Effective supervision in social work and social care

Abstract

This research briefing provides an overview of the evidence concerning the value of supervision in supporting the practice of social care and social work.

Full text

Key messages
• Research has demonstrated that good
supervision is associated with job
satisfaction, commitment to the
organisation and retention.
• Supervision appears to help reduce
staff turnover and is significantly linked
to employees’ perceptions of the
support they receive from the
organisation.
• Good supervision is correlated with
perceived worker effectiveness. There is
some evidence that group supervision can
increase critical thinking.
• Supervision works best when it pays
attention to task assistance, social and
emotional support and that workers
have a positive relationship with
supervisors.
• The emotionally charged nature of the
work can place particular demands on
people in the field. It is important to
provide opportunities for reflective
supervision.
• In an inter-professional context, workers
relate job satisfaction and professional
development to their supervisor’s expert
knowledge, regardless of whether
respondents shared the same
professional background.
• The impact of supervision on outcomes
for service users and carers has rarely
been investigated. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that supervision may promote
empowerment, fewer complaints and
more positive feedback.
• Overall, the empirical basis for
supervision in social work and social
care in the UK is weak. Most of the evidence
is correlational and derives from child
welfare services in the US.
October 2012 Review date: April 2015
43
RESEARCH BRIEFING
Effective supervision in social
work and social care
Professor John Carpenter and Caroline Webb, Bristol University, Dr Lisa Bostock
and Caroline Coomber, SCIE

2
Introduction
This research briefing provides an overview of the
evidence concerning the value of supervision in
supporting the practice of social care and social
work. It is relevant to both children’s and adult
social care services and includes a consideration
of supervision in integrated, multi-professional
teams. While the focus is on social work and
social care, some of the research reviewed
includes participants from other professions
such as nursing and psychology.
The briefing covers evidence on the use of
different models of supervision and outcomes
for workers, employers, service users and carers.
It considers evidence on the costs of
supervision and concludes with implications
for policy-makers, practitioners, organisations,
service users, carers and researchers.
What is the issue?
Learning from supervised practice is an essential
component of the education and training of
social workers. Through regular, structured
meetings with a supervisor, students learn how
to manage a caseload, apply theory and research
evidence to practice, perform the key tasks of
assessment, planning and intervention, and
reflect on their own professional development.
Supervision is also an opportunity to seek and
receive emotional support for undertaking what
can often be a demanding and stressful role.
Supervision is, according to Lord Laming,1the
‘cornerstone’ of good social work practice – an
opinion reiterated by the Monro Review.2This
perspective is an important alternative to the
managerialist approach which, according to
Noble and Irwin,3 is preoccupied with supervision
geared toward efficiency, accountability and
worker performance.
A survey undertaken for the Social Work Task
Force indicated that social workers in England
were receiving very variable access to supervision
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43
and that it was process-driven and overly
focused on the management of cases at the
expense of reflection and professional
development.4A related concern, expressed
by Davys and Beddoe,5is that rather than
benefiting staff and ultimately service users,
supervision:
becomes part of a system of surveillance of
vulnerable and dangerous populations.5, pp 220
The benefits of developing a positive supervision
culture across wider social care and children’s
services are now widely recognised. National
guidance is limited, but regulations such as the
National Minimum Standards, linked to the Care
Standards Act 2000, require that supervision in
care homes, for example, takes place six times a
year and that it focuses on all aspects of practice,
philosophy of care and career development.6
More recently in England this has been
expressed as:
receiving appropriate training, professional
development, supervision and appraisal.7
This research brief applies to both social care
and social work whilst recognising that there is
a gap in the research evidence relating to social
care. Few studies overtly address the supervision
needs and experiences of social care workers,
although child welfare workers in the US may
have no social work training, depending on State
requirements.
Internationally there has been concern about the
retention of social workers. This has long been a
major problem in child welfare services in the US,
with a number of initiatives designed to promote
supervision, increase job satisfaction, decrease
stress and burnout, and encourage workers to
stay. Evidence from these initiatives features in
this briefing.
In the UK, there has also been concern about
the supervision of social workers and social
care workers working in integrated and
multi-disciplinary teams,8where professionals

may not be supervised by others from the same
discipline. Does this matter, if the key ingredients
are the same? Or are there some things, such as
values and working practices, which are special to
the individual disciplines and therefore to the
professional development of their practitioners?
What then do we mean by ‘supervision’?
The primary functions are:
•administrative case management
•reflecting on and learning from practice
•personal support
•mediation, in which the supervisor acts as a
bridge between the individual staff member
and the organisation
•professional development.
Although terminology differs, these functions
have consistently been identified in the practice
literature.5,9,10 Authors often seek to highlight
particular functions − for example, referring to
‘case management supervision’ and ‘reflective
supervision’.10 Authors with a behavioural health
background11,12 and social workers in North
America who provide clinical social work
(i.e. with an emphasis on counselling and
psychotherapy) refer to ‘clinical
supervision’.11,13–15 Definitions of reflective and
clinical supervision are very close, essentially
emphasising learning from case work with a
view to professional development. Nevertheless,
as the review by Spence et al.16 observed, there
is a proliferation of models, but little evidence
that these have had any significant impact on
the practice of supervision or outcomes for
service users.11
The method employed in supervision is primarily
the one-to-one meeting with a supervisor − in
the UK usually the worker’s line manager. But this
is not inevitably so: reflective and professional
development supervision may be given by a
senior practitioner or external consultant, and
group supervision may also be used. We need to
understand which of these methods is most
useful, for whom and in what circumstances.
Why is it important?
The overall aim of professional supervision
should be to provide the best possible support
to service users in accordance with the
organisation’s responsibilities and accountable
professional standards. Organisations are likely
to achieve this aim through workers who are
skilful, knowledgeable, clear about their roles
and assisted in their practice by sound advice
and emotional support from a supervisor with
whom they have a good professional
relationship. The secondary aim should be for
the wellbeing and job satisfaction of workers,
not simply because satisfied workers may be
more likely to remain in their jobs, but
because a duty of care for staff working in
difficult and challenging roles is important in
its own right.
Despite the many of models of supervision, few,
if any, are based on empirical research. This is
ironic since many supervisors actively seek to
promote evidence-based practice. It is widely
assumed by policy-makers, educators and
practitioners that supervision is a good thing.
But does the available research support this
assumption? This research briefing aims to
assess the evidence. It begins by summarising
what we know.
What do we know already?
The search identified three reviews of the
literature concerning the outcomes of
supervision for social workers and equivalent
professionals. The narrative review by Spence
et al.16 examined research on clinical psychology,
occupational therapy and speech pathology as
well as social work. It was not clear whether
supervision had any effect on workers’ practice or
whether it led to improved outcomes for service
users. There was some evidence to suggest that
directive, as opposed to unstructured, approaches
were preferred by less experienced practitioners
and also by the more experienced when faced
with new challenges. All supervisees preferred
3
Effective supervision in social work and social care

