The case management processes of children and youth service supervisors

An exploratory study surveyed 121 Pennsylvania public sector supervisors of child abuse investigations to determine how they complete their duties while working in the volatile environment of child welfare. The study examined the relationships of organizational environment factors (i.e., organizational size, specialization, and experience of stress) and supervisors\u27 variance of management styles with their performance of case management processes (i.e., case analysis, case assignment, and case review). Data was grouped according to the organizational size of the subjects\u27 agencies and the supervisors\u27 level of specialization. Statistically significant relationships were discovered between organizational size and a subdivision of case review, frequency of case record narrative review, and between specialization and frequency of narrative review. A trend toward significance was observed in the association of organizational size and performance of case analysis. The key findings of the study were: (1) Supervisors assigned cases and selected cases for case review in a manner which indicated their immediate concern for workers\u27 needs. These were perceived by the researcher as means which supervisors may use to alleviate worker anxiety and burnout. (2) The majority of the subjects reported experiencing relatively low stress. (3) The majority of the supervisors felt comfortable adapting their interactive management styles in keeping with a model of adaptive supervision. Three implications for social work practice which were developed based on a review of the findings were: (1) Supervisors\u27 assignment of cases and selection of cases for case review in a worker-focused manner is an aspect of parallel process of which supervisors should become more aware so that they can consciously incorporate it into their practice. (2) There is affirmation for the adaptive supervision model of practice concerning direction of CPS investigative activities, especially for supervisors\u27 interaction with workers with very limited, minimal or moderate capabilities. (3) Supervisors were adamant about their unwillingness to delegate total authority for investigation of abuse allegations, even when such delegation would be to a veteran worker of the highest capability. Their concern was that they would be liable if negative consequences resulted from workers\u27 independent, but incomplete or inappropriate, investigations. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications for future research