Improving further education provision for learners from minority ethnic groups: a review of the evidence

This paper summarises the findings from a review carried out by the National Research and Development Centre for adult literacy and numeracy (NRDC) for the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) between April and September 2007. The study sought to summarise what is known about the participation of those from minority ethnic groups in Further Education (FE) and to identify effective practice in helping them to achieve

Best practice statement : use of ankle-foot orthoses following stroke

NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHSQIS) leads the use of knowledge to promote improvement in the quality of health care for the people of Scotland and performs three key functions. It provides advice and guidance on effective clinical practice, including setting standards; drives and supports implementation of improvements in quality, and assessing the performance of the NHS, reporting and publishing findings

Best Practice Statement : Use of Ankle-Foot Orthoses Following Stroke

The development of this Best Practice Statement (BPS) was a collaboration between NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS), National Centre for Prosthetics and Orthotics, University of Strathclyde and a multidisciplinary group of relevant specialists. NHS QIS is a strategic health board which has a lead role in supporting the NHS in Scotland to improve the quality of healthcare. It does this by producing advice and evidence in a number of different formats, including BPS. These statements reflect the commitment of NHS QIS to sharing local excellence at a national level, and the current emphasis on delivering care that is patient-centred, cost-effective and fair. As part of a scoping exercise commissioned by NHS QIS in 2007, allied health professionals (AHPs) across Scotland identified the use of AFOs following stroke in adults as a clinical improvement priority. Orthotic intervention following stroke has been recognised as a treatment option for many years, but there is wide variation in current practice, and a lack of evidence-based research to determine the optimal rehabilitation programme for individuals following stroke. Stroke is the most frequent cause of severe adult disability in Scotland, with approximately 8,500 diagnoses of first-ever stroke each year, and more than 70,000 individuals affected by the condition. A recent Scottish Government strategy document confirms stroke as a national clinical priority for the Scottish NHS. In addition to developing a BPS and sharing this with healthcare professionals across Scotland, the initiative also sought to develop resource material to support the implementation of the BPS and to share the work internationally. In order to inform the development of the BPS a systematic literature review on AFO use following stroke was undertaken, including work of both a qualitative and quantitative nature. The full literature review, together with recommendations for future research, was included in the BPS. As it was felt that many medical professionals and AHPs may be unfamiliar with the principles underpinning orthotic practice, additional educational resources that would improve understanding of the reasons why the recommendations were being made were developed and included in the BPS. In addition to the full BPS, the key recommendations were summarised as a two-page 'quick reference guide' for ease of use in a clinical setting

