Building a Model and Framework for Child Welfare Supervision

The project team contacted potential interviewees by email or telephone and made appointmentswith those who agreed to be interviewed. In advance of the appointment, the interview protocol wasemailed to them. Interviews were conducted by phone, with at least two project team membersattending; one conducted the interview and the other took notes. Interview length ranged from 30minutes to over an hour. Respondents were assured that their comments would remain anonymousand that interview excerpts included in project products would not be attributed by respondent’sname or agency. One respondent chose to complete the interview protocol and return it via emailrather than complete the interview over the phone.Once an interview was completed, we inquired whether it would be possible to interview therespondent's administrator, supervisor, and/or caseworker in order to complete the triad. Due to theunpredictable nature of child welfare staff activities, it was difficult to complete interviews asscheduled. Nineteen (19) interviews were completed: nine administrators, six supervisors, and fourcaseworkers.Data analysisThe interview data were compiled and analyzed by the project team. A content analysis wasconducted by each of the three project team members; themes identified in the data and responses tospecific protocol questions were compared. Data were reviewed in the aggregate as well as byinterviewees’ agency job positions to identify similarities and differences between supervisors,administrators and caseworkers. Descriptive statistics of key informants’ ratings regarding theimportance of child welfare supervisors’ job responsibilities (i.e. most important, important, notimportant, not applicable/not aware) were also analyzed and compared to determine the ways inwhich these were similar and different when findings were grouped by agency position. When theseanalyses were completed, the findings were reviewed with working group members, who providedfeedback regarding the consistency of the findings with their observations in the field and alsoraised questions for further data analysis.Interviews with subject matter expertsFollowing data analysis, we reviewed our findings with three subject matter experts who haveworked extensively in the area of child welfare supervision and have completed demonstrationprojects addressing effective supervision. These experts, Crystal Collins-Camargo, Ph.D. of theUniversity of Kentucky School of Social Work, and Steve Preister, Ph.D. and Joe Murray of theNational Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, were either members ofthe advisory committee or were identified by members knowledgeable of their work. The findingswere shared and reviewed with the subject matter experts in order to seek their perspectives aboutthe ways in which the findings were consistent or inconsistent with their own observations in thefield. All project team members attended each subject matter expert interview, and the notes fromthe interview were transcribed. These experts also provided written materials on their demonstrationprojects.46