Social Work Supervision

Contexts and Concepts

Ming-sum Tsui

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781452238579
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Trabajo social

A book on social work supervision is desperately needed to bridge the gap between the demands of the field and the absence of literature. Social Work Supervision: Contexts and Concepts aims to provide readers with basic knowledge of theories, research, and practice of supervision. The book addresses the needs of social work supervisors, frontline practitioners, students, and educators andcontains a comprehensive literature review of the historical development, theories and models, and empirical research studies of the subject. Equally important, this is a book from practice experience in supervision that enhances the competence of supervisory practice. It will help social workers, supervisors, and administrators to realize and revitalize their "mission" in social work, that is, to benefit clients.

1

The History, Definition, and Objectives of Social Work Supervision

The History of Social Work Supervision

Although the historical development of social work supervision provides critical insights into its nature, scant scholarly attention has been paid to this subject (Rabinowitz, 1987), and little effort has been made to search through the history of social work practice to discover when and how supervision arose. Only by tracing the roots of social work supervision can we understand its philosophy, identify its important and unique features, clarify its functions, and explain those functions in organizational and cultural contexts. As the history of social work supervision is lengthy (beginning in 1878), for the purpose of this review, it has been divided into five stages, each with its own dominant theme.

1. The Administrative Roots of Social Work Supervision

In North America, the roots of social work supervision can be found in the Charity Organization Societies (COS) movement, which began in 1878 in Buffalo, New York. Today, social work supervision has three main functions: administrative, educational, and supportive (Austin, 1957; Erera & Lazar, 1994a; Kadushin, 1976, 1985, 1992a; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Munson, 1979d, 1993; Payne, 1994; Poertner & Rapp, 1983; Shulman, 1993, 1995). There has been considerable debate as to which function was dominant during the early COS years. Some scholars suggest that supervision in social work was established to fulfill an educational function (Encyclopedia of Social Work, 1965; Kadushin, 1976, 1985, 1992a; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002), while others argue that social work supervision began as a form of administrative accountability (Austin, 1957; Kutzik, 1977; Waldfogel, 1983).

Those who believe education was the first function argue that educational supervision in the early COS years must have been necessary because most agency visitors were untrained volunteers (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). However, Kutzik (1977) pointed out that, although untrained, the volunteer visitors came from the upper classes of society. In fact, they were board members of the agency, and they would not have been supervised by paid agents drawn from the middle and working classes who served as clerks or case assistants. As Kutzik (1977) observed, consultation rather than supervision was the rule among the COS settlement staff. The egalitarian nature of the COS movement made it difficult to establish the hierarchical relationship of administrative supervision. Hence, it can be concluded that there was an absence of administrative supervision in the early COS years (Kutzik, 1977). At the outset of the twentieth century, it became the practice to recruit agency visitors from the middle and working classes. There was a need to maintain a stable workforce of agency visitors. Some positions became paid jobs. Supervision then became a way for the top management of human service agencies to ensure administrative accountability. Given the historical context, it is likely that supervision was, at its inception, administrative rather than educational or supportive. Although many supervisors and frontline social workers think that the roots of social work supervision were educational or supportive, it is just the ideal, not the reality, of the history in the social work field.

Although the administrative function probably emerged first, educational and emotional support soon followed, during the early years of the twentieth century. As some agency visitors did not know how to offer help to the needy, there was a high turnover. Job orientation and training were carried out by the experienced and permanent agency staff (Kadushin, 1981; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). However, the primary duties of the senior staff were still administrative, such as program planning, assigning workloads to the volunteers, and assessing the results of service delivery. At the same time, the supervisors also gave emotional support to agency visitors who felt frustrated in their work with clients. This is the earliest record of supportive supervision in the history of social work. Nevertheless, the dominant mode of supervision in the early years of the social work profession was administrative, and this continued to be the case throughout the twentieth century.