Creating a Workforce Analytics Action Plan

An action plan can be a useful tool for implementing workforce analytics, especially if there are multiple people involved in the process. This resource provides some general advice on action planning, with specific examples for advancing the use of workforce analytics. What is an Action Plan? An action plan outlines the actions, resources, and people needed to achieve goals. It is vital to strategic planning. Action plans include the following components: • A well-defined goal • Tasks/steps needed to reach the goal • Individuals or teams responsible for each task • Task milestones and timeframes • Resources and data needed to complete tasks • Evidence or measures to evaluate progress • Desired long-term outcomes Having this information in one place makes it easier to plan and to track progress. Why Develop an Action Plan? Developing an action plan is essential to project success. An action plan provides credibility to a project and increases efficiency and accountability. In addition, an action plan helps to prepare for potential obstacles. Benefits of an action plan include the following: • Provides clear direction • Helps prioritize tasks • Highlights what steps need to be taken and when they should be completed • Tracks progress towards meeting the goal(s) How to Write an Action Plan 1. Determine what you want to achieve and define your goal Start by thinking about where you are and where you want to be, and write down your goal. Then, ensure that it is a SMART goal: • Specific: well defined and narrowed for more effective planning • Measurable: evidence to show progress or that the goal has been achieved • Attainable: make sure you can reasonably accomplish your goal within your timeframe • Relevant: your goal should align with your mission and desired long-term outcomes • Timely: set a timeline and completion date Use a SMART goal worksheet, like the following example, to assist your team in defining your goal. What do you want to achieve? We want people from Human Resources (HR) and Child Welfare (CW) to work together, break down silos, and get the right people at the table. We want HR and CW to use workforce metrics to make data-informed decisions to address workforce challenges Specific. Once key stakeholders are identified, the first meeting will be scheduled at least 6 weeks in advance to allow time on everyone’s calendars. This will also allow time to pull initial workforce metrics to review or create a catalog of potential metrics to discuss with the new team during the first meeting. After this, meetings should occur at least quarterly, allowing sufficient time for follow-up on recommendations between meetings while ensuring a sustained focus. Ongoing meeting frequency should be guided by the needs of the agency. Your goal should align with your mission and desired long-term outcomes. By creating a multidisciplinary team, the agency can make more informed decisions about the child welfare workforce (e.g., decisions about recruiting, hiring, training, promotion, staff development needs). Identify and contact stakeholders to participate in the initial meeting within the next month. Host the first meeting within the next quarter. This group will convene regularly, and no end date is planned at this time. Rewrite your goal using SMART principles: Establish a multidisciplinary team (comprised of HR and CW leadership and frontline staff) to regularly examine CW workforce metrics to make data-driven workforce decisions. 2. Determine the steps/tasks that are required to meet the goal: Start by clearly defining each task and ensuring they are manageable; break down larger, more complex tasks into smaller ones if necessary. It is important that the entire team be involved in this initial process, to ensure everyone is aware of their roles and responsibilities in achieving the goal(s). A table, such as the one used in the example below, can track tasks, people responsible for each task, and due dates. This will be the foundation of your action plan. 3. Prioritize tasks and establish timeframes Prioritize each task and determine realistic timeframes. Ensure the person or team responsible for task completion knows their capacity before establishing timeframes. For example, in the table above, the HR and CW directors are assigned a number of tasks. However, if these individuals are taking vacation or have other pressing deadlines during these timeframes, then the due dates may need to be adjusted. 4. Establish milestones Milestones are smaller goals that indicate project progress. Milestones motivate the team and provide them an opportunity to recognize their achievements. Milestones can be especially motivating for long-term projects, when the final due date is far away. When establishing milestones, it is helpful to start from the end goal and work backwards. Do not spread milestones too far apart—2 to 4 weeks is best. For example, with the tasks listed above, milestones could include “select members of the project team” or “determine which workforce metrics CW/HR can each provide to the team.” 5. Determine the desired outcome for action steps The overall goal is determined at the beginning of action planning, but there may be several desired outcomes to achieve in pursuit of the overall goal. These outcomes are another way of breaking down the goal into smaller, incremental steps. To establish desired outcomes, determine what changes the project would like to see and link these to the action steps. Sometimes several activities result in achieving one outcome, and sometimes one activity has several outcomes. An example of a desired outcome may be “Establish a multidisciplinary team to examine combined workforce metrics from CW and HR to address CW workforce issues.” 6. Identify what resources are needed Before beginning the project, ensure the team has the necessary resources to complete the tasks. Resources can be financial, human resources (e.g., staff, consultants, volunteers), technology, or other material goods. If the necessary resources are not available, develop a plan to acquire what is needed. Continuing with the example above, resources could include those required for examining workforce metrics, such as a list of HR and CW reports and data available, reporting software, time allocations for analysts, etc. 7. Establish what evidence determines a step has been achieved As action steps are developed, consider the information sources and data collection methods needed to help the team determine when an action step has been successfully completed. Sources of information may include project staff, stakeholders, project documentation, project reports, data from trusted sources, interviews or focus groups, and/or observations. An example of this could be “CW and HR staff from various levels commit to participate in the workgroup.” 8. Create a written action plan Develop a written action plan that everyone understands and that can be shared among the team. The document should be accessible by all team members and should be editable so that any continued adjustments can be made. Ensure that the plan clearly conveys the essential components