4
a supportive style of supervision. The authors
observe that supervisors reported little or no
training in how to supervise. Nevertheless, those
from the different disciplines engaged in very
similar supervision practices. Although
supervisors claimed to adapt their supervision
styles to the needs of individual supervisees,
the majority did not appear to do so.
Bogo and McKnight17 reviewed 13 peer-reviewed
articles from the US based on 11 separate studies.
Like Spence et al.,16 they found little evidence on
the outcomes of supervision, but conclude that
there is emerging evidence about the aspects of
supervision valued by supervisees − specifically
availability, positive relationships, mutual
communication, support and delegating
responsibility. Skilful supervisors with expertise
who were able to provide practical support were
particularly appreciated.
Most recently, Mor Barak et al.18 conducted a
meta-analysis of data from 27 papers which
provided information about the relationships
between three dimensions of supervision and
various outcomes for social workers, child
welfare and mental health workers. The
dimensions were:
•task assistance, defined as the supervisor’s
ability to provide tangible, work-related
guidance
•social and emotional support in responding to
emotional needs, including stress
•interpersonal interaction, which reflects the
supervisee’s perceptions of the quality of the
relationship and the extent to which this has
helped them be more effective in their work.
These dimensions were all positively and
significantly associated with beneficial outcomes
for workers, including job satisfaction,
commitment to the organisation, wellbeing and
perceived effectiveness. Conversely, they were
negatively associated statistically with
detrimental outcomes such as stress, burnout
and intention to leave.
The evidence for Mor Barak’s meta-analysis was
drawn from correlational and cross-sectional
studies in which a large number of variables are
investigated for their statistical associations with
outcomes for workers. In other words, this
evidence is not causal. It does not, and cannot,
prove that the observed effects at the time the
data were collected can be attributed to the
outcomes of supervision. Nevertheless, this
research provides good circumstantial evidence for
the effects of supervision on workers, and also
helpful definitions of key dimensions of supervision
and a framework for analysing outcomes.
What this research
briefing adds
The review undertaken for this research briefing
updates the evidence base to 2012 and extends
previous reviews by focusing on outcomes for
organisations and service users in addition to
workers. The briefing extracts information about
the nature and focus of the supervision as
described in the studies. It also assesses the
quality of the evidence and its relevance for
social work and social care practice in the UK.
The briefing identifies empirical studies that
report on the association between the process of
supervision and outcomes for service users,
workers and organisations. Intervention studies
are included. However, due to resource
constraints, studies addressing the perspectives
of supervisors have been excluded. The methods
used to identify and organise material were
developed by the Social Care Institute for
Excellence (SCIE). These involved undertaking
systematic and reproducible searches of the
research literature, identifying relevant studies
and assessing their quality. Empirical data was
extracted using a structured pro-forma which
focused on various outcomes of supervision.
The literature
The briefing aims to provide a signpost for further
reading, rather than a definitive account of ‘what
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

works’. It is based on papers published in peer
reviewed journals only between 2000 and 2012.
Fifty papers were identified, reporting 48
separate studies. The literature is predominately
US-based,19 with another seven studies reporting
data from Australia, Canada and Israel. Just three
studies were based in the UK.
The majority of papers focus on social work
with children and families,20 with just four
considering adult social care. Most studies21
are cross-sectional surveys and report only
correlational evidence in which supervision
figured as one factor among many that were
associated with practitioners’ job satisfaction,
stress, retention and intention to leave. Only four
studies report the results of interventions using
supervision to improve outcomes.
Just two papers report on associations between
the process of supervision and outcomes for
service users. No study reports on the
perspectives of service users, hence the
literature is silent on users’ and carers’ views
on supervision.
Two papers specifically focus on inter-professional
working within integrated teams, of which both
concern practice with adults. One, focused on
children and families, briefly addresses
intra-agency working.
Both social work and social care staff are
included in this review. However, it is not always
made explicit whether some papers refer to staff
qualified in social work, unqualified workers or
those with other related qualifications. Because a
substantial amount of research literature is from
the US and from child welfare services, it is
important to note that the educational
requirements for child welfare workers in that
country vary by state and even region and
municipality, meaning that many child welfare
workers have no social work qualification or
training. Hence, supervisors in these settings
often have to teach basic social work knowledge,
values and skills which it is likely social workers in
the UK would already possess. There is just one
5
Effective supervision in social work and social care
study which explicitly examines the perspectives
of social care staff, in this case home care
workers (HCWs) in Northern Ireland.
A significant problem faced by the reviewers
was that few papers provided information on
the nature, quality and regularity of supervision.
This, together with the fact that most of the
evidence is correlational and drawn extensively
from services in the US, makes it impossible to
draw definitive conclusions about the outcomes
of supervision in the UK. Nevertheless, this
briefing does identify a range of possible
outcomes for practitioners, employers and
service users and assesses the extent of
evidence for each.
What does the research
show?
Models of supervision
Few of the 50 studies reviewed provide
information about the nature of supervision.
This was noticeably the case in the majority of
studies included which investigated the
statistical associations between supervision and
outcomes for workers. This lack of specificity
unfortunately limits their usefulness.
In general, the majority of studies concerned
one-to-one supervision. Although it was not clear
whether this was provided by the worker’s line
manager or another person, the assumption
seems to be that it was the former. Of the few
studies which evaluated an intervention to
implement a new or enhanced approach to
supervision within an organisation, three describe
the model of supervision in some detail.13,22,23
These interventions all took place in child welfare
services in the US. The first three involved group-
based supervision, either alone or in combination
with individual supervision. Where the focus of
supervision was described, it was generally
‘reflective’ or ‘clinical’ supervision as opposed to
‘administrative’ or ‘case management’
supervision.

6
Smith et al.23 report on the Integrative
Supervision Model (ISM) in Georgia, US. The
four stages of ISM focus on case management,
educational/professional development,
clinical skills/reflective problem-solving and
emotional support. Experienced supervisors
were bought in and trained in ISM. The length
and frequency of the group supervision
sessions is not described, but the project
lasted around 18 months. A pilot study
employing pre-post measures with 17 social
workers indicated a statistically significant
change in participants’ perceived levels of
professional knowledge and skills. This finding
was supported by focus group data from social
workers and supervisors.
There were no studies comparing the outcomes
or cost-effectiveness of different models of
supervision. However, in a pilot study, Lee et al.24
assessed the job satisfaction ratings of mental
health workers in one service agency in the US
and conclude that participants who perceived
their supervision to involve mentoring
relationships were more satisfied with the
work itself, their supervision and their
co-workers than staff who did not.
Mentoring, defined as assigning tasks, teaching
the job, giving support, and providing inspiration
and advocacy, was also identified as a key
component of job satisfaction for supervisors
in a large-scale survey of child welfare services
in the US.25
Outcomes for workers
The importance of supervision to outcomes for
workers was the focus of most of the studies
reviewed. The conceptual model by Mor Barak
et al.18 identifies both beneficial and detrimental
outcomes associated with the dimensions of
supervision and provides a framework for
this section.
Job satisfaction
The quality of supervision is consistently associated
with positive worker outcomes, with a significant
number of papers addressing the impact of
supervision on job satisfaction.12,14, 15,24,26–33 Job
satisfaction coheres around the following
three themes:
•structure, focus and frequency of supervision
•task assistance (supervisor’s tangible,
work-related advice and instruction to a
supervisee)
•support to access resources for service users.
Structure, focus and frequency of supervision
Where reported, greater frequency of supervision
is associated with higher levels of satisfaction,
with one study reporting a minimum of two
hours per week as a perquisite to job satisfaction
and retention for urban child welfare workers in
the US.26
In a qualitative study that attempted to get to
grips with the structure, focus and frequency of
supervision, Bogo et al.14,28 explored the
experiences and perceptions of frontline health
and social care staff in relation to clinical
supervision and best practice. The context was
the merger of two addiction services and two
mental health facilities to create the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in
Toronto. Programme management was
introduced to improve patient care, meaning
that professionals no longer necessarily received
supervision from someone of their own
professional background.
Bogo et al. found that job satisfaction and
professional development, regardless of whether
respondents shared the same professional
background, were related to the following
important components of supervision:
•that it was regular
•that it was provided by those with expert
knowledge and clinical intervention skills for
the specific client population
•that it was able to teach new, effective
treatment methods and that there was
reciprocity and active involvement from
supervisees.
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

