Planning for Emotional Labor and Secondary Traumatic Stress in Child Welfare Organizations

This analysis provides an emergent framework that emphasizes a neglected component of both direct practice with families and organizational development. Human emotions, both beneficial (positive emotional labor) and harmful (negative emotional labor), have received short shrift in leadership development, supervision, direct practice preparation and supports, and workforce stabilization, and professionalization. Significantly, a key indicator of negative emotional labor—secondary traumatic stress (STS)—often has been ignored and neglected, despite the fact that it may be endemic in the workforce. STS typically results from traumatic events in practice, but it also stems from workplace violence. Often undetected and untreated, STS is at least a hidden correlate and perhaps a probable cause of myriad problems such as questionable practice with families, life-work conflicts, undesirable workforce turnover, and a sub-optimal organizational climate. Special interventions are needed. At the same time, new organizational designs are needed to promote and reinforce positive emotional labor. Arguably, positive emotional labor and the positive organizational climates it facilitates are requisites for harmonious relations between jobs and personal lives, desirable workforce retention, and better outcomes for children and families. What’s more, specialized interventions for positive emotional labor constitute a key component in the prevention system for STS. A dual design for positive emotional labor and STS (and other negative emotional labor) prevention/intervention is provided herewith. Early detection and rapid response systems for STS, with social work leadership, receive special attention. Guidelines for new organizational designs for emotional labor in child welfare are offered in conclusion.

Survey of safety climate in public hospitals in Costa Rica in 1997

In response to growing concern for occupational health and safety in the public hospital system in Costa Rica, a research program was initiated in 1995 to evaluate and improve the safety climate in the national healthcare system through regional training programs, and to develop the capacity of the occupational health commissions in these settings to improve the identification and mitigation of workplace risks. A cross-sectional survey of 1000 hospital-based healthcare workers was conducted in 1997 to collect baseline data that will be used to develop appropriate worker training programs in occupational health. The objectives of this survey were to: (1) describe the safety climate within the national hospital system, (2) identify factors associated with safety climate focusing on individual and organizational variables, and (3) to evaluate the relationship between safety climate and workplace injuries and safety practices of employees. Individual factors evaluated included the demographic variables of age, gender, education and profession. Organizational factors evaluated included training, psychosocial work environment, job-task demands, availability of protective equipment and administrative controls. Work-related injuries and safety practices of employees included the type and frequency of injuries experienced and reported, and compliance with established safety practices. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that training and administrative controls were the two most significant predictors of safety climate. None of the demographic variables were significant predictors of safety climate. Safety climate was inversely and significantly associated with workplace injuries and positively and significantly associated with safety practices. These results suggest that training and administrative controls should be included in future training efforts and that improving safety climate will decrease workplace injuries and increase safety practices. ^

A multi-site pilot test study to measure safety climate in the university work setting

Next to leisure, sport, and household activities, the most common activity resulting in medically consulted injuries and poisonings in the United States is work, with an estimated 4 million workplace related episodes reported in 2008 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009). To address the risks inherent to various occupations, risk management programs are typically put in place that include worker training, engineering controls, and personal protective equipment. Recent studies have shown that such interventions alone are insufficient to adequately manage workplace risks, and that the climate in which the workers and safety program exist (known as the "safety climate") is an equally important consideration. The organizational safety climate is so important that many studies have focused on developing means of measuring it in various work settings. While safety climate studies have been reported for several industrial settings, published studies on assessing safety climate in the university work setting are largely absent. Universities are particularly unique workplaces because of the potential exposure to a diversity of agents representing both acute and chronic risks. Universities are also unique because readily detectable health and safety outcomes are relatively rare. The ability to measure safety climate in a work setting with rarely observed systemic outcome measures could serve as a powerful means of measure for the evaluation of safety risk management programs. ^ The goal of this research study was the development of a survey tool to measure safety climate specifically in the university work setting. The use of a standardized tool also allows for comparisons among universities throughout the United States. A specific study objective was accomplished to quantitatively assess safety climate at five universities across the United States. At five universities, 971 participants completed an online questionnaire to measure the safety climate. The average safety climate score across the five universities was 3.92 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating very high perceptions of safety at these universities. The two lowest overall dimensions of university safety climate were "acknowledgement of safety performance" and "department and supervisor's safety commitment". The results underscore how the perception of safety climate is significantly influenced at the local level. A second study objective regarding evaluating the reliability and validity of the safety climate questionnaire was accomplished. A third objective fulfilled was to provide executive summaries resulting from the questionnaire to the participating universities' health & safety professionals and collect feedback on usefulness, relevance and perceived accuracy. Overall, the professionals found the survey and results to be very useful, relevant and accurate. Finally, the safety climate questionnaire will be offered to other universities for benchmarking purposes at the annual meeting of a nationally recognized university health and safety organization. The ultimate goal of the project was accomplished and was the creation of a standardized tool that can be used for measuring safety climate in the university work setting and can facilitate meaningful comparisons amongst institutions.^