Competency-Based Personnel Selection Oklahoma - Summary

Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS) is a state-operated child welfare system, but hiring has always been done locally. The agency is divided into five field regions serving 27 districts and 77 counties. In 2017, OKDHS employed 1,780 Child Welfare Specialists (caseworkers) and 388 supervisors. That same year, the annual turnover rate was 25%. They applied to be a QIC-WD site with the goal of strengthening their child welfare workforce. When OKDHS started working with the Quality Improvement Center for Workforce Development (QIC-WD), a steering committee was established to participate in a needs assessment process, determine an intervention, and support implementation. The needs assessment took many months and included surveys and a review of Human Resources data. Hiring of new workers, promotion decisions for lead workers and supervisor positions, and staff recognition and rewards were identified as potential areas for intervention. The steering committee recognized that the criteria used for employee selection varied widely across the state and there was no standardized process from office to office. They expressed a need to better understand what characteristics were associated with good performance and how to hire people with those characteristics, and therefore decided to develop a competency-based personnel selection process. A theory of change was developed to explain how buy-in for and use of a standardized hiring process would improve worker retention and performance. The QIC-WD reviewed relevant research and best practices for employee selection. They conducted a job analysis and identified 24 important competencies for the Child Welfare Specialist job through a series of behavioral event interviews and surveys. The QIC-WD team developed ways to assess whether a job candidate possessed these competencies. The standardized hiring process ultimately included a structured interview, a typing test, and a writing assessment. A behaviorally anchored rubric was used to facilitate reliable ratings of the competencies. This video highlights the experience of staff and leaders who were involved in the new hiring process. The QIC-WD began to train potential hiring panel members and Administrative Assistants to implement the standardized personnel selection process in 2020. To provide flexibility and meet agency needs, in-person and virtual interview processes were developed. In addition, all hiring materials and processes were paperless. Two resources were developed to support implementation—a step-by-step guide to assist the Administrative Assistants with their administrative tasks in the process and a rating guide for hiring panels to use during the interview. Training was ongoing and refresher trainings were offered to support implementation. A randomized control trial design was used to test the intervention and key findings also include implementation learnings. Between October 2020 and February 2022, 716 interviews were conducted using the standardized hiring protocol, with most (69%) led by a twoperson hiring panel. Reactions to the process were more positive among those hired via the competency-based selection process; specifically, they were more likely to be satisfied with their experience and to agree that it provided an opportunity to show their capabilities, provided valuable information about the job, and was conducted fairly. After six months in the job, candidates hired using the competency-based selection process reported higher work engagement than those hired with the usual process, but similar levels of self-efficacy, perceived fit, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intentions to stay. Nonetheless, those who were hired using the new process were more likely to stay in the job during the study period; specifically, the hiring process lowered the risk of leaving by 22%. Those who chose to leave the agency, however, did so more quickly than those who were hired using the old process. Finally, performance ratings from supervisors at six months after hire did not differ based on which selection process was used, but within the group hired using the new process, higher scores on the selection tools were associated with better performance. Those who scored above certain levels were as much as 5.5 times as likely to have higher than average performance than those below those levels