7
Effective supervision in social work and social care
audio-visual aids. Problems identified with the
delivery of supervision included:
•high clinical workload
•availability of supervision partner and sessions
not frequent enough
•insufficiently experienced supervisors
•lack of guidelines
•a need for training in supervision skills.
Kavanagh’s study goes beyond the description of
supervisory practices and characteristics and
examines which features were associated with
perceived impact on practice. Analysing
responses from supervisees only, due to
supervisors rating multiple relationships, the
study found:
•satisfaction with supervision and positive
attitudes to supervisors were strongly
associated with perceived impact on practice
•a positive relationship between frequency of
contact with supervisors from the same
discipline and perceived impact, but not with
cross-professional supervision
•that giving priority to discipline-specific skills
was strongly associated with impact, but time
spent on generic skills was not.
The authors conclude that:
from a management point of view, it
suggested that supervision may contribute
to better patient care and to staff
retention. A need for a more targeted
approach to skills acquisition was
identified, as was a discipline-specific focus
in sessions. Positivity of the supervision
relationship emerged as a key feature of
effective supervision, both in terms of its
impact on practice and on job satisfaction.
Accessing resources
In a study of home health social workers in
the US, Egan and Kardushin30 report on task
assistance in relation to accessing resources
for service users and its impact on job
Staff suggested that the emotional climate of
supervision − meaning a ‘safe, confidential space’
− was key in helping them to process the personal
impact of practice experiences. In contrast, when
supervision was focused on administrative issues
or performance management and productivity, it
was experienced negatively as being critical and
undermining of staff confidence.
Task assistance
Task assistance involves a supervisor’s tangible,
work-related advice and instruction to a
supervisee and focuses on training, skills and
solutions for practice.18 It is primarily related to
job satisfaction in this review, underlining its
importance to positive outcomes for workers,
supporting them to perform effectively. Task
assistance was of particular importance to
workers in terms of role clarity, supporting them
with perceived role competence and with task
knowledge and problem-solving.27
In Australia, Kavanagh et al.12 examined the
frequency and characteristics of practice-related
supervision in allied health staff, including social
workers in mental health services across
Queensland. The research reports supervision as
largely individual and face-to-face, with some by
teleconferencing in rural and regional areas.
There was a monthly median of two hours.
Almost all respondents had a supervisor from
their own profession and 45 per cent had
multiple supervisors. The primary focus of
supervision was on practice improvement rather
than therapeutic discussion for the supervisee.
Both supervisors and supervisees reported the
main focus of the supervision as:
•discipline-specific competencies (56 per cent
supervisors; 46 per cent supervisees)
•generic practice skills (15 per cent supervisors;
25 per cent supervisees)
•personal issues and career development
(8 per cent for both supervisors and
supervisees).
Supervisees reported little observation of their
clinical practice, practice skills or use of

8
satisfaction. The helpfulness of ‘administrators'
(i.e. budget-holders) in resolving difficulties
between patient access to services and financial
priorities contributed significantly to greater
job satisfaction. The authors conclude that
‘administrative’ supervision, whereby supervisors
help their staff access resources to meet patient
need and thus resolve their own ethical conflicts
or uneasiness about not being able to offer the
services needed, is more important than
‘emotional’ supervision focused on professional
development and mentoring in this
cost-conscious context.
Supervision of the worker
Social work and social care are conducted through
personal relationships and interactions, with or
without practical support or personal care. They
place particular demands on staff and it is the
employer’s responsibility to ensure this dimension
of supervision is provided as part of their duty of
care. Outcomes should include making sure that
practice is safe, from the point of view of people
using services and their families as well as
workers, through personal risk assessment,
debriefing after difficult situations and reviewing
decisions for learning. Outcomes of supervision
should also concern consideration of the worker
as a professional practitioner, entitled to
development and learning opportunities, status
and standing alongside other professionals, and
capable of representing the agency in joint and
integrated working. Positive outcomes for workers
reported in the literature include:
•social and emotional wellbeing
•improved self-efficacy and sense of
empowerment
•organisational commitment and intention
to stay.
Detrimental outcomes include:
•stress
•burnout
•role conflict
•intention to leave.
Social and emotional wellbeing
Supporting the social and emotional needs of
workers entails listening to them attentively as
they discuss job difficulties and making empathic
comments. It may also include relating to the
emotional needs of workers when they feel
overwhelmed, stressed or confused about
their work.18
In a study of job satisfaction among hospice
inter-disciplinary team members in the US,
Deloach29 reports qualitative responses from
open-ended survey questions on the aspects of
supervision that staff found most supportive.
Social and emotional support figured highly.
For social workers, being supportive came in the
form of feeling valued as a unique member of a
specific discipline, being supported in clinical
decision-making and supportive comments by
supervisors that ‘back you up’.
Self-efficacy and empowerment
A perceived sense of control, or self-efficacy,
is also associated with job satisfaction for
workers.34 Where supervisors are socially and
emotionally supportive to supervisees, studies
show that self-efficacy is related to job
satisfaction15 and intention to stay.24 In Cearley’s
study35 of child welfare workers in the US,
supervisors’ empowering behaviours
significantly affected workers’ sense of
empowerment, specifically increasing their
ability to make decisions. These quantitative
associations were confirmed with qualitative
data − for example, one worker stated that
her supervisor:
allows workers to make their own decisions
and she supports those decisions after they
are made.
Organisational commitment and intention
to stay
Organisational commitment to the development
of supervisory practice,13 the willingness of
supervisors to help employees carry out their
jobs effectively and provide aid in stressful
situations,25 and whether supervisees feel
emotionally supported by supervisors31,36–38 are
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

effective if a supervisor and a worker interact
with each other in a supportive way, directly
reducing intention to leave. Professional
development through supervised practice was
also associated with workers’ attachment to the
organisation. Where frontline workers were
readily able to communicate their opinions and
feelings to management, this reduced the role of
stress on burnout.
Burnout is also associated with workers’
perception of their relationship with the
supervisor, not just whether they received help or
support.18 In Mena and Bailey’s33 study of child
welfare workers in the US, workers’ sense of
rapport within the supervisory relationship was
related to job satisfaction. Conversely, where
workers reported feeling negative about rapport,
this was associated with both emotional
exhaustion and depersonalisation, whereby
workers feel detached, no longer see themselves
as valuable and lose track of their personal needs.
In another US-based study of child welfare
workers, Boyas and Wind43 found that emotional
exhaustion was significantly higher for workers
receiving increased supervisory support. This
counterintuitive finding highlights the difficulty
of drawing conclusions from correlational
evidence. Having controlled for key individual
characteristics, such as age, tenure and job title,
Boyas and Wind speculate that emotional
exhaustion is higher among experienced workers
who have greater involvement in difficult
decision-making processes and handle the more
complex child protection cases.
Supervising the emotionally charged nature of
child protection work requires a refocusing of
supervision so that it explores the impact of the
thoughts and feelings of workers on practice. In a
small-scale qualitative study by Gibbs44 of child
protection workers in two rural regions in
Victoria, Australia, it was found that the model
of supervision gave insufficient attention to the
emotional intrusiveness of the work.
Respondents reported that the overriding priority
for supervisors was to ensure the work was
9
Effective supervision in social work and social care
all associated statistically with workers’ decision
to stay employed.
The degree to which employees feel supported
by their supervisor affects their emotional
satisfaction with the job and contributes to the
appraisal of how the organisation values them
and cares about them. In Landsman’s31 study of
organisational commitment by child welfare
workers, it was found that supportive supervision
was associated with both job satisfaction and
perceived organisational support.
Kavanagh et al.12 found that while there was no
association between the amount of supervision
and job satisfaction or intention to stay, there
was a link with positive attitudes to supervisors
and high supervision impact. Relationships that
were characterised by accessibility, empathy and
praise appeared especially important for
retention. Retention and intention to stay are
also related to access to supportive peer relations
at work.39–41
Stress, burnout and role conflict
Supervisory support has clear associations with
worker stress, burnout and role conflict. Lack
of emotional support, inadequate supervision
and feeling out of one’s comfort zone are
associated with higher burnout.42 Job-relevant
communication, another facet of task
assistance, is also reported as important to
positive worker outcomes.
Kim and Lee32 used statistical modelling to
investigate the effects of different types of
supervisory communication on burnout and
intention to leave among 211 social workers in
health or mental health settings in the US.
‘Supportive relationship communication’, defined
as informal and supportive interaction between
supervisors and social workers, appeared to
reduce worker stress and indirectly reduced
burnout and intention to leave. ‘Job-relevant
communication’, defined as performance
feedback, information about rules, policies,
work schedules and assignments, task-specific
instructions and goals, was found to be more

