Could a Supervisor be More Like a Coach?: An Evaluation of Child Welfare Coaching

Overview: Focusing on an innovative coaching initiative for child welfare workers and student interns, this presentation addresses the question: How do experiences with child welfare coaching compare to experiences with supervision? Results from focus groups point to potential benefits of child welfare coaching and underscore the value of clinical, strengths-based supervision.Proposal text:

Background: The importance of supervision in child welfare practice is well established (MorBarak et al., 2009). Connections between supervision and service quality and equity remain understudied, but quality supervision is associated with job satisfaction, job retention, and reduced burnout (Landsman, 2001; Smith 2005), which should be steps toward effective, compassionate, and fair child welfare practice. Still, many child welfare practitioners report dissatisfaction with supervision (Leitz, 2018). Supervision can be narrowly focused on organizational priorities, and time for supervision can be limited. Whereas virtually all child welfare workers have a supervisor, very few have a coach. Much like a formal mentor, a coach meets regularly with a child welfare worker to provide supplemental support and guidance. This presentation summarizes results from an evaluation of an innovative coaching initiative for child welfare workers and student interns. The presentation focuses on how experiences with child welfare coaching compares to experiences with child welfare supervision.

Methods: The evaluation followed a pragmatic qualitative approach (Saldana, 2009). Seven focus groups were conducted via Zoom involving 25 participants. Five of the groups involved child welfare interns or new workers who had recently obtained a social work degree; two involved coaches. All students and coaches involved in a university-based coaching initiative (n = 43) were invited to participate, and the response rate was 58%. The groups were facilitated by a faculty member and Ph.D. student from the host university. Open-ended questions addressed expectations, challenges, successes, and other aspects of coaching, as well as supervision. The groups lasted 43 to 85 minutes. They were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were coded by a faculty member and three Ph.D. students following a multi-step method involving in-vivo codes, axial codes, formation and comparison of categories, and identification of themes.

Results: Focus group participants vividly contrasted experiences with coaching and supervision. Primary themes included a contrast between “task oriented” supervision versus coaching oriented toward (a) feelings and experiences, and (b) values, goals and future plans. Participants also contrasted task-oriented supervision with opportunities to discuss workplace challenges, burnout, and selfcare. Another primary theme involved a contrast between “negative” supervision versus coaching that was positive and encouraging. Finally, participants contrasted “constrained” supervision with coaching that was open and free from judgement.

Conclusions: Findings underscore concerns about the nature and quality of supervision in child welfare. Consistent with research on clinical, strengths-based supervision models (Collins-Camargo & Millar, 2010; Leitz, 2018), evaluation participants expressed a desire for supervision that went beyond tasks and required administrative reports to include mentoring in how to address challenges and how to develop as a competent and fair child welfare professional, mentoring they received from coaches. Hence, findings point to the potential of coaching as a helpful supplement to supervision, but also illuminate how coaching and/or high quality clinical, strengths-based supervision could help new workers to retain their positions, increase satisfaction with child welfare work, and possibly improve practice quality. Findings also underscore the need for more coaching and supervision focused on equity and justice in child welfare.