Accepted Manuscript

Implementing strengths model for youth in community mental

health: Impact on case managers' professional quality of life

Amy N. Mendenhall, Whitney Grube, Euijin Jung

PII: S0190-7409(19)30052-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.020
Reference: CYSR 4315
To appear in: Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: 19 January 2019
Revised date: 17 April 2019
Accepted date: 17 April 2019

Please cite this article as: A.N. Mendenhall, W. Grube and E. Jung, Implementing strengths
model for youth in community mental health: Impact on case managers' professional
quality of life, Children and Youth Services Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.childyouth.2019.04.020

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Implementing Strengths Model for Youth in Community Mental Health: Impact on Case

Managers’ Professional Quality of Life

Amy N. Mendenhall, PhD, MSWa,* Amendenhall@ku.edu, Whitney Grube, MSWa

Whitney1@ku.edu, Euijin Jung, MAa ej.jung153@ku.edu
a
University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, 1545 Lilac Lane, Lawrence, KS 66045-3129
*
Corresponding author.

Abstract:

T
IP
Case management is a frequently offered service to children and families receiving community

CR
based mental health care. However, despite its frequent use, child and adolescent mental health

case management lacks formal structure leading to service ambiguity and poor outcomes, for

US
both families being served, and the professionals serving them. This paper explores the

implementation of the Strengths Model for Youth, a recovery oriented case management model,
AN
at a community mental health center and its relationship with case managers’ professional
M

quality of life. Researchers administered the Professional Quality of Life survey to child and

adolescent mental health case managers implementing the Strengths Model for Youth at baseline
ED

and at six months into implementation. Results indicate the Strengths Model for Youth has
PT

positive impacts on case managers’ feelings of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue

after six months of using the model.

CE

Keywords:
AC

case management, child and adolescent mental health, strengths

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, the use of case management services within community mental health

contexts has grown exponentially (Rapp & Goscha, 2004). Mental health case management

connects clients to different services, with the case manager serving as a central person for
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

individuals, families, and systems to contact and coordinate services. The use of case

management services has been shown to increase client participation in mental health services

(Bender, Kapp & Hahn, 2011), which in turn supports positive mental health outcomes (Karver,

2006).

The ability to connect clients to resources and services while improving outcomes has

T
made case management services an important and fundamental component for both adult and

IP
youth mental health services. However, similar to other human service professions, providing

CR
case management services is often associated with high rates of staff turnover and burnout,

which negatively impact both agency and client outcomes (Sullivan, Kondrat & Floyd, 2015).

US
The prevalence of burnout among mental health professionals has been reported to be as high as
AN
67% (Morse et al., 2012). Furthermore, mental health case managers often interact with

individuals experiencing significant amounts of trauma. Thus, case managers may be more
M

susceptible to vicarious traumatization (Esaki & Larkin, 2013) and compassion fatigue (Craig &
ED

Sprang, 2010). Therefore, providing case managers with resources and tools to assist in effective

service provision, while simultaneously minimizing the likelihood of experiencing vicarious

PT

trauma and burnout is critical. This paper explores the implementation of the Strengths Model
CE

for Youth, a recovery oriented case management model, at a community mental health center and

its relationship with compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among case managers prior
AC

to implementing the model and at six months into implementation of the model.

1.1 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Case Management

A frequently offered outpatient mental health service to children and families with

emotional or behavioral difficulties is case management (Arnolds, Walsh, Oldham, & Rapp,

2007). Child and adolescent case management was developed in large part due to Jane Knitzer’s
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

landmark study (1984), which found two-thirds of all children with serious emotional disorders

were not receiving appropriate services. In response to this, states and communities began

developing adolescent community-based programs, such as case management, in hopes to

increase the collaboration and coordination among the various child serving service sectors

(child welfare, juvenile justice, education, etc.), and to improve families’ access to mental health

T
care (Green et al., 1996; Werrbach, 1996). Though it is a frequently offered service at

IP
community mental health centers, the research behind case management is limited. However,

CR
some research has found child and adolescent case management services, in a community mental

health setting, to be ambiguous and crisis driven (Grube & Mendenhall, 2016).

