none-matthew-claps-consulting-9r9g0

Go take a hike! When someone at work tells you to go take a hike, maybe we all should...

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 21:54:09 GMT

Systemic and organizational regulation as a condition for effective helping human services systems.

Part I – Hope for today and hope for the future

I’m writing this on my way home from a two-week site visit, where I was working alongside colleagues from the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG ) and New Mexico State University’s Center of Innovation in partnership with a state child welfare agency. As is often the case in this work, the most meaningful insights come directly from the field; from the youth, families and caregivers navigating the system every day, and the practitioners there to serve them.

During this site visit, while completing a Quality Services Review (QSR), I spoke with an early-career social worker supporting a young child in foster care who had experienced significant trauma related to abuse and neglect.

She said something that has stayed with me:

“…you’ve got to regulate, to relate, to reason.”

She was drawing on the work of Dr. Bruce Perry and the Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics (NMT ). What stood out wasn’t the concept itself, but how she was using it, as a practical framework guiding her intervention decisions in real time.

For this young person, that meant intentionally combining play-based interventions, parent coaching, and narrative practices, alongside a stable, structured, and nurturing caregiving environment. (I’ll save the story of how dinosaurs were used to help re-author this child’s trauma narrative for another time.)

The results were significant. Through sustained, coordinated effort by the child and family team centered on the youth and caregiver, daily dysregulation decreased by approximately 80%. What had previously been described as frequent, unconsolable outburst episodes, up to ten per day, shifted to fewer than two brief, age-typical, and consolable moments of distress.

In other words, a four-year-old acting like a four-year-old.

This progress was neither quick nor easy. It required coordination and alignment across providers, consistency in caregiving, and intentional application of evidence-informed practice. But the outcome was clear: this child was not only stabilizing, but thriving, and engaged in early learning and on track developmentally.

Regulate to Relate to Reason.

In a system often challenged by workforce turnover, workload demands, and resource constraints, this example reflects what is possible when an intervention strategy is aligned with practices known to work and supported. It offers not just a story of individual success, but a glimpse of system potential. This early career social worker gave me hope, both for this young person, and for the future workforce.

Part II – A Brief Reset in the Mountains

There is a well-understood parallel process in helping professions: the capacity to support regulation in others is directly influenced by our own regulatory state.

Put more simply, “…you cannot pour yourself from an empty cup.”

After two weeks on the road, I took the opportunity to step away over the weekend. I headed north, out of the city, into the mountains, a place that allows me to reset.

I’m a hiker. The rhythm of walking, the pacing of breath on the ascent, and the sustained focus on the trail all contribute to something more than recreation; it regulates me.

The sensory impact and grounding of being out in nature for me is immediate:

The feel of the trail underfoot
The smell of piñon and pine
The quiet of the landscape
The expansiveness of the view

And yes, the simple reward of a cold beverage and good meal after a long hike.

These experiences are not incidental, they are functional. They restore focus, increase presence, and create the conditions for clearer thinking.

From a practice standpoint, the implications are direct; when regulated, we are better able to listen, engage, and process complexity. That, in turn, strengthens our ability to support others effectively.

Regulation is not separate from the work…it is foundational to it.

Part III – From Practice Principles to System Behavior

The more important question, however, is what happens when we extend this principle beyond individual practice and apply it to systems. While on the trail I was remembering a workshop I attended years ago at an NMT Symposium in Banff (I wish I could remember the presenters name), that talked about how organizations, like individuals, operate under conditions that influence their regulatory state. Under sustained pressure, high demand, risk exposure and limited resources, systems can become trauma-reactive .

These are not new ideas in the work of advancing trauma-informed care. These concepts align with foundational work in interpersonal neurobiology, including Daniel Siegel’s description of stress responses , applied here at an organizational level.

Simply, when organizations and systems become trauma-reactive, excepted patterns emerge:

Decision-making becomes compressed, urgency-driven, and centralized
Policy application becomes more rigid, with less room for professional judgment
Attention shifts from relationship-based practice to process, oversight, and compliance
Organizational responses to risk become more controlling than adaptive

These are not intentional design features, they are predictable adaptations to chronic organizational stress.

Impact on Workforce and Practice

From an implementation perspective, these conditions have direct implications

for workforce functioning.

