Human Services Capston

EXAMPLE ONLY PLEASE USE AS A GUIDE

2.1 Capstone Project Problem Background

This section should further expound on the research problem and will include a brief SUMMARY of the review and synthesis of the research literature on the topic. This should include citations from at least 15 articles but should indicate that you have performed a full review of the literature on the topic.

This section should include:

· A statement about the body of existing literature on the topic.

· A summary of recent research findings on the topic that highlights the most relevant findings of the proposed study.

· A demonstration of how the proposed research could add to the existing literature on the topic.

Be sure to provide appropriate in text citations and include references in the reference section.

Use current (within 5-7 years), scholarly, PRIMARY resources to support statements. Textbooks are not primary resources. Theses and dissertations are not considered peer-reviewed published articles. Use APA style in citing all resources.

*This will not be your Capstone Project literature review but an initial foundation. You will continue to add to your literature review throughout your Capstone.

The topic of research for this study is the assessment of how leadership and management act as a direct force that strengthens and positively impacts the practitioner’s role and the services provided. Leadership and management may also systematically weaken both the mission and provider. Given the latter result, more than just the agency and employees lose; so too do the clients they wish to serve. Research reveals the direct relationship between clinicians working with substance abusers and their propensity to endure indirect trauma as a result (Knight, 2019; Reyre et al., 2017). This raises concerns of indirect trauma exposure and heightened burnout risk of direct service providers who operate within the field of human services (Dissanaike, 2016; Knight, 2019; Reyre et al., 2017), all of which can lead to negative consequences on a professional’s mental and physical well-being as well as increased staff turnover (Buckingham & Coffman, 2014; Lee et al., 2013; Salyers et al., 2016). Direct service providers who believe that they do not have control over their own environment in uncomfortable situations may stop any further attempts at coping, putting them at risk for depression and burnout (Schonfeld & Bianchi, 2016). The likelihood of employees coping in an unhealthy way is greatly magnified when coupled with poor agency leadership (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019). Pelletier (2010, as cited by Bhandarker & Rai, 2019) identifies toxic leaders to be persons whose actions/words have “physically or psychologically harmed” a subordinate (p. 66). Toxic leadership behaviors such as divisiveness, social exclusion, threatening of others’ self-esteem and capitalizing on inequality will all negatively impact the follower and could result in lasting effects. A toxic leader creates conflicts, and allows for agency chaos to thrive. Sadly, these individuals often fail to realize their own negative behavior (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019). Research indicates that toxic leadership can have a direct relationship with a follower’s lower organizational commitment, poor work attitudes, and internal conflicts. Job satisfaction rates drop, as do employee’s motivation to work, and their dedication to the agency as a whole. If left uncorrected, subordinates of any bad leader may find ways of coping that could be detrimental to themselves, and the agency. For example, some followers may remain silent (adaptive coping), for fear of retaliation, or hopelessness in the situation changing. Others may use passive avoidance behaviors to cope with toxic leaders. Examples of this behavior include withholding information, disrupting work operations and not helping fellow co-workers. Behaviors of the passive avoidant employee can be vengeful and even destructive, as this is their attempts at trying to take back control (Bhandarker & Rai, 2019).

Linkage between substance use disorder (SUD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been studied since the 1980s. Researchers discuss an increased prevalence of “PTSD and trauma exposure among SUD patients and emphasized the vulnerability of this patient subgroup” (Gielen et al., 2016, p. 466). Substance abusers are at a heightened risk for having suffered previous trauma, thus using alcohol and/or drugs as a means for coping (Rostami Nezhad et al., 2017; Roussy et al., 2015). For example, Dansky et al. (1995) “found that among a large national epidemiologic sample of 4008 women with SUD, 80% also had a history of sexual and/or physical assault” (as cited by Hemma et al., 2018, p. 1). Likewise, Jarvis et al. (1998) and Teusch (2001) both revealed the underlying role of self-medication for individuals with substance use disorders and comorbid PTSD (as cited by Gielen et al., 2016). The need to treat both the symptoms of substance abuse disorder, while also addressing the underlying cause (i.e., trauma), can create a stressful, sometimes traumatic effect in its own right, for the clinicians. Secondary traumatic stress, vicarious trauma, and compassion fatigue are three common reactions that clinicians working with survivors of trauma and SUD have been known to experience (Knight, 2019).

There is a need for well-trained/equipped direct service providers to provide support and therapeutic offerings to a population of clients suffering from substance abuse disorders (Knight, 2019). When this training does not exist for service providers, outcomes can include poor therapeutic/client outcomes, gaps in care, and increased substance abuse relapse rates (Reyre et al., 2017). For example, substance abuse and mental health problems have increased within homeless youths and young adults (ages 12-24), due in part to the elevated violence and abuse that they may have endured by family, peers, and strangers. This abuse and violence are heightened among LBGTQ youth and young adults (Chrisler, 2017; Corliss et al., 2011). In a national survey of homeless youth (ages 12-21), 80.9% had reported alcohol use; 75.3% reported using marijuana. While ‘use’ does not automatically equate as ‘addiction,’ evidence does indicate that 46.3% of homeless youth (ages 12-21) met criteria for alcohol abuse, while 40.4% met the criteria for ‘other’ substance abuse and/or dependence (Narendorf et al., 2017). Of the overall US population (no matter the living situation), 20% are currently fighting a substance abuse addiction, with a documented 60% of individuals likely to relapse post treatment within the first year (Weinstock et al., 2017).

In an attempt to strengthen leadership/management (which will aid in trauma-related service work and help to prevent burnout in the lives of the direct service providers) of ORG NAME, this capstone project aims at revealing areas where the agency’s leadership and management can be improved. This goal of this capstone project is to offer feedback, based on the triangulation of qualitative interviews with service providers, agency leadership (includes management and executive directors), and field note data to create a change management plan for the organization. This change plan will provide agency leaders information they can use to implement to increase staff morale, growth, and support. Secondly, this project aims at uncovering areas within the agency that are already strong, offering ways in which to viably keep these strengths alive and well.

While gaps in research exist, there are still several main phenomena within literature that provide some explanation on this critical issue of providing the much-needed quality leadership and resources to direct service providers, so that they can in turn provide the best care to substance abuse users seeking recovery. This phenomena within research may include a) the prevalence of substance abuse and co-occurring mental health issues (Corliss et al., 2011; Roussy et al., 2015), b) causation and prevention of burnout among service providers (Dissanaike, 2016; Ebrahimi & Atazedeh, 2018), c) indirect trauma exposure (Knight, 2019); d) client distrust and fear of authority figures and adults (Chisolm-Straker et al., 2018), and e) additional personal and facility-created barriers that exist among substance abuse centers (Timko et al., 2016).