This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 04 December 2014, At: 16:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australian Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20

The State of Social Work Supervision inVictoria According to the PractitionersAnn Jackson PilcherPublished online: 15 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Ann Jackson Pilcher (1984) The State of Social Work Supervision in Victoria According tothe Practitioners, Australian Social Work, 37:3-4, 33-43, DOI: 10.1080/03124078408549809

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03124078408549809

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The State of Social Work Supervisionin Victoria According to thePractitionersANN JACKSON PILCHER*

Though supervision has been an integral part of social work practice sinceits inception there has been relatively little professional writing in this areasince the 1950s and even less research.1 Two surveys were conducted inVictoria (with practitioners and administrators) to obtain information onthe state of staff supervision. Data from the practitioners (N=102) indicatesupervision is more available than it used to be; is considered to be neces-sary for effective practice; and most respondents believe it should continueindefinitely. While the quality of supervision has improved, one third of therespondents believe it needs up-grading. A majority think there should bemore training programs in supervision, and that the Australian Associationof Social Workers has a leadership role to play in this regard.

To what extent does socialwork supervision exist in Victoriaand to whom is it available? Whatare the types of supervision prac-tised? Who provides it, and whatare their qualifications? And howcompetently is the process regard-ed by supervisors and supervisees?

These and other questionsabout social work supervisioncame out of a concern the Victo-rian Branch of the AustralianAssociation of Social Workers hasabout the nature and quality ofsupervision available to socialwork practitioners in Victoria.This concern stems from the beliefthat standards of practice and thequality of service to clients arepositively associated with theavailability of competent super-vision.

The La Trobe UniversityDepartment of Social Work at therequest of the Victorian Branch ofthe Australian Association ofSocial Workers conducted twosurveys in 1981, one of social workpractitioners, another of socialwelfare administrators, to obtain

*Ann Jackson Pitcher is a seniorlecturer at the Department of SocialWork at La Trobe University inMelbourne. Social Work supervisionhas been a primary teaching area forfive years in the M.S. W. Course.

information on supervision as itwas currently being practised. Thesurvey, it was believed, would alsoidentify some gaps and needs insocial work supervision.

Objectives of the Study1. The development of a

comprehensive picture ofsupervision as viewed by asample of social work practi-tioners and administrators inVictoria, including their dem-ographic characteristics, cur-rent membership in The Aus-tralian Association of SocialWorkers and the AustralianSocial Welfare Union, as wellas their responsibilities, fieldsof practice, and type and sizeof their employing agencies.

2. Whether these practitionersand administrators receiveand/or provide staff super-vision, and the nature, pur-pose, and quality of thatsupervision. Student super-vision was excluded.

3. Agency policy regarding thepractice of supervision, thequalifications of those whoprovide it, and any contrac-tual arrangement of the pro-cess in terms of content andduration.

4. The indications of need forsupervision in social work,and for training programs forsupervisors.This article addresses these

issues from the perspectives ofsocial work practitioners only. Asubsequent article will present datafrom social welfare administrators.

MethodologyIn this survey a stratified

random sampling method was uti-lised. A questionnaire was sent totwo groups of qualified socialworkers in Victoria. One sub-stratum consisted of a 20% randomsample of those individuals whoqualified in social work from thefour Schools/Departments in Vic-toria in the years 1977 through1980. The other substratum con-sisted of a 20% random sample ofthe 1981 Victorian Branch mem-bers of the Australian Associationof Social Workers, who had alsobeen members in 1976. (Thisprocedure avoided an overlap ofthe two groups.) Altogether therewere 207 mailings to qualifiedpractitioners and 102 (49%) usableforms returned.

As is usual in stratified ran-dom sampling, a simple randomsample was taken from each stra-tum (as outlined above) and thesubsamples were then joined toform the total sample.2 Thus datafrom the two groups in this surveywere analysed as one sample. Allquestionnaires returned were re-viewed by the chief investigator forinterpretation and then coded byindividuals especially trained forthis purpose. The data were analy-sed through the use of ratios, pro-portions and percentages.

Limitations of the StudyWith a 49% response rate, the

study may or may not be represen-tative and the findings should notbe generalised to all social workpractitioners and social welfareagencies in Victoria. The responseratio also reduced the total numberin the sample and in many in-stances there were too few cases for

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4 33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

the analysis to be definitive; thiswas particularly true when thevariables had a number of catego-ries. In addition, although themembers of the Australian Asso-ciation of Social Workers whoreceived questionnaires were ran-domly selected, not all qualifiedsocial workers elect to becomemembers of the professional asso-ciationP Therefore, any generalisa-tions should be viewed withcaution.

CHARACTERISTICS OFPRACTITIONERRESPONDENTS

Two-thirds of the socialworkers who responded to thissurvey on supervision were female- which mirrors the gender ratio insocial work generally.4 Ages rangedfrom 23 to 62 years with a third ofthe respondents in their 30s and aneven spread of 20% in each of theother three decades.

Professional qualificationsincluded: BSW, 50%; DipSocStud,45%; and MSW, 5%. Almost two-thirds of all the degrees weregranted between 1970 and 1979,with the earliest being granted in1940 and the most recent in 1980.

