Abstract
Supervision is crucial in social work for enhancing service delivery standards. In South Africa, deficiencies in supervision practices and ineffective implementation of the social development approach have negatively impacted service quality. This study investigated the relationship between supervision and the adoption of the social development approach within the Department of Social Development in Mpumalanga’s Gert Sibande District. Using a qualitative case study design and semi-structured interviews, the findings revealed that supervision in the district does not effectively support the social development approach, raising concerns about service delivery quality.
Keywords
Introduction
Various studies and scholars have emphasised the importance of the practice of social work supervision in rendering quality social work services (Call, 2020; Engelbrecht, 2019; Ncube, 2019, 2019; Ross and Ncube, 2018). In this light, social work supervision is viewed as the fulcrum of the social work profession (Ross and Ncube, 2018). Furthermore, Engelbrecht (2015a) posits that social workers and social work supervisors are progressively viewed as the most significant resource in tackling the needs and challenges of society due to their appropriate training and skills to deliver effective services. The depth of their diverse knowledge and skills makes them a resource for social welfare and various other sectors locally and internationally (Department of Social Development [DSD] and South African Council of Social Service Professionals [SACSSP], 2012). However, Botha (2002) argues that if an organisation renders supervision of inferior quality to its social work practitioners, it places itself at a risk of poor service delivery to its service users.
In 1997, the government of the Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1997) adopted the White Paper for Social Welfare to transform the social welfare sector towards a developmental slant and maximise the potential of citizens, particularly the previously marginalised (Midgley, 2014; Patel, 2015). A social development approach emphasises the importance of spending on citizens, eliminating obstacles and allowing citizens to journey towards the fulfilment of their dreams with dignity (Patel, 2015). Social work practitioners are obligated by the dictates of their profession to protect human dignity and human rights. Therefore, the social development approach facilitates this endeavour as it promotes human rights and human dignity (Ncube, 2021; Patel, 2015). Dlangamandla (2010) asserts that social workers have skills that effectively contribute to the required implementation of the social development practice approach.
The SACSSP (2007) requires that social workers be supervised in their field of practice as part of their continuous learning process that occurs within a specific reciprocal relationship between a supervisor and a social worker during which knowledge is deepened, and skills are developed. In the Framework for Supervision for Social Work Professionals in South Africa, a set of reasons for the importance of supervision of social workers is provided, one of which is that supervision contributes to the improved quality of services offered to service users (DSD and SACSSP, 2012). Then, supervision can be used to control and increase accountability in social welfare services rendered within the communities while and equipping inexperienced social workers with skills and knowledge to deliver effective services (Botha, 2002). Patel (2015) specifies that the supervision of social work professionals contributes to the appropriate application of the chosen approach to service delivery. Ncube (2019) advances an argument that social work supervision must facilitate an understanding and application of the agency’s chosen service delivery approach to the extent of creating a symbiotic relationship between the two. In a myriad of service delivery approaches, the DSD opted for a social development perspective. That lends the South African type of social work to developmental social work. For this reason, this study sought to explore the extent to which the practice of social work supervision in Mpumalanga facilitates an understanding and adoption of the social development practice approach to service delivery.
Therefore, the aim of the study is to explore the extent to which social work supervision at the DSD in Mpumalanga’s Gert Sibande District facilitates the adoption of the social development practice approach. The research question guiding the study was: How does social work supervision in this district influence the adoption of the social development practice approach? To address this question, the study aimed to achieve three objectives: first, to explore the extent to which social workers and supervisors prioritise supervision; second, to elicit their views on the practical understanding of the social development approach; and third, to investigate how supervision within the department fosters an understanding of this approach in practice.
Literature review
While there is a significant amount of literature on social work supervision, there is a paucity on social development-informed social work supervision with a particular focus on how the approach informs the practice of supervision and vice versa. Two scholars who have attempted to focus on this area are Engelbrecht (2019) and Ncube (2019). Nonetheless, their studies left knowledge, methodological and practice gaps for continued empirical investigations in this area. Although the present study refers to a specific geographic location, its outcomes contribute to the broader body of social work supervision literature. The SACSSP (2007) states that social work is a profession that envisions improving the ability and social functioning of persons, and societies. Zastrow (2014) states the practice of social work emphasises the proficient use of social work values, principles and techniques. Furthermore, theoretical knowledge, skills and techniques in social work are used to ensure the professionalism of social work practice. The global definition of social work encompasses these stating that
Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2014)
With this understanding of the profession, social work supervision then becomes the mainstay that underpins the profession in the rendering of quality services. It also provides a platform for accountability (Call, 2020). Thus, supervision is an effective tool in the development of social workers with knowledge and skills to be used when the social workers serve people (Engelbrecht and Ncube, 2021; Ross and Ncube, 2018). Supervision is a distinct evidence-based practice performed by a designated supervisor to promote efficient and professional social service delivery (DSD and SACSSP, 2012).
