and rate the employee equally across all dimensions.

Similar-to-me

Raters evaluate employees that are similar to the rater higher than those that are dissimilar.

Severity

Raters are too harsh in providing ratings of performance.

Leniency

Raters are too generous in providing ratings of performance.

Central tendency

Raters do not use the entire rating scale to rate employees.

Recency

Raters only take into account the last observations of performance of that employee, rather than the entire performance of the employee.

Spillover

Raters allow the scores on previous performance appraisals to impact the scores on the current performance appraisal.

Source: Aguinis (2007).

Managing Performance

353

useful function for the organization and may instead cause harm (Pulakos, 2007). For example, if inaccurate performance appraisal information is used to make important personnel decisions, incorrect decisions could result. Thus, supervisors should routinely review the performance appraisals they complete and monitor their results for evidence of these potential errors. Because these rating errors are so prevalent, child welfare organizations may choose to provide training for supervisors, with the goal of improving the accuracy of performance appraisal ratings. In general, training focused on teaching raters about the performance appraisal dimensions and the types of behaviors associated with effectiveness levels on the rating scales has been shown to be effective for increasing rating accuracy (Pulakos, 1984). The focus of rater accuracy training is on improving supervisors’ observational skills, making the particular types of judgments required by the rating tool, and using the rating scales appropriately. For example, child welfare supervisors in Nebraska receive this type of training, which includes an opportunity to practice using the appraisal form with sample performance scenarios. In addition to being prone to accuracy problems, subjective performance appraisal ratings are also subject to concerns regarding fairness. It is important that workers perceive that their evaluation was conducted in a fair manner and that any outcomes of the performance appraisal, such as pay increases, have been fairly distributed. Research suggests that both of these fairness reactions must be present to guarantee that the system will be perceived as fair (Murphy & Cleveland, 1991). Enhancing workers’ perceptions of fairness of the appraisal procedures is best accomplished through the careful design and administration of the performance appraisal system. For example, the appraisal forms should be created on the basis of a job analysis, so that the dimensions on which workers are evaluated are seen as being highly relevant. In addition, supervisors who evaluate performance should receive training on the use of the forms and methods to prevent bias in their ratings (Greenburg, 1996). Strategies to enhance perceptions of fairness of the appraisal outcomes center on improving the acceptability of the results of the system, such as ensuring that any pay increases or promotions are based on accurate performance evaluations. Despite the fact that many aspects of performance appraisal system design and administration are beyond the control of individual supervisors, there is much that a child welfare supervisor can do to maximize the effectiveness of their agency’s system. For example, research shows that supervisors can enhance workers’ perceptions of the fairness of the performance appraisal process and outcomes (Greenburg, 1996). Box 13.6 lists a number of practical strategies worth considering. Many of these strategies are reiterated elsewhere in this chapter, in the context of setting goals and rewarding performance.

child welfare supervision

354

Box 13.6 Supervisory Strategies for Using Performance Appraisal Systems Effectively • Understand the agency’s performance appraisal tools, procedures, and processes before attempting to use them. Enlist the help of your human resources manager, if necessary. • Attend supervisory training on conducting performance appraisals if it is available. • Ensure that workers understand the agency’s performance appraisal process. Make sure they are aware of your performance expectations and the goals that you and the agency have for improving performance. • Actively involve workers in the development of their performance goals. • Make sure that the potential consequences of adequate and poor performance are clear to workers. • Keep notes on worker performance as frequently as possible, using something like a performance diary or notebook. Try to capture a broad sample of your worker’s performance. • Be aware that when performance appraisals are used for administrative decisions (e.g., pay raises), workers may perceive the system as unfair and may need additional support and explanation of the process. • Be an advocate for system change, if necessary, to ensure that your agency’s performance appraisal system is sound and to ensure that administrative decisions, such as pay raises, equate with the results of performance appraisals. Sources: Greenburg (1996) and Murphy & Cleveland (1991).

LEGAL ISSUES As with other areas of personnel decision-making, there are a number of laws and legal principles that speak to performance management issues. Supervisors should understand that the manner in which they treat staff when evaluating, documenting, and managing their performance has important legal consequences for themselves and for their employers. Thus, a brief overview of the primary legal principles and laws that relate to performance management practices is presented in Table 13.5. For example, misrepresentation occurs when an employer discloses untrue favorable information about an employee’s performance and this information causes risk or harm to others (Malos, 1998). This might occur if a supervisor gives a positive recommendation for a past employee who had actually been terminated for poor performance. As can be seen in Table 13.5, a number of laws exist to protect employees in protected classes from discrimination in personnel decisions, including those decisions involved in performance appraisal. Supervisors should be prepared to provide evidence to support these types of decisions to demonstrate that they are based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory, job performance–related factors (Aguinis, 2007).

Managing Performance

355

Table 13.5 Selected Legal Principles and Laws with Implications for the Practice of Performance Appraisal Legal Principle or Law

Speciﬁc Implications for the Performance Appraisal Process

Employment at Will

A type of employment relationship in which either the employer or employee may end the relationship at any time, potentially without documenting any performance problems. However, there are important exceptions, such as when there is an implied contract through conversations or agency documents suggesting that an employee will be terminated for just cause only.

Negligence

If an employer describes a performance management system in their employee manual or other documentation and supervisors do not implement the system as described or expected, negligence may be claimed. An employer may be required to inform an employee of poor performance and provide them with the opportunity to improve.

Defamation

An employer who discloses untrue unfavorable information about an employee’s performance that damages the employee’s reputation. Defamation does not exist when the information regarding poor performance is true and clearly documented.

Misrepresentation

An employer who discloses untrue favorable information about an employee’s performance, causing risk or harm to others.

