November 14, 1998

Abstract

This paper reviews professional supervision practice within the new managerial climate of the Community Probation Service. It is based on qualitative research involving Service Managers and Probation Officers from one of the Service's three regions. For both groups (Service Managers and Probation Officers) attention is focused upon: their philosophy of professional supervision; their recent supervision experiences; and their aspirations and expectations with regard to professional supervision. The new managerial climate of the Community Probation Service is also examined with particular attention to its influence upon organisational culture and the recent development of the Service's new professional supervision policy.

The perspectives of the Service Managers and Probation Officers, and the influence of the new managerial climate upon the implementation of the Service's professional supervision programme, highlight significant challenges to professional supervision practice in this setting.

The State Sector Act 1988 and the Public Finance Act 1989 facilitated significant changes in the way government departments are managed. These changes have affected both the professional practice and management of statutory social service agencies. In the Community Probation Service these changes have resulted in greater managerial accountability and an emphasis upon quantifiable output measures and performance targets rather than professional process accountability, which previously had occurred through professional practice supervision (Garwood, 1994; O’Donoghue, 1995; Dale, 1997). The importance of professional supervision within this context is exemplified by the Service's desire for best practice, competent professional staff and quality assurance (Community Probation, 1998a).
    The aim of this paper is to present the findings of research undertaken in the Community Probation Service which focused upon professional supervision practice in its new managerial climate. It discusses the recent supervision history of the agency and outlines the research methodology and the probation officers’ and service managers’ philosophy, recent experience and aspirations and expectations of professional supervision. The conclusions drawn summarise the key findings and highlight the implications for professional supervision practice in this setting.

Background

The Community Corrections Service was internally restructured in 1996 with the new structure coming into existence from 1 January 1997. The purpose of this restructuring was to place a greater emphasis upon service delivery to clients and customers (Dale, 1997). The chief characteristics of this change were a reduced number of administrative and management positions; the devolution of management responsibility and accountability; a greater emphasis upon business management through the creation of sixteen specialist finance manager positions; and the promotion of self-managing teams for direct service delivery (Dale, 1997). This restructuring also resulted in the disappearance of the traditional supervisor’s role and the clear separation of the professional line and the management lines. From 1 July 1998 the Community Corrections Service was renamed the Community Probation Service (Department of Corrections, 1998).

The current Community Probation Service has a history of providing social work supervision in the traditional form. Bracey, (1978: 9), asserted that the first public statement on social work supervision made by a social service agency was made by the Department of Justice in its Annual report to the House of Representatives for the year ending 31 March 1968.

The professional supervision of probation officers under the new structure was an issue that the Community Probation Service started to address in May 1997 through the establishment of a working party. This working party produced a report to management in June 1997 (Community Corrections Service, 1997a) who adopted most of the working party’s recommendations in the new policy produced in November 1997 (Community Corrections Service, 1997b).

The new policy changed the traditional supervision arrangements, moving from the combination of administrative and professional supervision in one role to the separation of administrative and professional supervision. Administrative supervision was to be provided by the service manager and professional supervision would be provided by probation officers in a peer arrangement. Probation Officers that wanted to undertake the role of professional supervisor were to be assessed as competent against the Service’s professional supervision competency standard (Community Probation Service, 1998a).
    Three brief observations in relation to the contrast are firstly, the new structure reveals a greater complexity of relationships and contracting for professional supervision and secondly that the new policy potentially supports an increased focus upon the professional aspects of supervision by providing a specific focus for it. The third observation is that having peers creates the dual role conflict in relation to balancing direct client practice with supervising. It also raises issues in regard to supervisory authority as well as the pragmatic question of what happens to the client work that the supervisors can’t do because they are supervising.

The following statements from the General Manager introduced the policy(Community Corrections Service, 1997b: 2):

• Professional Supervision is crucial to effective interaction with offenders to achieve the reduction in re-offending.
• An initiative which is complementary to the competency framework and performance management.
• We are committed to resourcing it by prioritising time use and the dollars to ensure the result is effective.

Research Methodology

The research question was examined using a qualitative research methodology.

A sample of 10 probation officers and 5 service managers was purposefully selected from staff lists provided by one of the three regional managers of Community Probation Service. The aim in purposefully selecting was to obtain information rich cases and a cross-section in terms of experience, and professional background. From the 15 respondents initially invited, 1 probation officer and 2 service managers declined. A third service manager initially agreed to participate but was subsequently unable to be contacted and was therefore replaced. With each refusal, replacements were sought. From the replacements 1 further service manager declined to participate. The total response rate was 75 %, (90% for probation officers and 66% for service managers).