10
completed and conformed to acceptable
standards, at the expense of reflection on
practice, discussion about high workloads,
stress and anxiety. This meant that workers
experienced role ambiguity, stress and concern
about things going wrong. Gibbs concludes that
supervision must:
•convey the value of workers
•explore feelings and thoughts in action and
perception
•take account of adult learning theory and the
role of the supervisor in promoting effective
learning by staff.
Intention to leave
Nine papers look at the association between
supervision and intention to leave. Findings
are contradictory. Two papers by
Strolin-Goltzman45,46 report that supervisory
support does not predict intention to leave, with
a related paper by McGowan47 suggesting that
career satisfaction was the most important
factor determining intention to leave. In contrast,
six studies found that supervision plays an
important role in determining whether social
workers consider leaving their jobs.32,39–41,48–50
Fakunmoju49 found that gender played a
moderate role in regard to supervisory support
and intention to leave, with men more likely to
report higher intention to leave than women in
relation to low supervisory support. However,
it is difficult to unravel which particular aspects
of supervision make a difference to workers’
intention to leave because data on the
structure, focus and frequency of supervision
is rarely reported.
In one of the few UK-based studies, and the only
study that explicitly addressed social care
workers without a social work qualification,
Fleming and Taylor51 looked at the retention of
home care workers (HCWs) in Northern Ireland.
Based within an integrated health and social
care service, this small-scale study surveyed
45 HCWs and focus groups to explore the
growing problem of retention of HCWs from
their own perspective. On the whole, HCWs were
positive about supervision, but a significant
minority identified the need for more support,
better communication and more responsive
out-of-hours and emergency systems.
Emergencies were a particular crunch point,
with about a third of staff saying that they
sometimes or never felt supported.
The type of support thought to be beneficial
included:
•extra time and support available in a crisis
(e.g. death of a client or preparing for
hospital)
•information about clients requiring
temporary cover
•better out-of-hours contact arrangements
with supervisors
•weekly contact from a supervisor
•more consideration given to HCWs regarding
client care
•a stand-by HCW available in the evenings and
weekends to assist with emergencies.
Outcomes for organisations
Many of the studies also consider outcomes of
supervision that are beneficial to organisations.
Supervision focused on task assistance for the
worker may improve performance, while
supervision which provides social and emotional
support may reduce staff turnover.
Job performance
Increasingly, supervision of social workers has
become focused on performance management,
ensuring that organisational procedures have
been followed and that workers are practising
within agency expectations. However, there is
very little evidence that supervision affects
performance.
Kavanagh et al.12 found that satisfaction with
supervision and positive attitudes to supervisors
were strongly associated with perceived impact
on practice, but only if supervisors were from the
same profession. This, they suggest, may be
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

because certain features of supervision are
important, such as direct instruction and skills
acquisition, thereby emphasising the task
assistance function.
The study by Smith et al.23 evaluated the impact
of the Integrative Supervision Model (ISM)
described above. There were changes in
participants’ self-perceived levels of knowledge
and skills during the project, and it was believed
that this had a beneficial impact on service user
outcomes, but there was no direct evidence to
support this assertion.
While the evidence suggests an association
between supervision and perceptions of job
performance in general, this review found no
studies evaluating the impact of supervision on
specific aspects of job performance. Neither was
there sufficient detail on the supervision
processes to draw any conclusions about how
supervision positively affects job performance.
It may be that the task assistance function of
supervisors has a direct impact, but equally,
increased worker perceptions of job
performance may also be an indirect effect
of increased self-efficacy as a result of
supervision. Once again, this is a limitation of
correlational evidence.
Workload management
Just two studies consider the potential buffering
effect of supervision on workload management,
although this is not addressed in any detail and
the studies do not provide detailed descriptions
of caseloads. In a US study of child welfare
workers, Juby and Scannapieco52 found that
staff who received more support from their
supervisors saw their work as more manageable.
They suggest that this may reflect the task
assistance function of supervision as it increases
workers’ skills and knowledge by providing
education and training. Collins-Camargo and
Millar54 report on the outcomes of clinical
supervision projects with a particular emphasis
on the development of learning cultures which
promote self-reflection, evidence-informed
practice and outcomes-focused approaches to
working with families. They found that workers’
time management improved as a result of the
new supervisory processes, however it is not
clear from this research why supervisory practice
resulted in these impacts.
Case analysis and planning
Four studies consider the impact of supervision
on case analysis and planning. In one of the few
intervention studies found in this review, Leitz22
evaluated a group supervision project designed
to develop critical thinking skills (termed a
‘supervision circle’) for over 300 child welfare
workers in Arizona, US. This one-year project
began with five training sessions for supervisors
who then provided group sessions for five to
seven workers on a fortnightly or monthly basis.
The focus was on peer case review and other
critical thinking exercises.
There was a statistically significant increase in
perceived levels of critical thinking among the
participants. The quality of the relationship
between participants and lead supervisor, along
with the extent of participation in group
supervision, predicted the level of critical thinking
at the conclusion of the project. The number of
hours spent in supervision did not significantly
predict perceived levels of critical thinking, which
suggests that it may be quality of supervision
rather than quantity which is important.
In a further study which considered therapists
working with survivors of domestic abuse in
Israel, Ben-Porat and Itzhaky27 found that
satisfaction with supervision correlated positively
and significantly with two components of role
competence: general competence and knowledge
and problem-solving.
Improved case analysis and planning was also a
theme in the study by Smith et al.23 Using the
ISM, these researchers found that workers
reported they were able to apply ideas from their
supervision group directly to their caseloads, as
well as being able to identify specific clinical skills
used by other group members. Collins-Camargo
and Millar54 also report improved case analysis
11
Effective supervision in social work and social care

12
via critical thinking and realistic targeting of
interventions, although no further in-depth
analysis of these results is offered.
Actual turnover and retention
In this review, workers’ intention to leave is
considered as an outcome for the individual
worker and was therefore discussed in a previous
section. Actual turnover – and its converse,
retention – are considered as (detrimental)
outcomes to organisations.
Fourteen studies examined the links between
supervisory support and actual turnover and
retention rates. The general consensus is that
good supervision can help workers to stay in their
jobs, while leavers often cite poor supervision as
a reason for having left.
In a study of US child welfare workers who had
recently left their jobs, Gonzalez et al.55 report
that 29 per cent cited problems with supervision
as their reason for leaving (65 per cent of these
due to ‘poor supervision’ and 35 per cent due to
their relationship with their supervisor), while
25 per cent said changes in supervision would
have made them stay (including more supervisor
availability).
Quality of supervision
Differences between stayers and leavers in the
quality of supervision received were apparent in
research by Dickenson and Perry.56 They report
that those workers remaining in public child
welfare rated their supervisors at a significantly
higher level in terms of willingness to listen to
work-related problems, the extent to which they
could be relied upon ‘when things get tough at
work’, and helping workers get their job done.
Significant differences were also observed in
terms of stayers’ views on the skills and
characteristics of their supervisors. This staff
group rated their supervisors as more competent,
more concerned with staff welfare, more likely to
show approval of a good job done, more likely to
help in completing difficult tasks and more likely
to be ‘warm and friendly’ when workers
experience ‘problems’.
Similarly, Maertz et al.57 report that stayers gave
higher ratings than leavers on how their
supervisor facilitated their learning and
enthusiasm for the job as well as significant
differences in the average number of hours spent
with their supervisor each month.
The supervisory relationship
One notable aspect of supervision associated
with turnover and retention rates concerns the
supervisory relationship. Yankeelov et al.58 and
Gibbs44 both report that those workers who
stayed were more attached to their supervisors
than those who had left; some staff were able
to vividly describe the experience of being
supervised by one particular person, even if this
was some years previously. This suggests that
stayers feel a sense of security in their
relationships with their supervisors and that this
relationship is highly significant to them.
In a qualitative comparison of child welfare
workers in the US conducted by Morazes et
al.,59 304 stayers and 82 leavers found no
differences in terms of dedication to children
and families and social work values. While all
participants acknowledged workload and stress
as job challenges, stayers illustrated experiences
that buffered job pressures, particularly
encounters with supportive supervisors. As one
stayer reported:
I think I stay [because] … my unit is good,
my supervisor is excellent and that really
makes a difference. I think if I had a
supervisor I wasn’t getting along with or
wasn’t helping me I would really want to
leave. You need that support while you are
here because it’s a hard job and you are
dealing with difficult things …
This study goes on to suggest that leavers tended
not to experience these buffers, although they
recognised the value of them, and they were
more likely to describe experiences in which they
actually felt worn out by the same influences
which stayers had experienced as supportive,
such as supervisors.
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