Disparate Treatment

Employers may not intentionally discriminate against employees. An example would be assigning lower performance ratings to employees based on factors that are not performance related, such as race, gender, ethnicity, age, or disability status.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

An employee returning from leave must be reinstated to a similar position and thus cannot be subjected to new or more difﬁcult performance standards than those in place before taking leave.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Employers may not discriminate in performance appraisal procedures and results on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

Employers may not discriminate on the basis of age of 40 or over in the use of appraisal procedures and results.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Employers may not discriminate on the basis of disability, record of disability, or perceived disability. Performance appraisal rating criteria must be limited to the essential job functions. Employers may be required to provide reasonable accommodations in the criteria for appraisal as well as the appraisal procedures.

Source: Adapted from Aguinis (2007) and Malos (1998).

child welfare supervision

356

While a discussion of case law is well beyond the scope of this chapter, several experts on employment law have comprehensively reviewed the relevant court cases and distilled the important implications for performance management (e.g., Cascio & Bernardin, 1981; Malos, 1998; Veglahn, 1993; Werner & Bolino, 1997). Some court decisions point to systems issues seemingly beyond the reach of line supervisors, while others have direct implications for individual supervisors’ behavior. Both types of information are presented as a checklist in Box 13.7, and agency supervisors and managers are encouraged to evaluate the adequacy of their current system and advocate for system improvements if needed. It is important to note that there is no legal requirement that a performance appraisal system possess all of these characteristics. Rather, analyses of recent court decisions indicate that employers who enact systems with these qualities may be able to prevent or successfully defend against a legal challenge (see Malos, 1998; Veglahn, 1993; Werner & Bolino, 1997). In general, it appears that agencies that use performance criteria that are job related, clearly communicate the procedure and standards to employees, apply the system fairly and consistently, incorporate mechanisms to avoid

Box 13.7

Features of a Legally Sound Performance Appraisal System Does your system:

• Use a standardized and uniform procedure for all employees in the same job category? • Use objective, job-related rating dimensions? • Focus on performance that is within the control of the employee? • Ensure that only the essential functions of the job are evaluated? • Integrate performance information from multiple, diverse, unbiased sources? • Provide a means for employees to review their appraisal results? • Provide formal appeal mechanisms for employees? • Provide written instructions and training to supervisors on such topics as evaluating performance consistently and avoiding bias? • Include procedures to detect potential discrimination or biases and abuses of the overall system? Do supervisors: • Clearly communicate the appraisal rating dimensions, standards, and procedures to all employees? • Maintain thorough and consistent documentation on speciﬁc examples of performance based on personal knowledge? • Avoid references to age in verbal and written performance reviews? • Understand how to work with disabled employees to identify reasonable accommodations in performance criteria and procedures in a conﬁdential manner? • Provide notice of performance deﬁciencies and of opportunities to correct them? • Give employees a voice in the appraisal and treat them with courtesy and respect throughout the process? Sources: Aguinis (2007), Malos (1998), Werner & Bolino (1997), and Veglahn (1993)

Managing Performance

357

Case Example 13.4 Marcia was a new supervisor with a staff of eight child protective services initial assessment workers. One of her employees, Lucinda, had been working successfully in the agency for more than 25 years. Lucinda was well liked and respected for her longevity with the agency. Although Lucinda was a talented interviewer and was able to effectively conduct investigations, the agency’s current initiative to computerize all case management documentation had challenged her skills and patience. She preferred to make hand-written case notes and disregarded some of the agency’s protocols for computer data entry, despite attending the required training sessions. On her ﬁrst formal evaluation of Lucinda’s performance, Marcia gave Lucinda poor ratings on the dimensions of “case documentation,” “initiative” and “overall competence.” Lucinda was surprised to see these poor ratings, but when she asked for an explanation Marcia suggested that perhaps she was “getting too old to keep up with the job” and encouraged her to consider retirement. Lucinda reluctantly agreed to retire early and subsequently applied for part-time work with another employer in the community. Marcia was contacted by the employer for a reference on Lucinda, and informed the employer that due to her age, Lucinda had been unable to learn to use the agency’s computer system and would be risky to hire. Questions • What types of rating errors might be evident in Marcia’s performance appraisal ratings of Lucinda? • How might Marcia have used positive discipline to address concerns about Lucinda’s performance? • Which legal principle(s) or laws have relevance to this case?

bias and discrimination, and ensure that supervisors follow the system requirements will be following best practice and, in turn, be better positioned to defend the decisions that result from their system. Finally, supervisors should remember that in addition to the legal principles and laws highlighted in Table 13.5, there are potentially numerous local constraints on the way a supervisor conducts performance appraisals. State fair-employment laws; agency collective bargaining agreements; and agency rules, regulations, and policies may also pertain to the practice of performance appraisal. In short, supervisors are urged to consult with their agency’s human resources staff or legal counsel for direction and guidance on speciﬁc employee performance issues (see Case Example 13.4). CONCLUSION Agencies rely on supervisors to help achieve organizational objectives through individual and team performance. This is accomplished with effective performance management, which involves identifying, measuring, and developing performance in a way that is congruent with agency goals. To successfully manage worker performance, supervisors must understand what constitutes performance. One recommended approach is

child welfare supervision

358

to deﬁne performance in terms of a combination of task and contextual performance, along with results over which workers have control. After clearly conveying these performance expectations, supervisors should carefully monitor worker and unit performance, using a variety of methods, including observation and obtaining information from sources such as other professionals, workers, case records and management reports, and QA or CQI staff. Supervisors should systematically record, organize, and track performance data and maintain personnel ﬁles for each worker, in accordance with recommendations from agency human resource specialists. To facilitate and improve performance, supervisors should help workers set performance goals, give feedback, provide resources and remove barriers, and recognize and reward effective performance. When faced with poor performance, supervisors need to thoroughly analyze the performance problem to determine the reasons for discrepancies between desired and actual performance before implementing a solution. If a worker’s performance or conduct continues to not meet standards, discipline may be warranted. Supervisors should cooperate with human resources staff to administer discipline in a way that honors the agency’s and the employee’s rights and responsibilities. If the agency has a performance appraisal system, supervisors should strive to ensure accurate and fair ratings, which can be improved through training and practice. In carrying out the many performance management responsibilities, supervisors are strongly encouraged to be aware of and operate within applicable legal guidelines. REFLECTION QUESTIONS