Mokoka (2016) and Smith (2014) argue that social work supervision provides practitioners with an opportunity to collaboratively deal with work-related tension and to be aware of their emotions concerning work and stressors that may weaken service delivery if unattended. It further increases the supervisor–supervisee relationship and is largely determined by external factors, such as the agency environment, supervisee needs and presenting problems of the social service users (Hafford-Letchfield et al., 2014). The development of social work practice and supervision relies on both the social worker and the supervisor providing competent professional services (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2013). Therefore, both the supervisor and the social worker are integral components in the development of the type of supervision provided as well as the supervisory relationship between the two of them.
Furthermore, the implementation of the supervision practice is affected by the organisation’s internal dynamics including its aims and objectives, the availability or absence of policies on supervision and the approach to service delivery (Dirgeliene, 2016; Openshaw, 2012). Appropriate implementation of social work supervision leads to improved work performance, quality of work, professional socialisation, and social workers’ confidence (Bradley et al., 2010). Engelbrecht, (2012) state that supervision practice is a force for change within the social work profession. An appreciation of this agency-based supervision practice, helps to understand the opportunities and limitations that exist for supervision (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014). Hence, Ncube (2019) highlights that how supervision is practised is of critical importance given its pivotal nature to service delivery in the profession of social work.
The evolution and significance of social work supervision
The profession of social work emerged in the late 19th century as a response to the social ills and needs identified among the working class. It achieved formal recognition and professional status in the first half of the 20th century (Danış and Kirbaç, 2013).
To give an international context of the evolution of social work supervision in South Africa, Busse (2021; Stuart, 2019) states that the history of social work supervision is closely intertwined with that of social work itself, particularly in Europe and North America, where both developed concurrently. Despite its significance, the exact origins of the traditional model of social work supervision remain uncertain (Munson, 2002). Furthermore, ongoing debates and divergent views regarding the origins of social work supervision reflect its complex and evolving nature (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014). Kadushin and Harkness (2002) argue that before 1920, there was limited information about the practice of social work supervision, with supervisors primarily dictating to their supervisees on what needed to be done in practice. Alongside the development of social work, the practice of supervision also evolved, initially seen as an individual support service focused on personal introspection and ‘matters of the soul’. However, this approach faced criticism for its limited scope, leading to calls for supervision to be viewed as an instrument of emancipation for the practitioner (Busse, 2021).
Initially, in South Africa, the development of social work and the practice of supervision followed a similar trajectory to that of its Western counterparts, albeit under different conditions. To a larger extent, the historical outline of social work and supervision in South Africa was shaped by the country’s political history, social welfare practice and the success of social work in rendering services to social service users (Engelbrecht, 2010; Patel, 2005; Smith, 2014). Social work training for Caucasians and other racial groups was introduced in the 1940s and 1950s (Mazibuko and Gray, 2004; Noyoo et al., 2021), and the practice of social work supervision became systematic and scientific during the first half of the 20th century. The formalisation of the social work profession in South Africa was further enhanced by the development of the Social Work Act in 1978, which led to the establishment of the Council of Social Workers, a statutory body (Republic of South Africa, 1978). This body mandated that all social work professionals must register and renew their registration annually to practise (DSD and SACSSP, 2012). Engelbrecht (2015a) highlights the salience of supervision as a mandated practice in South Africa.
The South African government embraced a social welfare paradigm that facilitated a shift from a preoccupation with residual services to a developmental approach to service delivery. Various theoretical perspectives aligning with the developmental paradigm, such as the strengths perspective and the ecological perspective, were identified (Engelbrecht, 2010). However, studies focusing in some areas of South Africa indicate that the way in which supervision is rendered in South Africa does not correspond with these theoretical standards, thereby failing to facilitate a developmental trajectory as espoused in the social development practice approach (Engelbrecht, 2010; Ncube, 2019; Tsima and Ncube, 2023). Engelbrecht (2010) further asserts that the roles of supervision in South Africa reveal knowledge gaps among supervisees, irrespective of their agencies. The primary drive in developing and refining social work supervisory practices in South Africa is to meet the basic needs of the citizens. According to Kadushin and Harkness (2002), supervision lies in the augmented integration of theoretical doctrines into supervisory practices, which should align with a chosen service delivery approach (Ncube, 2019). In the evolution of supervision, the suggested adaptation seems to have been overlooked, resulting in a scenario where traditional supervision – aligned with residual and institutional approaches – persisted despite the welfare orientation shifting towards a developmental focus.