Other studies report mixed findings regarding the
link between supervision and retention (as do the
studies reporting on workers’ intention to leave).
Faller et al.60 found that workers who indicated
their supervisor made life difficult were
significantly more likely to have left their job. Yet
not all aspects of supervisor support influence
staff retention, and it was found that the
supervisory roles of providing useful information
when needed, or helping with new or unfamiliar
tasks, were not significantly associated with
retention. Strolin-Goltzman45 found that there
were no significant differences in supervisory
factors between organisations classed as having
high versus low turnover rates, thereby
contradicting prior research findings. The
association between supervision and retention is
likely to depend on both the type of supervision
provided and whether it is provided in the
context of a supportive relationship.
The long-term impact of supervision
There are also questions regarding the long-term
impact of supervision on staff retention rates.
Renner et al.13 found that at one-year follow-up
after implementing a state-wide supervision plan
among child welfare workers in Missouri, US,
retention rates improved, although only a little
(from 75 to 78 per cent), but by two years these
had fallen back to 74 per cent.
It should also be remembered that high turnover
among supervisors could leave frontline staff
quite vulnerable if the job commitment of staff
is tied closely to perceptions of supervisor
support − as the literature suggests.38 In the UK,
Holmes et al.61 note that two local authorities
identified particular difficulties recruiting team
managers, and that these posts were seen as
critical in supporting teams as well as driving
improvements in practice.
Perceived organisational support (POS)
Perceived organisational support (POS) is the
idea that employees form a global belief
concerning the extent to which the organisation
values their contributions and cares about their
wellbeing. Research into POS is increasing,
particularly in relation to its links with staff
turnover. In this review, seven studies consider
the relationship between supervision and POS.
In the US, Maertz et al.57 suggest that POS may
remain fairly stable over time, and may be less
salient to employees than supervisory support,
because supervisors have more regular contact
with workers. However, for employees who are
not receiving effective supervisory support, POS
becomes more important as they turn to the
organisation instead. This research concludes
that employees require a certain level of support
and this may be supplied by the supervisor, the
organisation itself or a combination.
Landsman31 found that supervisory support
significantly affected ratings of POS, and
concludes that the degree to which employees
feel supported by their direct supervisor affects
their emotional satisfaction with the job and
contributes to their appraisal of how the
organisation values them and cares about them.
Gibbs44 also reports that for some staff a lack of
effective supervision to enable them to manage
the emotional demands of the job left them
believing they had been poorly supported within
the organisation, but for others this response was
internalised and workers saw themselves as
having failed in what they were doing when
things had gone wrong.
Collins-Camargo and Millar54 report that overall
changes in supervisory practice had a positive
impact on worker perception of organisational
culture, and Collins-Camargo and Royse53 found
that effective supervision was highly correlated
with staff perceptions of an organisational
culture that promoted evidence-based practice.
Bourn and Hafford-Letchfeld62 suggest that
frontline managers in the UK have a key role
in mediating organisational culture. Their
small-scale qualitative study of recordings and
transcripts of trainee managers’ supervisory
sessions indicates that supervisors frequently
use humour, somewhat ironic apologies or
other tactics for diffusing conflict and
13
Effective supervision in social work and social care

14
aggravation or for gaining compliance with the
implementation of otherwise unwelcome
procedural changes. The authors conclude that
the supervisory relationship has an important
mediation function: it is a channel through
which organisational culture is conveyed to
supervisees as well as providing an opportunity
for staff to convey information upwards to the
organisation.
Chenot et al.37 suggest that organisational
culture only impacts on workers in the early
phase of their career, after which staff become
accustomed to agency norms, which could be
detrimental in a negative organisational culture.
Maertz et al.57 caution that distinctive
attachments to supervisors may even increase
voluntary turnover when a loyalty-inspiring
supervisor leaves.
Supervision in multi-disciplinary
settings
The qualitative study of supervision in an
inter-agency setting carried out by Bogo et al.14,28
is discussed above. They focused on workers’
views about supervision arrangements following
the amalgamation of two mental health and two
addiction services in Canada. Programme
management meant that professionals no longer
necessarily received supervision from someone
of their own professional background.
Mixed reactions were found. Some staff
reported that supervisors would not discuss
clinical issues or would focus solely on
performance management, whereas other staff
felt more positive. Overall, workers valued
supervisors who attempted to understand the
frameworks of their professions, although they
missed the connection with their professional
discipline and the ability to ‘talk in their own
language’. Some social workers also:
experienced tension between the … focus
on client/public safety, and social work
values of being non-judgemental and
promoting empowerment.
Staff found the new inter-professional teams a
valuable source of support which provided
spontaneous and informal feedback in the face of
critical and emotionally provocative experiences.
These views did not appear to be related to their
perceptions of the supervisor, suggesting they are
separate constructs.
In the second paper, Bogo et al.28 report that
participants perceived safety and trust to be
more important than whether the supervisor was
from the same profession (although as noted in
Kavanagh et al.’s12 paper, having a supervisor
from the same profession was important for job
performance). Almost all participants agreed that
the key elements of valued supervisors are their
clinical expertise and their ability to provide new
and relevant practice knowledge and promote
learning in a respectful and safe way. These
were more important than their professional
affiliation. However, some participants did
comment that where they were the lone member
of the profession on the team, meetings with
others from their own profession were important
as inter-professional supervision may not include
profession-specific work.
Inter-agency working
No studies were found in relation to the impact
of supervision on inter-agency working. Although
Collins-Camargo and Millar54 report that the
new supervisory processes used in the clinical
supervision projects resulted in improved
intra-agency working (same agency but between
counties), as well as increased agency credibility
from external sources, no analysis of why this
occurred is offered.
Outcomes for service users and carers
The impact of supervision on outcomes for
service users and carers has rarely been
investigated. In part, this may reflect the
difficulties of unravelling the distinct impact of
supervision on service user outcomes, but may
also reflect a preoccupation with outcomes for
workers and organisations. Where evidence
exists, the outcomes are defined by professionals,
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

making it difficult to assess the impact of
supervision on outcomes that matter to service
users themselves, which may differ from policy
and practice imperatives. This means that the
literature presents only a partial picture of the
outcomes that count, with no attention paid to
the potential differences between professionals
and users. It also means that any changes to the
supervisory process are not informed by the
perspectives of service users and carers and miss
a crucial aspect of understanding how
supervision impacts on practice.
Empowerment, participation and positive
feedback
Where studies have attempted to assess the
impact of supervisory focus on worker
satisfaction and ultimately outcomes for
children and families, positive outcomes for
users have been identified. These include
promotion of empowerment and user
participation, fewer complaints and an increase
in positive feedback.
Collins-Camargo and Miller54 looked at the
introduction of new supervisory processes in
four state public child welfare agencies in the US.
This involved a shift from supervision focused on
administrative and crisis-driven approaches to
clinical supervision designed to promote:
•a supportive organisational culture
•an outcomes-oriented approach
•enhanced workers’ ability to think critically and
make good decisions regarding assessment of
their cases
•evidence-based practice.
Supervisors participating in this project were
asked to assess the impact on service users
of changes to supervisory practice through
discussion in focus groups. This data was
therefore anecdotal. The following areas
were identified:
•active participation in services
•increased engagement in case planning
•families demonstrating positive empowerment
and a desire for positive change
•fewer complaints and more positive feedback
from users.
The authors do not offer an in-depth analysis of
why changes to supervisory practice might have
had the claimed impacts.
There was also a perception among supervisors
that cases were moving more quickly, and an
anecdotal belief that children were going home
sooner or not being removed from their homes
in the first place. Quantitative data was not
analysed to support this. Quotes suggest that
supervisors attribute this to closer working
relationships with families, addressing issues as
they came up rather than leaving cases to drift.
However, the anecdotal nature of this evidence
means that claims made about the impact of this
intervention on service users should be treated
very cautiously.
Placement safety and family functioning
In a paper exploring how organisational
characteristics have the potential to have a
positive or negative impact on outcomes for
service users, Yoo63 looked at the role of the case
manager as the service provider with most
contact with users, and who acts as a bridge
between clients and agency.
Exploring a family preservation service in the US,
Yoo found that while the agency was successful
in terms of placement safety and family
functioning, the organisational climate was
perceived by workers as not conducive to
effective practice.
Drawing on secondary data from the agency’s
programme evaluations, Yoo found that at
completion of the programme, out of 108 client
families, 101 had children remain at home with
no safety issues present and family functioning
increased significantly. However, unravelling
the role of supervision as a contributor to this
success is complicated. Case managers
15
Effective supervision in social work and social care

