Citation

Roberts JM, Roberts JL, Harrington AL, Vudy VA, Krumenacker JB. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2016; 25(7): 2258-2267.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2016, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s10826-016-0394-9

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

We conducted two separate, exploratory studies to evaluate the differences between the supervision of wraparound (in-home) and outpatient (office) child treatment interventions. Study one (n = 96) examined the structure and norms of supervision between groups as well as rates of general disclosure to direct supervisors. Study two (n = 116) specifically examined the frequency of child abuse and neglect encountered in each intervention setting, and the level of disclosure in supervision of these mandatory reporting events.

FINDINGS from the first study suggest that wraparound clinicians received significantly less individual supervision and colleague consultation than their office-based counterparts. Additionally, wraparound clinicians were significantly more likely to withhold information about client cases from their direct supervisors. In the second study, wraparound clinicians endorsed significant increases for observed child abuse, observed child neglect, and verbally reported child neglect compared to their office-based counterparts. In regards to mandatory reporting issues with children, wraparound clinicians were found to be significantly less likely to disclose issues pertaining to child neglect to their direct supervisors than office-based clinicians. Our studies show preliminary evidence for a needed increase of individual supervision in wraparound practice, in addition to a greater focus on clinician disclosures related to incidents of child abuse and neglect.

Language: en