Frontline Job Redesign Louisiana - Key Findings

Background In 2017, the QIC-WD began working with the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). At that time DCFS had an average turnover rate of 24% across the state with one region having a rate of 51% and another with a low of 8%. A thorough needs assessment identified that high caseloads and a large number of administrative tasks were barriers to caseworkers’ ability to effectively engage in the clinical aspects of their work and led to the decision to redesign the frontline caseworker job. The intervention created a new job, the Child Welfare Team Specialist (CWTS), responsible for administrative tasks and reorganized workers into Permanency (former Foster Care) and Prevention teams. Implementation began in July 2019 and rolled out in two additional groups in November 2019 and February 2020. The evaluation included an implementation evaluation and a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest nonequivalent groups design comparing workers providing investigative, in-home, and foster care services in three parishes implementing the job redesign (the experimental group) to a group of workers providing the same services in six similar parishes doing business as usual (the comparison group). The goals of the evaluation were to determine whether job redesign reduced overload and increased worker well-being, increased time spent on clinical work with children and families resulting in improved practice, and decreased turnover as outlined in the site logic model and theory of change. Workforce Demographics Data were collected in May 2020 from 270 caseworkers in the study sample, 78 from the redesign group and 192 from comparison parishes. Of these survey respondents 94% were female,72% were African American, 22% were White, 2% were Hispanic, 4% identified as multi-racial or other, and less than 1% identified as Asian or as Indigenous or Pacific Islander. The average age was 38 years. The majority (58%) had bachelor’s degrees. Another 41% had master’s degrees. Approximately 34% had social work degrees. There were no significant differences between experimental and comparison groups related to gender, race, or age. Respondents in the comparison group reported a higher percentage of master’s degrees than those in the experimental group. Of 18 CWTS, 83% were female, 78% were African American and 22% were White; 78%, and all who responded had bachelor’s degrees in fields other than social work. The average age was 35 years. Evaluation Findings Focus group feedback indicated that participants were satisfied with the model and wanted to see it maintained in some form, particularly the role of the CWTS. Participants cited a wide range of benefits for the workforce including less stress and improved morale. They pointed to improvements in timeliness and quality of the work and favorable impacts on children and families, including more timely referrals, earlier service provision, faster case closure, and reductions in cases going to family services or foster care. Surveys were administered in May 2020, three months after full implementation of the redesign, and again in November 2021. Caseworkers in the experimental group scored significantly higher than caseworkers in the comparison group on measures of team cohesion, worklife balance, fit with the organization, and fit with their work group, and significantly lower than the Frontline Job Redesign Key Findings Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services 2 | July 2023 key findings comparison group on role conflict. Expected group differences in self-efficacy, fit with the demands of the job, organizational commitment, work engagement, job involvement, job embeddedness, burnout and role overload did not materialize and there were no significant differences in job satisfaction or intent to stay or leave the agency at either time point. While there were no significant group differences in perceptions of supervisor support or competence on either survey, experimental group participants rated their supervisors more highly on planning and organizing work -unit activities on both the initial and follow-up surveys. Early results of the redesign found that caseworkers in the experimental group rated their work stress significantly lower than the comparison group, however, group differences in ratings of work stress were no longer significant on the follow-up survey in November 2021, which could be related to COVID-19 restrictions and major hurricanes affecting both the experimental and comparison parishes. Following the implementation of the redesign (May 2020), caseworkers in the experimental group rated their jobs significantly lower on job complexity, degree of specialization required, and variety of skills needed than they had in an earlier assessment conducted as part of the needs assessment (in 2018). This suggests that those in redesigned teams perceived their jobs to be more streamlined, however, these differences were not maintained in November 2021, which may be a result of virtual work arrangements. Time study data indicated increases in the percentage of time caseworkers in redesigned units spent on clinical activities, such as interviews, home visits, and case planning, and that the new CWTSs were taking on a wide range of administrative tasks, such as opening and closing cases in the data