The development of various theory-informed supervision approaches, such as the strengths-based model (Engelbrecht, 2021), process model of social development supervision in social work (Ncube, 2019), integrated developmental model (IDM) (Stoltenberg and McNeill, 2010) and others reflects the ongoing efforts to improve supervision practices in South Africa. These models aim to assist social workers in becoming accountable and maintaining ethical standards in their field of practice (DSD and SACSSP, 2012). The models also support professional development by providing social workers and supervisors’ opportunities for professional learning, thereby enhancing their knowledge and skills to effectively navigate difficult and diverse practice environments (Ncube, 2019).
Amid challenges in social welfare service delivery, the DSD developed a Recruitment and Retention Strategy for Social Service Practitioners to address the deterioration in productivity, the quality of rendered services and disorganised supervision structures (DSD, 2017). The strategy highlighted the importance of supervision for social work professionals, leading to the development of a supervision framework reflecting its critical role in the profession (DSD and SACSSP, 2012). Throughout the history of social work supervision, the lack of adequate supervision has been noted to affect the professional growth of social work professionals and impugn the integrity of the profession (Engelbrecht, 2013).
The competence of supervisors is essential to providing quality supervision, as emphasised by Call (2020). The supervision framework stipulates that supervisors may only supervise in areas of their competence (DSD and SACSSP, 2012). The IFSW (2014) further emphasises the legal responsibility of social work supervisors to ensure quality supervision, protecting service users from unscrupulous practices. To support and strengthen supervision practices, the NASW (2013) developed practice standards for social work supervision. These standards promote critical reflection on practice by social work supervisees and ensure that supervision involves every part of service delivery, including the organisation (agency), social work supervisor, social worker (supervisee) and the service user (Kadushin and Harkness, 2002).
In consideration of the preceding discussion and notwithstanding other definitions within the broader body of social work literature, supervision in social work, for the purposes of this article, is conceptualised as a middle-management function. It employs supervisory approaches that align with and support the practice approach of the agency or supervisee. This function facilitates the supervisee’s ability to fulfil their responsibilities effectively, guided by relevant theories, skills, techniques, legislation and agency policies.
Theoretical lens
The social development theory (Boshoff, 2013; Patel, 2015) was used as the theoretical framework for this study, linking social and economic development based on principles such as self-help, self-determination and active participation in service rendering. Furthermore, informed by this theory, social development is recognised as a macroeconomic policy framework (Midgley, 1995), aimed at fostering human capital development, reducing inequality and promoting long-term economic growth (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA], 2020). It aims to bring visible social and economic development to people’s lives, improving their proficiencies, opportunities and decision-making (Sen, 2000). Building on its theoretical foundation, Patel (2015) introduces a social development practice approach, characterised by ‘multimodal social development interventions’. She contends that social development has evolved beyond being merely a macroeconomic policy framework. Instead, it now encompasses a practice-oriented approach that integrates interventions across micro, mezzo and macro levels of practice.
As both a practice approach and a theoretical lens to welfare, social development promotes human rights and dignity, advocating for national participation and democratic decision-making processes (Patel, 2015). The South African social welfare system is largely based on a social development approach, as reflected in the work of Lombard and Kleijn (2006) (the White Paper for Social Welfare in 1997). Due to ever-escalating socio-economic challenges, and within the scope of its social development approach to welfare, South Africa has stepped up its cash transfers to the indigent, particularly millions of vulnerable children (Khan, 2022; Nnaeme et al., 2020).
Ncube (2019) argues that the socio-economic situation in South Africa has worsened since the inception of the new democratic dispensation in 1994, advocating for thorough orientation of social workers on the social development approach to mitigate the prevailing socio-economic challenges. The effectiveness of the social development approach depends on the extent to which the supervision practice is implemented, making social work supervision pivotal in the implementation of this practice approach (Silence, 2017). However, there are significant gaps between policy announcement and its implementation, affecting the application of the approach in practice (Engelbrecht, 2013). It is crucial for supervisors to understand and apply the social development practice approach to ensure effective developmental social work services in South Africa (Ncube, 2019).
In practice, supervisors must have a strong knowledge of social development theory, integrating it into their supervision practices to render quality supervision and enhance service delivery (Engelbrecht, 2013; Ncube, 2019). Despite the importance of supervision, studies indicate that supervision is not always effectively implemented in South Africa, with social workers often not receiving adequate supervision (Engelbrecht, 2010; Mboniswa, 2007). This deficit can negatively impact the application of the social development approach in practice, highlighting the need for improved supervision practices (Engelbrecht, 2013). Thus, social work supervision practice and the service delivery approach within which it operates (in this case, social development) are inextricably linked.
