Listen to thisThere is little empirical research on the effects of burnout as it is experienced by Child and Youth Care (CYC) practitioners; however, it is evident that they are distinctly at risk of becoming burnt out without adequate resources in place. There are myriad consequences for CYC practitioners who experience burnout, and it is thus necessary to emphasize potential solutions to mitigate burnout onset. This paper will discuss the importance of supportive relational supervision as an essential protective factor to practitioner burnout, while drawing on the applicability of relational CYC practice to the supervisory relationship. Indeed, this paper seeks to reframe the supervisory relationship as a preventative tool, while also accentuating the need for supervision to be a force for improving quality of care to practitioners that transcends into quality of care provided to young people.
Keywords
supervision, burnout, vicarious trauma, relational practice
Burnout is often a topic of discussion in the field of CYC due to the nature of the work being conducted by practitioners (Barford & Whelton, 2010; Savicki, 2002; Stuart, 2009). The role of a CYC practitioner is nuanced given that they work with some of the most vulnerable populations of young people, who are disproportionately affected by trauma, where they must navigate numerous responsibilities in order to ensure the safety and wellbeing of those they serve (Barford & Whelton, 2010). Such responsibilities include fostering therapeutic relationships, working within the young person’s life space, assisting with life skills and daily living needs, managing behaviour, transporting young people to and from appointments, and facilitating crisis intervention (Krueger, 1991; Krueger, 2007). CYC practitioners are in an ideal position to be one of the most significant helpers and healers in a young person’s life (Garfat, Freeman, Gharabaghi & Fulcher, 2018).While they are often situated in a high risk and high needs environment, there is a discrepancy between the service provided and the supports and compensation available to ensure a positive and stable work environment, while also recognizing the significant work they do (Barford & Whelton, 2010; Cavaliere, 2004; Krueger, 2007; Savicki, 2002; Seti, 2007).
In addition to various structural and systemic workplace stressors, CYC practitioners are at a greater risk of experiencing vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue given that they spend a substantial amount of time within the life space of the young people they serve (Barford & Whelton, 2010; Sprang, Craig & Clark, 2011). As aforementioned, the populations served by CYC practitioners are likely to have experienced adverse traumatic events in their lives, and may disclose such traumatic narratives and imagery in conversations with practitioners for whom they have a strong relationship (Sprang et al., 2011). To be exposed to this for an extensive period of time can impact the psychological wellbeing of the practitioner when adaptive coping mechanisms and self-care are not maintained (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Sprang et al., 2011). Both vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue are discussed in various studies related to burnout, demonstrating the interconnectedness of such phenomena to the onset of burnout among helping professionals (Cohen & Collens, 2013; Devilly, Wright, & Varker, 2009; Geoffrion, Morselli & Guay, 2016; Sprang et al., 2011).
There is little empirical research on the effects of burnout as it is experienced by CYC practitioners; however, it is evident that they are distinctly at risk of becoming burnt out without adequate resources in place. Existing literature defines burnout as a psychological syndrome that is characterized by emotional and mental exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment as a result of factors such as work overload, lack of workplace support, and role ambiguity and conflict (Barford & Whelton, 2010; Devilly, et al., 2009; Kahill, 1988; Maslach, 1996; Maslach et al., 2001; Sprang et al., 2011). Emotional and mental exhaustion as described by Maslach and colleagues (2001) is central to burnout onset and is a response to feeling depleted by one’s work. Cynicism and detachment surrounding those with whom one works encompasses depersonalization as posited by the same researchers. Evaluations of personal accomplishment then becomes negatively affected by the former two factors, leading to the potential for one to perceive oneself as incompetent or ineffective in their practice (Maslach et al., 2001). Such feelings may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, internalized as part of the practitioner’s identity, which is cause for concern in terms of service delivery effectiveness (Geoffrion et al., 2016; Stuart, 2009). In essence, without such supports in place, one can presume that burnout may transcend beyond the supervisory relationship, and into the relationships formed with young people, diminishing the therapeutic value of the co-created space, while also placing vulnerable children and youth at risk of being re-traumatized due to a decline in quality of care.
Mitigating Burnout within the Supervisory Relationship
Supportive relational supervision is an essential protective factor to practitioner burnout given that much of the literature emphasizes this as an important facet in CYC work (Chen & Scannapieco, 2010; Garfat, Fulcher & Freeman, 2016; Lizano & Mor Barak, 2015; Michael, 2005; Radey & Stanley, 2018; Stuart, 2009). Garfat and colleagues (2016) developed an approach to supervision that is innovative and parallels much of the praxis involved when working with young people. The Daily Life Events Approach to supervision echoes the same tenets and characteristics as relational Child and Youth Care practice yet transfers its application to the supervisory relationship (Garfat et al., 2016). It involves working with practitioners in the moment and creating a space conducive to effective practice and increased job satisfaction through the process of meaning making. When supervisors adhere to this model, they demonstrate to those with whom they supervise that they matter (Charles & Garfat, 2016). Through being, interpreting, and doing, just like practitioners with young people, supervisors can foster connectedness within the workplace, and within this lies effectiveness in service delivery and quality of care (Garfat et al., 2016; Stuart, 2009).
Most importantly, this improvement trickles into the professional identities of practitioners, whereby their own evaluations of self-efficacy will become more positive, reducing the likelihood of experiencing burnout (Chen & Scannapieco, 2010; Geoffrion et al., 2015). Studies have demonstrated that the absence of positive supervisory relationships exacerbates feelings of emotional exhaustion, a principal indicator of burnout onset, further substantiating the importance of relational supervision (Boyas, Wind & Kang, 2011; Radey & Stanley, 2018). What is more, vicarious trauma and compassion fatigue is mitigated when supervisors provide a space for practitioners to parse through the emotional toll of their work, improving their personal wellbeing (Radey & Stanley, 2018). When practitioners receive supports that address their mental health in this context, they will exhibit better practice skills, leading to better service provided to young people (Little, Baker, & Jinks, 2018; Stuart, 2009).