systems, obtaining consents and archiving records. Specifically, between July 2019 and October 2021, workers in Prevention Units providing investigative and short-term in-home services increased the proportion of time spent on clinical aspects of the job from 46% to 65% and time spent on administrative aspects of the job decreased from 53% to 33%. In the Permanency Units, time spent on clinical aspects of the work increased from 55% to 61%, while time spent on administrative tasks decreased from 45% to 39%. Random samples of cases served by the experimental and comparison groups were evaluated using a customized tool to examine aspects of the work expected to be positively impacted by the job redesign, such as getting services to families more quickly, making transfers to in-home or foster care services more seamless, and improving the quality and timeliness of services to children in out-of-home care and their parents. Reviews showed statistically significant improvements for the experimental group from baseline to full implementation in accuracy of risk and safety assessments; early provision of prevention services; timely involvement of the family services worker in cases identified as requiring in-home family services; and quality and frequency of contacts with children and parents. Significant improvements occurred in diligent efforts to locate absent parents, and timely notifications to participants in Family Team Meetings which were part of the CWTS’s duties. Changes in early provision of prevention services; timely involvement of the family services workers and timeliness of notifications to families were significantly greater for the experimental group than for the comparison group. Between the rollout of the first redesigned units in July 2019 and the state’s move to virtual work in March 2020, admissions to foster care in the experimental parishes decreased, while admissions rose in the comparison parishes. The difference in foster care placements (compared to what would have been expected if the experimental parishes followed the same trend as the comparison parishes) was statistically significant and translated to 103 fewer families experiencing a foster care admission. In the eight months following the move to virtual work the gap Workers in Prevention and Permanency Teams increased time spent on clinical tasks as a result of the redesign. between the expected and actual levels of placements for the experimental group narrowed. DCFS reported that cases accepted for investigation during this time were more serious, making it more difficult to safely maintain children in their homes. Recurrence rates during this time period did not increase suggesting that the lower rates of foster care placements in the experimental parishes were not offset by a rise in subsequent maltreatment. Based on supervisor ratings of behaviors associated with risk of turnover, in May 2020 workers in the experimental group were significantly less likely to exhibit elevated risk than workers in the comparison group. Specifically, the experimental group was significantly less likely than the comparison group to leave early, expend less effort, be less productive, show less focus, show less interest in clients, contribute less in meetings, show less enthusiasm for the agency mission, do only the minimum amount of work, and show less interest in pleasing and more dissatisfaction with their supervisor. However, there were no significant group differences in supervisor’s assessments of their workers’ risk of turnover on the November 2021 survey. Analysis of group differences in actual turnover rates before and after implementation were inconclusive given the small number of data points available and the degree of variation in rates by state fiscal year. Although not all hypothesized changes in worker wellbeing, job satisfaction, and commitment were supported, the job redesign showed promise in reducing perceptions of work stress and role conflict, increasing time available for clinical work with families, and improving case practice. Additional research is needed with respect to intervention effects on turnover. The Team This project would not have been possible without the partnership of DCFS. They identified a statewide team that represented all of the regions and key positions in the organization. They committed to and participated in monthly meetings over multiple years to plan and support the initiative and its evaluation. They also provided essential data and valuable insight throughout the project. We greatly appreciate the work of all members of the steering committee, the training unit, Louisiana Civil Service, human resources, and all of the staff who worked to make this project a success. We are especially indebted to Marketa Garner Walters for having the vision and courage to commit the agency to undertaking a job redesign which had never been done in Child Welfare before and to Rhenda Hodnett and Leslie Calloway for their leadership and dedication to this project. The QIC-WD would also like to extend a special thanks to Brandy Malatesta, Shelly Johnson, Anthony Ellis, Connie Guillory, Fertaeshia Broussard, Leslie Breaux, Melissa Thompson, Leslie Lyons, and Stacey Mire for their many contributions, and to Elizabeth Reveal and Ryan Dodge for their work in providing and interpreting the administrative data used in the evaluation

