Contact Details:
 
 

Phone: (Bus) 0-7-834 8800 ext 8051

Fax: 0-7-834 8858

Email: (Bus) [email protected] (Home)  [email protected]
 
 

Postal Address: PO Box 5543, Frankton, Hamilton, New Zealand

 ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the future of social work supervision through reviewing the past and assessing the themes and trends present in the current practice environment. It also explores the influence these factors have on those who are involved in supervision. The practice environment is described through reference to the professional, social policy and service/agency context. Those involved in supervision are identified as the client, social worker (supervisee), supervisor and agency/service. The paper concludes with a discussion of the challenges ahead and speculates on the future direction of social work supervision.

The Past

In Aotearoa New Zealand the published literature that records the history of social work supervision is somewhat brief and recent. However, this literature reveals that social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand has been shaped primarily by the professionalisation of social work and the changing social environment within which social work is practised (O’Donoghue, 1999).

The recorded history of social work supervision initially reveals an educational focus. NZASW, founded in 1964, contributed significantly to this focus through its support and reporting of the first social work supervision course held at Tiromoana in 1965, and by publishing the monograph Supervision in Social Work a New Zealand Perspective in 1972 (NZASW, 1966; NZASW, 1972; Nash, 1998).

In the late 1970s an article by Bracey (1978a) appears to mark a change in emphasis towards an accountability focus in supervision. This paper also bemoaned the lack of local training, published material and research in the area of supervision in New Zealand. Furthermore, Bracey’s (1978a) article appears to introduce themes from the international literature into the local setting. This was particularly reinforced by Bracey’s (1978b) book review of Kadushin’s (1976) first edition of Supervision in Social Work also featuring in the same issue as his article.

In the 1980s the local literature reveals a return to the professional and educational focus. This return appears aided by the completion of the first two research studies on supervision completed at Masters level (Bowden, 1980; Bracey, 1981). The first study by Bowden (1980) which was undertaken in the Department of Social Welfare, found that whilst supervisors experienced satisfaction in the performance of their task, they also had difficulty balancing agency requirements with those of their supervisees. An outcome that emerged from Bowden’s study was the development of the Certificate in Social Service Supervision course at Massey University. The second study (Bracey, 1981) conducted in the probation service, contributed to the development of supervision within that service during the 1980s and early 1990s. This study builds on Bracey’s earlier article and has a strong emphasis on supervision as a process by which practitioners are to be held accountable. Another finding of this study was that it was difficult to abstract supervision from the organisational context within which it was practised. This finding was particularly significant for my own study in the late 1990s which found that the organisational context shaped how supervision was both constructed and delivered (O’Donoghue,1999).

The early 1980s were a period when considerable interest and energy was invested in social work supervision. The most poignant example of this was Supervision Resource Package (NZSWTC, 1985) published by the New Zealand Social Work Training Council. The development of the package began in November 1981, included two workshops held in August 1982 and July 1983, and received contributions from forty-eight social workers. The package itself was comprehensive and contained a position paper, development planners, an extensive bibliography, and brief outlines of supervision models from a number of practice settings. Included in the practice models were a bicultural model and a feminist model. These inclusions appear to be the first formal recognition of the influence of culture and gender in social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand. It also reflected the changes that were occurring within the profession and society during this period (Shannon, 1991; Beddoe and Randal, 1994; Cheyne et al., 1997).

Towards the end of the 1980s, the issue of low levels of professionalisation amongst social workers and its effect on the professional aspects of supervision was raised. The particular concerns identified were an increasing identification by social workers with their agencies, and an emphasis on administrative supervision. The implications of these concerns were the erosion of social workers’ professional identity, professional development, and critical reflection on social work practice (Taverner, 1989; Blake-Palmer et al., 1989).

In the early to mid 1990s, the literature focused on reclaiming the professional aspects of supervision in a new managerial environment, which did not seem to value, understand, recognise and support it (Young, 1993; Beddoe and Davys, 1994; Cockburn, 1994; Bennie, 1995). Amongst this literature, Volume VI, Numbers 5/6 of Social Work Review, and the annotated bibliography of local and international supervision literature compiled by Bennie (1995), stand out. Towards the end of 1990s the literature presents a more optimistic picture with a new era in professional social work supervision emerging in Aotearoa New Zealand (Beddoe, 1997a). This new era was characterised by both agencies and the profession developing policies on supervision, tertiary education providers offering training programmes, and a renewed interest in the process of supervision, particularly in relation to culture and gender (Beddoe, 1997b; O’Donoghue, 1998).

