Archived

This content is available here for research, reference, and/or recordkeeping.

Author ORCID Identifier

https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0469-4233

Date Available

6-12-2028

Year of Publication

2026

Document Type

Capstone

Degree Name

Doctor of Social Work (DSW)

College

Social Work

Department/School/Program

Social Work

Faculty

Dr. La'Shardae A. Scott

Abstract

Nonprofit social work organizations face a fundamental structural paradox: they implement trauma-informed care (TIC) through hierarchical administrative models that inherently contradict its core principles of collaboration, shared power, and self-determination. This capstone examined that paradox across three interconnected papers, positioning administrative leadership as the primary barrier to and necessary catalyst for authentic organizational change, and arguing that resolution requires reimagining leadership as a practice of structural redesign, power redistribution, and organizational healing. Paper 1, a systematic literature review guided by the SPICE framework, searched four databases from 2015–2025 and identified eight qualifying studies yielding 17 leadership practices across five thematic categories. Only three practices — open communication and resource provision, reflective supervision, and trauma champion teams — carried strong empirical support, while the remaining 82% rested on moderate, limited, or theoretical foundations. The predominantly correlational evidence base exposed three critical gaps: no existing models integrate leader healing with organizational change; no validated tools exist for distinguishing authentic from performative power redistribution; and sustainability mechanisms adapted for resource-constrained nonprofit contexts remain largely underdeveloped. Paper 2 introduced the HOPE Leadership Model in direct response, comprising four integrated components: Healing-Centered Leadership Development, Organizational Power Analysis and Redistribution, Participatory Governance Infrastructure, and Equitable Capacity-Building and Implementation. Grounded in organizational culture theory, transformational leadership theory, and social cognitive theory and unified through Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, HOPE argues that sustainable change requires concurrent intervention across macro-, mezzo-, and micro-organizational levels. Its core innovations include repositioning leader healing as an organizational intervention, introducing peer-led power analysis tools to distinguish authentic from performative implementation, and embedding participatory governance structures designed to institutionalize change beyond individual leadership tenures. Paper 3 translated HOPE into a five-phase, five-year implementation framework for a nonprofit policy advocacy organization, operationalizing mechanisms including executive healing circles, decision-making authority mapping, staff-led implementation committees, and tiered capacity-building supports against nonprofit-specific barriers including financial precarity, short grant cycles, and workforce volatility. Six findings emerged consistently across all three papers: TIC implementation failure is structural rather than individual; leader trauma functions as an organizational variable; authentic implementation requires concrete power analysis mechanisms; sustainability demands structural institutionalization; nonprofit contexts require adaptations absent from existing frameworks; and the field's sparse evidence base obligates epistemic humility. These findings carry interconnected implications: social work curricula must integrate organizational trauma and power analysis as core administrative competencies; funders must shift toward multi-year general operating support aligned with authentic change timelines; accreditation standards must assess cultural transformation versus policy documentation alone; and the field urgently needs longitudinal, comparative effectiveness research with sufficient duration to capture meaningful implementation outcomes. HOPE is offered not as a proven intervention but as a theoretically coherent research agenda and a values-aligned framework for a field seeking to align its leadership practices with its healing commitments.

Funding Information

The study did not utilize any funding and therefore has no funders to disclose.

Available for download on Monday, June 12, 2028

Share

COinS