Methodology
Research approach and design
The study adopted a qualitative approach and an instrumental case study design. The qualitative approach provided deep insights into social workers’ subjective experiences and perceptions of supervision. The instrumental case study design enabled the examination of social work supervision as a broader phenomenon by focusing on the Gert Sibande District in Mpumalanga, South Africa. An instrumental case study is a type of single case study involving exploring some general areas of the phenomenon, supervision in this case, to enhance understanding rather than a particular case (Kekeya, 2021). With regard to generalisability, while the study is not aimed at statistical generalisation, the insights gained may be transferable to similar contexts or inform broader theories. The focus in this case is seen through the lenses of the few supervisors and supervisees.
Population and sampling
The study focused on social work supervisors and practitioners (supervisees) employed at the DSD in the Gert Sibande District Municipality, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. Using a non-probability, purposive sampling method, eight participants (four supervisors and four supervisees) were selected based on predefined criteria, including at least 1 year of professional experience with the department and current employment in the district. Participants were chosen independently, avoiding supervisor–supervisee pairings to minimise conflicts of interest and socially desirable responses. The small sample size was justified by the study’s qualitative focus, prioritising in-depth understanding of participants’ experiences over generalisability. Recruitment took place in October and November 2021 through staff meetings arranged with assistance from district and sub-district officials. During these meetings, the researcher explained the study’s objectives and obtained informed consent after providing clear, written information.
Data collection method and tool
The study used a semi-structured interview schedule as an instrument for the collection of the data. Interviews were administered through face-to-face interaction between the researchers and the participants. Greeff (2011: 43) argues that semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to explore the participants’ opinions, approaches and ideas about definite phenomena. The following are overarching questions that facilitated data collection: to what extent do participants prioritise social work supervision at the Mpumalanga DSD? What are the views of social work supervisors and social workers on their understanding of the social development approach in practice? To what extent does the supervision used in Mpumalanga DSD teach an understanding of the social development approach? Interview sessions with each participant lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, depending on the depth of data requiring further exploration.
Data analysis
The researchers employed thematic analysis to analyse the data in this study. According to Braun and Clarke (2013), thematic analysis follows a six-phase framework. This framework includes the steps of familiarisation, immersion in the data, theme identification, coding, elaboration, interpretation and verification (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). Themes were identified by coding relevant points, most of which corresponded to the key questions asked of participants. The first researcher did the first round of data analysis after which the second researcher confirmed the process, the themes and the accuracy of the outcomes of the process. Data outliers, particularly those deviating from dominant narratives in the literature, were identified and recorded as findings.
Trustworthiness and rigour
This study adhered to Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) model of trustworthiness and rigour. Credibility was enhanced through detailed descriptions of the context, setting and theoretical framework, as well as member checking during and after interviews. Transferability was supported by clearly defining the study’s problem, while dependability was ensured through a transparent explanation of the research process. The researchers’ background as social workers contributed to their understanding of the phenomenon and the context of the data collection. Neutrality was maintained by minimising biases and conducting correspondence cheques with participants.
Ethics
Ethics clearance was obtained from the University of Johannesburg’s Faculty of Humanities Research Ethics Committee, along with permission from Mpumalanga’s DSD. No incentives were provided, and to reduce bias, the first researcher excluded the sub-district in which she is employed. Key ethical considerations included informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality (using coded identifiers) and ethics of care. Although the study posed minimal risk, arrangements were made with the employee assistance provider to offer counselling if needed.
Limitations of the study
Despite careful preparation and achieving its aims, this research faced limitations beyond the researchers’ control. As Wiersma (2000) notes, qualitative research often encounters challenges with validity and reliability due to its specific settings. Another limitation was the small number of participants, which restricts generalisability. However, it is in the nature of instrumental case studies to be less concerned about the case but use the collected data, irrespective of the size, to provide an insight into a broader phenomenon, setting the stage for future, larger studies. Researchers took steps to ensure that these limitations did not undermine the study’s overall credibility.
Data presentation and discussion
Profile of participants
The initial section of the interview schedule was designed to gather the participants’ key demographic information. Table 1 presents the demographic profiles of the eight participants, including their age, gender, race, job level, social work experience, years of supervision at the DSD and time spent in their current role. These demographic details serve as a validation tool. To ensure participants’ confidentiality, the researchers used alphabetical codes for identification.
Demographic profiles of participants.