1. How are performance expectations deﬁned and communicated in your agency? 2. In what ways do you monitor performance? How effective are these approaches? 3. Think about a recent situation in which you gave performance feedback. If you could do it over again, what would you do? 4. In what ways do you reward performance at your agency? In your unit? What ideas do you have for new approaches? 5. Consider one of your most vexing discipline issues with a case worker, past or present. What new ideas might you bring to bear on this situation? NOTES

1. These and other types of similar behaviors are sometimes commonly labeled organizational citizenship behaviors (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) or prosocial behaviors (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986), although subtle but important distinctions exist among the three.

Managing Performance

359 GLOSSARY

360-degree appraisal: A performance appraisal system that incorporates feedback from several sources, such as supervisors, peers, clients, and self-reports, to get a comprehensive view of employee performance. Contextual performance: Non-job-speciﬁc behavior that affects the social and psychological climate in which tasks are performed; sometimes referred to as prosocial or organizational citizenship behaviors. Decision making leave: A component of positive discipline that gives employees a day of paid leave to decide whether to make a commitment to meeting performance standards or choose to leave the organization. Due process: Rights that employees have to fair and adequate procedures for imposing discipline. Job analysis: A process of analyzing a job to identify the job’s tasks and the associated knowledge, skills, and abilities required to successfully perform such tasks. Just cause: A standard applied to determine the appropriateness of a disciplinary action. Often deﬁned in terms of the seven tests. KSAOs: The knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics needed to successfully perform a job. Objective data: Quantitative forms of data that summarize how frequently an employee performs a task or an outcome is achieved. Performance: Measurable employee actions or behaviors that contribute to organizational goals. Performance analysis: The systematic process of determining the reasons for discrepancies between desired and actual performance. Performance appraisal: The process by which an organization measures and evaluates an individual employee’s behavior and accomplishments for a ﬁnite time period. Performance management: The continuous process of identifying, measuring, and developing the performance of individuals and teams and aligning performance with the strategic goals of the organization. Positive discipline: Discipline that engages the employee in a participatory process of decision making and commitment to performance improvement; sometimes referred to as discipline without punishment or nonpunitive discipline. Progressive discipline: Discipline that addresses repeated or increasingly severe performance problems with increasingly severe consequences. Seven tests: Seven factors that are frequently used to determine whether just cause is present for a disciplinary action. Subjective data: Qualitative, judgmental forms of data that are most commonly obtained in the form of ratings of how well an employee is performing on speciﬁc dimensions of performance. Task performance: The core job duties and responsibilities, which are normally outlined in a job description. REFERENCES

Aguinis, H. (2007). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

360

child welfare supervision

Bandura, A. (1986). Self-efﬁcacy. In Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (pp. 390–453). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bernardin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Boston: Kent. Borman, W. C. (1991). Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 271–326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion space to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. (2001). Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52–69. Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710–725. Brown, S. P., Jones, E., & Leigh, T. W. (2005). The attenuating effect of role overload on relationships linking self-efﬁcacy and goal level to work performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 972–979. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the controversy. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 35–70). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cascio, W. F., & Bernardin, H. J. (1981). Implications of performance appraisal litigation for personnel decisions. Personnel Psychology, 34, 211–226. Chesney, A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Relationships among goal difﬁculty, business strategies, and performance on a complex management simulation task. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 400–424. DeVries, D. L., Morrison, A. M., Shullman, S. L., & Gerlach, M. L. (1981). Performance appraisal on the line. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Enterprise Wire Co., 46 LA 359, 1966. Graef, M. I., & Paul, M. E. (2007). Child protection turnover survey responses. Unpublished raw data. Graef, M. I., Paul, M. E., & Myers, T. L. (in press). Recruiting and selecting child welfare staff. In F. Alwon, K. Greenhill, A. Reitz, & B. Schmitt (Eds.), Child welfare in a time of scarcity: Recruiting, selecting, and compensating a competent child welfare workforce. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Graef, M. I., & Potter, M. E. (2002). Alternative solutions to the child protective services stafﬁng crisis: Innovations from industrial/organizational psychology. Protecting Children, 17(3), 18–31. Graef, M. I., Potter, M. E., & Rohde, T. L. (2002, June). Why do they stay? Research-based implications for practice. Presentation conducted at the meeting of the Child Welfare League of America, Finding Better Ways Conference, St. Louis, MO.