It is evident that the supervisory relationship is one that can help or hinder the workplace environment, and with supportive and relational supervision, the risk of becoming burnt out is moderated. Existing literature has demonstrated that using approaches that are congruent to CYC praxis within the supervisory context is effective in improving job satisfaction and overall wellbeing (Chen & Scannapieco, 2010; Garfat, Fulcher & Freeman, 2016; Lizano & Mor Barak, 2015; Radey & Stanley, 2018; Stuart, 2009). This model of supervision should not be limited solely to the supervisor-practitioner relationship, rather it should be a cyclical process facilitated when supervisors receive supervision. If a supervisor is burnt out, it is expected that they would not be able to provide adequate supervision to practitioners, and it is therefore integral for supervisors to also feel supported when they receive supervision (McCrae, Scannapieco, & Obermann, 2015). Young people are central to the field of CYC, and to ensure quality of care, there must be quality of care provided within every level of the workplace. Indeed, this may seem like an idealistic way to view supervision, but it is certainly a valuable preventative tool for burnout within this profession. Ultimately, there must be supports in place for practitioners and supervisors alike to ensure young people can achieve positive outcomes.
References
Barford, S. W., & Whelton, W. J. (2010). Understanding Burnout in Child and Youth Care Workers. Child and Youth Care Forum, 39(4), 271–287. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-010-9104-8.
Boyas, J., Wind, L. H., & Kang, S. (2011). Exploring the relationship between employment-based social capital, job stress, burn out, and intent to leave among child protection workers: An age-based path analysis model. Children and Youth Services Review, 34,50–62. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.033.
Cavaliere, G. (2004). Cream city dreams: reflections on professionalization of Child and Youth Care workers in the US. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(6), 375–378.
Charles, G. & Garfat, T. (2016). Supervision: A matter of mattering. In G. Charles, J. Freeman & T. Garfat, Supervision in Child and Youth Care Practice. Cape Town: The CYC-Net Press, pp. 22 – 27.
Chen, S. Y., & Scannapieco, M. (2010). The influence of job satisfaction on child welfare worker’s desire to stay: An examination of the interaction effect of self-efficacy and supportive supervision. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 482–486. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.014
Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. (2012). Outreach social workers for at-risk youth: A test of their attitudes towards crime and young offenders in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2273-2279. Retrieved from doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.006
Cohen, K., & Collens, P. (2013). The impact of trauma work on trauma workers: A metasynthesis on vicarious trauma and vicarious posttraumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 5(6), 570–580. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030388
Devilly, G. J., Wright, R., & Varker, T. (2009). Vicarious trauma, secondary traumatic stress or simply burnout? Effect of trauma therapy on mental health professionals. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 373-385.
Garfat, T., Freeman, J., Gharabaghi, K. & Fulcher, L. (2018). Characteristics of a Relational Child and Youth Care Approach (Revised). CYC-Online , Issue 236.
Garfat, T., Fulcher, L. & Freeman, J. (2016). A Daily Life Events approach to Child and Youth Care Supervision. In G. Charles, J. Freeman & T. Garfat (Eds.), Supervision in Child and Youth Care Practice. Cape Town: The CYC-Net Press, pp. 28 – 47.
Geoffrion, S., Morselli, C., & Guay, S. (2015). Rethinking compassion fatigue through the lens of professional identity: The case of child-protection workers. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 17(3), 270–283. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015584362
Kahill, S. (1988). Interventions for burnout in the helping professions: A review of the empirical evidence. Canadian Journal of Counselling Review, 22(3), 31– 342.
Krueger, M. (1991). A review and analysis of the development of professional Child and Youth Care work. Child and Youth Care Forum, 20(6), 379–388.
Krueger, M. (2007). Four areas of support for Child and Youth Care workers. Families in Society, 88(2), 233– 240.
Little, M., Baker, T., & Jinks, A. M. (2018). A qualitative evaluation of community nurses' experiences of child safeguarding supervision. Child Abuse Review, 27, 150–157.
Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. (2015). Job burnout and affective wellbeing: A longitudinal study of burnout and job satisfaction among public child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 55, 18–28. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.05.005
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). The Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. The Maslach Burnout Inventory, 191–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach C, Schaufeli W, Leiter M. (2001). Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol, 52, 397-422.
McCrae, J. S., Scannapieco, M., & Obermann, A. (2015). Retention and job satisfaction of child welfare supervisors. Children and Youth Services Review, 59, 171–176. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.11.011
Michael, J. (2005). Life-space supervision in Child and Youth Care practice. In. T. Garfat and B. Gannon, (Eds.). Aspects of Child and Youth Care Practice in the South African Context. Cape Town: Pretext, pp. 49-62.
Radey, M., & Stanley, L. (2018). “Hands on” versus “empty”: Supervision experiences of frontline child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 91 (February), 128–136. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.05.037
Savicki, V. (2002). Burnout across thirteen cultures: Stress and coping in Child and Youth Care workers. Westport: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Seti, C. L. (2007). Causes and treatment of burnout in residential child care workers: A review of the research. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 24(3), 197–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865710802111972
Sprang, G., Craig, C., & Clark, J. (2011). Secondary Traumatic Stress and Burnout in CW Workers. Child Welfare, 90(6), 149–168.
Stuart, C. (2009). Foundations of Child and Youth Care, Dubuque, IN: Kendall Hunt.
From: Relational Child and Youth Care Practice, Vol.33 No.3, pp 57-62
