Social work supervision in child and family services: Developing a working theory of how and why it works
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol31iss3id644Keywords:
Supervision, social work, children and families, what worksAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Does social work supervision work? Social work academics and others have argued repeatedly that we need to focus more attention on understanding whether and how supervision helps improve outcomes for people who use services. As things stand, we currently have little evidence either way—and although the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, this is far from an ideal situation.
APPROACH: Taking inspiration from realist approaches to evaluation, this article sets out an initial working theory of social work supervision for child and family services, developed from an analysis of six significant reviews of the supervision literature. Each review was analysed to identify key contexts, mechanisms and outcomes for supervision.
CONCLUSION: Notable gaps within the theory are identified in relation to workers, outcomes for children and families and how supervision can promote a rights-based approach. The article concludes by arguing that this working theory offers the basis for future evaluative studies of supervision.
References
Baginsky, M., Moriarty, J., Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., MacInnes, T., & Nagendran, T. (2010). Social workers workload survey: Messages from the frontline. London, UK: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Beddoe, L. (2010). Surveillance or reflection: Professional supervision in “the risk society.” British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1279–1296.
Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M. (2015). Towards an international consensus on a research agenda for social work supervision: Report on the first survey of a Delphi study. British Journal of Social Work, 46(6), 1568–1586. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv110.
Bogo, M., & Mcknight, K. (2006). Clinical supervision in social work. The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1–2), 49–67. doi:10.1300/j001v24n01_04.
Bostock, L., Forrester, D., Patrizo, L., Godfrey, T., & Zonouzi, M. (2017). Scaling and deepening the reclaiming social work model: Evaluation report. London, UK: Department for Education.
Bostock, L., Patrizo, L., Godfrey, T., Munro, E., & Forrester, D. (2019). How do we assess the quality of group supervision? Developing a coding framework. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 515–524. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.027.
British Association of Social Workers. (2011). UK supervision policy. Retrieved from http://cdn.basw.co.uk/upload/ basw_73346-6.pdf.
Byng, R., Norman, I., & Redfern, S. (2005). Using realistic evaluation to evaluate a practice-level intervention to improve primary healthcare for patients with long-term mental illness. Evaluation, 11(1), 69–93. doi:10.1177/1356389005053198
Byng, R., Norman, I., Redfern, S., & Jones, R. (2008). Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: Case study of a process evaluation. BMC Health Services Research, 8(1). doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-274
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. doi:10.1016/j. childyouth.2013.08.014
Carter, R. (2016). Social work is about human rights, not assessing the life out of people. Retrieved from https://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/07/06/social- work-human-rights-assessing-life-people/
Cashwell, C. S., Looby, E. J., & Housley, W. F. (1997). Appreciating cultural diversity through clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 75–85. doi:10.1300/j001v15n01_06
Cearley, S. (2004). The power of supervision in child welfare services. Child and Youth Care Forum, 33(5), 313−327.
Collins-Camargo, C., & Royse, D. (2010). A study of the relationships among effective supervision, organizational culture promoting evidence-based practice, and worker self-efficacy in public child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 4(1), 1–24. doi:10.1080/15548730903563053
Currie, J., Chiarella, M., & Buckley, T. (2019). Realist evaluation of privately practising nurse practitioners in Australia: Development and refinement of theories. Collegian, 26(1), 8–15. doi:10.1016/j. colegn.2018.01.006
Davys, A. (2017). Interprofessional supervision: A matter of difference. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(3), 79–94.
Davys, A., May, K., Burns, B., & O’Connell, M. (2017). Evaluating social work supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(3), 108–121.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1988). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York, NY: Free Press.
Elkington, J. (2014). A kaupapa M ̄aori supervision context – cultural and professional. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 26(1), 65–73.
Fleming, I., & Steen, L. (2013). Supervision and clinical psychology theory, practice and perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis.
Forrester, D. (2019, May). What is the point of child and family social work? Retrieved from https://sites.cardiff. ac.uk/cascade/2019/05/15/what-is-the-point-of-child-and- family-social-work/
Forrester, D., Westlake, D., Killian, M., Antonopolou, V., McCann, M., Thurnham, A., ... Hutchison, D. (2019). What is the relationship between worker skills and outcomes for families in child and family social work? The British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/ bjsw/bcy126
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gegenfurtner, A., & Vauras, M. (2012). Age-related differences in the relation between motivation to learn and transfer of training in adult continuing education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37(1), 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.09.003
Harkness, D. R. (1987). Social work supervision in community mental health: Effects of normal and client-focused supervision on client satisfaction and generalized contentment (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Harkness, D. (1995). The art of helping in supervised practice. The Clinical Supervisor, 13(1), 63–76. doi:10.1300/j001v13n01_05
Harkness, D. (1997). Testing interactional social work theory. The Clinical Supervisor, 15(1), 33–50. doi:10.1300/j001v15n01_03
Harkness, D., & Hensley, H. (1991). Changing the focus of social work supervision: Effects on client satisfaction and generalized contentment. Social Work, 36(6), 506–512. doi:10.1093/sw/36.6.506
Jacquet, S. E., Clark, S. J., Morazes, J. L., & Withers, R. (2008). The role of supervision in the retention of public child welfare workers. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1(3), 27−54.