2. Change of Context: A Shift to the Educational Function

In 1898, a six-week summer training program was offered to 27 students by the New York Charity Organization Society. This was probably the first formal social work education program in the world. After several summer training programs, the New York School of Philanthropy was established in 1904; it offered a one-year program with student fieldwork instruction. It evolved into the first school of social work, which is now Columbia University’s School of Social Work in New York City (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002; Rabinowitz, 1987).

In 1911, the first course in fieldwork supervision was offered under the sponsorship of the Charity Organization Department of the Russell Sage Foundation, headed by the highly respected social work pioneer, Mary Richmond (Kadushin, 1976, 1985, 1992a; Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). In the 1920s, the location for the training of social workers shifted from the human service agency to the university, and fieldwork supervision came to be viewed as an educational process that imparted the required values, professional knowledge, and practice skills to prospective social workers. Students learned social work practice at individual supervision sessions in their fieldwork placements (Munson, 2002). This format was derived from the tutorial system used in British universities such as Cambridge and Oxford. As a result of these educational roots, tutorials, and individual conferences were adopted as the most common formats for the supervision of social workers in human service agencies. According to Munson (2002), the form and structure of social work supervision have remained constant from the late nineteenth century to the present, but the content has evolved over the years. Social work supervision reflects the values of our society and the strategies of professional practice. It is natural that social work supervisors practice what they learned in college and adopt the role of tutor when they become social work supervisors. Thus, the individual conference has become the dominant format for social work supervision (Kadushin, 1992b; Ko, 1987). Student supervision, then, influences the format and content of staff supervision in the social work field, although the processes are different in terms of focus and structure (Bogo & Vayda, 1998). For some frontline social workers, student supervision remains the ideal format of social work supervision in the mind of frontline social workers (Tsui, 2001).

Prior to 1920, the social work literature contained no reference materials on social work supervision (Kadushin & Harkness, 2002). However, when fieldwork supervision became an integral part of social work education, it was no longer enough to teach “how” to be a social worker; a practice teacher had to be able to show students “why” social work strategies were effective, in order to make a training program competent and comprehensive. Student supervision was a mechanism for social work students to learn by doing. An experienced social worker oversaw the work of the student. Student supervision was seen as a key part of the learning process. Staff supervision and student supervision took separate paths, because the function of field instruction was primarily educational: it bridged the gap between the education provided by schools of social work and the reality encountered in human service organizations (Bogo & Vayda, 1987; Rogers & McDonald, 1992; Vayda & Bogo, 1991).

The teaching required some theoretical underpinnings. In 1936, Virginia Robinson published the first book on social work supervision, Supervision in Social Case Work, which defined supervision as “an educational process” (Robinson, 1936). Following her lead, there were 35 articles on supervision for caseworkers published between 1920 and 1945 in The Family (which was renamed Social Casework and is today Families in Society). During this period, the professional development of social workers became the primary purpose of social work supervision (Burns, 1958; Harkness & Poertner, 1989). For a long period of time, student supervision and staff supervision were considered similar. It was not until the mid-1960s that scholars and researchers began to recognize the conceptual, methodological, and practical differences between staff supervision and student supervision. Bogo and Vayda (1987) conceptualized the differences in terms of purpose and mission, activities, time perspective, primary focus, rewarded behaviors, approach, and method of governance.

According to Bogo and Vayda (1998), there are seven differences between the frame of reference of student fieldwork supervision and that of staff supervision. First, the purpose and mission of student fieldwork supervision is education, while that of staff supervision is quality of service to clients. Second, the core activities in a school of social work are teaching and research, while a human service organization emphasizes the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery. Third, schools focus on future-oriented goals, for example, values orientation, knowledge education, and skill competence of the students, while social work agencies focus on present-oriented goals, that is, the provision of high-quality human services. Fourth, the primary focus of a school of social work is the analysis of current practice, while a human service organization focuses on the maintenance, enhancement, and effectiveness of current service programs. Fifth, the occupations of student fieldwork placement include critical analysis; developing, testing, and reporting new ideas; and independent intellectual activity. An organization pursues competent job performance, system maintenance, and interdependent teamwork. Sixth, the approach to social work in schools is rather general and abstract, but it is specific and concrete in the human service organization. Finally, the method of governance in schools is collegial and decisions are made by consensus, while a human service organization’s authority is centralized and hierarchical, as it must be accountable to top management and funding bodies.

