Whittaker, J. & Maluccio, A. (2002). Rethinking “child placement”: A reflective essay. Social Service Review, 76: 108-134. Wosket, V. & Page, S. (2001). The cyclical model of supervision. A container <strong>for</strong> creativity <strong>and</strong> chaos. In M. Carroll & M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative approaches to supervision , pp. 13- 31. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 44
Appendix A Methodology Literature review We began this project with a thorough review of child welfare <strong>and</strong> social work literature, focusing specifically on supervisory functions <strong>and</strong> job responsibilities, models <strong>for</strong> supervision, <strong>and</strong> organizational <strong>and</strong> practice supports <strong>and</strong> obstacles that impact supervisors. When in<strong>for</strong>mation regarding a topic was not available, literature in other disciplines, such as business <strong>and</strong> human services, was included. The project’s working group members reviewed the topics <strong>for</strong> the literature review <strong>and</strong> recommended additional areas <strong>for</strong> investigation. Topics included in the literature search are identified in the summary in Appendix B. Identified supports to effective supervision were organized into the following eight sections: training <strong>and</strong> in<strong>for</strong>mation sharing, administrative/fiscal, recruitment <strong>and</strong> retention/preventing stress/enhancing morale, facilitating communication <strong>and</strong> collaboration, enhancing/managing/evaluating caseworker per<strong>for</strong>mance, anticipating <strong>and</strong> managing risk, ethics in supervision, <strong>and</strong> selecting a supervision model. When the literature review was completed, the in<strong>for</strong>mation was used to in<strong>for</strong>m the development of the interview protocols. Interview protocols <strong>and</strong> key in<strong>for</strong>mant interviews To better ground our underst<strong>and</strong>ing of current child welfare supervisory practice in the field, we designed protocols <strong>for</strong> interviews with child welfare administrators <strong>and</strong> caseworkers as well as supervisors. We examined not only supervisors’ own experiences with supervision, but also the effects of their ef<strong>for</strong>ts <strong>and</strong> the perspectives on others within child welfare organizations whose work relies on supervisors’ effectiveness. Whenever possible, we interviewed triads of a supervisor, an administrator/manager in the supervisor’s agency, <strong>and</strong> a caseworker in the supervisor’s unit. Members of the project’s working group recommended individuals to be interviewed, focusing on agencies <strong>and</strong> jurisdictions having success in the area of child welfare supervision. In selecting key in<strong>for</strong>mants, we considered geographic diversity across the country as well as the inclusion of urban, rural, <strong>and</strong> Tribal child welfare agencies. Although separate protocols were designed <strong>for</strong> interviews with supervisors, administrators, <strong>and</strong> caseworkers, the majority of questions were consistent; this allowed <strong>for</strong> comparison of the three perspectives. Topics addressed in the interview protocols included: background in<strong>for</strong>mation (e.g., respondent’s education <strong>and</strong> work experience, agency supervisor-supervisee ratios, etc.); the nature <strong>and</strong> relative importance of supervisory job responsibilities (including a detailed list of 30 responsibilities listed in Table 1,); obstacles to <strong>and</strong> supports <strong>for</strong> effective supervision; <strong>and</strong> respondents’ own job-related needs relative to supervision within the agency. We also requested that key in<strong>for</strong>mants share a copy of their organization’s child welfare supervision job description <strong>and</strong> any written tools or resources they had found helpful in supervision. 45
Change language