In terms of affiliation in theprofessional organisation, 59% ofthe respondents indicated theywere members of AASW. Since56% of those who responded wereof the group selected from theAASW membership list, these datasuggest that only a small number(3%) of those who had graduatedbetween 1977 and 1980 hadbecome members. Smith's study ofthe 1979 newly qualified socialworkers in Australia, however,found there was almost 9% in Vic-toria who had joined the profes-sional association.5 The differencein the Smith study and this one onAASW membership of recent gra-duates could well reflect the lowresponse rate of this survey. Interms of the Australian SocialWorkers Union, one-third of allrespondents indicated they weremembers.

In response to the question on'present position', two-thirds of therespondents identified themselvesas Social Workers, about one-thirdas Senior Social Workers, and only4% as Administrators. This cor-related with stated job responsibili-ties, with 38% in direct service;28% in direct service and middlemanagement; 15% in middle man-agement only; 8 % in direct serviceand administration; and 4% inadministration only.

The years of professional em-ployment ranged from 1 to 31years but almost one-third hadbeen in their present position onlya year or less, while only 6% hadbeen in their present position 10years or more. The fact that 85% ofthe respondents had been in theirpresent jobs five years or less mayreflect not only the recent gradu-ates surveyed, but a tendency ofsome social workers in Victoria toshift jobs every few years.

Information on the Workplaceof Respondents

Social work practitioners areemployed in both the public andthe private sectors of the com-munity. In this study the ratio ofrespondents is almost two-thirds inthe public sector to slightly morethan one-third in the voluntarysector. Although this may not be inkeeping with the enormous growthin small voluntary social agenciesin Australia from the 1980s on-ward,6 it is more in keeping withthe Smith study which found one-

half of the recent social workgraduates in Australia each yeargoing to work for the local, stateand/or Federal governments.7

Respondents were not askedto identify their agency but rathertheir 'Field of Practice'. Theirresponses were then categorisedinto six groups and ranked accord-ing to the number of respondentsin each. (See Table 1.)

An idea of the size of socialwelfare agencies represented in thesample comes from the reportednumber of qualified social workerson staff. This ranged from one to40 social workers in any agency.One-fourth of the respondentswere from agencies which em-ployed only one qualified socialworker, and at the other end of thescale there were two agencies with22, and one agency with 40 quali-fied social workers on staff.

To what extent are socialworkers involved in social welfarepolicy decisions? Although genera-lisations cannot be made overall,in the select population obtained,three-fourths of the respondentsreported there were no socialworkers in top management posi-tions in their agencies. Sixteenagencies had one social worker intop management, five agencies hadtwo, and one agency had four topmanagement positions filled bysocial workers.

In contrast, 82% of the agen-cies represented had one or moresocial workers in middle manage-ment positions. This ranged from

TABLE 1

Number of Respondents by Fields of Practice

Child and Family ServicesChild & Family agencies (18), Adoptions (1),General Welfare (2), Children's Protection (3).

Community Social WorkCommunity Health (9), Municipal Welfare (7),Migrant Welfare (2), Disabled & Handicapped (5),and Industrial Social Work (1).

Hospital Social WorkPublic Welfare

State and CommonwealthMental HealthSchool Social Work

24

24

1815

119

101

34 Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

one in 46 of the agencies to six suchpositions in two of the agencies.The interpretation of top andmiddle management as posed inthe questionnaire was left to theindividual respondents.

In terms of gender and middleor upper level positions, almostthree fourths of those carrying asenior social worker title werewomen, while only one-fourth ofthose who identified themselves asadministrators were women.Though these numbers are small,this too mirrors the typicalemployment pattern in social workwhere increasingly there seems tobe 'women's work' and 'men'swork' and the pay rate is discri-minatory.8 (See Table 2.)

THE SUPERVISIONPROCESS

As self-reported, supervisionwas available in 83% of the respon-dents' agencies, and not availablein 16% of them. One-fifth of therespondents, however, indicatedthere was provision for supervisionoutside their agency, while slightlymore than three-fourths said therewas not. Nevertheless, 44% of therespondents indicated they andothers in their agencies hadobtained outside supervision,despite the fact that only a third ofthe agencies allow time for it, andeven less pay for it (13%). Thesedata highlight a recognised need forsupervision whether the agencyprovides it or not, as well as thefact that some social workersobtain it independently of theagency.

Type of SupervisionThree-fourths of the respon-

dents indicated their agencies pro-vided individual supervision. Thiswas either individual supervisionas the sole form of oversight foralmost one-fourth of the respon-dents, or in combination withgroup and/or peer supervision forover half of them (53%). (See insetfor definitions.) This suggests thatwhile other types of supervisionhave been added, the traditionalone-to-one supervision is still seen

as important. The only other typeof supervision (besides individual)which was reported by a few res-pondents as being utilised indepen-dently of other types, was that ofpeer supervision. Finally, one outof 16 respondents indicated nosupervision was available in theiragencies.