Gender of participants
The participant profile reveals a higher number of females than males, consistent with Whalley’s (2012: 92) observation that social work is predominantly a female-dominated profession. This finding is supported by scholars, such as Canpolat (2022), who notes that men often gravitate towards careers in science and engineering, while women tend to choose fields like social work, education and administrative support. Despite this gender distribution, it did not influence the study’s outcomes, as gender was not a relevant factor in the research.
Participants’ job titles
The study included four social work supervisees, consisting of two junior social workers and two senior social workers. In addition, there were four social work supervisors, with two permanently employed as supervisors and the other two serving as acting supervisors. This indicates that the employer is making efforts to comply with statutory requirements for supervision practice. While the social work supervisees had an average of over 5 years of practice experience, the supervisors averaged 22 years of experience. This level of experience aligned well with the study’s objectives, as the participants were well-equipped to provide in-depth insights into the phenomenon of supervision in their context.
Setting
All participants are assigned to the foster care unit within the DSD. This unit is tasked with ensuring the care and protection of children unable to reside with their biological families due to circumstances, such as neglect, abuse, abandonment or the death of primary caregivers. As the largest social service unit within the department, the foster care unit represents a significant proportion of the department’s social work activities. Notably, the DSD is the largest employer of social workers in South Africa, underscoring its pivotal role in the country’s child welfare system.
Main themes emerging from data
Functions of supervision: Administrative, educational and supportive dimensions
The question on the functions of supervision was posed to both groups of participants. In line with earlier theorisations of supervision, Engelbrecht (2010) reflects on three functions of supervision. These were used as themes given the collected data.
Administrative function
Administrative supervision primarily emphasises the accurate, effective and timely implementation of organisational policies and procedures (Engelbrecht, 2010). It also centres on evaluating the supervisee’s performance against established standards. The participants’ responses regarding the administrative component of supervision were consistent, though expressed differently. Below are some of the direct quotes from the data.
The administrative component is where the focus of our supervision is mostly based on. As a social worker, I always require assistance from my supervisor on how I can complete forms which are used within the department to render services. (Supervisee A) I employ the administrative function as I always assist the social workers with information about procedures and processes of completing forms at the Department. The focus of our work is largely statutory foster care. (Supervisor A) The administrative function is adequately implemented as there are times you are just given a form or any other document without receiving proper explanation on what is expected or what I must do as a social worker. My supervisor always guides me accordingly. I now understand most procedures because of the guidance from my supervisor. (Supervisee B)
Evidently, participants reflected a level of understanding social work supervision’s administrative function and its impact on their functioning. Nonetheless, there was a varying degree to which supervisors employed this function of supervision practice. While some participants were happy with the level of administrative function applied in their contexts, there were others who noted its application but wished that more of it could be employed. Participants understood the centrality of supervision, and the administrative function in line with Voicu’s (2017) postulation that the practice is a solution that can bring support, competence, education, information, orientation, which provides a good development for the professional workflow.
Educational function
Kadushin and Harkness (2014) note that educational supervision is centred on enhancing the practitioner’s knowledge, skills and methods essential for effective field practice. Engelbrecht (2010) adds that this function supports the supervisee in advancing their professional competencies to perform their tasks more effectively. Mokoka (2016) agrees, stating that this component empowers supervisees to intervene across various situations and levels of intervention within their field. According to DSD and SACSSP (2012), this aspect of supervision also addresses the educational needs of the supervisee within the context of an agreed-upon workload. Below are some of the quotes from the collected data.
Opportunities for continuous development are provided to us through regular external workshops. These workshops facilitate the development of our knowledge and skills. (Supervisee C) Due to the amount of workload that one has as a supervisor there is hardly time to do any supervisory functions beyond the administrative function. As a result, we send supervisees for external workshops to supplement their knowledge. (Supervisor B) The educational function is done when it’s convenient for both parties. While it is important, the work conditions relating to the workload of both the supervisor and the supervisee does not allow one to spend elongated periods on supervision. (Supervisor C)
The presented data suggest that the educational function of supervision is constrained by workload pressures for both supervisors and supervisees. Second, given these constraints, workshops become an alternative to supervision to develop supervisees’ knowledge and skills. However, if supervisees can find time for workshops, they may as well find time for comprehensive supervision, which is usually less than that of a workshop. It then leaves the workload of supervisors as the only plausible excuse for failure to execute educational supervision. There may be other reasons, such as competence of supervisors and lack of interest but that is beyond the scope of the collected data. Furthermore, supervision appears to be scheduled on convenience rather than integrated into the regular workflow. As such, educational function is treated as supplementary to the administrative function.