Staff experience:

Increased cognitive load with reduced capacity for reflection and analysis
Limited space for relational engagement with children and families
Supervisory structures that are evaluative and oversight-driven rather than supportive and developmental teaching

As a result, practice shifts from relational to procedural.

For children and families, the impact is equally clear:

Engagement is replaced by direction and compliance
Interactions feel transactional rather than purposeful
The system is experienced as something imposed, rather than collaborative

As a parent has shared with me in the past:

“…my case manager isn’t checking on me, they’re just checking boxes.”

This is not a workforce failure…it is a system telling you it’s not working.

At its core, this reflects a misalignment between intended practice (relationship-based, trauma-informed) and the conditions under which that practice is expected to occur.

Part IV – The QSR: A Method for Insight and System Alignment

This is where the Quality Services Review (QSR) plays a critical role. The QSR is a structured, qualitative methodology designed to assess how well systems are functioning in real time, from the perspective of those directly involved; youth, families, and practitioners. Grounded in the concept of Services Testing©, each youth/family/person serves as an individual test of the system’s capacity to respond to their unique needs and strengths.

Through in-depth, in-person interviews and a 360-degree view of service delivery, the QSR is guided by two core questions:

How are the youth and family (or adult) doing?
How is the system performing in response?

Importantly, the methodology itself reflects the same sequence:

It slows down the process of inquiry by doing a deep-dive and meeting the client’s where they are to understand they experience the service system ( regulating )
It prioritizes direct engagement and relationship through direct interview ( relatable )
It applies structured analysis to generate actionable insights ( reasoning )

This is not incidental…it’s by design.

The QSR creates the conditions for disciplined learning, allowing systems to move beyond surface-level metrics and understand how practice is actually experienced by those it’s intended to serve.

It identifies both strengths and gaps and translates those findings into actionable strategies for system improvement.

Returning to System Design

If we take this seriously, regulation cannot be treated as an individual skill alone. It must be understood as a system condition shaped by leadership, structure, and design .

This requires attention to:

Organizational culture and decision-making norms
How work is paced and prioritized
How supervision is structured and experienced
How systems respond to risk, error, and uncertainty

Without alignment at this level, practice improvement efforts will continue to rely on individual adaptation rather than system capacity.

And individual adaptation, over time, becomes unsustainable.

Conclusion

What that early-career social worker articulated is more than a clinical insight, it is a multi-level principle:

Regulate to Relate to Reason

It applies at the level of practice, supervision, organizational functioning, and system design.

When systems are regulated, they enable effective practice. When they are trauma-reactive, they constrain it.

The work of leaders, administrators and supervisors (and consultants), then, is not only to train and coach for better practice, but to design systems that create conditions make that practice possible.

So when someone at work tells you to go take a hike… it might be good advice.

The Shiny Bike: It’s Not That Good Ideas Die, It’s That They Never Get the Chance to Fully Live

Thu, 22 May 2025 23:20:23 GMT

(my old trusted Trek - too many miles on it to count)

Imagine a new initiative to transform human services, such as the child welfare or behavioral health system. Stakeholders are engaged. It’s crafted with care. Research supports its likely success. It’s launched and rolled out with optimism. It promises to improve outcomes for youth and families, reduce trauma, and strengthen communities. Everyone agrees, this is the change for which we’ve been waiting. This will finally solve our problems. But then, months go by. The initiative loses steam and becomes a line item in a report, a slide in a presentation, or worse, it’s forgotten altogether and replaced with a new silver bullet. A new shiny bike. Another good idea that captures attention as the next big thing to solve the problem. But, the original idea was a good one too. It’s not that it died... it’s that it never got the chance to fully live. This pattern is all too familiar in human services. Good ideas, sometimes brilliant ideas, are launched and applauded, only to fade away before they can take root. Not because they were wrong, but because the systems around them weren’t prepared to nurture and sustain them.

Complexity Isn’t Just a Buzzword

Human services operate in a world of radical complexity. We’re not just addressing individual needs; we’re intervening in the context of poverty, intergenerational trauma, under-resourced communities, historical and structural inequities and fragmented systems. These challenges don’t yield to quick fixes or silver bullets.

Leaders and policymakers, often driven by urgency and a genuine desire to improve lives and communities, design new initiatives in response. Many of them hold real promise. But they’re rarely given the time, attention, and structures needed to take hold. Instead, they’re introduced into systems that are already stretched too thin, with minimal preparation and little support for long-term implementation.