The interviews were conducted in June 1998. A semi-structured interview guide was used which examined the participants’ background details, philosophy of professional supervision, their recent experiences and their aspirations and expectations of professional supervision. The interviews were audio-taped and 277 pages of single-spaced transcript were produced for analysis. The analysis involved cutting and pasting the 15 individual transcripts into files that corresponded to the four sections of the interview guide and analysing the individual sections by bullet pointing the themes. The bullet pointed themes from each section were then analysed and a reporting framework developed.

In order to protect confidentiality, the participants were allocated a fictional name and in some cases extraneous personal details were deleted. Table 1, below provides details of the participants in this study in terms of gender, culture, age and professional qualifications.

Philosophy of professional supervision

This involved discussion of the definition and construction of professional supervision by participants in terms of its functions, processes, theory and its role and place for them, their agency and clients. There was not a shared philosophy amongst either the probation officers or service managers.

From their definitions of professional supervision three strong perspectives emerged. The first was an organisational perspective, which Ellen illustrated when she stated:

The alignment between the respondents’ definitions of professional supervision and that of the Community Probation Service was generally limited to the areas of professional development and personal support. An issue raised by Ellen, Ernest, Nicholas, and Susan was the separation of administrative/management supervision from professional supervision. The literature in this regard is mixed, with Kadushin (1992) asserting that the two should remain combined whereas Erera et al, (1994) recommend their separation because of high role conflict. This lack of alignment of the perspectives of the participants and the Community Probation Service Policy was also evident in the identification of the main functions of professional supervision. Only Grace, a member of the working party that produced the June 1997 report, articulated the four functions identified in the Service’s policy. The most common functions identified by those interviewed were professional development and personal support.

In relation to the processes involved in professional supervision, the findings were mixed. On the one hand 14 out of the 15 people interviewed thought that processes used in professional supervision were similar to those used in direct client work, clearly supporting the concept of mirroring or parallel process found in the supervision literature (Kadushin, 1992; Morrison, 1993; Shulman, 1995; O’Donoghue, 1998). However, when the participants were asked about the role of gender and culture in the processes used in professional supervision their responses varied from "None" to "Very Important".

The only discernible theme with regard to the affect of gender and culture was that it depended on the individuals concerned and their relationship. Two notable exceptions to the above theme were: (a) Ernest, who recognised that the power structures in society and in relation to gender affected supervision processes; and (b) Kiri, who spoke of culture affecting the processes and stated that:

The findings in terms of theory and professional supervision were contradictory. Thirteen of those interviewed thought that theory had a place in professional supervision and the majority of them considered it important. But when asked about their knowledge of professional supervision theory and models, the responses revealed that they either had little knowledge or could not articulate their knowledge. Only Nicholas fully articulated a supervision model (that of Brigid Proctor). Ellen named "Kadushin" but said "Don’t ask me what he’s on about, but he looks good." Grace gave a similar response in regard to the "Tapes" model when she said "Don’t ask me about it". Despite these findings being contradictory they seem to relate to the professional supervision literature which espouses theory, but its theory is described by commentators as being poorly organised and poorly understood by practitioners (Rich, 1993; Payne, 1994).

Skills identified as important in professional supervision by the participants were generally those ascribed to social workers and appeared to relate to the expressive aspects of the supervisory relationship, particularly empathy and reflective or active listening skills (Kadushin, 1992a).

In relation to the role and place of professional supervision for the participants, the Community Probation Service and clients of the agency, the findings indicated a belief among participants that it had an important role and place for themselves and their work. They also consider that professional supervision had a significant role and place for clients, particularly in relation to the delivery of a quality service and as a protection against unsafe and unethical practice. However, whilst the majority indicated that it had a role and place within the Community Probation Service there were differing opinions in terms of its specific role and place. These differing views tended to reflect thoughts about the continuous change culture, the separation of managerial from professional supervision, and the organisational culture and environment in which the Community Probation Service now operates.

