monthly article for September 2003

CPS SUPERVISION: WHAT DOES THE PRESENT SUGGEST FOR THE FUTURE?

CPS agencies across the nation are convinced their jurisdictions have unique needs, face unique constraints, and must have unique processes.

Differences notwithstanding, all of CPS workers face families experiencing child maltreatment and unsafe conditions for children. Whether they are in a remote rural or a major urban area, all workers must make decisions about child safety, case opening, identifying what must change, and deciding when to close a case.

Perhaps the greatest similarity among CPS workers across the country is that they all need assistance in sorting out the complicated problems of maltreating families...and even if they don't get help, they make decisions anyway.

All of these workers need supervision. Coaching. Mentoring. Hands-on help. Case consultation. Someone who prompts for information processing, critical thinking and analysis.

Nationally, there is general consensus that young people are entering the child protection field without adequate preparation (educationally and/or via training) and are leaving the field quickly. With little experience or training, they don't view themselves as professionals, are often prone to thinking errors, and are seduced by the relative simplicity of incident-focused work with families.

When this lack of worker preparation for the job is identified, agencies sometimes gravitate towards solutions in odd ways. Often, people don't even think of the supervisor as the solution, which is remarkable given there is an organizational chart staring back at us with titles of positions suggesting some responsibility to guide and support the workers.

Curiously, agencies create processes to compensate for ineffective supervision rather than those that support the work of the supervisor. These include: training institutes/academies; multi-disciplinary teams; decision-making models; specialized case staffings, ombudsmen; internal gate-keeping processes (e.g., for placement); and of course, SACWIS.

Each of these processes can be effective methods to assure quality and demand accountability. However, if the supervisor is not an integral part of these processes, the agency is overlooking the necessary and obvious ingredient for adequately preparing and maintaining its workforce.

So where are the supervisors in your agency and what are are they doing? Are they are helping with extra program initiatives, budgeting, contract monitoring, policy writing, and sitting on committees--- tasks that take them far away from hands-on coaching? Are they supervising several different program areas, and/or different office locations? Are they supervising too many people?

Supervisors seldom seem to receive supervision themselves. Often moving straight from line work, with little training for their new role, they generally receive news on policy changes and other "business" (versus true supervisory time) via memo, meetings, and email.

It is no surprise then, that the approach to supervision of workers looks fairly similar. Called the "open door policy" and operating as "catch as catch can," this approach shows no regard for the fact that today's workforce lacks the characteristics needed to know what to ask and when to ask it or even when they need help. Likewise, the approach minimizes clinical wisdom and consultation in favor of expertise in technical instruction. Have we for some odd reason come to believe that filling out Form 13-C correctly is a more urgent need of the worker than fully understanding the family dynamics within a case? The approach is made even worse by the bunker mentality among some supervisors that overtly translates to staff anxiety, poor morale, resistance and negativity.

Complicating any strategy to correct these issues are the estimates that within the next 5 to 10 years administrative turnover in child welfare agencies will reach as high as 80%. Generally, agencies are not preparing for this nor is the field methodically developing new talent. Instead, we see the beginnings of the exiting of tenured supervisors, and the hiring of new supervisors with little or no child welfare experience. Once a position considered the seat of child welfare expertise, today it is not unusual to find new supervisors with limited experience in the field, no related professional education and no long-term career expectations.

As a former administrator in public child welfare, I have twice been faced with the challenge of rebuilding large child welfare programs on the verge of collapse.

Beginning to rebuild without tenured staff was next to impossible. The absence of agency historians and experts resulted in an exhausting task of establishing practice standards with almost an entire workforce that was equally new to its respective roles.

But a lack of mid-management expertise caused by program crisis is easier to understand than the gap that is slowly but certainly developing across CPS agencies throughout the country. An expertise vacuum is growing among CPS supervisors, "the major vehicle through which a profession evolves." Unlike the old song, the future doesn't seem bright enough to warrant wearing shades.

Therese Roe Lund, MSSW has 26 years experience in public child welfare. Before joining ACTION for Child Protection in 1997, she was the Director of the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare.