No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives With the continued push to implement empirically supported treatments (ESTs) into community-based organizations, it is important to investigate whether working condition disruptions occur during this process. While there are many studies investigating best practices and how to adopt them, the literature lacks studies investigating the working conditions in programs that currently use ESTs. Method This study compared the culture and climate scores of a large organization’s programs that use ESTs and those programs indicating no EST usage. Results Of the total 55 different programs (1,273 frontline workers), 27 programs used ESTs. Results indicate that the programs offering an EST had significantly more rigid and resistant cultures, compared to those without any ESTs. In regard to climate, programs offering an EST were significantly less engaged, less functional, and more stressed. Conclusion Outcomes indicate a significant disruption in organizational culture and climate for programs offering ESTs.

Human service organizations are uniquely positioned, given their scope of practice and access to consumers with the widest range of needs to significantly increase the national capacity for research if they were effectively equipped with the knowledge, skills, and funding to integrate research and development into their ongoing organizational activities. A university–community research partnership is one approach to achieving this goal. This article describes the Hillside/UB (HUB) Research Model, a formal research partnership between Hillside Family of Agencies (HFA) in Rochester, NY and the Buffalo Center for Social Research (BCSR) at the University at Buffalo (UB). The HUB research model combines the practice expertise and research subject access of HFA with the BCSR research expertise and resources to develop collaboratively a vibrant research partnership based on community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles that garners the strengths and assets of both partners to realize a true research to practice and practice to research agenda.

No abstract

Objectives There is a growing literature indicating that organizational and individual worker-level factors affect decisions about whether or not empirically supported treatments (ESTs) are adopted within health care agencies. The purpose of this pilot study is to further investigate and measure worker’s attitudes within a community organization. Method A small organization participated in the study due to their diversity in services offered. Of the 92 workers eligible for participation in the study, 66 (72%) completed the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude scale survey. Results Multivariate analyses revealed that female workers scored higher on both Openness and total score; workers with nursing, education, or psychology majors scored lower than workers with other (excluding social work) majors on both Divergence and total score; and that older workers scored higher on Divergence. Conclusion Although small, this study identifies individual characteristics that are most likely to fit the profile of an EST adopter.

The overall purpose of this study is to investigate workers’ openness towards implementing a new empirically supported treatment (EST) and whether the workers’ openness scores relate to their workplace culture and climate scores. Participants in this study (N=1273) worked in a total of 55 different programs in a large child and family services organization and completed a survey measuring their attitudes toward ESTs. Results indicate that work groups that measure themselves as being more open to using ESTs rated their organizational cultures as being significantly more proficient and significantly less resistant to change. With ESTs becoming the gold standard for professional social work practices, it is important to have accessible pathways to EST implementation.