Managing Performance

361

Greenburg, J. (1996). The quest for justice on the job: Essays and experiments. London: Sage Publications. Grote, D. (2006). Discipline without punishment (2nd ed.). New York: AMACOM. Kerr, S. (1999). Organizational rewards: Practical, cost-neutral alternatives that you may know, but don’t practice. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 61–70. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clariﬁcation and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 885–896. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal-setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 212–247. Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. (1999). The effects of proximal and distal goals on performance of a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 421–429. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265–268. London, M. (1997). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mader-Clark, M., & Guerin, L. (2007). The progressive discipline handbook. Berkeley, CA: Nolo. Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1997). Analyzing performance problems (3rd ed.). Atlanta, GA: Center for Effective Performance. Malos, S. B. (1998). Current legal issues in performance appraisal. In J. W. Smither (Ed.), Performance appraisal: State of the art in practice (pp. 49–94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moore, T. D., & Bryson, S. (2003). Results oriented management in child welfare. Retrieved from University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare Web site: http://www.rom.ku.edu Moore, T. D., Rapp, C. A., & Roberts, B. (2000). Improving child welfare performance through supervisory use of client outcome data. Child Welfare, 79, 475–497. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71–83. Murphy, K., & Cleveland, J. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology. (2007). Using information and data in planning and measuring progress. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Resource Center on Organizational Improvement. O’Brien, M. O., & Watson, P. (2002). Quality assurance in child welfare. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

362

child welfare supervision

Poertner, S., & Massetti-Miller, K. (1996). The art of giving and receiving feedback. West Des Moines, IA: America Media Publishing. Pulakos, E. D. (1984). A comparison of rater training programs: Error training and accuracy training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 581–588. Pulakos, E. D. (2007). Performance measurement. In D. L. Whetzel & G. R. Wheaton (Eds.), Applied measurement: Industrial psychology in human resources management (pp. 293–317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Redeker, J. R. (1989). Employee discipline: Policies and practices. Washington, DC: The Bureau of National Affairs. Salus, M. (2004). Supervising child protective services caseworkers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Selden, S. C. (2006). The impact of discipline on the use and rapidity of dismissal in state governments. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 335–355. Sherman, M., & Lucia, A. (1992, June). Positive discipline and labor arbitration. Arbitration Journal, 56–58. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663. Smither, J. W., London, M., & Reilly, R. R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis, and review of empirical ﬁndings. Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66. Thomas, K. W. (2002). Intrinsic motivation at work. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler. Veglahn, P. A. (1993, October). Key issues in performance appraisal challenges: Evidence from court and arbitration decisions. Labor Law Journal, 595–606. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 216–226. Werner, J. M., & Bolino, M. C. (1997). Explaining U.S. courts of appeals decisions involving performance appraisal: Accuracy, fairness, and validation. Personnel Psychology, 50, 1–24. Wilson, T. B. (1995). Innovative reward systems for the changing workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill. Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 21, 236–250. Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 416 – 425.

INDEX

Abroms, G.M., 30 Abstract conceptualization, 265 Abstract learners, 265 Active experimentation, 265 Administrative supervision, 24–25, 300 Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), 13, 121, 122, 138–39, 163, 194 Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 13 Adult learning principles, 90t–92t, 263–64 style assessment, 266–70, 291–92 styles, 264–66, 267t–268t Advocacy, 165, 198–99 Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 355t Alvesson, M., 124–25 Ambivalence, checking for, 315 American Humane Association, 172–73 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, 124, 355t

Anderson, G., 16 Annie E. Casey Foundation, 128, 137, 200 Antle, R., 16 Appraisals, 350–54, 352t, 356–57 Auditory learners, 266, 267t Austin, M. J., 263 Autonomy, 84–85, 99 Availability, Responsiveness, and Continuity (ARC) intervention, 12 Barbee, A., 16, 122 Barriers, removal of, 341 Bell, H., 249 Bennis, W., 178 Bernard, J. M., 297, 308, 309, 312, 320, 322, 324 Berns, D., 17, 179–80 Best practices, 136–37 Block, P., 165 Bordin, E.S., 303, 304

363

364 Brainstorming, 226 Bridges, W., 182 Brittain, C., 16, 17 Brooks, D., 12 Buckingham, M., 61 Burnout, 11, 248 Cahn, K., 17, 189 Carroll, M., 29, 31 Carsten, C., 296–97 Case aides, 99 Caseloads, 9, 10, 111–13 Casework model, 106 Champions, 187–88 Change, 17, 177, 199 in clinical supervision, 314 evolutionary, 180 factors affecting, 63–64 pace, 177–78 proactive, 179–80 reactive, 178–79 resistance to, 182–84, 187, 191 resources, 200–201 staff roles, 186–89, 196–97 stages of, 180–86 accomplishment, recognition of, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 implementation, 184–85, 196–97 introduction, 182–84 motivation, 181–82 sustainability, 185 supervisor roles, 189–99 co-designer/initiator, 193–95 commitment builder, 195–97 culture builder, 190–93 educator, 197–98

feedback/advocacy, 198–99 gatekeeper, 195 vision keeper, 189 Child and Family Services Review (CFSR), 13, 129, 332–33

index Child Welfare and Adoption Assistance Act of 1980, Title IV-E, 230, 233 Child Welfare Information Gateway, 40, 127, 136 Child Welfare League of America, 87, 89, 127, 136 Child welfare units, 83–87, 114–15 adult learning principles, 90t–92t (See also Adult learning) authority structure, 85–86 autonomy, 84–85, 99 caseload management, 111–13 coalition building, 108–9 composition of, 87–88 diversity in, 88–93, 90t–92t ecomapping, 149–52, 150t, 151f group development, 93–95, 98, 103–4 group management, 105–6 (See also Management skills) meeting management, 109–11 member roles in, 98–100 morale building, 114 purpose/mission, 84 relationships (See also Relationships) intergroup peer, 102–4 supervisor-supervisee, 101–2 socialization in, 94, 95, 244 supervision within, 106 team building, 107–8 turnover impacts, 95–97 worker management, 16 worker safety, 104 Child welfare work, nature of, 6–8 Child welfare workforce change, roles in, 186–89, 196–97 (See also Change) characteristics of, 7–10 clients, perception of, 208 concerns, partialzing, 315