3. The Influence of Practice Theory and Methods

During the 1920s and 1930s, innovation in the field of social work was not limited to education. There were major changes in social work practice that had a profound impact on social work supervision. In the 1920s, psychoanalytic theory became an influential paradigm in the helping professions (Munson, 2002), which led to an integration of psychoanalysis and social work in the 1930s. Social workers borrowed selectively from psychoanalysis (and were especially drawn to the concept of the unconscious) to better understand the motivation, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of both the social worker and the client. Social workers began to understand that self-awareness and understanding of their own personal attitudes and feelings are important to their professional practice. During this period, due to the pervasive influence of psychoanalytic theory, the supervisory process was viewed as a therapeutic process by social work supervisors (Rabinowitz, 1987). Influenced by the psychoanalytic concepts of the unconscious, transference, and counter-transference, social workers became aware that their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors with clients were influenced by issues beyond their conscious awareness. To provide good service, the social worker must become “self-aware.” The process of gaining self-awareness occurred during individual supervision sessions of analysis or therapy involving the supervisor and the supervisee. These sessions shed light on the personal and affective aspects of social work supervision.

Until the 1950s, the social casework method had a great impact on the format and structure of social work supervision (Austin, 1952; Munson, 2002; Towle, 1954). Some aspects of this method are still in evidence, such as the dyadic relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee and the confidentiality of the content of the supervisory session. Some supervisors even extend the concept of the “worker-client” supervisory model to include a “parallel process,” which is called “isomorphism” in clinical supervision. It refers to a complex structure that is mapped onto another complex structure. This means the supervisees use the same skills to help their clients that their supervisors used to help them. Kahn (1979) noted that supervisors are aware of the workings of this parallel process. Both the treatment of clients and the supervision of staff require a good relationship between a more knowledgeable “expert” and a motivated learner. In both processes, cognitive and emotional capacities are engaged and an attempt is made to transfer “knowing” into “doing.” However, the goals of treatment and supervision are different. For the client, the goal of social work intervention is personal growth, coping ability, and social functioning. For these purposes, the social worker makes a psychosocial diagnosis. For supervision, the major goal is to enhance professional growth in order for the supervisee to achieve a stable professional identity. What the supervisor does is to make an educational assessment and conduct staff development.

The casework approach to supervision, although still in use, has been rejected by many social workers who consider “caseworking the caseworker” a violation of the privacy of the supervisees (Kadushin, 1992b; Kadushin, & Harkness 2002; Ko, 1987; Munson, 2002). Helping professionals are also human beings whose privacy should be respected and protected. There are no grounds for the supervisor to examine the personal life of a supervisee unless the supervisee invites the supervisor to do so.

4. Debate Between Interminable Supervision and Autonomous Practice

As we have seen, in the early years of social work practice, supervision was a means of monitoring the work of volunteers. At a later stage, formal social work training programs that included fieldwork supervision as part of the learning process were set up in universities. After the integration of psychoanalytic treatment theories and methods into social work practice, supervision became a therapeutic process for frontline social workers. By the 1950s, the therapeutic emphasis had waned and supervision came to be regarded as a stage in professional development for social workers (Rabinowitz, 1987). The psycho-dynamic influence remained in the supervisory process, but social work supervision evolved to become a lifelong process in the professional career of frontline social workers.