Respondents were not signifi-cantly differentiated by fields ofpractice in terms of whether super-vision was provided (see Table 3 a)or the type of supervision available- with the exception of schoolsocial work which had a higherpercentage of group/peer supervi-sion (see Table 3b). This tableclarifies as well the respondentsfrom each field of practice whoreceived supervision from a quali-fied social worker.

It should be noted that whilethree-fourths of the respondentsindicated their agencies providedindividual supervision (either onits own or in conjunction withgroup or peer supervision), foronly two-thirds of them was it thetraditional type of one-to-oneinteraction as defined in the ques-tionnaire material.

When asked about 'other

types of supervision' practised intheir agencies, besides individual,group and peer supervision asdefined, one in six of the respon-dents provided some interestingresponses which ranged fromexplanation, to innovation, tocriticism. For example, some staffreceived 'supervision' in the formof administrative accountabilityfrom non-social work administra-tors, e.g. town clerks; othersindicate the use of consultationrather than line supervision; aswell as feedback and guidancethrough a multidisciplinary team.Some inaccurately described staffdevelopment activities as super-vision, e.g. case presentation withother disciplines, while othersmentioned supervision which in-volved non-social workers, e.g.welfare officers supervising volun-teers. The criticisms highlightedeither the lack of or the inadequacyof current supervision. For ex-ample, ad hoc or catch-as-catch-can assistance or unofficial helpfrom peers through desperation. Insum, this question picked up othertypes of staff assistance with prac-tice besides supervision, but insmall measure only.

TABLE2

Employment Position by Gender of Respondents

Employment Position

Gender Social Worker Senior SocialWorker

Administrator

No. Per cent No. Percent No. PercentMaleFemale

2544

36%64%

821

27%72%

31

75%25%

69 100% 29 99% 100%

TABLE3a

The extent to which supervision is provided, by fields of practice

FIELD OF PRACTICE Supervision Providedbyagency

No. ofRespondents

Child & FamilyAgencies

CommunitySocial Work

HospitalSocial Work

Public WelfareMental HealthSchool of Social Work

92%

75%

83%94%82%78%

24

24

1815119

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

Mandatory or NotIs supervision required for

social work practitioners? Accord-ing to the respondents, supervisionwas mandatory in two out of five ofthe agencies represented and vol-untary in one-third. A few of therespondents indicated both optionsexisted in their agencies, for in-stance, new workers were requiredto utilise supervision while experi-enced workers were not; or a cer-tain type of case, e.g. child abuse oradoption required the worker to besupervised, while other cases didnot. Thus, for over half the socialworkers in this study, supervision,was mandatory in their agenciesfor all or at least some of theworkers.

A few agencies required exter-nal supervision for their workersbut for the majority of those whoobtained it, it was a voluntaryactivity. Some comments of inter-est on this question by a few res-pondents include the observationsthat outside supervision is pri-vately purchased to prevent burn-out, informal peer supervision out-side the agency with other socialworkers is very important, andagency supervision is mandatoryby policy but it never happens so Ihave to go outside the agency. (SeeTable 4.)

Function of SupervisionSome indications of the struc-

ture supervision takes can be seenin the response to the request forthe primary function of the super-vision received. Traditionally,supervision has been seen to havethree major functions: administra-tive, educational and supportive.9

In this study almost one-thirdindicated all three functions wereequally important in their agen-cies, while others highlighted oneor another of the individual func-tions as primary. For various com-binations of these functions, asreported, see Table 5.

Agency PolicyAgency policy requiring all

staff to have supervision was iden-tified in two out of five of the

respondents' agencies, while one infive required only new staff to havesupervision. For most of the res-pondents there had been no recentchanges in policy on the provisionof supervision but, aside from a fewwho indicated a policy for super-vision existed but did not even-tuate, comments from the remain-ing 14% suggest some interestingtrends. For example, the recentevolvement of group supervision;greater flexibility regarding super-vision including meeting expressedneeds; increased availability andencouragement of supervision forall staff including clerical workers;policy change from no supervisionto all types of organised super-vision; and supervision now beingprovided by all experienced socialworkers while formerly it was theresponsibility of only the chiefsocial worker. These commentssuggest a greater use of supervisionand, for some, either a moreinformed approach to it, or pos-sibly some shift in the super-sub-ordinate relationship of traditionalsupervision.Job Specifications

Nearly one in five of therespondents did not know whether

any job specifications requiringsupervision existed in their agen-cies, but 28% said there were suchspecifications for new graduates.Changes in agency job specifica-tions requiring supervision werenoted by only a few of the respon-dents but they support the smalltrend noted earlier toward greateruse of supervision. For example,job specifications of unit headsbegan listing supervision two yearsago; in Social Work II job specifi-cations, emphasis has changedfrom direct service only to theinclusion of oversight of servicedelivery workers as well; and fin-ally, supervision is more often theresponsibility of all experiencedsocial workers.10

SUPERVISORSThe number of agency staff

who provided social work super-vision ranged from one such indi-vidual in 36 agencies, to 6-10 staffin six agencies. Social workers inone-fifth of the agencies receivedsupervision from outside person-nel who came into the agency; pri-marily psychiatrists and psycholo-gists but also members of the Vic-torian Association of Psychothe-rapy. Other non-social workers