Social work supervision in the present day is influenced by the persons involved and the environment within which supervision takes place (O’Donoghue, 1999). In this section the environments and persons involved in supervision will be assessed at macro and micro levels. At the macro level, the environments of the profession, social policy and services will be considered. At the micro level, the persons, namely: clients; social workers (supervisee); supervisors; and agencies will be discussed.

Macro Assessment

The Social Work Profession

In recent years the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) has placed considerable emphasis on social work supervision. This emphasis is most evident in the development of the Association’s policy on supervision and the publication of standards for supervision courses (NZASW, 1998a; 1998b). These recent initiatives built upon the foundation of the Association’s competency standards, code of ethics and bicultural code of practice. The Association’s journal Social Work Review,through its publication of eight supervision articles published since 1994, has added to the profession’s knowledge of the field of supervision. Two of these articles published in Te Komako III, are of particular significance because they are indigenous approaches to supervision which address kaupapa maori supervision and culturally safe cross-cultural supervision (Bradley et al., 1999; Webber-Dreadon, 1999). Overall, the Association’s activities in the realm of supervision have promoted the socialisation of its members into an indigenous professional identity in preference to an agency or western new managerial construction (Beddoe and Randal, 1994). However, despite the excellent efforts of ANZASW, its membership of approximately 763 full members equates only to approximately ten percent of the Social Worker population (Registration Project Team, 1999; ANZASW, 2000). With such a low level of professionalisation within the social work population, the Association continues to live in an age where agency identity seems stronger than professional identity (Taverner, 1989). In this environment, the profession’s sphere of influence in relation to socialising social workers into professional social work supervision, as opposed to agency or managerial supervision, is somewhat restricted. The difference between these types of supervision is found from asking:

• How is supervision defined?
• Who defined it?
• What power and authority is used or relied upon?
• Whose interests are served?
• What is the purpose and focus of the supervision?
• And what knowledge-base informs the supervision?

The purpose of professional supervision is best practice with clients. Agency or managerial supervision on the other hand is part of the leadership and controlling functions of management and involves a supervisor overseeing the worker’s work for the purpose of compliance with agency policy and the achievement of the agency’s goals (O’Donoghue, 1999).

The argument that the profession has a limited sphere of influence in terms of socialising social workers into professional social work supervision was also supported by my study of Professional Supervision within the Community Probation Service which found that:

1. The agency constructed its agency practice supervision as "professional supervision" without reference to or consultation with the profession (ANZASW).
2. The development of its supervision policy was more reflective of the cognitive interests of the agency’s management rather than that of the organisation’s clients, and field-staff.
3. That managerial and fiscal expediency and efficiency rather than best supervision practice drove the supervision programme (O’Donoghue, 1999).

• What is professional social work supervision?
• What is the duration of supervision (i.e. whether it is of a fixed term or indeterminable)?
• Who requires supervision and to what extent?
• Who provides professional supervision and upon what basis (e.g. training, experience, or role) do they do so?

Social Policy

The election of the Labour-Alliance coalition signalled a change in the social policy direction of Aotearoa New Zealand from neo-liberalism, towards a market-led social democratic approach (Cheyne et al., 1997). The implications of this change of direction for the social services mean that the new government has more positive intentions than its predecessor towards funding the provision of social services and reducing the increasing social deficit (Ansley, 2000; Easton, 2000). However, despite the new government’s benevolent intentions, the social policy environment remains one where for fifteen years economics, fiscal restraint, business and the market have come before the needs of people. The results of what has been termed the "Commercialisation of New Zealand" have been increased poverty with a wider gap between rich and poor, reduced welfare provision for an increasing number of people, increased rates of violent crime and youth suicide, an increased gap between non-Maori and Maori well-being and the abdication of social responsibility by the government to meet the basic needs of the desperate through strict adherence to the ideology of individual and family responsibility (Cheyne et al., 1997; Easton, 1997). In short, the social policy environment remains one where the demands namely the volume and complexity of social problems, together with public expectations, exceed the resources available and the ability of social services to deliver services (O’Donoghue, 1999).