Experiences of professional supervision

In relation to the experience of professional supervision it was found that only 3 out of 10 probation officers (Angela, Grace and Tania) had recently participated in formal professional supervision, while a fourth officer had recently finished external supervision and was participating only in an informal peer group arrangement. This same officer (Joseph) was the only one interviewed who was to be trained as a professional supervisor. Among the service managers’ only Joan was a recipient of supervision. Two service managers (Susan and Nicholas) participated as professional supervisors but did not receive any supervision themselves, and the other two managers (Sofia and Neil) purchased external supervision for their respective teams.

There was not a consistent form of delivery of professional supervision and no standard method of provision. Participants reported no supervision, administrative supervision with their managers, administrative and professional supervision with their managers, participation in informal peer group arrangements and external professional supervision. Mary-Jane, for example was not currently receiving professional supervision and was not at all happy about this situation:

Supervision Policy Development and Implementation

The participants exemplified the need for a change in the Community Probation Service’s professional supervision policy and practice. However, our findings in relation to policy development, reveal that the policy development process was not transparent and reflected the cognitive interests of management rather than clients and field staff of the organisation. In general, it was found that: first, the reasons or rationale for the recommendations of the professional supervision policy project team and subsequent management decisions in relation to the policy were not clear to the participants; second, the participants were not aware of the terms of reference of the professional supervision project; and finally, attempts made in the policy development process by participants to gain ownership appear to have been unsuccessful. These three points were emphasised by 12 of 15 respondents who disagreed with the new mode of delivery of professional supervision.

The policy implementation process was reported to be unclear and fraught with practical difficulties. The most alarming of these difficulties was the inconsistent selection or volunteering process for professional supervisors and the limited investment made by the agency in the development of its managers, supervisors and supervisees. In particular, the selection or volunteering process undermined the credibility of the supervision policy with very few people putting themselves forward and some of those that did were of questionable ability according to colleagues. Sofia provided an example when she referred to a volunteer in her area:

Experience and Impact of Organisational Context

The participants’ experiences of the context and its impact upon professional supervision reveal that the management practices experienced reflect what Boston et al. (1996) call the, "new public management". Table 2, summarised the findings in this regard.

Aspect of New Public Management	Identified by Number of Respondents	Probation Officers	Service Managers
Service restructuring	6	Angela, Kiri, Jack, Mary-Jane, Tania, Grace	Nil
Separation of professional workers from the management	8	Angela, Kiri, Jack, Mary-Jane, David, Ernest	Nicholas
The use of private sector management practices	3	David, Mary-Jane	Joan
Devolving and delegation of previous management functions to frontline practitioners	3	Jack,	Susan, Nicholas
Generic managers to run services like businesses	4	Ernest	Nicholas, Joan, Neil
Production culture	4	Mary-Jane, Grace, Ernest,	Joan
Greater use of information technology	3	Ellen,  Mary-Jane	Neil
A focus on product accountability rather than process accountability	6	Mary-Jane, Grace, Ernest, Ellen	Joan, Neil
Cost cutting and fiscal restraint	3	Joseph	Joan, Susan
A focus on the short-term political agenda	2	Joseph	Nicholas,

The most significant of these management practices, identified by 8 of the 15 participants, was the separation of professional workers from management. Gowdy et al. (1993:8) assert the implications of such a separation in social service agencies are:

• Serious goal displacement, with the organisation focusing on its activities or outputs as the gauge of success;

• Reactive management practices;

• Flirtation with management fads and use of problem solving methods;

• Management is viewed by direct service workers as irrelevant, and as the main source of stress and burnout.

The following comment made by Nicholas, a service manager, aptly illustrates the above point:

In regard to the impact of social policy the interviews amplified themes identified elsewhere in the social policy literature of Aotearoa/New Zealand; namely, reduced state, greater accountability, increased individual responsibility and the impacts of de-institutionalisation (Cheyne et al., 1997; Shannon, 1991). In this "turbulent environment" there is a greater need for supervision, however this need results in a paradoxical reduction in the resources available which in turn has an affect upon supervision practice (Hughes et al, 1997; Kadushin, 1992). As a service manager, Nicholas was well aware of the impact of this environment upon professional supervision when he stated that:

This situation raises the issue of what type of professional supervision is desired, and what environment will be supportive of professional supervision.