TABLE4Number of respondents for when supervision is voluntary both within andexternal to their agencies

InternalSupervision

Mandatory 42Voluntary 34Both Voluntary

and Mandatory 1086

Not applicable 16102

TABLE5

ExternalSupervision

438

-4260

102

Number of respondents and their assessment of the importance of threefunctions of supervision

Administrative/educational/supportive, equally importantEducational/supportive, equally importantAdministrative/supportive, equally importantSupportive onlyAdministrative/educational, equally importantEducational onlyNAorDNR

3119161221

12102

36 Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

who provided supervision withinthe agency included guidanceofficers and agency administrators,e.g. business manager, town plan-ner and town clerk. Welfare offi-cers and non-qualified staff werementioned by a few in terms ofpeer supervision groups.

Agency RequirementsAcademic qualifications for

providing supervision to socialworkers in almost two-thirds of therespondents' agencies consisted ofa Diploma in Social Studies, aBSW or equivalent. Informationon other requirements such as jobclassification, years of experienceand specialised training was notknown by the majority of respon-dents. It was therefore impossibleto test for congruence in agencyrequirements and agency practice.However, three-fourths of thosestaff members currently providingsupervision to social workers inthese particular agencies had theirsocial work qualification, andalmost half of them had a job clas-sification of Social Worker II, III,IV, or the equivalent, with experi-ence. Only a very few had specia-lised training in supervision.

THE SUPERVISIONRESPONDENTS RECEIVE

Although eight out of tenagencies in the survey providedsupervision, only six out of tenrespondents received supervisionfrom a qualified social worker.

Those who did not receive socialwork supervision, yet worked inagencies which provided it, con-sisted mainly of social workers insenior positions, both middle andupper management, as well asthose supervised by members ofother disciplines already men-tioned. Other respondents who didnot receive social work supervisionincluded 'lone' social workers, andsome who worked in agencieswhere social work was not thedominant discipline, e.g. schools.In addition, we know that one outof six of the respondents' agenciesdid not provide any supervision.

Those respondents currentlyobtaining supervision outside theagency were primarily, but notentirely, in senior positions whoused it for consultation andsupport. This may well have bothan educational and supportivefunction but it has no administra-tive authority.

Types of SupervisionMost of the respondents

received individual supervisioneither on its own, or in combina-tion with group or peer super-vision, from qualified socialworkers. Nearly two-thirds fellinto this category. Thirteen percent of the respondents used peersupervision only, and 10% usedgroup supervision only. Thissuggests that individual super-vision, while still prevalent, isbeing supplemented by other types

of supervision and replacedentirely in some cases.

Furthermore, the data showdifferentiation in the fields of prac-tice which use the traditional one-to-one supervision as defined inthe questionnaire. (See Table 3b.)For instance, nearly nine out oftenof the hospital social workers andtwo-thirds of the child and familyagency workers used traditionallydefined supervision, while only athird of the respondents in mentalhealth and 50% or less of the socialworkers in other fields of practicedid so.

Some of the 'non-traditional'types of supervision reported byrespondents included:

a case planning body whichprovides the administrative,educational and supportivefunctions of supervision;collegiate advice;ideas' exchange throughmutual discussion;educational and supportivepeer supervision with mixeddisciplines;team supervision with deci-sion making powers;peer supervision - a policywhereby less experiencedworkers are paired with moreexperienced workers for dis-cussion of practice;consultation as needed;informal support soughtoutside from professionalfriends.

TABLE3b

The type of supervision by fields of practice, provided by qualified social workers

FIELD OF PRACTICE IndividualSupervision

CombinedIndividual,

Group,and Peer

Supervision

Peer/GroupSupervision

Only

NA No. ofRespondents

Child & FamilyAgencies

CommunitySocial Work

HospitalSocial Work

Public WelfareMental HealthSchool Social Work

24%

12%

22%25%

33%

71%

64%

67%58%56%17%

5%

12%

11%17%22%50%

12%

22%

17

91276

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

Some of these staff inter-actions, though not technicallydefinable as supervision, are never-theless innovative and reflectchange in stafFassistance practices.

Policies and Patterns ofSupervision

In terms of arrangements forsupervision only 10% of the res-pondents indicated they had aformal contract on either its con-tent or its duration. A contract isdefined as a written plan clearlyexplicating the content and dura-tion of supervision, mutuallyagreed to by the supervisor andsupervisee. An 'informal arrange-ment' for supervision means theterms for interaction betweensupervisor and supervisee are'understood' without being spelledout. There is little differentiation,in this regard, by fields of practice,though one-fourth of the mentalhealth and hospital social workersdid indicate a formal contract onthe content of supervision. Thenumbers, however, were small.Respondents believed their super-vision to be an ongoing process andlikely to continue indefinitely.

Supervision was mandatoryfor 59% of the respondents whoseoversight was provided by quali-fied social workers. This is notmuch greater than the average of

55% for all supervised respon-dents. However, this average,masks some differences among thefields of practice. For instance,supervision is mandatory in justover 80% of the public welfareagencies represented, in three-fourths of the child and familyagencies, in two-thirds of themental health and school socialwork settings, in 44% of thehospital social work settings and inonly one-third of the communitysocial work settings.