The effect of this environment upon social work supervision is paradoxical. The increased demand, complexity of client issues, expectations of and from social workers and social work, increases the need for professional social work supervision. Yet, the constrained policy environment with its limited resource provision and high front-line demand reduces the availability of supervision because both practitioners and supervisors have less time available or psychological space to make the most of professionally orientated supervision (O’Donoghue, 1999).

Services Operating Environment

The operating environment in which social service agencies practice is one that is dominated by purchaser and managerial interests rather than those of social workers and clients (Gowdy et al., 1993, O’Donoghue, 1999). It is an environment where the dominant culture is one of production and the vocabulary of staff is arguably directed towards things like key performance indicators, risk management, budgets and contracts. It is also an environment where the business management paradigm influences and reconstructs both social work practice and supervision (O’Donoghue, 1998; 1999). This reconstruction is most obvious in the accounting model of recording inputs and outputs that is replicated at every level of service and which arguably places greater emphasis on recording on the computer system than attending to the needs of clients (O’Donoghue, 1999). In government funded agencies, the performance of a service and its workers, tends to be based on the computer records, rather than what social workers and supervisors actually do with clients and the achievement of client outcomes.

A further issue in this arena is the separation of social service managers from social workers and clients. This separation has been reinforced over the last decade through the influence of the Employment Contracts Act 1991. Today, most social service managers are on individual contracts whilst the social workers are on collective contracts. It is also significant that the assessment of a social service managers’ performance tends to have little to do with client issues or practice and seems centred upon budget variance, volume and output targets, and risk management which is understood as "code for minimising political fall out to Ministers" (Kelsey, 1993:72; Boston et al., 1996). The effects of the separation of social service managers from social workers and clients have been considerable and have resulted in an increasing number of generic managers entering social services, whilst those with a social work background who remain, either struggle with or succumb to the force of the managerial paradigm. In short, it has changed the culture of social service agencies from a service culture to a production culture (O’Donoghue, 1999).

The service environment influences supervision significantly because it is the environment from which supervision draws its most direct mandate, usually via an agency supervision policy. It is also the environment in which the tensions related to needs, resources, ideology and values are acted out (O’Donoghue, 1998). In recent years statutory and health social services have developed supervision policies. The development of policies is a positive initiative which needs to be supported by the development of a best practice and supervision culture (Hawkins et al., 1989; Beddoe et Davys, 1994). Without a culture of best practice and professionally oriented supervision, social work supervision becomes subject to ideological, agency, and managerial capture (Drew, 1987; Taverner, 1989; O’Donoghue, 1999). So clearly, the threat from the service environment is that professional supervision becomes agency supervision that is narrowly constructed by the cognitive interests of agency management whose interest in supervision is managerial rather than professional (Drew, 1987; O’Donoghue, 1999).

Before moving on to the next section, the recent trend of agencies’ purchasing of external supervision and supervision training merits a brief comment. The purchase of both supervision and supervision training has both its pros and cons. The obvious pros are that the agency is willing to invest in supervision. The not so obvious cons are that if supervision and supervision training are purchased, those doing the purchasing namely, agency management, have a significant influence concerning what is purchased. In other words the purchaser can determine the length, content, quality and the type of supervision and supervision training provided. One possible result is that both the supervision and the supervision training purchased may emphasise technique and skills rather than knowledge and critical reflection/action in relation to the persons and environments that influence and construct supervision and social work practice (O’Donoghue, 1999).

Clients
In my study of supervision in the Community Probation Service, thirteen of the fifteen participants interviewed indicated that supervision had a role and place for clients in the following areas:

• the maintenance of boundaries and ethics;
• protection from unsafe practice;
• as a form of quality assurance; and
• in providing reassurance to clients that the people seeing them are competent overseen and accountable to someone for their behaviour.