1.2 The Strengths Model for Youth

US
AN
The Strengths Model for Youth (SM-Y; Mendenhall & Grube, 2016) is a solution-

oriented approach that focuses on empowering youth by emphasizing their strengths and working
M

toward personalized goals. In the past, this model was used as a framework for adult case
ED

management services, and research has shown feasibility in adapting in adapting the model for

successful implementation with youth (Arnolds et al., 2007; Mendenhall & Grube, 2016). This
PT

adaptation allows case managers to work with youth to identify their strengths in multiple life
CE

domains, and then build on those strengths to create a personal, meaningful goal, as opposed to

clinical or mental health related goals. Implementation of the Strengths Model for Youth
AC

provides both case managers and supervisors with a formal practice model to guide their

meetings with clients (Mendenhall & Grube, 2016). This model also provides case managers

with tools, such as the Strengths Assessment, the Personal Plan, Group Supervision, and Field

Mentoring. A unique aspect of the Model is its focus on supervision, which can be a critical

piece to effective practice (Steiker & Malone, 2010). Both group supervision and field mentoring
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

are supervisory tools that are implemented to ensure that direct practice workers are receiving

timely and effective supervision. These tools are used to assist with developing and achieving

youth centered goals, which become the weekly focus of case management sessions (Mendenhall

& Grube, 2016).

A qualitative study of SM-Y case managers and supervisors found the model provided

T
workers with much needed structure for their work and had both intermediate and long-term

IP
impact on youth (Schuetz, Grube, & Mendenhall, 2019). According to case managers,

CR
intermediate impact included increased youth investment, motivation and self-esteem, and long-

term impact included reduction in service length and improved well-being outcomes, such as

socialization and school performance.

US
AN
1.3 Compassion Fatigue

Mental health case managers working with children diagnosed with an emotional or
M

behavioral difficulty are likely to work with children and families experiencing trauma. As such,
ED

negative outcomes, like compassion fatigue, are likely to occur. Compassion fatigue has

previously been defined as “a state of tension and preoccupation with the individual or
PT

cumulative traumas of clients” (Figley 2002). It is a complex concept which consists of more
CE

than one construct. Utilizing the Professional Quality of Life Scale (Stamm, 2010), compassion

fatigue can be viewed as two constructs, secondary traumatic stress (STS) and burnout.
AC

Secondary traumatic stress has been defined as “the natural consequent behaviors and emotions

resulting from knowing about a traumatizing event experienced by a significant other. It is the

stress resulting from helping or wanting to help a traumatized or suffering person” (Figley, 1995,

pg. 7).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

For those experiencing STS, their symptoms mirror that of a person experiencing post-

traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and can include symptoms such as feelings of intrusion,

avoidance, and arousal (Bride, 2004). Follette et al. (1994) conducted a survey with mental

health professionals and found that 24.2% of those completing the survey experienced STS and

utilized “withdrawing from others” as a coping strategy when working with child sexual abuse

T
survivors. Rich (1997) conducted a survey with mental health therapists providing services to

IP
clients who identified as having experienced trauma. Rich (1997) found that 35.7% of

CR
participating therapists reported feeling “removed from friends and family” since obtaining

employment as a therapist working with traumatized clients. Ting et al. (2005) found nearly 53%

US
of mental health social workers sampled felt STS negatively impacted their personal and
AN
professional life.

Burnout, a distinct and separate concept from STS, has been defined as feelings of
M

exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Maslach et al., 2001) and can have substantial implications
ED

for professionals and their agencies. Higher rates of absenteeism and job turnover have been

found to be associated with burnout (Morse et al. 2012; Paris & Hoge 2010). Furthermore,
PT

burnout among mental health professionals is associated with various negative outcomes such as
CE

higher rates of depression, diminished sense of wellbeing, impaired emotional and physical

health, increased alcohol consumption, and impaired memory (Morse et al. 2012).
AC

Unfortunately, burnout among mental health professionals is common, and various studies have

found that 21–67% of mental health workers may be experiencing high levels of burnout (Morse

et al., 2012). Burnout also has negative implications for the worker-client relationship. Burnout

can damage the therapeutic relationship (Salyers et al. 2015), which in turn, results in poor client

outcomes, such as higher rates of hospitalization (Priebe, 2004).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1.4 Compassion Satisfaction

While mental health case managers may experience compassion fatigue, they may also

experience compassion satisfaction. Compassion satisfaction (CS) is the feeling of satisfaction

one gets when helping other people (Stamm, 2010) and relates to a helping professional’s quality

of work life (Stamm, 2010). Compassion satisfaction is a stark contrast to the experiences of

T
burnout or STS that helping professionals can experience. Professionals with high levels of

IP
compassion satisfaction experience a sense of achievement or inspiration, even when immersed

CR
in emotionally demanding work roles (Wagaman et al., 2015). Furthermore, compassion

satisfaction can be viewed as a protective influence against burnout and secondary traumatic

US
stress due to feelings of achievement and motivation that compassion satisfaction instills in
AN
professionals (Bride, Radey, & Figley, 2007).

1.5 Study Aims

M

The current study, while extremely exploratory, has two main aims. Using the
ED

Professional Quality of Life Scale (Stamm, 2010) as a measure of compassion satisfaction and

compassion fatigue, this study seeks to add to the current literature by presenting findings related
PT

to the compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue of case managers working with youth
CE

diagnosed with an emotional or behavioral disorder in a community mental health center. While

there is a substantial amount of literature regarding compassion satisfaction and fatigue in mental
AC

health contexts, most literature focuses on clinicians or therapists. The first aim of this study is to

determine whether implementing the Strengths Model for Youth in a community mental health

center improves case managers’ levels of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue. The

second aim is to determine if case managers’ demographic and professional characteristics relate

to their levels of compassion satisfaction or compassion fatigue. Because the Strengths Model for
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Youth is a hope-inducing model of case management and re-directs work from being crisis

driven to goal driven, researchers hypothesized case managers using the model would experience

increases in compassion satisfaction and decreases in compassion fatigue. Researchers also

hypothesized case managers’ personal and professional characteristics would predict variation in

their levels of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue both prior to SM-Y

T
implementation and after implementing SM-Y for six months.

IP
2. Methods

CR
2.1 Participants

All of the case managers implementing the SM-Y at one Midwestern mental health center

US
were invited to complete the case manager survey at the time of the baseline and six month SM-
AN
Y fidelity reviews. The total sample includes 41 case managers, which represents every child

serving case manager employed at the community mental health center during this time period.
M

Eight case managers identified as male and 33 identified as female. Most case managers
ED

identified as being between the ages of 20 and 34 (55.6%), and case managers were

predominantly White (82.9%). See Table 1 for complete demographic information.

PT
CE
AC

Table 1. Sample demographic information (N=41)

Variable N %
Gender
Female 33 80
Male 8 20
Race & Ethnicity
White 34 83
Black; Non-Hispanic 4 10
White; Hispanic 2 5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Unreported 1 2
Age
20 to 34 years 28 68
35 to 49 years 9 22
50 to 64 years 3 7
65+ years 1 2
Education Level
Bachelor’s degree 29 71
Graduate degree 12 29
Years as a Case Manager

T
Less than 1 year 3 7

IP
1 to 3 years 17 41.5
4 to 5 years 4 10

CR
More than 5 years 17 41.5
Years employed at this mental health center
Less than 1 year 11 27

US
1 to 3 years 11 27
4 to 5 years 4 10
More than 5 years 15 36
Number of Case Managers on Teams
AN
Team 1 9
Team 2 7
Team 3 9
M

Team 4 8
Team 5 8
ED

2.2 Procedures
PT

All procedures were approved by the [Redacted for Peer Review] Institutional Review
CE

Board. The Strengths Model for Youth (SM-Y) was implemented at a Midwestern community

mental health center serving youth ages 12 to 18 with emotional or behavioral difficulties. Five
AC

youth serving case management teams were trained on the model in a staggered implementation

approach.

Implementation spanned over three years, and as such, data was collected at various

points from 2015 and 2018. Each team/cohort underwent an initial training. Training cohorts

ranged in size (from 12 to 15 members) and included case managers, clinicians, and a team

supervisor. One training also included a parent support worker. In total, five initial trainings
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

occurred, with all teams received the same training content. After the initial full day of training,

case management teams received ongoing consultation from an SM-Y consultant, who was a

member of the research team, until they reached model fidelity. Consultation occurred at the

mental health center or in the community and included support and education pertaining to all of

the tools and concepts of the model. Consultation varied by team need, but typically included

T
one to two hours of group consultation with the case managers and supervisor, and an hour of

IP
one on one consultation with the supervisor. The consultation sessions occurred weekly for the

CR
first three months of implementation, biweekly for the second three months, and then monthly

until fidelity was reached.

US
SM-Y fidelity reviews for each team occurred prior to initial training and then every six
AN
months until a team reached fidelity. Once a team reached model fidelity, fidelity reviews only

occurred annually. These fidelity reviews served as a way to provide baseline information on
M

current case management practices and then to determine how closely each case management
ED

team adhered to SM-Y’s standards of practice during implementation. The adapted fidelity scale

is largely the same as the fidelity scale utilized in adult Strengths Model case management (Rapp
PT

& Goscha, 2011) with the addition of an item on parent participation and a decrease in caseload
CE

size guidelines. The possible range on the fidelity scale is 9 to 45. To be considered at fidelity, a

team must average a score of four on the three fidelity subscales: structure, supervision, and
AC

clinical services. Table 2 includes fidelity scores prior to SM-Y implementation, after six months

of implementation and after twelve months of implementation for the five participating case

management teams. Three of the five teams reached model fidelity after implementing the model

for twelve months. All teams had improved fidelity scores from baseline to six months, and four
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

of the five teams also had improved fidelity scores from six months to twelve months of

implementation.

Table 2. Strengths Model for Youth Fidelity Scores

Fidelity Scores Mean (SD)

Baseline 18.4 (0.8)
6 months 31.2 (3.0)
12 months 37.9 (2.8)

T
Fidelity Score by Team Baseline 6 months 12 months

IP
Team 1 17 27 40*
Team 2 18 35 33

CR
Team 3 19 32 36
Team 4 19 29 40*
Team 5 19 34 40*

US
* Indicates the team had reached model fidelity.

At the time of the baseline and six month fidelity reviews, case managers were invited to
AN
complete a case manager survey, which included demographic questions, the Professional
M

Quality of Life Scale, and questions about the nature of their job. Case managers were assigned
ED

numeric IDs in order to track changes over time and to maintain confidentiality in responses.

Only the project coordinator and principal investigator had access to the key linking the case
PT

managers to their assigned numeric ID. Case manager surveys were not available for all five case
CE

management teams at twelve months of model implementation, and so analyses in this paper

focus on outcome data from baseline and after six months of implementation.
AC

Analyses were completed using paired-samples t-tests comparing case managers’

baseline Professional Quality of Life Scale scores to their scores after six months of model

implementation. Regression analyses were conducted to explore if personal, or professional case

manager characteristics predicted compassion satisfaction or compassion fatigue at baseline or at

six months of model implementation. Various methods for handling the missing data in this

small sample were explored, with each resulting in a similar pattern of results for the research
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

questions. To maintain the sample size, data in the analyses presented in this paper utilized mean

imputation.

2.3 Professional Quality of Life Scale (PROQOL)

The Professional Quality of Life Scale (Stamm, 2010) is a 30 question measure that

examines helping professionals’ perceptions of positive and negative aspects of their

T
employment (Howard et al., 2015). The PROQOL measures compassion satisfaction and

IP
compassion fatigue. In the PROQOL, compassion fatigue is an umbrella concept for burn-out

CR
and secondary traumatic stress. Thus, the measure reports on compassion satisfaction, burn-out,

and secondary traumatic stress. The PROQOL is a self-report measure and questions are scored

US
on a five point Likert Scale. For burn-out and secondary traumatic stress, higher scores are more
AN
negative, whereas for compassion satisfaction higher scores are more positive. The subscales of

the PROQOL have demonstrated strong internal reliability and good construct validity based
M

upon more than 200 peer-reviewed articles (Stamm, 2010).

ED

3. Results
PT

The results of the paired-samples t-tests comparing mean scores at baseline to the six

month implementation time point found a significant increase in case manager compassion
CE

satisfaction (t(40) = -2.39; p< .05) with a small effect size of .39. Results also demonstrated a
AC

significant decrease in burnout levels (t(40) = 4.05; p< .01) with a large effect size of .87.

Finally, the results revealed a decrease in secondary trauma (t(40) = 1.72; p= .09) with a small

effect size of .31. These results are included in Table 3.

Table 3. Comparison of Case Manager Professional Quality of Life Prior to Strengths

Model for Youth Implementation and Six Months into Model Implementation (N=41)
Baseline 6 Months Effect Size
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t (Cohen’s d)
Compassion 36.56 (6.06) 38.32 (4.22) t(40)= -2.39* .39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Satisfaction
Burnout 26.03 (6.19) 22.18 (3.68) t(40)= 4.05** .87
Secondary 21.59 (5.21) 20.33 (4.11) t(40)= 1.72§ .31
Trauma
§<.1, *<.05, **p<.01

As seen in Table 4 and Table 5, regression analyses were conducted to determine the

relationship between case manager personal and professional demographic characteristics and

T
subscale scores prior to SM-Y implementation and after six months of implementing SM-Y.

IP
Personal demographic characteristics include gender, age, and race. Professional demographic

CR
characteristics include education level, years as a case manager, years at the mental health center,

and case manager team. Prior to implementing SM-Y, analyses indicated that case manager

US
personal and professional demographics did not predict compassion satisfaction, burnout, or
AN
secondary trauma, with two exceptions. In the compassion satisfaction model, membership on

Team 1, which was the first team at the center to implement the model, was related to higher
M

levels of compassion satisfaction (B= 7.03, p= 0.03). In the burnout model, years as a case
ED

manager significantly predicted burnout (B= 1.87, p= 0.05) with higher number of years as a

case manager being associated with higher scores on the burnout subscale.
PT
CE
AC

Table 4. Regression Models for Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic
Stress at Baseline Prior to Strengths Model for Youth Implementation (N=41)

Compassion Burnout Secondary Traumatic Stress

Satisfaction
Β p B p B p
Gender -3.64 0.19 2.74 0.25 3.04 0.23
Age 0.71 0.62 -1.49 0.23 0.11 0.94
Race (other) -1.01 0.78 2.48 0.43 0.78 0.82
Education (BSW) -0.30 0.91 1.87 0.39 1.03 0.66
Years as case manager -1.26 0.24 1.87 0.05 0.73 0.46
Years at agency 0.30 0.77 0.61 0.47 -0.33 0.72
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Team1 7.03 0.03 3.97 0.14 -4.28 0.14

Team2 5.26 0.11 -2.08 0.45 -1.47 0.62
Team3 2.71 0.44 -1.78 0.55 -3.09 0.34
Team4 3.97 0.20 -1.88 0.48 -3.39 0.24
Constant 38.55 0.00 16.93 0.00 19.13 0.00
R2 .33 .50 .56
Adj R2 .10 .34 .23
Note: () category refers to the reference category. Bolded values are significant at p < 0.1.

Additionally, regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship between

T
IP
case manager demographic characteristics and subscale scores at the six-month implementation

time point controlling for the baseline subscale scores (see Table 5). Controlling for baseline

CR
scores, these analyses found that case manager personal and professional demographics did not

US
significantly predict six-month scores for compassion satisfaction, burnout, or secondary trauma

with one exception. In the burnout model, membership on Team 2 was related to higher levels of
AN
burnout at six months into implementation of SM-Y (B= 3.62, p=.04). In the compassion
M

satisfaction model, baseline scores for compassion satisfaction (B= .65, p<.01) and secondary

trauma (B= 0.28, p=.05) significantly predicted six month scores. In the secondary traumatic
ED

stress model, baseline scores for secondary traumatic stress significantly predicted six month
PT

scores (B= .30, p=.06). However, in the burnout model, baseline scores of secondary trauma

significantly predicted six month scores (B= .26, p = .04) rather than baseline scores of burnout.
CE
AC

Table 5. Regression Models for Compassion Satisfaction, Burnout, and Secondary Traumatic
Stress at Six Month of Implementing Strengths Model for Youth (N=41)
Compassion Burnout Secondary
Satisfaction Traumatic Stress
Β P B p B p
Gender 0.64 0.69 0.11 0.94 1.32 0.48
Age -0.45 0.59 0.17 0.83 0.54 0.58
Race (other) 2.63 0.22 -1.75 0.36 -3.74 0.13
Education (BSW) 0.37 0.80 -0.02 0.99 0.36 0.84
Years as case manager 0.34 0.60 -0.66 0.26 -0.08 0.92
Years at agency -0.15 0.79 0.11 0.84 -0.35 0.60
Team1 -2.45 0.29 2.28 0.27 1.44 0.59
Team2 -2.30 0.23 3.62 0.04 1.77 0.43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Team3 -0.12 0.95 2.56 0.17 2.11 0.37

Team4 -1.15 0.53 2.46 0.14 1.76 0.41
Baseline Compassion 0.65 0.00 -0.21 0.13 0.05 0.78
Baseline Burnout 0.10 0.53 -0.02 0.91 0.10 0.58
Baseline Secondary Trauma 0.28 0.05 0.26 0.04 0.30 0.06
Constant 3.85 0.68 25.05 0.01 10.57 0.34
R2 .51 .47 .68
Adj R2 .27 .21 .27
Note: () category refers to the reference category. Bolded values are significant at p < 0.1.

T
4. Discussion & Conclusions

IP
4.1 Discussion

CR
This exploratory study provides preliminary or initial evidence suggesting the Strengths

Model for Youth may positively impact aspects of child and adolescent mental health case

US
managers’ professional quality of life. While not every result had large effect sizes, these initial
AN
findings indicate the model could help improve compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary

trauma.
M

In regards to compassion satisfaction, statistically significant increases were found

ED

among the case managers after implementing Strengths Model for Youth for six months. For

social service agencies, specifically community mental health centers, this finding is particularly
PT

relevant. Helping professionals, such as social workers and frontline community mental health
CE

staff, are often guided by compassion and desire to help struggling individuals and improve

societal conditions (Radey & Figley, 2007). However, as Radey & Figley (2007) highlight, as
AC

compassionate as helping professionals can be, their compassion level can eventually dwindle

due to fatigue or stress connected to working with individuals struggling with a plethora of

challenges. For professionals working with youth, these challenges are only amplified because of

the complex family dynamics they are often forced to navigate. However, findings indicate the

Strengths Model for Youth may improve compassion satisfaction over time. Key principles of

the Strengths Model for Youth state professionals should involve the caregiver/parent in a youth-
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

directed plan, and professionals should always approach services with the notion that youth are

capable of continual growth and transformation (Mendenhall & Grube, 2016). It is possible that

because of these positive principles embedded in the model, case managers begin to have a more

positive view of their caseload, improving their compassion satisfaction. Compassion satisfaction

has been found to be a protective factor against elements of fatigue (Bride, Radey, & Figley,

T
2007), thus, social service agencies and organizations, such as community mental health centers,

IP
should continually incorporate practices that increase workers’ levels of compassion satisfaction,

CR
such as the Strengths Model for Youth.

Study findings also indicate statistically significant decreases in burnout after six months

US
of implementation of the Strengths Model for Youth. This finding is extremely promising as
AN
burnout has long plagued social service agencies and is pervasive throughout mental health

professional literature (Sullivan, Condrat, & Floyd, 2015). While there are a multitude of factors
M

associated with turnover, such as pay or workload (Sullivan, Condrat, & Floyd, 2015), burnout is
ED

a key factor associated with staff turnover. Turnover should be of utmost concern for agency

leaders as prior studies suggest turnover at organizations can cost an agency over $100,000 a
PT

year (Sullivan et al., 2015; Selden, 2010). In a time of limited resources, having a model that
CE

reduces staff members’ feelings of burnout, and thus potentially reduces turnover, can be critical

for agencies.
AC

Furthermore, decreases were evident in case managers’ feelings of secondary traumatic

stress after six months of implementation . For professionals working with children and

adolescents, this is particularly important. Unfortunately, estimates indicate 25% of U.S. children

and adolescents experience a “high magnitude event” by age 16 (Costello, Erkanli, Fairbank, &

Angold, 2002). Thus, it is likely professionals working with this population are going to
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

encounter youth who have experienced trauma, exposing the professional to secondary trauma. A

case management model, such as SM-Y, that reduces feelings of burnout and trauma can

positively impact an agency’s workforce.

The regression analyses conducted largely yielded insignificant results, with a few

notable exceptions. Prior to SM-Y implementation, years as a case manager did significantly

T
relate to case managers’ level of burnout, with higher number of years being associated with

IP
higher levels of burnout. This result is unsurprising as case manager positions can be extremely

CR
stressful with high caseloads and limited resources and training (Grube & Mendenhall, 2016),

and longer periods of time working under those conditions may intensify those feelings of

US
exhaustion, cynicism, and stress. In investigating professional quality of life at six months of
AN
model implementation, none of the case manager personal or professional characteristics were

significant predictors when controlling for baseline levels of professional quality life. These
M

finding suggest that implementing SM-Y had similar impact on professional quality life for all of
ED

the case managers regardless of personal and professional differences.

As expected in the six months implementation analyses, baseline levels of secondary

PT

trauma significantly predicted later levels of secondary trauma, and baseline levels of
CE

compassion satisfaction significantly predicted later levels of compassion satisfaction. However

surprisingly, the initial level of burnout among the case managers did not predict level of burnout
AC

six months later but initial level of secondary trauma did, with higher levels of secondary trauma

at baseline predicting higher levels of burnout at six months. This finding is interesting

especially given that secondary trauma did not seem to be as greatly impacted by model

implementation. These findings suggest that having high levels of secondary trauma may lead to

higher levels of burnout at a later time point if left unaddressed.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The potential effect of team membership, or who the supervisor is, on professional

quality of life emerged within both regression models, with one team showing higher

compassion satisfaction at baseline and another team showing higher burnout at six months.

These results highlight the critical nature of the supervisor role in case management, and

emphasize the need to provide supervisors with training and tools, such as SM-Y, to effectively

T
support case managers on their team.

IP
4.2 Implications

CR
The results of the study, while very exploratory, are promising, and there are implications

in terms of future practice, policy, and research. In regards to policy and practice, this study

US
shows that the Strengths Model for Youth could be a promising model of case management for
AN
community mental health centers. By providing case managers with a strengths-based, goal-

oriented framework, the model appears to better equip them for their job, which is leading to
M

improved professional quality of life. Additionally, this Model provides supervisory tools, like
ED

Group Supervision and Field Mentoring, which can also positively impact direct service workers

or case managers. Future research into SM-Y should continue to explore how supervision within
PT

the context of the Model changes and thus, influences case managers’ performance and job
CE

satisfaction.

In a field where compassion fatigue and turnover are high, practice models that address
AC

positive impacts for not just the client, but also for the professional providers, are invaluable.

Community mental health needs to invest in more models like SM-Y in order to better equip ill-

prepared and highly stressed workers for work with youth and families who have complex needs

and histories. SM-Y should continue to be explored on a larger scale and in other community

mental health settings. Furthermore, implementation of the model in various child-serving

systems could prove beneficial. Similar to community mental health workers, child welfare
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

workers or juvenile justice workers experience the same kinds of workplace challenges and

client stressors. Thus, the model could have similar positive effects if implemented in those

systems.

This study leads to several directions for future research. First, research should examine

the relationship between the Strengths Model for Youth, professional quality of life, and youth

T
outcomes. It is logical to assume when a professional has a higher level of compassion

IP
satisfaction, the clients he or she serves might positively benefit. Future research should examine

CR
whether or not there is a relationship between the model’s impact on case managers and

subsequent client outcomes. Finally, the longitudinal effect of the model on professionals’

US
quality of life needs to be examined. The current study only examined professional quality of life
AN
after implementing the Strengths Model for Youth for six months, and so research needs to

determine if the effects of the model remain constant or change at later points of implementation.
M

4.3 Limitations
ED

While the study addresses a gap and adds significantly to the literature, there are
PT

limitations that must be addressed. First, this study is extremely exploratory, and there are
CE

limitations regarding the sample. The sample size is small limiting the generalizability of the

findings. Research was conducted at only one community mental health center. Thus, future
AC

research should be conducted with additional participants and locations to determine if findings

can be replicated. Also, the sample was recruited from only one agency and agency level

variables were not included in any of the analysis. While individuals characteristics were

controlled for, it is plausible agency-level factors played a role in case managers’ feelings of

compassion satisfaction and fatigue. There are many other plausible confounding variables, such

as caseload size or personal stress or dysfunctional team dynamics, which may play a role in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

determining a case manager’s level of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue at a given

time point. As such, future research should utilize a control group and employ more rigorous

experimental designs.

4.4 Conclusions

The Strengths Model for Youth is a recent adaptation of an adult case management model

T
(Mendenhall & Grube, 2016) and as such, there is a dearth of research pertaining to its

IP
effectiveness. This study begins to address this gap in the literature by studying how this new

CR
framework affects the professionals who are utilizing it. These preliminary findings are

promising, and suggest that the Strengths Model for Youth may positively affect the professional

US
quality of life of case managers in community mental health settings.
AN
Declarations of interest: none
M

Funding: This work was supported by the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City.
ED

References

Arnold, E.M., Walsh, A.K., Oldham, M.S., & Rapp, C.A. (2007). Strength-based case
PT

management: Implementation with high-risk youth. Families in Society, 88(1), 86-94.

CE

Bender, K., Kapp, S., & Hahn, S. (2011). Are case management services associated with

increased utilization of adolescent mental health treatment? Children and Youth Services
AC

Review, 33(1), 134-138.

Bride, B. E., Radey, M., & Figley, C. R. (2007). Measuring compassion fatigue. Clinical Social

Work Journal, 35, 155-163.

Bride, B.E. (2004). The impact of providing psychosocial services to traumatized populations.

Stress, Trauma, and Crisis: An International Journal, 7, 29-46.

Costello, E., Erkanli, A., Fairbank, J., & Angold, A. (2002). The prevalence of potentially
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

traumatic events in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 99-112.

Craig, C.D. & Sprang, G. (2010). Compassion satisfaction, compassion fatigue, and burnout in a

national sample of trauma treatment therapists. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 23(3), 319-

339.

Esaki, N. & Larkin, H. (2013). Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES) among

T
child service providers. Families in Society, 94(1), 31-37.