In the 1940s and 1950s, questions arose about the value of, and the need for, continuing social work supervision for professionally trained social workers (Austin, 1942; Bacock, 1953; Schour, 1951). With the creation of the National Association of Social Workers in the United States in 1956, social work took a significant step toward mature professionalization; however, the strong desire to achieve professional status soon led to a debate regarding professional autonomy. As independent practice and continual learning were regarded as two hallmarks of well-developed professions (Waldfogel, 1983), some social workers perceived extended supervision as an insult to their professional status and a symbol of their dependency, and began to search for alternatives (Austin, 1942; Eisenberg, 1956; Stiles, 1979). There was a movement away from “interminable” supervision toward autonomous practice, achieved after a number of years of professional practice (Austin, 1957; Munson, 2002). The advocates of autonomous practice maintain that a professional social worker with a master’s in social work (MSW) and two to six years of experience in a specific service setting should be allowed to practice independently. He or she could consult an external expert whenever necessary.

The western New York chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) conducted the earliest empirical study of supervisory practice in 1958. Self-administered questionnaires were sent to all members (N = 229) of the western New York chapter. One hundred members returned completed questionnaires. The respondents generally felt satisfied with their supervision. However, they believed that there was a need to change supervision gradually in order to meet the needs of the individual staff. No respondent objected to supervisory authority or rejected the administrative functions of the supervisor; however, they considered the educational and supportive functions of supervision more useful.

5. A Return to the Administrative Roots in the Age of Accountability

As a result of the growth of managerialism that became prevalent in the 1980s, human service organizations have faced increasing demands from the government and the community to ensure that funding is spent in a “value-for-money” and “cost-effective” manner. Resources and funding are now dependent on the evaluation of the outcomes of service delivery. The quality of service is determined not only by professional practitioners but also by funding bodies and service consumers (Clarke, Gewirtz, & McLaughlin, 2000, 2001; Enteman, 1993; Flynn, 2000; Morgan & Payne, 2002; Pollitt, 1993; Tsui, 1998a; Tsui & Cheung, 2000b, 2004).

From the perspective of managerialism, the client is a customer, not a service consumer. The manager, not the frontline social worker, becomes the key person. Staff are viewed as employees, not as professionals. Management knowledge (not common sense or professional knowledge) is perceived as the core technology. The market, not society or the community, is the dominant environment. Cost effectiveness (that is, efficiency), not effectiveness, is the yardstick for organizational performance. Contracts replace care and concern as the bases of relationships. Under managerialism, the emphasis is on job performance, task orientation, standardization, documentation, consumerism, and cost awareness. The worker-client relationship becomes a transaction instead of a transformation (Tsui & Cheung, 2004). Influenced by all these changes, supervisors of human service organizations, and the profession as a whole, began, once again, to focus on the administrative function of supervision in order to promote effective and efficient service to clients.

This shift of focus is reflected in the changing definitions of social work supervision in five editions of the Encyclopedia of Social Work. In 1965, social work supervision was still defined as an educational process (Encyclopedia of Social Work, 1965); however, in the following three editions, the definitions were more administratively oriented (Encyclopedia of Social Work, 1971, 1977, 1987). For example, the 1987 edition states that the new emphasis on the managerial functions of supervision reflects that an organic integration of the administrative and educational foci of supervision is crucial to enhancing the quality and productivity of human service organizations. In the 1995 edition, Shulman cited both the administrative and the educational functions. As he observed, “This emphasis on the educational aspect of supervision has over the years been combined with a second emphasis on administration that includes efforts to control and coordinate social workers to get the job done” (p. 2373). In the field of social work, the differentiation of supervision according to service settings has become apparent. For example, medic...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Series Editor’s Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• 1. The History, Definition, and Objectives of Social Work Supervision
• 2. Theoretical Models of Social Work Supervision
• 3. Constructing a Comprehensive Model of Social Work Supervision Within a Cultural Context
• 4. The Contexts of Supervision
• 5. Administrative Functions
• 6. Educational and Supportive Functions
• 7. Power Issues Between Supervisors and Supervisees
• 8. The Stages, Strategies, and Skills of Supervision
• 9. Planning and Preparation
• 10. The State of the Art of Research on Social Work Supervision
• Appendix: A List of Empirical Research on Staff Supervision in Social Work (1950–2002)
• References
• Index
• About the Author