Onboarding Program Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians - Evaluation Overview

The QIC-WD evaluation was conducted with the support of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Family Safety Program (EBCI FSP) to determine if an Onboarding intervention was effective in improving workforce outcomes. Research Questions The evaluation of the newly developed onboarding program for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Family Safety Program (EBCI FSP) was designed to understand both implementation and early outcomes. Examples of primary implementation questions from the new employee’s perspective included: To what degree was the new employee’s workspace ready on their first day? Did the new employee have individual meetings with their supervisor in weeks 1-5? To what extent did the new employee feel welcomed during their first days on the job? What were the overall pros and cons of the onboarding program? Additional implementation questions were also considered from the perspective of each new employee’s immediate supervisor: How could the handoff from Human Resources (HR) have been improved? How did the supervisor feel about the time required to manage the new employee\u27s onboarding experience? How did the supervisor feel about the time required for the new employee to complete onboarding activities? Key outcome evaluation research questions included: What onboarding practices were in place at the beginning of the QIC-WD project and how did they change over time? What were the onboarding experiences of EBCI FSP employees hired before the new onboarding program was implemented? After the onboarding intervention was implemented, what were the experiences of staff who received it? How do onboarding experiences differ between staff who received the intervention and staff who were hired before the intervention was implemented? What understanding did staff have of historical trauma and its implications for their work with FSP? To what extent did staff who receive the onboarding intervention report higher newcomer socialization (e.g., social connections; understanding of organizational goals) compared to staff hired before the intervention was implemented? The evaluation also aimed to evaluate longer-term outcomes such as turnover, job performance, continuity of case practice, and child and family outcomes, see Logic Model. However, the ability to assess these outcomes was limited by later than anticipated implementation and the size of the EBCI FSP. Evaluation Design The evaluation for the EBCI FSP onboarding intervention employed a case study research approach. Process evaluation for the EBCI FSP onboarding intervention was informed by surveys for new employees during onboarding weeks 2 and 5; surveys for new employees’ supervisors during onboarding weeks 2 and 5; and discussions between the local site implementation manager and new employees and supervisors at various points throughout implementation. Results of the surveys were analyzed and disseminated to site leaders on three occasions during implementation. Three evaluation activities were undertaken to establish a baseline prior to intervention implementation for the outcome evaluation. Archival records of previous and current onboarding procedures were analyzed. This involved collecting and reviewing documents such as orientation notes, checklists for new employees, meeting minutes, information relayed by existing FSP workers, and other relevant activities. The result of this activity was a description of the onboarding process prior to intervention implementation. FSP workers participated in qualitative interviews to better understand their experiences with and understanding of three primary onboarding domains: (1) Cherokee history, culture, and historical trauma; (2) role clarity and policies and procedures; and (3) connection to other FSP workers and the FSP overall. Interviews were professionally transcribed. Using thematic analysis, two analysts identified and reported patterns within the data to identify frequent and significant themes connected to reoccurring details, explanations, and descriptions. Using Dedoose as an organizational and analytic tool, the researchers coded the transcripts using the themes as code families. The analysts took an inter-coder reliability test and scored a pooled Cohen’s kappa statistic of .84 which is considered to be “excellent” agreement. Baseline and follow-up surveys were administered to FSP workers and supervisors at multiple time points throughout the intervention. The survey assessed various factors associated with job satisfaction and turnover (e.g., stress, supervisor support, resilience) relevant for the cross-site evaluation, as well as measures tailored specifically to the EBCI intervention (e.g., organizational socialization). After baseline interviews were coded, qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using Dedoose. Triangulation and integration of both data sources facilitated a more complete understanding of how the onboarding intervention impacted the employee socialization process. Timeline Archival documents related to pre-intervention onboarding practices were reviewed throughout the project. Baseline qualitative interviews and the baseline survey were conducted in August 2019. Following implementation of the onboarding program in July 2020, all newly hired employees completed the 5-week onboarding program. Implementation surveys were administered to these new employees and their supervisors two and five weeks after the new employee’s first day of employment. Additionally, qualitative interviews with new employees were conducted on a rolling basis approximately 90 days after their first day of employment. A follow-up survey involving all FSP staff was conducted in October 2020, with a final survey in October 2021

Data Visualization (VIDEO)

Data visualization can communicate data in a clear, concise, and engaging way that is easy for us to understand. During the convening of the Institute, the QIC-WD Data Visualization Team lead, Robert Blagg, conducted a presentation on data visualization that addressed the following: How to make data visualizations useful? How can you better collect and organize data to support visualization? How can you develop visualizations that respect visual perception of information? How can you better focus users on actionable findings? To learn more about data visualization, watch Dr. Blagg’s 9-minute presentation. Dr. Blagg’s Data Visualization Resource summarizes key points from his presentation. The content contained in this blog post was developed as part of the QIC-WD’s Child Welfare Workforce Analytics Institute. The Institute was designed to facilitate growth and collaboration between leaders in child welfare and human resources (HR) in their awareness, knowledge, and use of data analytics

Supportive Supervision and Resiliency Ohio - Coaching to Support Resilience Chart