Support function
Participants shared their experiences in the support function of supervision. While supervisees stated that they do not experience the support function in their instances, supervisors indicated the contrary as reflected in the data below:
Very poor, we don’t have support to deal with emotional issues that may affect our work as the focus is always on administration. (Supervisee A) As the supervisor, I ensure that I observe my supervisee’s performance and where need be, provide support. It is not always the case that a supervisee needs emotional support, but I am always available when such arises. (Supervisor A) As I am always rendering supervision, I always ensure that I support my supervisees emotionally and all the time they need that support. (Supervisor B) From my experience, our supervisors prioritise administrative functioning with particular focus on quantity that quality at any cost. There is no emotional support at all. (Supervisee C)
Responses suggest a disparity in the perception and delivery of emotional support. This inconsistency suggests that the support function is not uniformly integrated into the supervision process, leading to gaps in addressing supervisees’ emotional needs. The emphasis on the administrative function and quantities in service delivery overshadows the supportive function of supervision which may, inadvertently impact on the quality-of-service delivery. This imbalance in the focus of supervision functions may also suggest a systemic issue where the organisational culture and structure negates the overall importance of a comprehensive application of supervision. A focus on quantifying outcomes and ‘pushing numbers’ is often seen as a neoliberal approach, which has a significant and frequently detrimental impact on social services (Engelbrecht, 2015a; Ornellas and Engelbrecht, 2020a; Tsui and Cheung, 2004).
In a similar study where issues of workload and preoccupation with quantities were highlighted, Ncube (2019) found that supervision was somewhat an inconvenience to both the supervisors and supervisees. This is largely due to a lack of appreciation of the science of supervision in enhancing service delivery. Mokoka (2016) emphasises the importance of fostering a close relationship between the supervisor and the social work supervisee to create a safe space where both can openly share any negative emotions triggered in their practice. Tsui (2005) highlights that supervisors and supervisees often have different expectations regarding the administrative, educational and supportive aspects of supervision. He stresses the importance of balancing and acknowledging these three functions, with the supportive function being the most crucial. Carpenter et al. (2015) further note that a lack of emotional support, inadequate supervision and feeling out of one’s depth are key factors contributing to high burnout rates.
Methods, frequency and strategies of supervision
It has been indicated that the practice of supervision in social work is a vital process that enhances professional development and ensures that social workers deliver services effectively. Tsui (2005) highlights various supervision methods tailored to meet the needs of social workers. The DSD and SACSSP (2012) emphasise individual and group supervision methods, both of which must align with the ethical code for social workers. The choice between these methods is influenced by the nature of the supervisees’ work, their goals and the proximity and frequency of interaction between the supervisor and supervisee.
Participants in this study shared experiences of both individual and group supervision, with a preference for individual supervision. This method allows for one-on-one interaction between the supervisor and supervisee, promoting professional growth and enabling the supervisee to gain deeper insights into the profession (DSD and SACSSP, 2012; Tsui, 2005). One participant noted that although both individual and group supervision are utilised, individual supervision tends to be more practical and structured, particularly given the high caseloads that can sometimes lead to unstructured individual sessions.
. . . but the one type of supervision that I think is easy to implement is individual supervision. However, due to high caseloads it gets very unstructured as there is hardly time for formalities. In our office both the individual and group supervision are facilitated as there are aspects of our work that we discuss as a group while others require individual supervision. (Supervisee C)
Group supervision, on the contrary, focuses on collective discussions, skill development and professional growth, with the supervisor as the designated leader (Alschuler et al., 2015). This method allows supervisees to share experiences and information, fostering a collaborative environment. However, challenges, such as inconsistent attendance, can hinder the effectiveness of group supervision, leading to a preference for individual sessions where supervisees receive more focused attention.
The frequency and depth of supervision significantly impact the effectiveness of social work practice. Engelbrecht (2015a) posits that the frequency of supervision is often determined by the supervisee’s experience and competency level. New employees may receive weekly supervision, while more experienced supervisees might have less frequent sessions. The depth of these sessions varies, with some being brief and unplanned, while others are more in-depth, addressing complex cases and issues that affect the supervisee’s performance. Ncube (2029 refers to impromptu supervision as ad hoc supervision that is based on a specific need of the supervisee on a particular issue. This is what many social workers have become accustomed to, particularly in government offices.
Participants expressed the need for regular, structured supervision indicating that its absence or poor application impugns the integrity of the profession and affects the quality-of-service delivery, Similarly, Bogo and McKnight (2005) emphasise that the greater the frequency of supervision, the more satisfied supervisees are with their professional development. However, there is a lack of uniformity in supervision frequency across different offices, with the professionalism and experience of social workers guiding when and how often supervision occurs.