index developmental stages, 28–29, 270–72 employment trends, 222–24 impairment in, 47 priorities, 223 rewards/recognition of, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 salaries, 9, 10, 223 satisfaction/commitment in, 3, 12–13 socialization in, 244 worker-client relationship (See Worker-client relationship) Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, 355t Clinical supervision, 17, 296, 327 agency vs. context, 299 consultation vs., 299 data collection, 309–10, 316, 320 deﬁned, 296–99 evaluation, 319–21 family-centered/family systems, 318–19 group, 322–26 phases, 302–22 content, 308–19 contracting, 171, 305–8, 307t, 311 relationship establishment, 303–5 process, 301–2 relationship, ending of, 321–22 relationships in, 303–5, 310–14 theories of, 299–300 transference/countertransference, 317–18 work phase, 310–17 ambivalence, checking for, 315 containment, 312 data collection, 309–10, 316, 320 elaborating skills, 311–12 focused listening, 315

365 general-to-speciﬁc movement, 312 illusion of work, 315 obstacle identiﬁcation, 315–16 sessional contracting skills, 311 sessional ending skills, 316–17 sessional tuning-in skills, 310–11 Coaching, 280––281 developmental, 286 directive process, 288––289 nondirective process, 286––289 performance, 286 relationships, 285––286 in retention, 247 skills, 286 Coalition building, 108–9 Co-cultural communication theory, 212–14 Co-designer/initiator role, 193–95 Coffman, C., 61 Cognitive–behavioral supervision, 300 Collaboration. See also External environment relationships beneﬁts of, 133–34, 162–68, 193 in coaching, 287 communication in, 57, 210–15 as interventional approach, 162–68 as leadership skill, 53–55 Collaboration to AdoptUsKids, 42 Collins, J., 48–49 Commitment builder role, 195–97 Communication advocacy/negotiation, 165–68 of caring attitude, 57–59 co-cultural communication theory, 212–14 in collaboration, 57, 210–15 components of, 70–71 coordination, 156–59 cross-cultural, 72 deﬁned, 70 effective, steps to, 214–15 intercultural, 210–15

366 as intervention, 152–57 jargon in, 156 listening, beneﬁts of, 153–56 as management skill, 70–72, 72t, 152–57 meetings, 148, 159–60 perception in, 71–72, 72t of performance expectations, 333–34 protocols, 161–62 rumors in, 195 Comstock, A., 17 Conceptual skills, 62 Conferences, 127–28 Conﬁdentiality, 101, 154, 245, 301 Conner, D. R., 181, 182 Conservative values–based multiculturalism, 204–5 Constantine, M. G., 317–18 Containment, 312 Continuous quality improvement, 129, 130, 338 Contracting, 171, 305–8, 307t, 311 Coordination, 156–59 Coulter, M., 107 Countertransference, 317–18 Covey, S., 68 Creative learners, 265 Critical incident debrieﬁng, 250, 251 Critical multiculturalism, 206–9 Cross-training, 86, 158, 160–61 Cultural competency, necessity of, 135, 156–58, 204–9. See also Multiculturalism Culture builder role, 190–93 Cunningham, M. R., 122 Cyphers, G., 274 Data access, 129–30 collection, 309–10, 316, 320 objective vs. subjective, 351

index reporting, 132–34 synthesis, 131–32 Davis, T. E., 305, 307t, 308 Debrieﬁng, 276–77 Decision making errors in, 76–77 individual vs. group, 77–79, 79t process, 72–75, 79t styles of, 75–76 Defamation, 355t Developmental supervision, 28–29, 289–90 coaching (See Coaching) individual training needs assessment, 272–74 learning transfer optimization, 279–81 mentoring (See Mentoring) models of, 300 On-the-job (OTJ) training, 275–78 ongoing training, support of, 278–79 orientations, 243–44, 274–76, 275t supervisor-worker interactions, 280–82 worker development stages, 28–29, 270–72 Dickinson, N., 17 Dickson, M. W., 88 Discipline, 345–50, 348t Discrimination, 354, 355t Disengagement process, 250–52 Disparate Treatment, 355t Diversity, 17, 217 climate creation in, 209–11 gender/sexual orientation, 215–17 issues in, 203–4 multiculturalism, 204–9 conservative values–based, 204–5 critical, 206–9 liberal values–based, 205

index pluralist values–based, 205–6 staff selection in, 190, 191 supervisorial relationship in, 211–15 Dixon, N.M., 132 Documentation clinical supervision, 302, 309 evaluation of, 346 in performance management, 335–38, 337t Due process, 347–49, 348t Dukes, D., 12 Durick, M., 12 Early adopters, 186–88 East, Jean, 16 Ecomaps, 149–52, 150t, 151f Educational supervision, 24–26, 197–98, 262–63, 300 Education/training, 4, 5. See also Adult learning adult learning principles, 90t–92t, 263–64 assessments, 9 cross-training, 86, 158, 160–61 individual training needs assessment, 272–74 learning organizations, 262–63 learning styles, 186–90 literature review, 121 OJT, 275–78 ongoing, support of, 278–79 in retention, 248 of supervisors, 10, 57–58, 89, 106, 121, 194, 326–27 supervisor’s role in, 17, 49–50 transfer optimization, 279–81 workers, 8–9 Elaborating skills, 311–12 Ellett, A. J., 15 Ellis, J., 15 Emotional exhaustion

