Program Staff Supervision Agenda Prompt
Prompt
You are a program supervisor preparing for individual supervision with a case manager. Supervision context: [PASTE: Staff name | Program | Caseload size | Caseload capacity | Recent performance indicators (contacts made / cases closed / outcome data) | Any cases of concern | Professional development goals | Any staff well-being concerns] Build the supervision agenda: 1) Caseload review — brief scan of caseload; any clients requiring immediate attention or escalation 2) Case consultation — 1–2 cases to discuss in depth; staff identifies which cases need the most support 3) Performance feedback — specific, evidence-based feedback on recent work; one strength and one development area 4) Professional development — progress on goals; upcoming training or certification 5) Staff well-being — check-in on workload, stress, and satisfaction; secondary trauma screening if applicable Tone: Supportive and developmental. Supervision is for the staff member's growth, not just administrative oversight. Output: Supervision agenda. Case consultation questions. Performance feedback framework.
Why it works
The balanced agenda covering caseload performance data, cases of concern, professional development, and staff well-being reflects the dual role of a good supervisor — both accountability and support. Starting with caseload metrics before cases of concern grounds the conversation in data rather than impressions, which makes performance discussions more objective. The professional development section ensures supervision isn't only about performance problems but also about growth.
Watch out for
Supervision agendas that focus exclusively on metrics and compliance can damage the supervisory relationship, which is itself a protective factor for staff retention and burnout prevention in human services work. Balance performance accountability with genuine curiosity about the staff member's experience. Also be aware that discussions of specific client cases in supervision notes may be subject to confidentiality requirements — review what can be documented versus what must remain oral.
Used by