The frequency of supervision is based on the supervisee’s experience and competency level. New employees receive weekly supervision, while those with 3–5 years of service typically have monthly sessions. Supervisees with over 5 years of experience also receive monthly supervision, but some transition to consultations depending on the complexity of their cases. (Supervisor A) . . .supervision usually takes place at unplanned moments and sometimes it is touch and go where we de-stress and discuss a lot of cases and issues affecting our functioning. Yesterday we had a two-hour session, it was unplanned. (Supervisee D)
In essence, while both individual and group supervision methods are employed in social work, individual supervision is often preferred due to its structured nature and ability to cater to the specific needs of supervisees. The frequency and depth of supervision play crucial roles in the professional development of social workers, though inconsistencies in practice highlight the need for more standardised approaches.
Supporting strategies of supervision
Supervision in social work is enhanced by several supporting strategies, including mentoring, consultation, peer consultation, live supervision and online supervision. These strategies are crucial in adapting supervision to the specific environmental context where services are rendered (Engelbrecht, 2012; Scott, 2009). The implementation of these strategies varies depending on the needs of the supervisees and the conditions under which they work. These are some of the subthemes that emerged from the collected data.
Mentoring and consultation
Mentoring as a supporting strategy in social work supervision is characterised by a nurturing and supportive relationship between a seasoned, knowledgeable practitioner (mentor) and a less experienced individual (protégé or mentee). In this relationship, the protégé gains personal and career-related benefits through guidance and support from the mentor (Henry et al., 1994). It primarily focuses on professional development, accountability and investment in the learning relationship, addressing the supervisees’ professional development needs. In corroboration, Gallacher (1997) notes that the need for mentoring and coaching in social work is driven by issues related to personnel development in early intervention. As Engelbrecht (2013) notes, mentoring enhances the purpose of supervision and work development.
Consultation, another key strategy, is a process within supervision that addresses challenges as they arise. According to the DSD and the SACSSP (2012), consultation encourages supervisees to work independently while maintaining the responsibility to seek guidance when needed. Although the use of the term consultation, among others, is contended by Engelbrecht (2012) as a neoliberal tendency, DSD and SACSSP (2012) define it as an activity in supervision for seasoned practitioners with no need for structured supervision. This approach allows for the timely resolution of cases, even when time for supervision is limited. One supervisor shared,
I do not get mentorship in a formally arranged manner. I was only assigned a supervisor when I initially got employed and it ended there. I however learn from other senior practitioners that I look up to. That is the extent to which I related with mentorship. (Supervisee B) The supervision sessions that I render to my supervisees help because whether I am there or not, they are able to cope without me. The majority of my supervisees are on consultation, they have experience in the field and need not to be closely watched. (Supervisor C)
Setting the supervisory agenda and structure
Both the supervisor and the supervisee share the responsibility of setting up and structuring the supervision agenda. Munson (2002) emphasises that a clear, formal structure and agenda are crucial for the development of the supervisee. However, in many offices, this responsibility often falls predominantly on the supervisors. A supervisee explained,
When I used to have supervision, I would put my cases on the agenda and submit them to my supervisor. If she felt something needed to be added, she would do so, but it was usually me. (Supervisee B)
Despite this, some participants indicated that supervisors typically take the lead in setting the agenda. This centralised control can limit the shared responsibility that is ideal for effective supervision. As Carpenter et al. (2012) suggest, without clear role specifications, the effectiveness of supervision practices can be compromised. The responses indicate a need for balance in decision-making to ensure that both supervisors and supervisees can demonstrate competency and contribute to the supervision process.
Variations in supervision practices and their impacts on professional development and effectiveness
Supervision practices vary significantly across different offices. Kadushin and Harkness (2002) stress the importance of regular supervision; however, some participants reported inconsistent or infrequent supervision. For example, participants stated,
I have not received supervision since 2018; I receive feedback only through comments on files. (Supervisee B) Supervision happens only if there is a need; my supervisees can perform most duties independently. (Supervisor D)
These variations suggest that supervisees who receive regular supervision become more self-sufficient, addressing challenges on their own and gaining the necessary skills and knowledge to perform effectively. Prindle (2012) argues that such supervision fosters self-efficacy, as it builds the supervisor’s trust in the supervisee’s ability to handle challenging tasks. Reflecting on the role of supervision, one supervisor remarked on the challenges of stepping into the role unprepared:
We were not properly prepared when we transitioned to new positions as supervisors. The lack of a proper background hit us hard. (Supervisor C)
This highlights the importance of a strong foundation and preparation in developing effective supervisory practices. It brings to question the level of training that supervisors get in their undergraduate studies and beyond in preparation for this middle-management function.