When asked about changes intheir supervisory policies andpatterns, approximately half of allrespondents indicated somechange in recent years. Among thefields of practice, there was morechange among hospital and mentalhealth social workers than amongcommunity social workers, publicwelfare or school social workers.

The changes indicated werecategorised into four areas andtabulated as follows: with experi-ence, a move toward greater inde-pendence in supervision - morelike consultation (47%); a movetoward more use of groups insupervision (30%); the introduc-tion of regular, more structured,good supervisory practices (13%);and, a decline of supervisory time(.07%). The field of practice whichstood out above the others in terms

TABLE6

of the move toward a consultancyapproach to supervision was thatof the child and family agencies.(See Table 6.) Again, since only41% of those receiving supervision

• from social workers indicated anychange in supervisory patterns, theactual numbers in each field ofpractice are small.

Purpose of SupervisionReceived

All respondents receivingsupervision, either internally orexternally to their agencies, wereasked to state its purpose, as theyunderstood it. Responses, whichwere not mutually exclusive, wereformulated into six categories andranked as follows: administrativeaccountability and support (each56%); problem-solving (38%);educational (33%); and profes-sional development (16%). (SeeFigure 1.)

A breakdown on this variablefrom those respondents receivingsupervision from social workersshows no sharp differentiationamong the fields of practice withthe exception of administrativeaccountability. This category wasidentified more than twice as oftenas any other purpose by the res-pondents in the child and familyagencies and in public welfare.

Changes in the supervisory process by fields of practice includes only those respondents receiving supervisionfrom social workers

FIELDOFPRACTICE

Child &Family

CommunitySocial Wk

HospitalSocial Wk

PublicWelfare

MentalHealth

SchoolSocial Wk

More LikeConsultation

7

1

2

1

3

014

(24%)

Changes in the Supervisory Process

More Useof Groups

2

2

2

3

0

110

(17%)

Introductionof Regular

Supervision

2

O

1

0

1

O4

(.07%)

Decline ofSupervision

O

O

1

O

O

12

(.03%)

NoChange

6

5

2

8

8

428

(47%)

DNR

O

0

1

0

0

O1

(.02%)

Totals

17

8

9

12

7

659

(100%)

38 Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

Quality of SupervisionReceived

In an attempt to assess thequality of the supervision respon-dents receive, they were given aseries of questions about the pro-fessional attributes of their super-visors. For example, 'would yousay your supervisor has sufficientknowledge of the standards thatdistinguish effective from ineffec-tive practice?' (85% said yes).Overall, the supervisors' know-ledge and skills were rated highly.The attribute with the lowestrating, 'sufficient social work pro-fessionalism to be a good rolemodel', was acknowledged to bepresent by 79% of the respondents.(See Table 7.)

In addition, respondents wereasked to indicate on a scale of oneto five, two other ratings, namely,the extent to which they think thesupervision they receive is compe-

tent, and the extent to which theyare satisfied with it. Althoughalmost 80% of the respondentsstated they found the supervisionthey received was 'highly compe-tent', only 62% were 'very satis-fied' with it. This was regardless ofthe discipline of the supervisor.(See Table 8.)

Some individual comments onthe level of satisfaction are critical.They include: 'vague performancestandards and a lack of clear expec-tations'; 'a supervisor of a differentdiscipline is unsatisfactory forprofessional development'; 'ingroups, supervision is directed tominimal level of knowledge andskills'; 'supervision is a stop-gapmeasure limited to policies of theagency'; and 'the personal cost ofhaving to go outside the agency forsupervision with the ensuing timeand confidentiality constraints'. Anumber of other comments weredirected at the lack of challenge

and constructive criticism, i.e.supervisors were too supportiveand unquestioning," but the mostfrequent comment was not on thequality but on the lack of sufficienttime for supervision, includingadequate preparation and plan-ning, because of competing workdemands and scarcity of resources.

In the breakdown of the fieldsof practice, where all respondentsare receiving supervision fromqualified social workers, therewere some interesting comparisonsbetween the competence and satis-faction ratings. For instance, 100%of public welfare respondentsassessed their supervision as'highly competent', yet only 42%rated it as 'very satisfactory'.Similarly, 88% of the communitysocial workers rated their super-vision as 'highly competent', yetonly 56% reported it to be 'verysatisfactory'. Respondents fromthe other fields of practice followed

Figure 1 : The Purpose of Supervision as Understood by Respondents ReceivingSupervision, and Those Providing Supervision

60-

55-

50-

45-

40-

35-

30-

25-

20-

15-

10-

5-

Providing Supervision(r?=37)

[ Receiving Supervision1 (N=5§)

Profes-sional

Develop-ment

ProblemSolving

SkillImprove-

ment

Educa-tion

Adminis-tration

Support

Note: As responses included more than one purpose, figures total more than100%.

