Field-based supervision is noted to be a required and beneficial component of the preservice school psychology experience (Conoley & Sullivan, 2002; NASP, 2018; Newman, et al., 2021). As such, Chapter 1 of this dissertation evaluated extant literature to better understand how effective field-based supervision has been conceptualized and measured for efficacy. Existing research suggests variability in reported supervision competency levels, level of supervision training, use of a supervision model, and collaboration between field-based supervisors and stakeholders. Empirical results point to a positive relationship between field-based supervisors’ level of experience (e.g., years supervising, number of supervisees) and the frequency with which they used effective supervision practices, as well as supervisees’ level of supervision satisfaction and their supervisors’ use of culturally responsive supervision practices. Gaps in the existing literature were noted across themes, particularly in the areas of supervision training, supervision practices, and multicultural supervision. Chapter 2 of this dissertation sought to investigate how preservice supervisors are trained in and use advocacy and culturally responsive supervision practices as set out by NASP (2017). Research questions were designed to better understand the relationships between the level of social justice supervision training received by field-based supervisors, the frequency of their use of direct and indirect social justice supervision practices, and their perceived outcomes of these practices (e.g., knowledge, self-efficacy, satisfaction). The sample consisted of 88 school psychologists who recently served as a field-based supervisor. An online survey was created and distributed through professional state associations. Results suggest a positive correlation between supervisors’ social justice training and their use of social justice supervision practices. A positive correlation was also noted between supervisors’ use of social justice supervision practices and their perceived supervision outcomes. Regression analyses indicate a significant relationship between supervisors’ training in social justice principles and their use of indirect social justice supervision practices, as well as their use of direct social justice supervision practices and their knowledge, self-efficacy, and satisfaction in using social justice supervision practices. Results of this study can support training programs as they prepare future and current school psychology practitioners to provide effective social justice supervision to graduate students.