IP
Figley, C.R. (2002). Compassion fatigue: Psychotherapists’ chronic lack of self care. Journal of

CR
Clinical Psychology, 58(11), 1433-1441.

Figley, C.R.(Ed.). (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumatic stress disorder

US
in those who treat the traumatized. New York: Brunner/Mazel. 1-20.
AN
Follette, V.M., Polusny, M.M., & Milbeck, K. (1994). Mental health and law enforcement

professionals: Trauma history, psychological symptoms, and impact of providing services

M

to child sexual abuse survivors. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 25, 275-
ED

282.

Grube, W., & Mendenhall, A. N. (2016). Adolescent mental health case management: Provider
PT

perspectives. Social Work in Mental Health, 14(5), 583–605.

CE

Karver, M.S., Handelsman, J.B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2006). Meta-analysis of therapeutic

relationship variables in youth and family therapy: The evidence for different relationship
AC

variables in the child and adolescent treatment outcome literature. Clinical Psychology

Review, 26, 50-65.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., & Leiter, M.P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,

52, 397-422.

Mendenhall, A. & Grube, W. (2017). Developing a new approach to case management in youth
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mental health: Strengths Model for Youth Case Management. Child and Adolescent

Social Work, 34(4), 369-379.

Morse, G., Salyers, M., Rollins, A.L., Monroe-DeVita, M., & Pfahler, C. (2012). Burnout in

mental health services: A review of the program and its remediation. Administration and

Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(5), 341-352.

T
Paris, M. & Hoge, M.A. (2010). Burnout in the mental health workforce: A review. The Journal

IP
of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 37(4), 519-528.

CR
Priebe, S., Fakhoury, W., White, I., Watts, J., Bebbington, P., Billings, J., & Wright, C. (2004).

Characteristics of teams, staff and patients: associations with outcomes of patients in

US
assertive outreach. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 306–311.
AN
Radey, M., & Figley, C. (2007). The Social Psychology of Compassion. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 35(3), 207-214.

M

Rapp, C.A. & Goscha, R.J. (2011). The Strengths Model: A Recovery Oriented Approach to
ED

Mental Health Services. New York, Oxford University Press.

Rapp, C.A. & Goscha, R.J. (2004). The principles of effective case management of mental
PT

services. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 27(4), 319-333.

CE

Rich, K. D. (1997). Vicarious traumatization: A preliminary study. In S. B. Edmunds (ed.),

Impact: Working with sexual abusers (pp. 75–88). Brandon: Safer Society Press.
AC

Salyers, M.P., Fukui, S. Rollins, A.L., Firmin, R., Gearhart, T., Noll, J.P…Davis, C.J. (2015).

Burnout and self-reported quality of care in community mental health. Administration

and Policy in Mental Health, 42(1), 61-69.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Schuetz, N., Mendenhall, A.N., & Grube, W. (2019). Strengths Model for Youth Case

Management: Professionals’ Perceptions of Model Impact on Clients. Social Work in

Mental Health, doi: 10.1080/15332985.2018.1563024.

Selden, D. (2010). The effects of staff turnover on psychiatric rehabilitation programs.

Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(1), 71–73.

T
Stamm, B.H. (2010). The Concise ProQOL Manual, 2nd Ed. Pocatello, ID: ProQOL.org.

IP
Steiker, L.H & Malone, P. (2010). Supervision and Social Work: Providing and utilizing

CR
guidance in the area of substance abuse. Journal of Social Work Practice in the

US
Addictions, 10(4), 427-432.

Sullivan, W.P., Kondrat, D.C., Floyd, D. (2015). The pleasures and pain of mental health case
AN
management. Social Work & Mental Health, 13(4), 349-364.

Ting, L., Jacobson, J.M., Sanders, S., Bride, B.E, & Harrington, D. (2005). The Secondary
M

Traumatic Stress Scale (STSS). Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment,
ED

11(3-4), 177-194.
PT

Wagaman, M.A., Geiger, J.M., Shockley, C., & Segal, E.A. (2015). The role of empathy in

burnout, compassion satisfaction, and secondary traumatic stress among social workers,
CE

Social Work, 60(3), 201-209.

AC

Highlights

 Case management services in community mental health often lack formal structure and goals.
 The lack of structure and stressful work environment can lead to case manager burnout and
secondary trauma.
 Strengths Model for Youth (SM-y) case management is a youth-driven, strengths focused formal
model of case management which builds on client strengths to reach goals.
 Results in the current study indicate that implementation of SM-Y may lead to increases in case
manager compassion satisfaction and decreases in compassion fatigue after six months of
implementation.