Jordan, B. (1978). A comment on “Theory and Practice in Social Work.” British Journal of Social Work, 8(1), 23–25. doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a056919
Juby, C., & Scannapieco, M. (2007). Characteristics of workload management in public child welfare agencies. Administration in Social Work, 31(3), 95−109.
Kadushin, A., & Harkness, D. (2014). Supervision in social work (fifth edition). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Lees, A. (2017). Evaluation of reflective practice groups project: Brighton and Hove Children’s Services. London, UK: Centre for Social Work Practice.
Lietz, C. A. (2008). Implementation of group supervision in child welfare: Findings from Arizona’s supervision circle project. Child Welfare, 87(6), 31−48.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Hussein, S., Stevens, M., & Sharpe, E. (2015). Content and purpose of supervision in social work practice in England: Views of newly qualified social workers, managers and directors. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 52–68. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct102
McHugh, M., & Lake, E. (2010). Understanding clinical expertise: Nurse education, experience, and the hospital context. Research in Nursing and Health, 33(4), 276–287.
Moorhouse, L., Hay, K., & O’Donoghue, K. (2014). Listening to student experiences of supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 26(4), 37–52.
Mor Barak , M. M., Travis, D., Pyun, H., & Xie, B. (2009). The impact of supervision on worker outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Service Review, 83(1), 3–32. doi:10.1086/599028
Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/175391/Munro-Review.pdf
O’Donoghue, K., Wong Yuh Ju, P., & Tsui, M.-S. (2018). Constructing an evidence-informed social work supervision model. European Journal of Social Work, 21(3), 348–358.
O’Donoghue, K., & Tsui, M. (2015). Social work supervision research (1970–2010): The way we were and the way ahead. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 616–633. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct115
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2014). Realistic evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Rankine, M. (2017). Making the connections: A practice model for reflective supervision. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(3), 66–78.
Renner, L., Porter, R., & Preister, S. (2009). Improving the retention of child welfare workers by strengthening skills and increasing support for supervisors. Child Welfare, 88(5), 109–127.
Schraer, R. (2014, July 23). “Social work is a human rights discipline”: IFSW president speaks up for the profession. Retrieved from https://www.communitycare. co.uk/2014/07/23/social-work-human-rights-discipline- ifsw-president-speaks-profession/
Schraer, R. (2016, January 27). Patchy implementation of the ASYE leaves newly qualified social workers facing unprotected caseloads. Retrieved from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/01/27/patchy- implementation-asye-leaves-newly-qualified-social- workers-facing-unprotected-caseloads/
Sewell, K. M. (2018). Social work supervision of staff: A primer and scoping review (2013–2017). Clinical Social Work Journal, 46(4), 252–265. doi:10.1007/ s10615-018-0679-0
Shearn, K., Allmark, P., Piercy, H., & Hirst, J. (2017). Building realist program theory for large complex and messy interventions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–11. doi:10.1177/1609406917741796
Sheehan, L., O’Donnell, C., Brand, S., Forrester, D., Addis, S., El-Banna, A., Kemp, A., & Nurmatov, U. (2018, November). Signs of safety: Findings from a mixed- methods systematic review focussed on reducing the need for children to be in care. Retrieved from https://s29720.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Signs_of_ Safety_a_mixed_methods_systematic_review.pdf
Smith, C., Russell, R., & Giddings, M. (2007). Evaluating a social work supervision model in a real-world child welfare setting. Professional Development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 10(1), 10-24.
Spence, S. H., Wilson, J., Kavanagh, D., Strong, J. & Worrall, L. (2001). Clinical supervision in four mental health professions: A review of the evidence. Behaviour Change, 18(3), 135−155.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide. Retrieved from https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/programdevelopment/files/2016/03/lmguidecomplete.pdf
Tsui, M. (1997). Empirical research on social work supervision. Journal of Social Service Research, 23(2), 39–54. doi:10.1300/j079v23n02_03
Turner-Daly, B., & Jack, G. (2014). Rhetoric vs. reality in social work supervision: The experiences of a group of child care social workers in England. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 36–46. doi:10.1111/cfs.12191
Whittaker, C., & Wilkins, D. (2018). Doing child protection social work with parents: What are the barriers in practice? British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 2003–2019.
Wilkins, D., Forrester, D., & Grant, L. (2017). What happens in child and family social work? Child and Family Social Work, 22(2), 942–951.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
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:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- 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:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