16
reported various organisational challenges,
such as low pay and benefits, harsh working
conditions and poor leadership as having a
negative effect. They also reported
organisational characteristics perceived as
positive strengths, such as commitment to
client families and the support they receive
from supervisors and co-workers.
While case managers were unable to identify in
specific terms what and how organisational
characteristics impacted on their work with
service users, the author notes that:
the case managers’ performance in
contributing to positive outcomes for
their clients seems to occur despite their
dissatisfaction with many aspects of their
organisation, including compensation, work
conditions and leadership.
Cost and cost-effectiveness
There was only one study identified which
considered the costs of supervision. In this
UK-based paper examining children’s social
care services, Holmes et al. (cited in Munro2)
calculated that the unit cost of a supervision
session lasting 1.5 hours is £87 per frontline
social worker. They note that if the frequency of
supervision sessions is increased from monthly
to fortnightly (to allow greater time for other
aspects of supervision as well as case
management, for instance), this would result in
an annual increase in costs of £1,217 (per worker),
and for a referral and intake team with five social
workers and three family support workers an
additional cost of £9,408. While any paper
offering an estimation of costs is noteworthy,
without a clearer idea about the benefits or
outcomes of supervision this data remains
somewhat arbitrary. However, since some studies
suggest that supervision is associated with staff
retention, and as turnover results in increased
organisational costs, reduced effectiveness and
poorer outcomes for service users, further
consideration of the cost-effectiveness of
supervision is crucial.
Implications from the
research
This review of the research has identified a
substantial volume of evidence that the provision
of supervision is associated with positive
outcomes for workers (e.g. job satisfaction) and
organisations (e.g. job retention). However, there
is as yet little evidence that the implementation
of structured supervision can improve these
outcomes, and the evidence for its effects on
workers’ practice is weak. Further, it has not yet
been demonstrated that supervision directly
affects service user outcomes (e.g. child safety,
mental health, reablement).
Implications for the policy community
The present emphasis in policy-making on the
implementation of reflective supervision for
newly-qualified social workers is supported by
the evidence in this review. Supervision is also
associated with beneficial outcomes for more
experienced workers and policy-makers should
continue to promote its use more widely.
Supervision may enhance worker effectiveness,
maintain job satisfaction and promote retention
of staff.
Implications for practitioners
Supervision works best when it pays attention to
task assistance, social and emotional support and
a positive interpersonal relationship between
supervisors and supervisees. In particular, task
assistance and the importance of supervision in
the acquisition of new skills and problem-solving
are valued by workers. This is true for both
relatively inexperienced practitioners and more
experienced workers when learning new skills,
working with new service user groups, in new
multi-disciplinary teams or dealing with critical
or complex situations.
Given the evidence that supervision is associated
with job satisfaction and protects against stress,
practitioners should insist that good supervision
be provided by their employers. The emotionally
charged nature of the work places particular
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43

kinds of demands on people working in the field
which need to be contained by the organisation.
This means moving beyond a focus on task and
prescription, and providing opportunities for
reflective supervision.
Implications for organisations
Supervision plays a key role in social work and
social care. Effective supervision is a crucial
element of an organisation’s duty of care to its
employees, and to the users and carers it serves.
Supervisors occupy a unique role whereby they
communicate the organisation’s duties and
priorities to the worker, and also feed back
workers’ comments to the wider organisation.
The studies in this research briefing have shown
that the task assistance, emotional and support
functions of supervision have positive effects on a
variety of organisational outcomes. Effective
supervision results in more positive perceptions of
job performance and a greater ability to manage
workloads, while employees’ case analysis and
planning skills are honed. Supervision also appears
to help reduce staff turnover and is significantly
linked to employees’ perceptions of the support
they receive from the organisation.
Implications for service users and carers
It is reasonable to assume that well-supervised
social care workers who are supported both in
their roles and tasks and also in dealing with the
emotional aspects of their jobs will be able to
provide a better service and improved outcomes
for users and carers. However, at present, the
evidence to support this view is anecdotal and
therefore weak.
Service user-defined outcomes may differ from
policy and practice imperatives. They are a crucial
aspect of understanding the effectiveness of
services from the perspectives of those who use
them and consequently are important for
supervisors to appreciate. And yet, no study has
addressed what service users consider to be the
outcomes that matter most from supervision.
Implications for researchers
In spite of the strong commitment in policy and
practice to the use of supervision, the evidence
base is surprisingly limited, almost all of it
being correlational. The most obvious gap is
in good evidence that the implementation of
clearly defined models of supervision in an
organisation leads to improved outcomes for
workers and better services for users and carers.
There is no shortage of models of supervision,
and so their costs and effectiveness should be
tested and compared. Research on the skills and
effectiveness of training supervisors in integrated
teams as well as social care agencies should also
be developed.
17
Effective supervision in social work and social care

18
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43
Useful links
British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
The College of Social Work (CoSW)
BASW/CoSW have collaborated on a report
looking at their members’ experience of
supervision, with a view to developing a code of
good practice for supervision in social work, with
special reference to social workers working in
multi-disciplinary teams: http://cdn.basw.co.uk/
upload/basw_13955-1.pdf
Care Council Wales
Supervision and appraising well: a guide to effective
supervision and appraisal: www.ccwales.org.uk/
supervising-and-appraising-well/
Care Quality Commission (CQC)
The CQC’s Essential Standards of quality and safety
include Outcomes 12 and 14 that state staff should
be properly trained and supervised, and have the
chance to develop and improve their skills:
www.cqc.org.uk/organisations-we-regulate/
registering-first-time/essential-standards
Department for Education (DfE)
The defunct Children’s Workforce Development
Council (CWDC) produced a guide to developing
an integrated approach to supervision in children’s
trusts: www.education.gov.uk/publications/
eOrderingDownload/IW115-2010.pdf
Department of Health, Social Services and
Public Safety (DHSSPS)
In Northern Ireland there is a mandatory regional
policy and guidance which sets out the minimum
standards for supervision of social workers
employed by health and social care trusts. Whilst
primarily focussed on childcare workers, it is
broadly adopted for all social workers, It states
that supervision must be delivered monthly with
sessions of 1.5–2 hours in duration, with enhanced
recommendations for newly qualified workers.
www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/supervision_policy__
standards__and_criteria___regional_policy_for_
northern_ireland_health_and_social_care_
trusts.pdf
Local Government Association (LGA)
In response to evidence submitted to the Social
Work Task Force, the Standards for employers
and supervision framework builds on existing
guidelines for employers of social workers:
www.local.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file
?uuid=7e6d2140-fc0e-47cd-8b2f-2375812700
ad&groupId=10171
Skills for Care
This workforce development tool has been
produced by Skills for Care and the now defunct
CWDC to promote the widespread provision of
high-quality supervision across adult and
children’s social care:
www.skillsforcare.org.uk/home/home.aspx
Related SCIE resources
Guide 1: Managing practice
www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide01/
Care Skillsbase
www.scie.org.uk/workforce/careskillsbase/
Guide 24: Learning together to safeguard
children: developing a multi-agency systems
approach for case reviews
www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide24/
index.asp
Guide 27: Leading practice: a development
programme for first-line managers
www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide27/
Guide 38: Social care governance: a workbook
based on practice in England
www.scie.org.uk/publications/guides/guide38/
Knowledge review 16: Improving social and
health care services
www.scie.org.uk/publications/knowledge
reviews/kr16.asph
Learning organisations pack
www.scie.org.uk/publications/learningorgs/
index.asp

