Evaluating social work supervision

Authors

  • Allyson Mary Davys University of Auckland private practice
  • Janet May Waikato Institute of Technology
  • Beverly Burns Private consultancy
  • Michael O’Connell Lakes District Health Board

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss3id314

Keywords:

supervision, evaluation, social work, safety, ideal practice, Aotearoa New Zealand.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The question of whether the practice of professional supervision is effective, and how its effectiveness can be measured, has been debated by both social work and other professions. This study explored how practitioners, supervisors and managers in Aotearoa New Zealand currently evaluate the supervision they receive, provide and/or resource.  The study was interprofessional involving counsellors, mental health nurses, psychologists and social workers. This article focuses on the findings from the social work cohort.

METHODS: Through an on-line Qualtrics survey participants were asked: 1) how they currently evaluated professional/clinical supervision; and 2) how they thought professional/clinical supervision could be evaluated. Data were extracted through the Qualtrics reporting functions and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. A total of 329 participants completed the survey of which 145 (44%) were social workers. 

FINDINGS: A majority of the social work participants reported that they evaluated supervision in some form. No culture or policy emerged regarding supervision evaluation, but social workers expressed interest in training and resources to assist evaluation and some saw a supportive and endorsement role for the professional or regulatory bodies. An unexpected finding was reports of unsatisfactory and harmful supervision.

CONCLUSION: Evaluation of supervision is an activity with which social workers engage, but further research is needed to explore how evaluation can be embedded in supervision practice. More critically, a broader audit is required to reconsider the definition and model of social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand and the environments within which supervision occurs.

Author Biographies

Allyson Mary Davys, University of Auckland private practice

Allyson Davys, registered social worker, has practised social work in a range of social work contexts (statuary, not for profit and private). Her interest in professional supervision spans more than twenty years and includes supervision practice, education and research.  She is particularly interested in supervision as a generic practice and has supervised practitioners and managers from a range of professions and has delivered supervision education in tertiary academic settings and through workplace training workshops to similarly mixed professional groups. More recently she held a senior leadership and management position within a tertiary education institution which delivered professional health and social care qualifications.

Currently she is focussing on research, academic writing and doctoral study. She is a contract lecturer at the University of Auckland and has a small private practice delivering supervision training and providing professional supervision. 

Janet May, Waikato Institute of Technology

Senior Academic Staff Member 

Centre for Health and Social Practice 

WINTEC

BSW, MSc (counsellor, supervision and training),

PhD candidate 

Member New Zealand Association of Counsellors

Beverly Burns, Private consultancy

B.Ed. M.Soc.Sc. Dip Psych (Clin.),
Registered Psychologist
16 Riverside Lane

Michael O’Connell, Lakes District Health Board

 Clinical nurse director/clinical advisor

 

 

References

Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (2016). Annual report. Retrieved from http://anzasw.nz/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-2015-2016.pdf

Beddoe, L. (2010). Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervision in “the risk society.” British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1279–1296.

Beddoe, L. (2016). Supervision in social work in Aotearoa New Zealand: Challenges in changing contexts. The Clinical Supervisor, 35(2), 156–174. doi:10.1080/07325223.2016.1217497

Beddoe, L. (2017). Harmful supervision: A commentary. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 88–101. doi:10.1080/07325223.2017.1295894

Beddoe, L., & Davys, A. (2016). Challenges in professional supervision: Current themes and models for practice. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Carpenter, J., Webb, C. M., & Bostock, L. (2013). The surprisingly weak evidence base for supervision: Findings from a systematic review of research in child welfare practice (2000–2012). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1843–1853.

