Association Between Addiction Treatment Staff Professional and Educational Levels and Perceptions of Organizational Climate and Resources

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Background: Research studies have identified addiction treatment staff who have higher levels of education as having more positive attitudes about evidence-based treatment practices, science-based training, and the usefulness of evidence-based practices. This study examined associations between addiction treatment staff level of education and their perceptions of 3 measures of organizational change: organizational stress, training resources and staffing resources in their treatment unit. Methods: The sample included 588 clinical staff from community-based substance abuse treatment organizations who received Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) funding (2003–2008) to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). Bivariate analysis and regression modeling methods examined the relationship between staff education level (no high school education, high school education, some college, associate's degree, bachelor's degree, master's degree, doctoral degree, and other type of degree such as medical assistant, registered nurse [RN], or postdoctoral) and attitudes about organizational climate (stress), training resources, and staffing resources while controlling for staff and treatment unit characteristics. Results: Multivariable models identified staff with lower levels of education as having significantly more positive attitudes about their unit's organizational capacity. These results contradict findings that addiction treatment staff with higher levels of education work in units with greater levels of organizational readiness for change. Conclusion: It cannot be inferred that higher levels of education among treatment staff is necessarily associated with high levels of organizational readiness for change.

Keywords:

• Education
• evidence-based practice
• organizational climate
• substance abuse
• treatment

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the many program directors and clinical staff who participated in our interviews and filled out online surveys. This research would not have been possible without their willingness to give us their time and valuable insights.