19
Effective supervision in social work and social care
References
1. Laming, H. (2009) The protection of children
in England: a progress report, London: TSO.
2. Munro, E. (2011) The Munro review of child
protection: final report − a child-centred
system, London: DfE.
3. Noble, C. and Irwin, J. (2009) ‘Social work
supervision: an exploration of the current
challenges in a rapidly changing social,
economic and political environment’, Journal
of Social Work, vol 9, no 3, pp 345–358.
4. Department for Children School and Families
(DCSF) (2009) The protection of children in
England − action plan: the government’s
response to Lord Laming, London: TSO.
5. Davys, A. and Beddoe, L. (2010) Best
practice in supervision: a guide for the helping
professions, London: Jessica Kingsley.
6. Department of Health (DH) (2003) Care
homes for older people, national minimum
standards, London: DH.
7. Care Quality Commission (CQC) (2010)
Summary of regulations, outcomes and
judgement framework, London: CQC.
8. Cameron, A. et al. (2012) Factors that
promote and hinder joint working in health
and social care, London: Social Care Institute
for London.
9. Payne, M. (1996) What is professional social
work? Birmingham: Venture Press.
10. Kadushin, A. (2002) Supervision in social
work, New York: Columbia University Press.
11. Milne, D. (2010) ‘The systematic review as
an empirical approach to improving CBT
supervision’, International Journal of
Cognitive Therapy, vol 3, no 3, pp 278−294.
12. Kavanagh, D.J. et al. (2003) ‘Supervision
practices in allied mental health:
relationships of supervision characteristics
to perceived impact and job satisfaction’,
Mental Health Services Research, vol 5, no 4,
pp 187−195.
13. Renner, L.M., Porter, R.L. and Preister, S.
(2009) ‘Improving the retention of child
welfare workers by strengthening skills and
increasing support for supervisors’, Child
Welfare, vol 88, no 5, pp 109−127.
14. Bogo, M. et al. (2011) ‘Supporting front-line
practitioners’ professional development and
job satisfaction in mental health and
addiction’, Journal of Interprofessional Care,
vol 25, no 3, pp 209−214.
15. Cole, D., Panchanadeswaran, S. and Daining,
C. (2004) ‘Predictors of job satisfaction of
licensed social workers: perceived efficacy
as a mediator of the relationship between
workload and job satisfaction’, Journal of
Social Service Research, vol 31, no 1, pp 1−12.
16. Spence, S.H. et al. (2001) ‘Clinical
supervision in four mental health
professions: a review of the evidence’,
Behaviour Change, vol 18, no 3, pp 135−155.
17. Bogo, M. and McKnight, K. (2006) ‘Clinical
supervision in social work: a review of the
research literature’, The Clinical Supervisor,
vol 24, nos 1−2, pp 49−67.
18. Mor Barak, M.E. et al. (2009) ‘The impact of
supervision on worker outcomes: a meta-
analysis’, Social Service Review, vol 83, no 1,
pp 3−32.
19. Gibbs, J. (2001) ‘Maintaining front-line
workers in child protection: a case for
refocusing supervision’, Child Abuse Review,
no 10, pp 323−335.
20. Allen, R.I. et al. (2004) ‘The impact of job
characteristics on social and human service
workers’, Social Work and Society, vol 2, no 2,
pp 173−188.
21. Chenot, D., Benton, A.D. and Kim, H. (2009)
‘The influence of supervisor support, peer
support, and organizational culture among
early career social workers in child welfare
services’, Child Welfare, vol 88, no 5,
pp 129−147.
22. Lietz, C.A. (2008) ‘Implementation of group
supervision in child welfare: findings from

20
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43
Arizona’s supervision circle project’, Child
Welfare, vol 87, no 6, pp 31−48.
23. Smith, C.H., Russell, R. and Giddings, M.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,
vol 10, no 1, pp 10−24.
24. Lee, J., Weaver, C. and Hrostowski, S. (2011)
‘Psychological empowerment and child
welfare worker outcomes: a path analysis’,
Child and Youth Care Forum, vol 40, no 6,
pp 479−497.
25. Strand, V.C. and Dore, M.M. (2009) ‘Job
satisfaction in a stable state child welfare
workforce: implications for staff retention’,
Children and Youth Services Review, vol 31,
no 3, pp 391−397.
26. Barth, R.P. et al. (2008) ‘Child welfare
worker characteristics and job satisfaction:
a national study’, Social Work, vol 53, no 3,
pp 199−209.
27. Ben-Porat, A. and Itzhaky, H. (2011) ‘The
contribution of training and supervision to
perceived role competence, secondary
traumatization, and burnout among
domestic violence therapists’, The Clinical
Supervisor, vol 30, no 1, pp 95−108.
28. Bogo, M. et al. (2011) ‘Interprofessional
clinical supervision in mental health and
addiction: toward identifying common
elements’, The Clinical Supervisor, vol 30,
no 1, pp 124−140.
29. DeLoach, R. and Monroe, J. (2004) ‘Job
satisfaction among hospice workers: what
managers need to know’, Health Care
Manager, vol 23, no 3, pp 209−219.
30. Egan, M. and Kadushin, G. (2004) ‘Job
satisfaction of home health social workers in
the environment of cost containment’, Health
and Social Work, vol 29, no 4, pp 287−296.
31. Landsman, M.J. (2008) ‘Pathways to
organizational commitment’, Administration
in Social Work, vol 32, no 2, pp 105−132.
32. Kim, H. and Lee, S.Y. (2009) ‘Supervisory
communication, burnout, and turnover
intention among social workers in health
care settings’, Social Work in Health Care,
vol 48, no 4, pp 364−385.
33. Mena, K.C. and Bailey, J.D. (2007) ‘The
effects of the supervisory working alliance
on worker outcomes’, Journal of Social
Service Research, vol 34, no 1, pp 55−65.
34. Chen, S.-Y. and Scannapieco, M. (2010)
‘The influence of job satisfaction on child
welfare worker’s desire to stay: an
examination of the interaction effect of
self-efficacy and supportive supervision’,
Children and Youth Services Review, vol 32,
no 4, pp 482−486.
35. Cearley, S. (2004) ‘The power of supervision
in child welfare services’, Child and Youth
Care Forum, vol 33, no 5, pp 313−327.
36. Allen, R.I. et al. (2004) ‘The impact of job
characteristics on social and human service
workers’, Social Work and Society, vol 2, no 2,
pp 173−188.
37. Chenot, D., Benton, A.D. and Kim, H.
(2009) ‘The influence of supervisor support,
peer support, and organizational culture
among early career social workers in child
welfare services’, Child Welfare, vol 88, no 5,
pp 129−147.
38. Smith, B.D. (2005) ‘Job retention in child
welfare: effects of perceived organizational
support, supervisor support, and intrinsic job
value’, Children and Youth Services Review,
vol 27, no 2, pp 153−169.
39. Nissly, J.A., Mor Barak, M.E. and Levin, A.
(2005) ‘Stress, social support, and workers’
intentions to leave their jobs in public child
welfare’, Administration in Social Work,
vol 29, no 1, pp 79−100.
40. Schudrich, W. et al. (2012) ‘Factors
impacting intention to leave in social
workers and child care workers employed at
voluntary agencies’, Children and Youth
Services Review, vol 34, no 1, pp 84−90.