367 commitment and, 14–15 disengagement process, 250–52 retention and, 248–52 risk factors for, 11–12 as stressor, 6 Empathic skills, 313 Employee-centered orientation, 243–44, 274–75, 275t Employee recognition programs, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 Employment at Will, 355t Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 124 Erickson, C. D., 317–18 Ethics in leadership, 46–48, 128–34, 155 legal issues, 354–57, 355t Ethnographic interviewing, 135, 156–58 Evaluations appraisals, 350–54, 352t, 356–57 in clinical supervision, 319–21 of documentation, 346 performance analysis, 343–46, 344f of screening/selection strategies, 239–40 of supervisors, 45 Evolutionary change, 180 Exit interviews, 255 External environment relationships, 146–49, 147f, 171–72 assessment, 149–52, 150t, 151f collaboration, beneﬁts of, 133–34, 162–68, 193 cultural competency, necessity of, 135, 156–58 interventional approaches, 152–68 advocacy/negotiation, 165–68 collaboration, 162–68 communication, 152–57 coordination, 156–59 cross-training, 86, 158, 160–61

index

368 cultural competency, necessity of, 135, 156–58 meetings, 148, 159–60 protocols, 161–62 resources, 172–73 Facilitation, 338–42 Facilitative confrontation, 314 Fall, M., 298, 311, 316, 323 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 355t Family-centered/family systems, 318–19 Family group decision-making, 169, 172–73 Family to Family Initiative, 128, 137, 138 Family unity meetings, 206–9 Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, 173 Feedback, 247, 319–21, 339–40 Ferguson, S., 17 Fisher, R., 165–66 Focused listening, 312, 315 Focus groups, 131 Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, 122 Funding, 5 Galinsky, M., 94, 95 Gap analysis, 133 Gatekeeper role, 195 Gender/sexual orientation, 215–17 Glickman, C.D., 287 Glisson, C., 12, 221 Goals, setting, 338–39 Goodyear, R. K., 297, 308, 309, 312, 320, 322, 324 Graef, M., 17, 231, 234, 331 Grants, 138–39 Green, P., 12 Greenleaf, R., 48

Group supervision advantages, 322–23 content/method, 324–26 disadvantages, 323 process, 323–24 Guzzo, R. A., 88 Hanna, M., 16 Harkness, D., 24, 89, 97, 109, 297, 300, 318, 322, 323, 325 Harvard Negotiation Project, 165–66 Hawkins, P., 28, 31–32 Hemmelgarn, A., 12, 221 Hewitt, A.S., 225, 237–39 Hill, E.L., 231 Hiring bonuses, 229–30 Hopkins, K.M., 250, 263 Human relations skills, 62 Human Service Leadership Institute, 126 Human Services Workforce Initiative (HSWI), 88 Illusion of work, 315 Impairment, 47 Individual training needs assessment (ITNA), 272–74 Integrity as leadership skill, 46–48, 128–34, 155 Interpersonal supervision, 29–32 Interventional approaches, 152–68 advocacy/negotiation, 165–68 collaboration, 162–68 communication, 152–57 coordination, 156–59 cross-training, 86, 158, 160–61 cultural competency, necessity of, 135, 156–58 meetings, 148, 159–60 protocols, 161–62 Interviews

index ethnographic, 135, 156–58 exit, 255 newcomer, 243–44 patterned-behaviors description, 232–33 stay, 252, 253 structured, 232–33, 237–40 Jargon, 156 Jehn, K. A., 89 Jensen, M.A.C., 324 Job analysis, 331 Job descriptions, 234–35 Job offers, 239 Job performance, 331 Jordan-Evans, S., 221, 245 Kadushin, A., 24, 45, 89, 97, 109, 197, 297, 300, 322, 323, 325 Kaiser, T.L., 299, 303, 304 Katz, R.L., 62 Kaye, B., 221, 245 Kettner, P. M., 128 Klagge, J., 123–24, 128, 134, 135 Knowledge levels model, 62–65, 65t Kolb, D., 264–65 Kotter, J.P., 181 Ladany, N., 317–18 Landsman, M., 13 Larson, S.A., 225, 234, 235, 237–39 Lau, D. C., 103 Leadership, 16, 44–45, 58–59 caring attitude, 55–57 characteristics, 45–46, 135 collaboration, 53–55 development of, 57–58 integrity, 46–48, 128–34, 155 management vs., 45, 61–62, 62t problem-solving, 50–53, 72–75 sense of purpose, 48–50 units, within, 105–6

369 Lead workers, 98 Learning organizations, 262–63 Legal issues, 354–57, 355t Levels-of-knowledge model, 62–65, 65t Levine, J. M., 94, 98 Lewandowski, C.A., 12 Lewin, K., 181, 314 Liability, 232 Liaisons, 162 Liberal values–based multiculturalism, 205 Libove, L., 62–63 Listening, beneﬁts of, 153–56 Mager, R.F., 345, 346 Malik, S.D., 84 Maltreatment, 7, 136 Managed care, 14, 171 Management skills, 16, 61–62, 62t, 79–80 communication, 70–72, 72t decision making, 72–79, 79t leadership vs., 45, 61–62, 62t levels-of-knowledge model, 62–65, 65t three-skill approach, 62 unit meetings, 109–11 units, within, 105–6 Managing up, 165 Marketing plans, 225–28 Markham, S. E., 114 Maslach, C., 251 McCarthy, B., 265 McKee, G. H., 114 McMurtry, S., 128 Meetings ending skills, 316–17 with family, 193 family unity, 206–9 management of, 159–60 Menefee, D., 106

