Examining the Organizational Outcomes of Supervision to Strengthen Human Services

Background: Social work organizations have called for strengthening programs and services for Indigenous, racialized, marginalized, and disenfranchised populations. Responding to these calls requires attention to the development and support of a diverse social work workforce to ensure the provision of the most effective services to these groups. As one site of possibility for ongoing knowledge generation to promote this aim, workplace-based supervision is the administrative oversight, professional development, and support of social work staff in organizational. Considered invaluable guidance and assistance for social workers, as well as protection for clients, workplace-based supervision ensures that “professional standards and quality services are delivered by competent social workers” (NASW & ASWB, 2013, p. 5). Yet, the evidence-base for supervision has been labelled, “weak,” with little known about supervision in practice, nor its organizational outcomes. To address this gap, and contribute to social work knowledge being informed by and informing practice, we conducted a cross-sectional, mixed methods survey to examine the practice of supervision, including what happens within sessions, the usefulness of different aspects of supervision, and how supervision impacts wellbeing and the ability for practitioners to do their jobs.

Methods: Situated within a classic pragmatist epistemology, the IRB-approved survey was developed with, and piloted by, a Community of Inquiry (i.e., human service supervision experts representing provincial community organizations). Issues of concern and needed knowledge were identified by this group. Additionally, the survey was informed by supervision theory, and the empirical literature; included validated measures; and was piloted and revised. The electronic survey was distributed May-October 2022, through the Community of Inquiry, social work professional association and regulatory body, professional email lists, and social media. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive, bivariate, and regression analyses, and triangulated with qualitative data.

Results: The sample comprised 360 participants employed in the region’s human service organizations (252 practitioners, 84 supervisors/coordinators/managers, 27 directors/executive directors), with social workers the largest disciplinary group represented. Over 80% of supervisors and practitioners reported receiving supervision, as did 74% of the leaders; most frequently on a monthly basis, with 60% of respondents satisfied with the supervision they received. The nature and scope of the supervision in terms of function, modality, frequency, duration, content was variable. There were statistically significant differences in levels of wellbeing measured for the practitioner and supervisor subgroups through ProQol Health (i.e., perceived support, burnout, secondary traumatic stress, and moral distress) based on the supervision quality and receipt. Qualitative data provided a more in-depth understanding of experienced burnout and perceived support. Available facilitators and barriers to supervision were elucidated (e.g., organizational buy-in, training).

Conclusion and Implications: Given the availability of supervision for social workers (frontline, supervisory, and leadership), ensuring the competence required to delivery effective supervision is positioned to ensure employee wellbeing. This is also a key consideration for the Community of Inquiry grappling with how to best foster support for their diverse workforces. Findings display the diverse supervisory experiences across the human service sector, indicating areas where social workers and social work educators can take action to strengthen practice.