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

a similar directional trend but thecontrasts were not as great.Apparently supervisors can beseen as competent while not meet-ing needs in individually satisfyingways. It should be re-emphasisedthat the actual numbers of respon-dents in the Fields of Practicebreakdown, i.e. those receiving

supervision from a qualified socialworker were small. While theyprovide some information, theycannot be taken as representative.

THE SUPERVISIONRESPONDENTS PROVIDE

A little over one-third of allrespondents were providing super-

TABLE7

Professional characteristics attributed to supervisors by respondents,supervisees, and by self

SUPERVISOR ATTRIBUTES

Respondentsreceiving

Supervision

Respondentsproviding

Supervision

Sufficient knowledge of standardsthat distinguish effective fromineffective practice 85%Sufficient knowledge of agencypolicies and procedures 88%Sufficient knowledge and experienceto make professionally sounddecisions 9 1 %Sufficient teaching ability fortransmitting social workknowledge and skills 83%Sufficient social workprofessionalism to be a goodrole model 79%Appropriate supportiveness ofsupervisee on the job 9 1 %

88%

9 1 %

96%

7 1 %

98%

8 1 %

TABLE 8

Overall ratings of competence of supervision received and satisfaction withsupervision received and provided (in percentages).

Very Competent Highly Satisfied

SupervisionReceived

SupervisionProvided

79%

45%

62%

38%

TABLE 9

Overall ratings of competence of supervision received, and satisfaction withsupervision received, by fields of practice (in percentages)

FIELDS OF Supervision Highly Satisfied No. ofPRACTICE Very Competent with Supervision Respondents

Child & FamilyServices 76% 65% 17

CommunitySocial Work 88% 56% 8

HospitalSocial Work 78% 89% 9

Public Welfare 100% 42% 12Mental Health 86% 7 1 % 7School

Social Work 83% 67% 6

vision to qualified social workers.Some were providing supervisionto other types of staff as well,namely, 'other professionals', 'paidnon-professionals' and 'unpaidnon-professionals'.

The type of supervision pro-vided to social workers and otherstaff was primarily individualoversight, either on its own or incombination with group and peersupervision. Almost two-thirds ofthem indicated the supervisionthey provided would fit the tradi-tional one-to-one glossary defini-tion, and would include the threefunctions of administration, edu-cation and support.

In terms of contractual ar-rangements only 8% of the respon-dents providing supervision, com-pared to 13% of respondentsreceiving supervision, had a formalcontract on either its content orduration. Similarly the other 92%indicated the arrangements oncontent and duration were infor-mal, i.e. 'they're understood with-out being spelled out'. In addition,the expectation was that theywould continue indefinitely.

The Purpose of the SupervisionProvided

Purpose is an important com-ponent of supervision. Accordingto the grouped respondents, thepurpose of the supervision pro-vided is viewed differently, interms of the importance of itsvarious component foci, from thesupervision received. For instance,professional development andproblem solving were included lessfrequently by those providingsupervision, than those receivingsupervision. For other perspectiveson the purpose of supervision asviewed by those receiving or pro-viding supervision, see Figure 1.

The Quality of the SupervisionProvided

On a self-report basis thoserespondents providing supervisionassessed themselves fairly gen-erously on the questions abouttheir supervisory attributes.

40 Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

'Teaching ability' was the lowestassessed attribute at 71%. (SeeTable 7.) However, when asked foran overall rating, using a scale of

• one to five, on the extent to whichthey thought their supervision wascompetent, only 45% marked'highly competent'; and even less,38%, indicated they were 'verysatisfied' with it. (See Table 8.)This is in marked contrast to thehigher ratings on the quality ofsupervision respondents received.NEEDS AND GAPS INSUPERVISION

While virtually all respon-dents believed in general that qua-lified social workers need super-vision, only half of those notreceiving it would have liked to. Afew of them, however, believedthat with more experiencedworkers, close oversight was notnecessary and that supervisionshould be more like consultation.In addition, the commentary byrespondents on the necessity forsupervision is interesting in itsemphasis - which are not mutuallyexclusive. For instance, profes-sional growth was the most fre-quently noted rationale for theneed of supervision (28%); whileadministrative accountability andthe educational function were eachnoted by one-fifth of the respon-dents: and the support functionwas noted by only one in seven ofthe respondents.

As stated earlier, three-fifthsof the respondents indicated theywere receiving supervision fromqualified social workers. It is fromthis group that the following infor-mation on the perceived needs andgaps in supervision is reported.

Three-fourths of the respon-dents indicated clearly that newgraduates and all staff shouldreceive regular supervision; only asmall number limited this to newstaff. In addition, very few respon-dents thought that supervisionshould be time limited. A follow-up question asking for the 'appro-priate duration' of supervisionshows three-quarters of the respon-dents believed it should be indef-

DEFINITION OF SUPERVISIONSocial Work supervision is a process wherein the supervisor, a

member of staff with administrative responsibility to whom authority isdelegated, directs, co-ordinates, enhances and evaluates the on-the-jobperformance of the supervisee for whose work he is held accountable...In implementing this responsibility, the supervisor performs admini-strative, educational and supportive functions in interaction with thesupervisee in the context of a positive relationship.