Social Workers (Supervisees)

The title of this conference, "Supervision from Rhetoric to Reality" is arguably aimed at the experience of the supervisees in Aotearoa New Zealand, who experience a gap between what is talked about supervision and their experiences of actual practice of social work supervision (Payne, 1994). This gap was evident in my research study with the participants providing varied reports of their minimal recent experience of supervision and only four out of the ten practitioners participating in supervision within a month prior to interview. Perhaps the best example of the variety of experiences came from Ellen, a participant who had changed teams and supervisors (O’Donoghue, 1999: 94). Before changing, Ellen had regular monthly sessions and spoke highly of her supervisor:
 

A further issue for supervisees is attending supervision sessions and being psychological present so that they can make the most of the supervision. In my study some of the supervisees indicated that it was difficult for them to do this because they were concerned about the direct work that they are not doing whilst they are in the supervision session (O’Donoghue, 1999). This issue can be considered from different perspectives. One view would locate the issue with the supervisee and view the issue as one of priorities, or the practitioner’s workload and personal management or it could be a sign of burnout. Another perspective may see the issue as systemic and perhaps consider it having something to do with the "just do it" environment and indirect methods of supervision. The reality of this issue is that it most likely lays between both explanations. However, having said this, there is perhaps a challenge arising from this issue in terms of the responsiveness of supervision to supervisees needs. In short, perhaps the issue challenges our construction of supervision and the flexible use of a range of supervision methods in the "just do it" practice environment.

Social workers in Aotearoa New Zealand seem mainly to have only experience of indirect methods of supervision such as the individual supervision session where they report or discuss their work and work related matters. This generalised experience of one form of supervision, which utilises indirect methods, is problematic because it is not responsive to the needs, culture and the work issues of all supervisees. This form of individual indirect supervision has also propagated itself as the acceptable norm of social work supervision through supervisees shared experiences of supervision. Arguably, supervisees in Aotearoa New Zealand do not have an awareness or acceptance of supervision approaches that are beyond that experience, such as direct approaches like "live supervision" (Blake-Palmer et al., 1989; Kadushin, 1992). An implication that arises out of this situation would seem to be that social workers’ socialisation into professional social work supervision is at a fairly rudimentary level and there is a need to educate supervisees about social work supervision and how to make the most of it (O’Donoghue, 1999).

Supervisors

The situation for supervisors is a challenging one. Rarely does a social work supervisor solely supervise. The professional supervision that they provide to social workers is one of many demands that they have to manage whether they are a line manager, peer, practice consultant, social work educator, private practitioner professional advisor, or clinical leader. Generally, most social work supervisors in Aotearoa New Zealand experience some form of role conflict in which they have to balance their differing responsibilities, multiple accountabilities and a range of relationships, when practicing in the supervisory role (O’Donoghue, 1999). One factor that influences the management of this role conflict is the value placed on social work supervision by agencies, managers and colleagues. Social work supervisors are in the unenviable position of making an "invisible contribution" to agency outputs, key performance indicators and client outcomes. The invisibility of supervisors’ contributions provides little support, legitimisation or extrinsic reward for the social work supervisor and can hasten the situation whereby supervision is postponed and cancelled when the multiple responsibilities and accountabilities become pressing.

Present day supervisors in Aotearoa New Zealand also experience a lack of support in a number of areas. Firstly, there is the question of their own supervision or in other words who supervises them and their supervision practice. Secondly, there is a lack of a comprehensive socialisation and education for supervisors into the role, which is not assisted by a third factor, namely, limited access to education, training and research in social work supervision. In Aotearoa New Zealand the supervision models, training, and research that are easily accessible to supervisors were developed in the northern hemisphere and do not take into account Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the uniqueness of our bicultural setting. In short, this brief consideration of supports for supervisors asserts that, in the main, supervisors have limited access to the resources that facilitate best supervision practice.

Agencies

Agencies view social work supervision from two main perspectives. The first is as an overhead rather than a purchase unit (Munson, 1998). This perspective considers supervision as a production cost rather than a revenue producer. As a production cost the agency needs to manage supervision so that it does not: a) increase the cost of producing outputs; and b) reduce the volume of outputs produced, therein reducing the amount of revenue available to the agency.

