Supportive supervision encourages social workers to see themselves as part of a team with a common purpose. Thus the development of self is also dependent upon the develop- ment of other workers in the team to work together. It also contributes to positive and creative practice whereby workers can spark ideas off one another and develop innovative methods of working. Supervision then should be about developing the confidence as well as the competence of workers.
It is important, however, to recognise that not all agree with the emphasis upon administra- tion. Lishman (1994) argues that supervision is about sharing ideas between equal professionals rather than manager to worker. Milner and O’Byrne (1998) emphasise the importance of review and the discussion of cases to explore the appropriateness of workers’ decisions. Good supervision needs to be planned by both worker and manager so that a cre- ative and supportive environment can be achieved. Often supervision becomes difficult to organise when teams are under pressure, but of course this is exactly the time that supervi- sion is most important when serious challenges face the social worker and his or her team. The importance of good and regular supervision was given prominence by the Climbié Inquiry (Laming, 2003). The report argues that while inadequate supervision was not the only reason for the poor practice that took place, it was one of the contributing factors. Ms Baptiste was one of the managers involved in this case and Ms Arthurworrey was the social worker responsible in Haringey Social Services for Victoria Climbié.
Read the extract below identifying the problems that the social worker faced in accessing regular supervision. But first read what Lord Laming had to say about the social context within which Haringey Social Services was embedded.
Haringey is an outer London borough with many of the characteristics and problems of an inner city area. In its 1998 position statement to the Joint Review of Social Services in Haringey Council, Haringey noted that it is the thirteenth most deprived authority in England. A large proportion of its residents were described as
experiencing ‘severe poverty, unemployment and deprivation, which manifests itself in all areas of their lives, such as the lack of adequate affordable housing, poor levels of educational attainment, poor health and high numbers of children in need’. I heard evidence that Haringey has one of the most diverse populations in the country, with 160 different languages spoken locally, a long tradition of travellers settling in the borough and a high proportion of asylum seeking families (nine per cent of the total population). The pressure this places on all departments within the
A C T I V I T Y
6 . 3
local authority is inevitable – none less so than for the children and families’ services. (Lamming, 2003 6.4–6.5)
The atmosphere within the North Tottenham Initial Assessment Teams (IATs) was hectic in 1999. Shanthi Jacob spoke of the ‘bombardment factor’ and Mary Richardson, director of social services in Haringey at the time, stated:
‘Undoubtedly North Tottenham was the busiest social work office. As a consequence of that, by definition staff probably held, on average, slightly more cases than their Hornsey counterparts … there was regular and fairly unremitting pressure on the north Tottenham office.’ It was an issue recognised by the Joint Review team in early 1999, who referred in their report to potential staff ‘burn out’, which needed to be addressed quickly. Ms Arthurworrey told the Inquiry that initially her caseload at Haringey was manageable, but it slowly increased. By the end of August 1999 she was responsible for 19 cases (of which half were child protection). This is seven more cases than the maximum laid out in the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team Procedures devised by Ms Mairs. Mr Duncan argued that it was hard to imag- ine how a social worker could work on more than 12 cases at a time. Yet Ms Arthurworrey said she was unaware of the guidance, and during 1999 Mr Duncan said he knew, though Ms Wilson said she did not, that staff in the IATs were dealing with a high number of cases and that the average caseload was in excess of the rec- ommended maximum. (6.13–6.15.)
Now read the section on supervision:
The tensions that had featured during Ms Baptiste’s time in the children and fami- lies’ team began to resurface in IAT B. As a result, according to Ms Baptiste, she found it hard to engage some social workers, Ms Arthurworrey included, in the reg- ular supervision so fundamental to good practice. Although Ms Arthurworrey has denied ever refusing supervision when it was offered, there clearly was an issue about the quality and timeliness of the supervision that was provided in Ms Baptiste’s team. This was confirmed by the director of social services at the time, Mary Richardson. Ms Arthurworrey understood she would get supervision every two to three weeks, ‘but this never happened’. In practice she received supervision about once every seven weeks. ‘When I asked about drawing up a supervision contract Carole [Baptiste] told me that I was responsible for doing that.’ Ms Arthurworrey said she experienced serious problems in arranging supervision sessions with Ms Baptiste because of her continued unavailability. Often Ms Baptiste would cancel or rearrange sessions or simply not appear without an explanation. Of equal concern, Ms Arthurworrey said she found supervision with Ms Baptiste frustrating because, more often than not, they would start discussing cases and then Ms Baptiste would go off on a tangent. Ms Arthurworrey stated that Ms Baptiste often talked about her experiences as a black woman and her relationship with God. The result was that they would not have time to finish discussing the cases. Ms Arthurworrey said she just tried to manage. Generally it was Ms Baptiste’s practice to agree with whatever suggestions Ms Arthurworrey put in front of her. Ms Arthurworrey found this disturbing in the sense that it led her to question Ms Baptiste’s knowledge base. (6.38–6.40)
A C T I V I T Y
6 . 3
c o n t i n u e dComment
There is a number of issues here that hindered the supervision process, linked with issues raised in the report:
G Cancellation of supervision. Ms Arthurworrey said she experienced serious problems in arranging supervision sessions with Ms Baptiste because of her continued unavailabil- ity. Often Ms Baptiste would cancel or rearrange sessions or simply not appear without an explanation.
G Lack of clarity about the nature of supervision and inappropriate issues raised by the man- ager unrelated to Ms Arthurworrey’s caseload. Ms Arthurworrey said she found supervision with Ms Baptiste frustrating because, more often than not, they would start discussing cases and then Ms Baptiste would go off on a tangent. Ms Arthurworrey stated that Ms Baptiste often talked about her experiences as a black woman and her relation- ship with God. The result was that they would not have time to finish discussing the cases.
G Infrequent supervision. Ms Arthurworrey understood she would get supervision every two to three weeks, but this never happened. In practice she received supervision about once every seven weeks.
G Responsibility for supervision placed only onto workers shoulders. When I asked about drawing up a supervision contract Carole [Baptiste] told me that I was responsible for doing that.
G Lack of trust in professional competence of the supervisor. Generally it was Ms Baptiste’s practice to agree with whatever suggestions Ms Arthurworrey put in front of her. Ms Arthurworrey found this disturbing in the sense that it led her to question Ms Baptiste’s knowledge base.
It is worth reinforcing the ethical reasons as to why supervision is important and to place this within the wider ethical responsibilities that social workers have towards service users and the wider community.