The ultimate objective of supervision is to deliver to agency clientsthe best possible service, both quantitatively and qualitatively, in accor-dance with agency policies and procedures.

Supervisors do not directly offer service to the client, but they doindirectly affect the level of service offered. Supervision is thus anindirect service.12

inite, while almost one-fifthbelieved it should depend on theknowledge and skills of the worker.Some interesting contrasts betweenfields of practice are evident on thisvariable; for instance, one-third ofthe social workers in schools,almost one-third in communitysocial work, and one-fifth in childand family agencies thought theduration of supervision shoulddepend on the experience of theworker, while considerably fewerworkers in hospitals, and even lessin public welfare thought it should.None of the social workers inmental health agreed with this, butseveral indicated two years ofsupervision should suffice.

There was considerable con-sensus on the need for supervisiongenerally, in the respondents'agencies (95%). Almost two-thirdsof them believed, as well, there wasa need for upgrading its quality. Ageneral comment in this regard wasnoted by some that ongoing profes-sional development is alwaysneeded, while more specific com-ments included a stated need forsupervisory training, more know-ledge and expertise, more struc-ture, time to plan, and the need toset expectations. Coupled with thisquestion was a query on whetherthe basic knowledge and skills ofsupervision required training. Vir-tually all of the respondentsasserted that it did.

In addition when respondentswere asked whether there was

'agency specific knowledge' theybelieved supervisors should have,80% of them agreed. This questionwas posed to elicit the need for sub-stantive knowledge of the problemarea the agency addresses in itsservice delivery, e.g. statutoryregulations, knowledge of familydynamics, etc. Most of the respon-dents suggested different areas ofsuch informational knowledge,however, one-fifth of them sug-gested as well, the need for instru-mental knowledge and skills, i.e. ofteaching and the supervisory pro-cess. Furthermore, when asked ifthe specialised substantive know-ledge respondents regarded asimportant, was currently beingprovided in their agencies, a littleover one-third of them said it wasnot, almost half agreed it was beingprovided, while one-fifth of therespondents said the question wasnot applicable.

When respondents were askedhow such specialised knowledgecould best be provided, a variety ofsuggestions for the acquisition ofboth substantive and instrumentalknowledge included opportunitieswithin the agency such as in-service training, use of a trainingofficer, supervisor peer groupsmeeting regularly to discuss andimprove supervisory techniques,experts coming in for this purpose,exchange with another peer on aregular basis, and informal read-ing. Opportunities for upgradingsupervisory knowledge and skills

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

outside the agency included work-shops, seminars and short courseson supervision (with time off forthis) as well as postgraduate train-ing by the schools and departmentsof social work. Other suggestionsincluded ongoing growth groupexperience for supervisors with afocus on knowledge of self and theimpact of oneself on others, theestablishment of professionalgroups which meet regularly withleaders skilled in middle manage-ments skills, as well as trainingsessions established and providedby the professional organisation,The Australian Association ofSocial Workers.

Readers CommentaryAlmost half of the respondents

accepted the invitation to addfurther comments on social worksupervision at the end of the ques-tionnaire. There were three majorthemes. Firstly, some spoke aboutthe pressing need for competentsupervision, i.e. with supervisorshaving sufficient knowledge andskills of the process, particularlyteaching skills; and that effectivesupervision requires not just ex-perience, but training, whichshould be compulsory; further,supervision should be recognisedby more realistic work load assign-ments. Secondly, others deploredthe lack of supervision and resent-ed its discouragement in theagency, and the need to go outsidethe agency for supervision. As onerespondent put it, "On my owntime and money, which is not taxdeductible." Included in thiscategory as well was the queryraised by several, "Where does thesupervisor go for consultation andsupport?" Thirdly, a number ofrespondents were laudatory. Forexample, "The supervision wereceive in this agency is extremelyimportant for effective practice, Iam not alone in deeply appreciat-ing the mandatory supervision wehave just started receiving, and thethoughtful comment, there areoften times when we question thequality of our service and deplore

THE FUNCTIONS OF SUPERVISIONA. The Administrative Function is one of management. It includes the

planning and assignment of work; the review and assessment ofwork; as well as the accountability and responsibility for the super-visees' work.

B. The Educational Function involves the provision of knowledge andinstrumental skills which are the workers' necessary equipment foreffective practice. Educational supervision ensures the professionaldevelopment of the worker.

C. The Supportive Function is concerned with helping the superviseedeal with job-related stress, and with developing attitudes and feel-ings conducive to maximum job performance. It helps sustainworker morale, gives supervisees a feeling of worth as professionals,a sense of belonging in the agency, and a sense of security in theirperformance.13

TYPES OF SUPERVISION

Individual SupervisionThe traditional one-to-one tutorial relationship between super-

visor and supervisee incorporating the definition and functions of super-vision.Group Supervision

In group supervision the supervisor, given educational and admini-strative responsibility for the activities of a specific number of workers,meets with them as a group to discharge these responsibilities. In groupsupervision, the agency mandate to the supervisor is implemented in thegroup and through the group.14

Peer SupervisionTwo or more workers meeting together, sometimes on a regular

basis, for the purpose of promoting the educational and supportivefunctions of supervision. It is a collegial group with differing degrees ofexpertise and experience but there is no administrative authority.

our scant knowledge in some areas- competent supervision can makea difference."