➢ What makes you hopeful about participating in Resilience Alliance? ➢ What worries you? ➢ What is one thing you’d like to achieve as a result of attending Resilience Alliance? ➢ How will you manage competing demands to be able to fully participate? ➢ When you think about how the agency responds to stress now, what is one area you’d most like to see change? ➢ What opportunities do you see to participate in the change? ➢ What is one thing you that might prepare you for Resilience Alliance? ➢ How do you recognize emotional, physical, personal indicators? What triggers the symptoms? ➢ What impact (body, feelings, thoughts, behaviors)? ➢ What direct contact events (work related adversities) put one at risk of STS? ➢ How aware are you? How to become more aware? ➢ What are techniques to reduce tendency to go into survival mode? ➢ What do you do now to help reduce stress? ➢ What would you like to add to your practice? ➢ How do you encourage staff to focus on what is going well (efficacy)? ➢ What are the opportunities for cognitive restructuring (cognitive distortion)? ➢ What optimism trait do you hope to develop? ➢ What are the opportunities for collaboration? ➢ How can you promote collaboration in your unit? Module 1 Resilience and Survival Mode ➢ What strategies went well in the past week? ➢ Where did you find opportunities for collaboration and optimism? ➢ What opportunities might have been missed? ➢ What might you do differently this week? ➢ What resilience characteristic will you be mindful of this week? ➢ What characteristic would you like to strengthen? ➢ How will you notice when you go into survival mode? ➢ What will you commit to practice this week? Module 2 Reactivity ➢ What did you notice about your resilience characteristics in the last week? ➢ How were you able to increase their usage? ➢ What might you like to do more or less of this week? ➢ How will you practice your 3 Ps? ➢ How will you pay attention to your heat level? ➢ What is your plan for when you need to cool down? ➢ What would you like to accomplish this week? Module 3 Collaboration ➢ What emotions (positive and negative) did you perceive? ➢ What thoughts and behaviors did you notice with these thoughts? ➢ How did you process the intensity (reactivity) of these emotions? ➢ What opportunities did you take to practice controlling negative emotions? ➢ What might you like to do differently this week? ➢ How will you increase collaboration this week? ➢ On what common goals might you collaborate? ➢ What work relationship could benefit from strengthening? ➢ What is one action you can take to improve collaboration? Coaching to Support Resilience Module 4 Optimism ➢ What did you notice about your body heat in the past week? ➢ How did you increase collaboration? ➢ What impact did it have on relationships? ➢ What will you continue to do to strengthen relationships? ➢ How will you focus on the positive this week? ➢ What avoidance behavior might you like to address? ➢ How/when will you practice positive self-talk? ➢ What optimism skill would you like to strengthen? Module 5 Positive Thinking ➢ How did you practice positive reframing? ➢ What situations did you notice were in your control? ➢ What strategies helped improve optimism? ➢ What would you like to continue to focus on this week? ➢ How will you use a resilience lens this week? ➢ What is one way you can reframe a negative thought? ➢ How will you stay mindful about reframing this week? Module 6 Optimism and Reactivity ➢ How have you used positive self-talk have this week? ➢ What are the 5 resilience concepts? ➢ What ways were you able to shift negative reactions to positive reaction ➢ What steps were you able to take to increase optimism or decrease reactivity? ➢ What are additional steps you could take in the week to come? ➢ How did you address work place conflict without getting “heated”? Module 7 Mastery ➢ What resilience concept has been most useful to you in the past week? ➢ What self-efficacy characteristic did you (will you) focus on mastering? ➢ What steps did you (will you) take to achieve your goal? ➢ What was the impact of strengthening this characteristic? ➢ How did you (will you) approach time management this/last week? Coaching to Support Resilience Module 8 Self-Care ➢ What self-care activity have you identified to practice? ➢ How did you feel before and after practicing? ➢ How did the self-care activity impact your unit/team? ➢ What additional self-care activity ideas do you have for yourself/unit? ➢ What barriers did you encounter practicing self-care? Module 9 Self-Awareness ➢ What signs of overall stress did you identify or experience? ➢ How were you impacted by the stressor? ➢ How were you able to stop /pay attention to feelings during stressful situations? ➢ What did you notice? ➢ How did you use a resilience lens to think about the event differently? ➢ How did using a resilience lens impact your body/thoughts/behaviors? Module 10 Using a Resilience Framework ➢ What signs of healthy stress have you noticed? ➢ What stressful situations did you experience or observe by colleagues? ➢ What resilient responses did you observe from yourself/unit members/staff? ➢ What non-resilient responses did you observe from yourself/unit members/staff? ➢ How were you able (or able to help your staff) reframe a non-resilient response to a resilient response? Module 11 Self-Reflection ➢ How did you engage in self-reflection throughout the last week? ➢ What opportunities did you identify to think first, then respond? ➢ How has self-reflection impacted your relationships with colleagues? ➢ How has self-reflection impacted you work with families/children? ➢ Given what you’ve learned/practice around self-reflection, how might you utilize this skill in the future? Module 12 Integrating Resilience ➢ How were you able to foster an optimistic work environment? ➢ What resilience concepts did you put into action? ➢ How did you reframe a situation using a resilience lens? ➢ How did you demonstrate respect to your staff/colleagues/self? ➢ What areas might you like future RA sessions to focus on

