Search

Abstract The importance of supervision for social work practice is one of the most widely accepted tenets of the profession. Yet, surprisingly little is known about what happens in supervision, making it difficult to unravel what it is about supervision that makes a difference to social work practice. This paper describes the development of a framework for assessing the quality of group supervision. It focuses on one sub-category of group supervision – systemic group supervision – and draws a wider evaluation of systemic social work practice in the UK. It is based on 29 observations of "live" of supervision to illustrate differences in quality of supervisory practice. The process of developing the coding framework was cyclical, and ultimately resulted in a three-point ordinal grouping for assessing systemic supervisory practice. Analysis of observational data assessed systemic group supervision as follows: 8 as non-systemic (28%); 12 (41%) as demonstrating some incorporation of systemic ideas into interactions, described as "green shoots" (or showing encouraging signs of development but not yet reached its full potential); and 9 (31%) supervision sessions demonstrating a full incorporation of systemic concepts and practice. What marked "systemic" sessions from "green shoots" supervision was the move from hypothesis generation about family relations and risk to children to purposeful, actionable conversations with families: the move from reflection to action. This paper supports a small but growing body of evidence about the fundamental characteristics of successful or effective supervision within children and families social work. Highlights • Describes a new method for assessing social work supervisory practice • Defines an emerging type of supervision – systemic group supervision – informed by systemic family therapy principles • Identifies six essential domains of systemic supervision, including the relational nature of family problems • Ranks systemic supervision as: non-systemic, "green shoots" (or showing promise) and fully "systemic" • "Systemic" sessions were marked by a move from hypotheses generation to purposeful, actionable conversations with families [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Reports perspectives of 49 frontline staff from five child protective services. • Systemic supervision used as a "rehearsal space" to plan family conversations. • Family systems understood via lens of hypothesising, circularity and curiosity. • Exploring family perspectives enhanced identification of risks to children. • Systemically-trained clinicians provided supportive practice leadership. The importance of supervision for social work practice is widely accepted. This paper focuses on one type of supervision: systemic group supervision or "systemic supervision". Systemic social work practice is generally a group-based, multi-disciplinary model of service delivery that aims to work therapeutically with the whole family. Central to this model is the use of systemically-informed group supervision. This has been shown to impact positively on the quality of direct practice with families, but what is it about this type of supervision that supports frontline practitioners to practice more skillfully? This paper is based on interviews with 49 frontline staff across five children's services departments in the UK. It identifies the key features of systemic supervision and explores why workers think that developing shared understandings of risk to children supports them to intervene more effectively with families in contact with children's services. These findings contribute to a growing body of knowledge about the practice shaping function of supervision within child and family social work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines research findings on the relevance of the Secure Base model (Schofield & Beek, 2014) for developing supportive teams in child and family social work. When the social work team functions as a secure base, this can help workers cope with the emotional demands of the role. The concept of the secure base comes from attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) in which our relationships with significant others, who are available, sensitive to our needs and reliable, provide us with a secure base to return to when life is stressful and provide us with comforting internal mental models when we are physically away from them. This ‘secure base for exploration’ reduces anxiety and enables us to engage with the world, consider the internal world of others (empathy) and remain resilient when life is stressful. Using data from 52 phone interviews with child and family social workers across eight local authorities in the UK, we show how the Secure Base model has relevance for emotion regulation and resilience for child and family social workers. Data were analysed using Theoretical Thematic Analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In the context of the emotional demands of social work, our data indicate that the supervisors and teams provide a work related secure base across five dimensions by behaving in ways which instil these beliefs: Availability - ‘People are there for me’; Sensitivity - ‘My feelings are manageable’; Acceptance - I don't always have to be strong’; Cooperation - ‘I can work with others to find a solution’; Team belonging - ‘I am valued and I belong’. Implications for practice are proposed to help supervisors and team members reflect on beliefs and behaviours which can help provide a secure base for their teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supervision has been described as the "pivot" upon which the integrity and excellence of social work practice can be maintained. However, there is little research that examines its impact on how social workers work directly with children and their families. Where effectiveness studies exist, they tend to explore the impact of supervision on organisational and staff-related outcomes such as retention rates or worker well-being. The current study focuses on one specific sub-category of the wider supervision and practice literature: systemic group supervision or "systemic supervision" and is based on a wider evaluation of systemic social work practice in the UK. The paper pairs observations of systemic supervision (n = 14) and observations of direct practice (n = 18) in peoples' homes. It presents correlational data on the relationship between supervision quality and direct practice quality to assess whether there is an association between the two practice forums. The paper demonstrates that there is a statistically significant relationship between supervision quality and overall quality of direct practice. Supervision was also associated with relationship-building skills and use of "good authority" skills; that is, practice that was more purposeful, child-focused and risks to children better articulated. Interestingly, where a clinician qualified in systemic family therapy was present in supervision, this was associated with both improved supervisory and direct practice quality. This suggests that there may be an important association between the discussions held in systemic supervision, particularly where a clinician is present and the quality of conversations that practitioners have with children and families. These findings contribute to a growing body of knowledge about the relationship between effective supervision and direct practice within children and families social work. • Pairs observations of systemic supervision with observations of direct practice. • Supervision and direct practice independently assessed for quality. • Systemically-informed supervision associated with skilful practice with families. • This includes both relationship-building and use of "good authority" skills. • Systemically-trained clinicians associated with improved supervisory and practice. • High quality supervision has the potential to support and shape "practice-making." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]