Aspirations and expectations of professional supervision

In terms of the content of their professional supervision, the participants indicated that they wanted to discuss: clients and their work with clients; themselves in relation to their work; their training and professional development; and feedback on observed work. Three service managers specifically identified staff and their work with staff as a topic which they wanted to discuss in supervision. Arguably, this parallels probation officers wanting to discuss clients (Morrison, 1993). Overall, these findings correlate with a view expressed by Kadushin, (1992:142) who described the content of professional supervision as "people, place, process, personnel and problem".

In relation to the process, the participants portrayed one that was very similar to the structure of a social work interview, with an introductory phase, a phase where the purpose or the agenda is clarified and ordered, a working phase and a review or ending phase. This process though reflective of the professional supervision literature, omits the significant aspect of preparation that is discussed in the literature (Kadushin, 1992; Rich, 1993; Morrison, 1993; O’Donoghue, 1998).

The participants named three domains where they wanted supervision structures, namely frequency, length of supervision sessions and mode of delivery. The frequency desired ranged from fortnightly to monthly, the length of sessions ranged from one hour to two hours and the desired mode of delivery was predominantly expressed as individual supervision (only Joseph wanting it supplemented with a peer-group arrangement). Furthermore 9 of the 15 respondents (five POs and four SMs) wanted supervision provided by a supervisor external to the agency while the remainder wanted it provided internally by agency staff. None of the respondents wanted a supervision contract, which was a considerable point of divergence from both the literature and the Community Probation Service policy.

There was a clear difference between probation officers and service managers in terms of what they wanted in a professional supervisor’s background. The probation officers wanted supervisors with qualifications in social work, psychology or supervision, a person with practice experience and someone that they felt personally comfortable with. On the other hand the service managers wanted supervisors with a management background who were trustworthy. However, when service managers were asked what they wanted in terms of professional supervisors for their probation officers they also wanted persons with qualifications and practice experience with whom their POs would be comfortable.

The roles that both the probation officers and service managers wanted their supervisors to perform were generally similar. The most common roles were those of challenger, sounding board, monitor of functioning, facilitator/ problem solver, and affirmer. In the area of a supervisor’s responsibilities, the main theme was one of commitment to professional supervision; a commitment manifested in the keeping of appointments and preparation for supervision sessions. Overall, the portrait of the desired supervisor outlined by the participants echoes Kadushin’s, (1992:339) maxim that "Good supervisors are available, accessible, affable, and able".

Agency support desired by the participants for professional supervision was primarily in the form of money to pay for external supervisors and training, and to reduce work pressure so that staff could make the most of the supervision provided. Other desires included agency provision of high calibre professional supervisors, choices for staff and guidelines for professional supervision, including a transparent appointment or accreditation process. With regard to the latter the Community Probation Service professional supervisor competency standard (Community Probation Service, 1998) appeared to provide a basis for accreditation but it seems that this route has not been used as it was intended. In the Aotearoa/New Zealand literature, Beddoe (1997) highlights the issue of supervisor accreditation and suggests a portfolio route through the NZASW Board of Competency.

To sum up, the participants’ aspirations and expectations indicated they wanted:

Conclusions

The findings presented in this paper indicate significant challenges for the development and provision of professional supervision under the ‘new public management’ of the Department of Corrections. The key findings and their main implications are as follows.

• A clear philosophy of professional supervision was lacking amongst the participants, whose knowledge and understanding of professional supervision was at an elementary level. There is therefore a clear need for

                    (a) the agency to clarify and disseminate its philosophy of professional supervision
                         and
                    (b) for the education of all staff with respect to the practice of professional
                          supervision.

• In terms of their participation in professional supervision (receipt or provision), and participation in the development and implementation of policy, the participants had little recent experience of professional supervision. Significant issues were also identified with the way the agency has sought to change this situation, the policy changes proposed and the inconsistent manner in which the policy was being implemented. The most significant implication is that the professional supervision programme as currently implemented is unlikely to be a success.

• The aspirations and expectations of the participants indicate clearly and positively their desire for high quality professional supervision so that they are better able to meet their responsibilities and needs of clients. In essence, the findings presented indicate a need for

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge and thank the following staff in the Community Probation Service.

The 10 Probation Officers and 5 Service Managers interviewed. The Senior Managers of this Service for access to research participants and the Service’s documentation.

References

Beddoe,L, and Davys,A,(1994) The Status of Supervision-reflections from a training perspective, in Social Work Review, Vol VI, Nos 5/6 pp16-21.
 

Beddoe, L, (1997) ‘Best Practice in Social Work Supervision- Education and Accreditation Issues’ in Social Work Review Vol IX No 4, pp37-42.
 