DISCUSSIONThough the representative-

ness of this survey is uncertain, thestudy does provide information onsocial workers in Victoria and theiragencies in terms of the nature,quality and practice of supervisionfrom which some inference's can bedrawn. For instance, there is someevidence to suggest that super-vision is in greater use now thanpreviously in Victoria, accordingto reported changes in supervisorypolicies and patterns. There is alsoa widespread belief in the need for

competent supervision. While afew respondents believed the con-tinuance of supervision shoulddepend on the worker's knowledgeand experience, virtually allrespondents believed supervisionshould continue indefinitely. Tosome, however, this means supportand consultation rather than tradi-tional supervision. The survey alsosuggests a lack of and need formore structure in terms of contentand duration of supervision. Thediscrepancy between the compe-tence and satisfaction scores onboth the supervision received, andthat provided, suggests that super-visors may have more knowledgeof the supervisory process than theskills to implement it.

42 Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and 4

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014

The survey findings suggestfurther research is needed to findout more conclusively if the use ofsupervision is changing in differentfields of social work, and if so,how? As well, what are the differ-ences between more and less expe-rienced social workers in their atti-tudes towards supervision and itsuse? Are new graduates going towork in 'sole' social work agencies?If so, what are the implications forsupervision? Research on theseand other issues should be under-taken to add to our knowledge ofsupervision.

Finally, the results of this sur-vey suggest that though there isconsiderable satisfaction with thequality of supervision now beingprovided, there are apparentlygaps in its availability, a need forupgrading its quality, as well as aneed for more training programs insupervision. While schools ordepartments of social work are

encouraged, by these respondents,to take up this challenge, they alsosuggest that the Australian Associ-ation of Social Workers has aleadership role and responsibilityto help upgrade social work super-vision. This could lead to im-proved standards of social workpractice and a higher quality ofservice to clients.

REFERENCES AND END NOTES1. After almost a 25-year gap. some recentadditions to the supervisory literature include:M. J. Austin. Supervisory Management for theHuman Services. Englewood, Cliff, N J jPrentice-Hall, 1981;L Donaldson, BehaviouralSupervision: Practical Ways to ChangeUnsatisfactory Behavior and IncreaseProductivity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1980; E. Gambrill andT. Stein, Supervision, ADecision-Making Approach. Sage Publications,Beverly Hills, 1983; R. Goldhammer, ClinicalSupervision. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston,1973; G. M. Hart. The Process of Supervision.Baltimore: University Park Press. 1982; A.Kadushin, Supervision in Social Work. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1976; C. E.Munson, (ed.) Social Work Supervision: ClassicStatements and Critical Issues. New York: FreePress, 197 9; and D. E. Pettes, Staff and StudentSupervision: A Task Centered Approach.

London: Allen & Unwin, 1979.2. Seltiz. Wrightman and Cook. ResearchMethods in Social Relations. 4th Edition, LouiseH. Kidder, Holdt Rinehart & Winston. 1981.3. According to the Victorian Branch Secretary ina telephone conversation on 3 March, 1984, onlyabout one-fourth of the eligible members actuallyjoin the Association. In October 1981 there wereapproximately 2 500 qualified social workers inVictoria and 641 members (25%). Though thenumbers are rising slowly, this percentage hasbeen generally typical.4. In Australia the 1976 census shows nearlytwo-thirds of employed social workers arewomen. See Judith Healy, The Status of Womenin the Australian Welfare industry, AustralianSocial Work, Vol. 35, No. 3,1982, pp. 19-26.5. N. J. Smith and R. Sandford, A Study of NewlyQualified Social Workers in Australia. MonashUniversity, Preliminary Report 1980.6. Adam Graycar, Retreat From the WelfareState. George Allen & Unwin, 1983, Chapter 9,pp. 156-163.7. Op.Cit, N.J. Smith.8. Op.Cit, Healy. pp. 22-23.9. Alfred Kadushin, Supervision in Social Work.Columbia University Press. 1976. p. 2 1 .10. Victoria is unique in being the only state thathas a social work award in the non-governmentsector. It is now 15 years (1969) sincesupervision was written into the job definitions ofClass II Social Workers and implicit in Class IIIand IV under the Social and Community ServicesAward in Victoria.11 . See Kadushin's seminal survey onsupervision wherein a major source ofdissatisfaction with supervisors was theirinability to be constructively critical. A. Kadushin,"Supervisor-Supervisee: A Survey", in SocialWork. Vol. 19 (May 1974). pp. 288-297.12. Op.Cit, Kadushin, 1976, p. 2 1 .13. Op.Cit, Kadushin. 1976, pp. 198-233.14. Op.Cit, Kadushin. 1976, p. 3 2 1 .

Australian Social Work September-December, 1984, Vol. 37, Nos. 3 and4 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

16:

54 0

4 D

ecem

ber

2014