Davys, A., & Beddoe, L. (2010). Best practice in professional supervision: A guide for the helping professions. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Davys, A. M., O’Connell, M., May, J., & Burns, B. (2017). Evaluation of professional supervision in Aotearoa/New Zealand: An interprofessional study. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 26(3), 249–258. doi:10.1111/inm.12254

Egan, R., Maidment, J., & Connolly, M. (2015). Who is watching whom? Surveillance in Australian social work supervision. British Journal of Social Work, 1–19. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv098

Ellis, M. V. (2017). Clinical supervision contract & consent statement [ECPY 806]. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 145–159. doi:10.1080/07325223.2017.1321885

Ellis, M. V., Berger, L., Hanus, A. E., Ayala, E. E., Swords, B. A., & Siembor, M. (2014). Inadequate and harmful clinical supervision: Testing a revised framework and assessing occurrence. The Counseling Psychologist, 42, 434–472.

Ellis, M. V., Creaner, M., Hutman, H. B., & Timulak, L. (2015). A comparative study of clinical supervision in the Republic of Ireland and the US. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 621–631.

Falender, C. A. (2014). Supervision outcomes: Beginning the journey beyond the emperor’s new clothes. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 8(3), 143–148.

Fox, M., Martin, P., & Green, G. (2007). Doing practitioner research. London, UK: Sage.

Garrett, K. J., & Barretta-Herman, A. (1995). Moving from supervision to professional development. The Clinical Supervisor, 13(2), 97–110.

Grauel, T. (2002). Professional oversight: The neglected histories of supervision. In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A practical approach (pp. 261–271). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall.

Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 28–47.

Laming, The Lord. (2009). The protection of children in England: A progress report. London, UK: Stationery Office.

McNamara, M. L., Kangos, K. A., Corp, D. A., Ellis, M. V., & Taylor, E. J. (2017). Narratives of harmful clinical supervision: Synthesis and recommendations. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(1), 124–144. doi:10.1080/07325223.2017.1298488

Milne, D. (2007). An empirical definition of clinical supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(Part 4), 437–447.

Morrison, T., & Wonnacott, J. (2010). Building foundations for best practice. Supervision: now or never, reclaiming reflective supervision in social work. Retrieved from http://www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=545d7e64-f5b1-43a0-b4cb-46a03c7acce6&groupId=10180

O’Donoghue, K. (2015). Issues and challenges facing social work supervision in the twenty-first century. China Journal of Social Work, 8(2), 136–149. doi:10.1080/17525098.2015.1039172

O’Donoghue, K. (2016). An evaluation of clinical supervision of allied health professionals from two district health boards: A preliminary summary report. Palmerston North, NZ: Massey University.

O’Donoghue, K., Munford, R., & Trlin, A. (2005). Mapping the territory: Supervision within the Association. Social Work Review, 17(4), 46-64.

O’Donoghue, K., Munford, R., & Trlin, A. (2006). What’s best about social work supervision according to association members. Social Work Review, 18(3), 79–92.

O’Donoghue, K., & Tsui, M.-s. (2013). Social work supervision research (1970–2010): The way we were and the way ahead. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 616–633.

Payne, M. (1994). Personal supervision in social work. In A. Connor & S. Black (Eds.), Performance review and quality in social care (pp. 43–58). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

Pettes, D. (1967). Supervision in social work. London, UK: George Allen & Unwin.

Rains, E. (2007). Interdisciplinary supervisor development in a community health service. Social Work Review, 19(3), 58–65.

Watkins, C. E. (2011). Does psychotherapy supervision contribute to patient outcomes? Considering thirty years of research. The Clinical Supervisor, 30(2), 235–256.

Wheeler, S., & Barkham, M. (2014). A core evaluation battery for supervision. In C. E. Watkins & D. L. Milne (Eds.), Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 367–467). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Downloads

Published

2017-09-25

How to Cite

Davys, A. M., May, J., Burns, B., & O’Connell, M. (2017). Evaluating social work supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(3), 108–121. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss3id314

Issue

Vol. 29 No. 3 (2017)

Section

Original Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.

You and any co-authors

If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.

First publication

By submitting the work you are:

  1. granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
  2. confirming that the work is original; and
  3. confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.

Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.

Copyright

You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.

The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.

A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.

Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.

This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.

Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.

The copyright of others

If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:

  1. falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
  2. that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.