Supportive Supervision and Resiliency Ohio - Intervention Overview

Coach Ohio, a multi-level supportive supervision intervention, was designed as part of the QIC-WD project to help child welfare staff within the six Ohio implementation counties prevent and mitigate the effects of burnout, secondary trauma, employee dissatisfaction, and disengagement from families and children served by the agencies (for more information see the Site Overview). Coach Ohio initially included two components: Resilience Alliance (RA) was developed by the New York City Administration of Children’s Services-New York University Children’s Trauma Institute to mitigate the effects of secondary trauma, create a healthier work environment for child welfare staff, and to help staff develop skills and behaviors that improve their well-being, increase job satisfaction, and reduce turnover. Atlantic Coast Child Welfare Implementation Center (ACCWIC) Coaching Model developed by the federally-funded Atlantic Coast Child Welfare Implementation Center (ACCWIC), consists of six steps: being present, listening, reflecting and clarifying, questioning, giving feedback, and holding staff accountable. Supervisors learned the ACCWIC Coaching Model and how to use coaching to support acquisition of RA skills of their staff. The goals of the intervention were to: • Decrease stress by enhancing resilience skills, increasing social support, and changing the organizational culture • Help staff regulate their emotions and not engage in avoidance coping behaviors in response to traumatic situations • Reduce symptoms of secondary traumatic stress • Increase job satisfaction • Reduce attrition • Improve casework practice with families The intervention began when directors, managers, administrators and frontline supervisors were trained in the ACCWIC coaching model to prepare to reinforce RA concepts once that part of the intervention began. The intervention required all agency administrators, middle managers, frontline supervisors and caseworkers to participate in 24 weeks of RA sessions facilitated by trained facilitators, see the RA facilitator’s manual. Frontline caseworkers participated in 1-hour, weekly RA groups and practiced the skills in between sessions with support and coaching from their supervisors, see the RA participant’s manual. Supervisors also participated in 1- hour, weekly RA groups with other supervisors to gain coping skills, obtain social support from their peers, and learn what their staff are learning to further support their growth. Each county determined which staff would participate in the RA groups and a number of RA groups varied across the agencies. Several of the implementation counties created special rooms for the RA sessions that included special lighting, decoration, and general improvements to provide a comfortable setting. In early 2020, as a result of continued challenges related to supportive supervision, the QIC-WD and the workforce intervention team decided to provide additional training to directors, administrators, middle managers, and supervisors. The purpose of the training was to: • Ensure supportive supervision occurred throughout the organization - from administration to management to frontline supervisors to frontline staff; • Enhance skills to effectively build healthy relationships with direct reports; and • Build on the ACCWIC coaching model to enhance supportive behaviors in order to retain staff and help them be more effective in their work with families. Directors, administrators, and middle managers from the implementation counties participated in the online training across two afternoons. They then joined the QIC trainers as co-leaders in the training their supervisors to reinforce concepts and facilitate breakout groups. The trainings included the following topics: • The role of attachment orientations to the workplace • A model of social support • Review of the ACCWIC Coaching model skills and how each could be enhanced (such as use of mindfulness techniques at the beginning of a meeting with a direct report to ensure “being present”) QIC-WD staff met with the frontline supervisors four months following the trainings to provide the supervisors an opportunity to check in on the actions they and their peers were taking to enhance supportive supervision, and to reinforce concepts they learned in the training. Most participants found this to be a safe space to share concerns and to discuss the challenges of their day-to-day work. Coach Ohio was designed to help staff acquire enhanced skills of reflection, emotional regulation, coping, and social support – so they would feel less stressed, experience fewer trauma symptoms and higher levels of job satisfaction. In turn, this would promote intentions to stay with the agency, retention and perhaps higher quality service provision to families and children