370 Mentoring availability, 5 in leadership development, 57–58, 139 process, 283–85 relationships, 282–83 resources, 11 Merrill, A.R., 68 Merrill, R.R., 68 Middle management role, 16–17, 119–20, 137–41 best practices, understanding of, 136–37 climate/staff issues, 139–40 data access, 129–30 data reporting, 132–34 data synthesis, 131–32 education/training, 126–28 ethical and legal issues, mastery of, 128–34 focus groups, 131 importance of, 120–22 ofﬁce interaction processes, 124–25 questions, formulation of, 130–31 region/program area knowledge, 134–36 research data, 122–25 skill requirements, 123–24, 128–36 staff training, 137–39 strategic planning, 134 surveys, 131 types, 125–26 Miller, K., 317–18 Miller, P., 84–86 Minders, 188 Misrepresentation, 354, 355t Mixon Mitchell, D., 17 Models of care contracting out, 171 family group decision-making, 169, 172–73 systems of care, 169–70, 173

index wraparound planning, 170, 173 Models of supervision, 16, 23 adaptation of, 39–40 administrative, 24–25, 300 case studies, 36–38 casework, 106 cognitive–behavioral, 300 contextual, 32–36, 33f developmental (See Developmental supervision) educational, 24–26, 197–98, 262–63, 300 emergent vs. traditional, 223–24 functional approach, 24–27 interactional process, 28–36 interpersonal, 29–32 levels-of-knowledge, 62–65, 65t planning, 65–69, 66t resources, 40–42 seven-eyed, 31–32 solution-oriented, 31 spiritual, 31 supportive, 24–27, 47, 51, 245–47, 249–50, 300 Moore, T., 13–14 Morale building, 114 Moreland, R. L., 94, 98 Multiculturalism competency, necessity of, 135, 156–58, 204–9 conservative values–based, 204–5 critical, 206–9 liberal values–based, 205 pluralist values–based, 205–6 Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1994, 13, 205 Multisystemic therapy (MST), 318–19 Munson, C.E., 27, 30, 39, 297, 299, 307t, 308 Murnighan, J. K., 103 Muse-Burke, J. L., 317–18

index NASW Code of Ethics, 101 National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center, 42 National Association of Social Workers (NASW), 89 National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, 42 National Child Welfare Workforce Institute, 43, 127 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 173 National Indian Child Welfare Association, 173 National Resource Centers (NRCs), 40–42, 127 Adoption, 41 Child Protective Services, 41 Child Welfare Data and Technology, 41 Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs, 42 Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning, 41 Legal and Judicial Issues, 41 Organizational Improvement, 41, 200 Youth Development, 41–42 National Wraparound Initiative, 173 Neale, M. A., 89 Negligence, 355t Negotiation, 165–68 Netting, F. E., 128 Newcomer interviews, 243–44 Northcraft, G. B., 89 NRCs. See National Resource Centers (NRCs) Obstacle identiﬁcation, 315–16 O’Nell, S. N., 234 On-the-job (OJT) training, 275–78 Opinion leaders, 188 Orbe, M.P., 212

371 Organizational environment, 11–14 deﬁned, 97 impacts of, 97 learning, 262–63 management types in, 124–25 policy administration in, 87 in retention, 252–55 supervision within, 35, 106, 128, 241–42 vision in, 48–49 Organizational visioning, 128 Orientation employee-centered, 243–44, 274–76, 275t gender/sexual, 215–17 Ortega, D., 17, 207 Osborn, C. J., 305, 307t, 308 Page, S., 30 Parallel process, 31, 35, 299, 305 Participation principle, 66t Partnering skill, 134 Patterned-behaviors description interview, 232–33 Patterson, R. B., 181, 182 Patton, B., 165–66 Paul, M., 17 Performance analysis, 343–46, 344f Performance management, 17–18, 330–31, 357–58 analysis, 343–46, 344f appraisals, 350–54, 352t, 356–57 deﬁned, 330 discipline, 345–50, 348t documentation, 338 errors in, 352–53, 352t expectations, 331–34 facilitation, 338–42 legal issues, 354–57, 355t monitoring, 334–38, 335t, 337t projects, 66–67

372 recognition/rewards, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 reports, 335–37, 337t time, 67–69 Philosophy of practice deﬁned, 23 Phone calls, importance of, 155 Pipe, P., 345, 346 Placement of children, supervisor’s role in, 5 Planning principles of, 65–66, 66t project management, 66–67 strategic/long-term, 65 time management, 67–69 Pluralist values–based multiculturalism, 205–6 Poertner, J., 318 Policy environment effects. See Organizational environment Positive discipline, 345, 347 Potter, C., 17, 331 Potter, M. E., 234 Practical learners, 265 Preston, M.S., 10 Privacy, 101, 154, 245, 301 Privatization, impacts of, 14 Proactive change, 179–80 Proactive learners, 265 Problem-solving, 50–53, 72–75 Program Improvement Plan (PIP), 129 Progressive discipline, 345–47, 348t Project management, 66–67 Protocols, external environment relationships, 161–62 Quality assurance, 338 Questions, formulation of, 130–31 Rapp, C., 13–14, 318 Reactive change, 178–79

index Realistic job previews (RJP), 231–32, 234–36, 240 Reardon, K., 181 Record-keeping. See Documentation Recruitment, 224–31. See also Screening/selection strategies barriers to, 230–31 in change management, 190, 191 in diversity promotion, 190, 191 effectiveness study data, 224–25 resources, 229 strategies, 225–30 Recruitment cards, 226–27 Recurrence rate, turnover and, 10, 222 Reﬂective observation, 265 Regehr, C., 11 Reichers, A. E., 84 Relationships building, 152–57 in clinical supervision, 303–5, 310–14 in diversity promotion, 211–15 ending of, 321–22 external environment (See External environment relationships) intergroup peer, 102–4 organizational (See Organizational environment) power differentials in, 304 supervisor-supervisee, 101–2, 310–14, 341 transference/countertransference, 317–18 typical, in units, 150t worker-client (See Worker-client relationship) Reports, 335–37, 337t. See also Documentation Resilience plans, 251–52 Resistors, 187, 188 Resources