The Revolving Door Problem

A major contributor to this problem is leadership turnover. It’s been said that in most child welfare systems, the average tenure of the State Director, Secretary, or Commissioner (the most senior leaders) is between 18–24 months, with the child welfare workforce turning over 20–40% annually. That’s barely enough time to truly understand the landscape, particularly if the leader is new to the system. The workforce is just learning their jobs before they leave. If it really takes a year to solidly find your footing in a job, is there enough time, tenure, and capacity to implement, evaluate, and refine a major reform effort?

Often, new leaders bring new visions and new sets of priorities. These are often framed as a new “signature” initiative. This constant reinvention keeps organizations in a state of perpetual start-up. And while start-up energy can be invigorating, it’s not the same as sustained and disciplined implementation. In fact, the field of Implementation Science suggests that to effectively implement a system-wide evidence-based practice or initiative, it can take 3–5 years, when implementation is done well.

The Hard Work of Implementation

I’m not trying to minimize the hard work it takes to design and launch a new initiative. Conceptualization, obtaining buy-in, finding champions and advocates, securing resources, this is all hard work. But comparatively speaking, launching the initiative could be the easy part. What comes after is where the real work begins: re-aligning systems, changing daily practice, building trust (internally within organizations and externally with communities), supporting the workforce, and creating the space and processes for trial, error, learning, and adjustment. Implementation Science reminds us that lasting change happens in stages: exploration, installation, initial implementation, and full implementation. Many initiatives never move past installation, where structures are being put into place, but practice hasn’t actually changed, and ultimately, the outcomes haven’t improved. That’s why taking an implementation science-informed and capacity-building approach to systems change is essential. Steps can be taken to maximize the likelihood of implementation success, including:

Understanding Organizational Readiness for Change : Does organizational culture, infrastructure, and workforce have both the capacity and the will to support the change?

Balancing Model Fidelity with Adaptation Needs : How do we stay true to the model while allowing for necessary local adaptations? Implementation Science includes an array of helpful concepts and tools that can be applied in context to increase the chances of success.

Ensuring Sustainability Planning : What steps are being taken to ensure this effort will continue? What happens if funding goes away or if champions (leaders) depart? How have we built something that can outlast a single administration?

Creating Ongoing Learning and Improvement Through Feedback Loops : How are we listening to staff and families to continuously improve? What data are we collecting to provide meaningful insight into our progress? How is that data being used for adaptation and change?

So What Can We Do Differently?

Here are three practical steps leaders and policymakers can take to give those good ideas a fighting chance:

1. Invest in Implementation Infrastructure

Don’t just invest in start-up or pilot. Invest the time and money in building the capacity to carry it through to completion. That includes assigning dedicated staff as an implementation team to drive the effort. This team leads the workforce development strategy, identifies and obtains needed data (both numbers and stories), and uses analytical tools to understand what’s working, what’s not, and why. This team should be empowered to make changes for success and access appropriate technical assistance when needed.

2. Build the Village: Commit to Continuity Across Administrations

Create cross-agency teams (including lived and living experts) and governance structures that engage staff across all levels of the organization. This ensures there’s stability and accountability for the initiative, even when leadership changes. This approach promotes shared ownership and draws on the collective wisdom of the community. It develops champions across organizations, increasing the initiative’s chances for long-term success.

3. CQI: Routinely Measure Implementation Status and Adjust

Make implementation status and progress toward outcomes a standing agenda item in leadership and governance meetings. Ensure executive leadership (champions) are regularly briefed through a cadence of accountability meetings. Ask: What is the initiative’s current status? Is it working as intended? What barriers are emerging? How are we addressing them? What are families and staff saying?

In human services, we don’t suffer from a shortage of good ideas. We suffer from a system that doesn’t give those ideas enough time, care, and structure to grow. Let’s stop treating every initiative like a new start, and start treating them like long-term commitments to our youth and families.

Want help embedding these practices into your agency’s next initiative? Or just want to connect and brainstorm what could be and how to get there? I’d be happy to share tools and templates—just let me know. See my contact information below.

Matthew Claps Consulting, LLC

clapsmc@mac.com / 850-322-7598 / www.matthewclapsconsulting.com