The second perspective that agencies’ view social work supervision from is as a risk management system that protects the agency from being blamed for unethical and unprofessional practice by its social workers and social work supervisors (CYPFS, 1997). In this regard agencies’ develop supervision policies and engage in supervision training so that they have a system in place that protects the agency from unprofessional and unethical practice by individual practitioners. By developing these systems agencies arguably can shift any responsibility for unprofessional and unethical practice from the agency and its purchaser to individual social workers and supervisors.

These two perspectives reveal the double-bind that social service agencies face in regard to supervision namely, that they want to control supervision in relation to cost and amount. However, they do not want to be responsible for professional social work or supervision practice.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand in terms of its recorded past and through an analysis of the present by a macro assessment of the supervision environment and a micro assessment of the persons involved.

The exploration of the past revealed that the dual forces of professionalisation and the practice environment have shaped social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand. These forces have seen the focus of supervision shift over the years from education to accountability (1966-1978), accountability to best practice (1978-1988), best practice to managerial dominance (1989-1994), managerial dominance to a professional resurgence (1994-1999).

The analysis of the present in the macro assessment reveals: a) an active profession operating within a limited sphere of influence in a environment facing significant change in the form of the state registration of social workers; b) a social policy environment of high demand and low support for social work supervision; c) a service operating environment dominated by the interests of purchasers and management in which professional supervision is reconstructed by the business management and accounting paradigm.

The micro assessment reveals that: 1) whilst clients are perceived to be the raison d’être for supervision they have no voice and little involvement in the supervision process; 2) supervisees experience a gap between the rhetoric and reality of supervision with reports of variable experiences, limited choice, and being socialised to a particular form of supervision that is arguably unresponsive to them, their practice experiences and the "just do it" practice environment; 3) supervisors face challenges arising from role conflicts in which they manage multiple and conflicting accountablities, responsibilities and relationships with limited access to resources that facilitate best supervisory practice; 4) agencies that perceive supervision both as a production cost that needs to be managed and risk management system for the agency’s protection and are caught in the double-bind of wanting to control the cost of supervision without responsibility for the practice of supervision.

Finally there are two challenges that emerge for the future of social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand:

1. For social work supervision to be professionally rather than agency or managerially focused, the profession needs to maintain a high degree of activity and success in both the supervision environment and with the persons involved in supervision.
2. The development of a professional social work supervision culture that is responsive to the parties involved in supervision within the context of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Ansley, B. (2000) Human Values, New Zealand Listener, 173, (3124), pp 16-19.

ANZASW (2000) Executive Officer’s update, Social Work Notice Board, (May), pp 2-3.

Beddoe,L. and Davys,A.(1994) The Status of Supervision-Reflections From a Training Perspective, Social Work Review, VI, (5&6), pp 16-21.

Beddoe, L. and Randal, H. (1994) The New Zealand Association of Social Workers: The Professional Response to a Decade of Change, in Munford, R. and Nash, E. (Eds) Social Work in Action (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press), pp 21-36.

Beddoe, L. (1997a) A New Era for Supervision, Social Work Now,(7), pp 10-15.

Beddoe, L. (1997b) Best Practice in Social Work Supervision- Education and Accreditation Issues, Social Work Review, IX (4), pp 37-43.

Bennie, G. (1995) Social Work Supervision An Annotated Bibliography (Palmerston North, Massey University, Department of Social Policy and Social Work).

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

Boud, D., and Knights, S. (1996) Course Design for Reflective Practice. In Gould, N. and Taylor, I. (Eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work, (Aldershot, Arena).

Bowden, A.R. (1980) Middle Management Supervisors in a Statutory Social Welfare Agency: A study of the Views of Senior Social Workers (Palmerston North, Massey University, MSW Thesis).

Blake-Palmer, L. and Connolly, M, (1989) Supervision- But Not As We Know It! Social Work Review, II (2&3), pp 21-22.

Bracey, O. (1978a) A Conspiracy of Silence or Supervision in Social Work in NZ, New Zealand Social Work, 2 (2), pp 9-12.

Bracey, O. (1978b) Book Review of Supervision in Social Work by Alfred Kadushin, in New Zealand Social Work, 2 (2), pp17-18.