index availability of, 7, 341 change, 200–201 external environment relationships, 172–73 models, 40–42 recruitment, 229 team-building, 107 Responsibilities, 4–8, 16–18. See also speciﬁc roles Results, 335, 336 Retention, 241–55 disengagement process, 250–52 emotional exhaustion and, 248–52 employment trends, 222–24 feedback/coaching, 247 organizational strategies, 252–55 problems/costs in, 220–22 resilience plans, 251–52 rewards/recognition, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 stay interviews, 252, 253 strategies, 242–48 supervision and, 17, 220 supervisory dimensions in, 241–42 training/professional development in, 248 Rewards/recognition, 185–86, 245–47, 341–43 Richmond, M., 296–97 Risk assessment collaboration, 162, 163 coordination, 157–58 employee selection/screening, 233–34, 238 reduction, 192, 347 supervisor’s role in, 7–8, 51–52, 54, 101, 196, 309, 351 Robbins, S. P., 107 Roberts, B., 13–14 Robinson, E., 17 Rogers, E., 186, 189 Rohde, T. L., 234

373 Rowe, A., 181 Rumors, 195 Russo, E., 62–63 Rycraft, J.R., 98 Saathoff, K., 17 SAFE-R Model, 250, 251 Salaries, 9, 10, 223 Salas, E., 107 Salus, M.K., 98, 107, 242–43, 297 Sarri, R., 94, 95 Sauer, J. K., 234 Schwartz, W., 298, 305, 315 Screening/selection strategies, 231–40. See also Recruitment activities, 236–39 biographical data, 233 in change management, 190, 191 cognitive-ability test, 234 critical thinking measurement, 234 errors in, 238–39 personality assessments, 234 process, 232, 236, 238–39 realistic job previews, 231–32, 234–36, 240 structured interviews, 232–33, 237–40 success, evaluation of, 239–40 work sample tests, 233–34 Search principle, 66t Selection teams, 237 Self-care, 248–51 Self-disclosure, 313–14 Senge, P., 57 Servant Leadership, 200 Services, co-location of, 162 Sessional contracting skills, 311 Sessional ending skills, 316–17 Sessional tuning-in skills, 310–11 Seven-eyed supervisor model, 31–32 Shlonsksy, A., 309 Shohet, R., 28, 31–32

index

374 Shulman, L., 30–31, 299, 303, 305, 306, 308, 310–17, 320–22, 324–26 Silences, 312, 313 Smale, G., 187, 188, 197 Social-category diversity, 93 Socialization in child welfare units, 94, 95, 244 Society for Organizational Learning, 200 Solution-Based Casework, 137 Spherion, 223 Stay interviews, 252, 253 Stoltenberg, C.D., 326 Strategic planning, 134 Strength-Weakness-OpportunityThreat (SWOT) analysis, 133 Stress, 6–7 sources of, 9, 11, 148, 248 trauma, secondary, 248–50 Structured interviews, 232–33, 237–40 Student interns, 99 Subjective performance appraisals, 351–53, 352t Substance abuse issues, 221 Supervisor Adherence Measure (SAM), 319 Supervisors behavior continuum, 287, 288f beneﬁts of, 3 characteristics of, 10–11, 14–15, 45–46 data, use of, 13–14 education/training of, 10, 57–58, 89, 106, 121, 194, 326–27 (See also Education/training) emergent vs. traditional, 223–24 integrity in, 46–48, 128–34, 155 job satisfaction, 11 roles of, 4–8, 16–18, 106 (See also speciﬁc roles)

Supervisor-to-worker ratio, 88 Supportive supervision, 24–27, 47, 51, 245–47, 249–50, 300 Sutton, J. M., Jr., 298, 311, 316, 323 Sveningsson, S., 124–25 Systems of care, 169–70, 173 System thinking, 128 Tactil/kinesthetic learners, 266, 268t Task performance, 331 Team building, 107–8 Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM), 319 Thomas, K.W., 342 Time to permanency innovations, 194 Title IV-E, 230, 233 Title VI, 124 Title VII, 355t Training. See Education/training Transference, 317–18 Trauma, secondary, 248–50 Tropman, J., 72 Tsui, M., 32–36, 33f, 101–2 Tuckman, B.W., 94–95, 324 Turnover ARC program and, 12 factors affecting, 12–13, 56, 231 impacts of, 221–22 rates of, 220–21 recurrence rate and, 10, 222 rumors in, 195 of supervisors, 10 supervisory dimensions in, 241–42 units, impacts on, 95–97 workers, 9–10 Unit secretary, 99 Ury, W., 165–66

index Vaill, J., 190 Value diversity, 89, 93 Van Zyl, Michiel, 16 Velasquez, M.M., 181, 182 Vinokur-Kaplan, D., 84–86 Vision keeper role, 189 Visits to clients, purpose of, 49, 51 Visual learners, 266, 267t Wagner, D., 309 Wanous, J.P., 84, 224–25, 232–33 Watkins, C.E., 326 Westbrook, T. M., 15 Western Regional Recruitment and Retention Project (WRRRP), 236

375 Wheelan, S., 94–95 Worker-client relationship clients, perception of, 208 involuntary, 308 parallel process, 31 supervisory relationship and, 305 visits, purpose of, 49, 51 Worker safety, 104 Work group deﬁned, 83–84 Work sample tests, 233–34 Wosket, V., 30 Wraparound planning, 170, 173 Yoo, J., 12