Boston J, (1995) The State Under Contract, Wellington, Bridget Williams Books.
 

Boston J, Martin, J, Pallot, J, Walsh, P (1996) Public Management, The New Zealand Model, Auckland, Oxford University Press .
 

Bracey O, (1978) "A Conspiracy of Silence or Supervision in Social Work in NZ" in New Zealand Social Work, June Vol2. No2, pp 9-12.
 

Brown, A and Bourne I, (1996) The Social Work Supervisor, Buckingham, Open University Press.
 

Cheyne, C, O'Brien M, and Belgrave M, (1997)Social Policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A Critical Introduction, Auckland, Oxford University Press.
 

Community Corrections Service (1996a) Service Manager Job Description, Wellington, Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Corrections Service (1996b) Individual Employment Contract, Wellington,
Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Corrections Service (1997a) Report of the Professional Supervision Project,
Christchurch, Southern Region Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Corrections Service (1997b) Professional Supervision Communication Kit, Wellington, Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Corrections Service (1998) Update Staff Newsletter 6 May 1998 Issue 9,
Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Probation Service (1998a) Competency Standard 27 Provide professional supervision for probation work, Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Community Probation Service (1998b) Draft Manual Amendment Training and Development Policy, Head Office, Department of Corrections.
 

Dale, M (1997) Case Management Intervention with Violent Offenders: An Action Research Approach to the Development of a Practice Model, Massey University, MSW Thesis.
 

Erera I, and Lazar A, (1994) "The Administrative and Educational Functions in Supervision: Indications of Incompatability", The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 12(2), pp39-56.
 

Gowdy E, Rapp C, Poertner J, (1993) "Management Is Performance: Strategies for Client-Centred Practice in Social Service Organizations", Administration in Social Work, Vol. 17 (1) , pp 3-21.
 

Hawkins P, and Shohet R (1989) Supervision In The Helping Professions, Buckingham, Open University Press.
 

Hughes L, and Phengelly P, (1997) Staff Supervision in a Turbulent Environment: Managing Process and Task in Front-Line Services: London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd.
 

Jackson M, (1988) The Maori and the Criminal Justice System A New Perspective He Whaipaanga Hou, Part 2, Wellington, Policy and Research Division, Department of Justice, Wellington.
 

Kadushin,A, (1992) Supervision in Social Work (3rd Edition) ,New York, University of Columbia Press.
 

Kadushin A, (1992a) "What’s Wrong, What’s Right with Social Work Supervision" In The Clinical Supervisor Vol 10 (1), pp3-19.
 

Morrison,T, (1993) Staff Supervision in Social Care. An Action Learning Approach, Harlow, Essex, England, Longman.
 

Munson C, (1993) Clinical Social Work Supervision, New York, Haworth Press.
 

New Zealand Association of Social Workers, (1998) Policy Statement on Supervision,
Dunedin.
 

O'Donoghue K, (1995) Supervising Probation Officers: A handbook for supervisors, Palmerston North, Unpublished Manuscript.
 

O’Donoghue, K (1998) Supervising Social Workers. A Practical Handbook, Palmerston North, School of Policy Studies and Social Work, Massey University.
 

Payne, M (1994) "Personal Supervision in Social Work" in O'Connor A, and Black S, (eds), Performance Review and Quality in Social Care, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers pp43-58.
 

Proctor,B and Inskipp,F (1988) Skills for Supervising and Being Supervised, St Leonards on Sea, Sussex, Alexia Publications.
 

Rich P, (1993) " The Form, Function, and Content of Clinical Supervision:
An Integrated Model, The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 11(1), pp137-178.
 

Shannon P, (1991) Social Policy, Auckland, Oxford University Press.
 

Shulman L, (1995) "Supervision and Consultation" in Edwards R, and Hopps J, (eds.) (1995) Encyclopedia of Social Work 19^th Edition (3), Washington DC, NASW Press, pp2373-2379.
 

Tsui M (1997a) ‘Emprical Research on Social Work Supervision: The State of the Art (1970-1995)", Journal of Social Service Research, Vol 23(2), pp39-54.
 

Tsui M, and Ho (1997) "In Search of a Comprehensive Model of Social Work Supervision", In The Clinical Supervisor, Vol 16(2), New York, Haworth Press.

Dated 3 January 2001.