Bracey, O. (1981) Casework Supervision In The New Zealand Probation Service (Auckland, University of Auckland, MA Thesis).

Bradley, J.,Jacob, E.,Bradley, R.,(1999) Reflections on Culturally Safe Supervision, or Why Bill Gates Makes More Money Than We Do, Te Komako,Social Work Review, Te Komako III, XI, (4), pp3-6.

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

Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service (1997) Professional Supervision Policy (Wellington, The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Service).

Cockburn, G. (1994) Supervision in Social Work. A Brief Statement of the Essentials, in Social Work Review, VI (5 & 6) , p37.

 Couldshed, V. (1993) Adult Learning: Implications for Teaching In Social Work Education. British Journal of Social Work, 23, pp 1-13.

Drew, J. (1987) Social Work Supervision as a Political Function: A Critique of Cognitive Interests and the Impact of the Capitalist Welfare State (Palmerston North, Massey University, MSW Thesis).

Easton, B.(1997) The Commercialisation of New Zealand (Auckland, Auckland University Press).

Easton, B. (2000) Value Added, New Zealand Listener, 173, (3124), pp 20-21.

Ellis, G. (1998) Through The Looking Glass- Fieldwork Supervisors’ Perceptions of Their Role and Needs for Support, Education and Training (Palmerston North, Massey University, MSW Thesis).

Gardiner, D. (1989) The Anatomy of Supervision- Developing Learning and Professional Competence for Social Work Students (Milton Keynes, Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press).

Gould, N. and Taylor, I. (1996) (Eds), Reflective Learning for Social Work (Aldershot, Arena).

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

Hancock, M. (1994) Preface: A Conversation with Merv Hancock. In Munford, R., and
Nash, M., Social Work in Action, Palmerston North, Dunmore Press, pp9-14.

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

Kadushin, A. (1976) Supervision in Social Work (New York, University of Columbia Press).

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

Kelsey, J. (1993) Rolling Back the State, Privatisation of Power in Aotearoa New Zealand (Wellington, Bridget Williams Books).

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall).

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

Munson, C. (1998) Societal Change Managed Cost Organizations and Clinical Social Work Practice, in The Clinical Supervisor, 17 (2), pp1-41.

Munford, R. and Sanders, J. (1999) Supporting Families (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press).

Nash, M. (1998) ‘That terrible title, social worker’: A time of transition in social work history 1949-73, Social Work Review, X, (1), pp12-18.

New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1966) Report of Supervision in Social Work Course Oct- Nov 1965, in New Zealand Social Worker, 2, (1), pp21.

New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1972) Supervision in Social Work a New Zealand Perspective (Palmerston North, New Zealand Association of Social Work).

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

New Zealand Association of Social Workers. (1998b) Social Work Notice Board (November).

New Zealand Social Work Training Council. (1985) Supervision Resource Package (Wellington, New Zealand Social Work Training Council).

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

O’ Donoghue, K. (1999) Professional Supervision Practice Under New Public Management: A Study of the Perspectives of Probation Officers and Service Managers in the Community Probation Service (Palmerston North, Massey University, MPhil Thesis).

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).

Payne, M. (1997) Modern Social Work Theory (2nd Edition) (London, Macmillan Press Ltd).

Registration Project Team. (1999) Social Work Notice Board Special Edition Registration, (December).

Registration Project Team. (2000) Social Work Notice Board Supplement Registration (May).

Schon, D. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action (Aldershot, England, Ashgate Publishing Limited).

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

Taverner, P. (1989) Supervision, in Social Work Review, 1 (3&4), pp20-21.

Van Kessel, L. and Haan, D. (1993) The Intended Way of Learning in Supervision Seen as a Model, in The Clinical Supervisor, 11 (1), pp29-44.

Webber-Dreadon, E.,(1999)He Taonga Mo o Matou Tipuna (A gift handed down by our ancestors): An indigenous approach to social work supervision, Te Komako,Social Work Review, Te Komako III, XI, (4), pp7-11.

Young, G. (1993) Critical Components in the Supervision of Child Protection Social Workers in a Statutory Agency. (Unpublished paper. Albany, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Massey University).

Date: 3 January 2001