21
Effective supervision in social work and social care
41. Simons, K.V. and Jankowski, T.B. (2007)
‘Factors influencing nursing home social
workers’ intentions to quit employment’,
Administration in Social Work, vol 32, no 1,
pp 5−21.
42. Abu-Bader, S.H. (2000) ‘Work satisfaction,
burnout, and turnover among social
workers in Israel: a causal diagram’,
International Journal of Social Welfare,
vol 9, no 3, pp 191−200.
43. Boyas, J. and Wind, L.H. (2010)
‘Employment-based social capital, job stress,
and employee burnout: a public child
welfare employee structural model’,
Children and Youth Services Review, vol 32,
no 3, pp 380−388.
44. Gibbs, J. (2001) ‘Maintaining front-line
workers in child protection: A case for
refocusing supervision’, Child Abuse Review,
no 10, pp 323−335.
45. Strolin-Goltzman, J. et al. (2007) ‘The
relationship between organizational
characteristics and workforce turnover
among rural, urban, and suburban public
child welfare systems’, Administration in
Social Work, vol 32, no 1, pp 77−91.
46. Strolin-Goltzman, J. (2008) ‘Should I stay
or should I go? A comparison study of
intention to leave among public child
welfare systems with high and low
turnover rates’, Child Welfare, vol 87,
no 4, pp 125−143.
47. McGowan, B.G., Auerbach, C. and
Strolin-Goltzman, J.S. (2009) ‘Turnover in
the child welfare workforce: a different
perspective’, Journal of Social Service
Research, vol 35, no 3, pp 228−235.
48. Brannon, D. et al. (2007) ‘Job perceptions
and intent to leave among direct care
workers: evidence from the Better Jobs
Better Care demonstration’, The
Gerontologist, vol 47, no 6, pp 820−829.
49. Fakunmoju, S. et al. (2010) ‘Intention to
leave a job: the role of individual factors, job
tension, and supervisory support’,
Administration in Social Work, vol 34, no 4,
pp 313−328.
50. Jacquet, S.E. et al. (2008) ‘The role of
supervision in the retention of public child
welfare workers’, Journal of Public Child
Welfare, vol 1, no 3, pp 27−54.
51. Fleming, G. and Taylor, B.J. (2007) ‘Battle on
the home care front: perceptions of home
care workers of factors influencing staff
retention in Northern Ireland’, Health and
Social Care in the Community, vol 15, no 1,
pp 67−76.
52. Juby, C. and Scannapieco, M. (2007)
‘Characteristics of workload management
in public child welfare agencies’,
Administration in Social Work, vol 31, no 3,
pp 95−109.
53. Collins-Camargo, C. and 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, vol 4, no 1,
pp 1−24.
54. Collins-Camargo, C. and Millar, K.
(2010) ‘The potential for a more clinical
approach to child welfare supervision
to promote practice and case outcomes:
a qualitative study in four states’,
The Clinical Supervisor, vol 29, no 2,
pp 164−187.
55. Gonzalez, R.P. et al. (2009) ‘Exit interviews
with departed child welfare workers:
preliminary findings’, Journal of Public Child
Welfare, vol 3, no 1, pp 40−63.
56. Dickinson, N.S. and Perry, R.E. (2002)
‘Factors influencing the retention of
specially educated public child welfare
workers’, Journal of Health and Social Policy,
vol 15, nos 3/4, pp 89−103.
57. Maertz Jr, C.P. et al. (2007) ‘The effects of
perceived organizational support and
perceived supervisor support on employee

22
RESEARCH BRIEFING 43
turnover’, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
vol 28, no 8, pp 1059−1075.
58. Yankeelov, P.A. et al. (2009) ‘Individual and
organizational factors in job retention in
Kentucky’s child welfare agency’, Children
and Youth Services Review, vol 31, no 5,
pp 547−554.
59. Morazes, J.L. et al. (2010) ‘Views of specially-
trained child welfare social workers: a
qualitative study of their motivations,
perceptions, and retention’, Qualitative
Social Work, vol 9, no 2, pp 227−247.
60. Faller, K.C., Grabarek, M. and Ortega, R.M.
(2010) ‘Commitment to child welfare work:
what predicts leaving and staying?’ Children
and Youth Services Review, vol 32, no 6, pp
840−846.
61. Holmes, L., Munro, E.R. and Soper, J. (2010)
Calculating the cost and capacity implications
for local authorities implementing the Laming
(2009) recommendations, Loughborough:
Centre for Child and Family Research,
University of Loughborough.
62. Bourn, D. and Hafford-Letchfield, T. (2011)
‘The role of social work professional
supervision in conditions of uncertainty’,
The International Journal of Knowledge,
Culture and Change Management, vol 10,
no 9, pp. 41−56.
63. Yoo, J. (2002) ‘The relationship between
organizational variables and client
outcomes: a case study in child welfare’,
Administration in Social Work, vol 26, no 2,
pp 39−61.

23
Effective supervision in social work and social care
About the development of this product
Scoping and searching
Focused searching was carried out between January and March 2012. The searches looked for
empirical studies on the association between the process of supervision and outcomes for service
users, workers and organisations. Searches addressed both children and adult’s social work and
social care, including joint and integrated settings.
This research briefing identifies empirical studies that report on the association between the
process of supervision and outcomes for service users, workers and organisations. Intervention
studies are included. The methods used to identify and organise material in this briefing were
developed by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE). These involved undertaking systematic
and reproducible searches of the research literature, identifying relevant studies and assessing their
quality. Empirical data were extracted using a structured pro-forma which focused on various
outcomes of supervision.
Peer review and testing
The authors have research and topic expertise. The briefing was peer reviewed internally for
methodology. It was peer reviewed externally by Professor Marion Bogo, Faculty of Social Work,
University of Toronto, Canada. We are grateful for her comments.
About SCIE research briefings
SCIE research briefings provide a concise summary of recent research into a particular topic and
signpost routes to further information. They are designed to provide research evidence in an
accessible format to a varied audience, including health and social care practitioners, students,
managers and policy-makers. They have been undertaken using methodology developed by SCIE.
The information on which the briefings are based is drawn from relevant electronic databases,
journals and texts, and where appropriate, from alternative sources, such as inspection reports and
annual reviews as identified by the authors. The briefings do not provide a definitive statement of
all evidence on a particular issue. SCIE research briefing methodology was followed throughout
(inclusion criteria; material not comprehensively quality assured; evidence synthesised and key
messages formulated by author): for full details, see
www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/methodology.asp
SCIE research briefings are designed to be used online, with links to documents and other
organisations’ websites. To access this research briefing in full, and to find other publications, visit
www.scie.org.uk/publications/briefings/

RESEARCH BRIEFING 43
Latest SCIE research briefings
Social Care
Institute for Excellence
Fifth floor
2-4 Cockspur Street
London
SW1Y 5BH
tel: 020 7024 7650
fax: 020 7024 7651
www.scie.org.uk
RB4312
Registered charity no. 1092778 Company registration no. 4289790
The implementation of individual budget
schemes in adult social care
Identification of deafblind dual sensory
impairment in older people
Obstacles to using and providing rural
social care
Stress and resilience factors in parents
with mental health problems and
their children
Experiences of children and young people
caring for a parent with a mental health
problem
Children’s and young people’s experiences
of domestic violence involving adults in a
parenting role
Mental health and social work
Factors that assist early identification
of children in need in integrated or
inter-agency settings
Assistive technology and older people
Black and minority ethnic parents with
mental health problems and their children
The relationship between dual diagnosis:
substance misuse and dealing with mental
health issues
Co-production: an emerging evidence
base for adult social care transformation
Access to social care and support for adults
with autistic spectrum conditions (ASC)
The contribution of social work and social
care to the reduction of health inequalities:
four case studies
Communication training for care home
workers: outcomes for older people, staff,
families and friends
Black and minority ethnic people with
dementia and their access to support and
services
Reablement: a cost-effective route to
better outcomes
Mental health service transitions for
young people
Mental health, employment and the social
care workforce
Preventing loneliness and social isolation:
interventions and outcomes
End of life care for people with dementia
living in care homes
Factors that promote and hinder joint and
integrated working between health and
social care services
Returning children home from public care
Effective supervision in social work and
social care
22
20
21
23
24
26
25
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
A full list of SCIE research briefings can be found at
www.scie.org.uk/publications
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43