Supervision: Importance, implementation and attitudes
Supervision in social work plays a pivotal role in safeguarding service users, supporting practitioners and upholding professional standards. Noble and Irwin (2009) argue that supervision ensures social service users are protected; provides support for practitioners; ensures that practitioners maintain professional standards and good principles of professional practice and that work expected from the organisation is interpreted through a professional lens and delivered by professional and competent workers. This underlines the necessity of consistent and effective supervision in the social work field. Participants in the study echoed these sentiments, with some emphasising the critical nature of supervision in their daily work. One supervisor shared,
I believe that supervision is highly important in my office, and I make it a priority to adhere to our supervision schedule, even though other commitments may sometimes take precedence.
This statement reflects a commitment to the supervisory process and highlights its importance in ensuring that social workers are well-supported and guided in their roles. However, not all experiences with supervision were positive. Some participants reported a lack of consistency, which they felt negatively impacted their work. A supervisee stated,
I, personally, think the practice of supervision at my office is not at all important as it does not happen at all. I was last supervised when I arrived at the department as a new employee; other than that, it never happens at all, even though many times I personally see the importance of being supervised. Being in the field is challenging without supervision.
This contrast in experiences suggests that while the importance of supervision is recognised, its implementation varies significantly across different offices. For those who receive regular supervision, it is viewed as an essential tool that contributes to their professional development and effectiveness. On the contrary, the absence of supervision leaves some social workers feeling unsupported and ill-prepared to handle the complexities of their work. Despite these challenges, the consensus among participants was that supervision is a vital component of social work. When properly implemented, it ensures that social workers are managed, supported and developed, leading to more proficient and effective service delivery. Recognising the significance of supervision is the first step towards ensuring that it is consistently practised, ultimately benefitting both social workers and the clients they serve.
Attitudes towards supervision
The attitudes of social workers and supervisors towards supervision significantly influence its implementation and effectiveness. A sense of duty and responsibility is crucial for both parties to engage in meaningful supervision. However, the study revealed a range of attitudes, with some participants expressing a lack of enthusiasm or commitment to the process. One supervisor noted,
I don’t think we will be able to do supervision; it will now always be consultations. Most social workers (supervisees) no longer have a sense of duty, even when they are not at work and you call them, they tell you that they are off and not at work today, they don’t answer their phones even when it’s a case of emergency. When they come back to work, there are already a lot of cases that need to be dealt with, and there definitely won’t be time for supervision.
This statement reflects a broader issue within the organisational structure, where heavy workloads and inadequate scheduling impact the feasibility of regular supervision. As Engelbrecht (2013) notes, structural and organisational issues, such as counterproductive working conditions, are significant factors that can hinder the implementation of effective supervision. Another participant highlighted a different challenge, stating,
Social workers lie a lot to get out of the supervision appointment. Their attitude towards supervision is really worrying.
This response suggests a breakdown in trust and communication between supervisors and supervisees, which further complicates the supervisory process. These attitudes indicate that supervision is not always perceived as a positive or necessary part of social work practice. Instead, it is sometimes viewed as an additional burden or even a punitive measure, rather than a supportive and developmental tool. This misalignment of perceptions and attitudes can undermine the effectiveness of supervision and limit its potential benefits.
Understanding and application of the social development practice approach in social work
The study also explored participants’ understanding of the social development practice approach, which is essential for social work practice in South Africa. Ncube (2019) indicates the importance of social workers’ understanding of this practice approach as it operationalises the overarching approach of social welfare in South Africa. It informs the developmental social work practice, which all social work practitioners in the country should be conversant with. The responses varied widely, reflecting different levels of knowledge and familiarity with the concept. One supervisee described the social development practice approach as
a holistic approach to social work as it enforces sustainable development by ensuring active involvement/participation of community members in addressing their impediments or remedy their situations within families. It is aimed at improving the standard of living in society by ensuring equitable service delivery.
This understanding aligns with the principles of the social development approach, which emphasises people-centred and rights-based practices. However, not all participants shared this level of understanding. Another participant admitted,
Please remind me what this social development practice approach is about. I have been in this field for too long. Please remind me as I have forgotten.
This lack of familiarity among some supervisors highlights a significant gap in knowledge that could impact the effective application of the social development practice approach in practice. As Bogo (2015) notes, it is essential for supervisors to have a strong theoretical foundation to guide their supervisees effectively. In the taxonomy of research gaps, Miles (2017) identifies knowledge gap, practical-knowledge conflict gap and theoretical gap among others. These apply in this case given the very limited knowledge and practical implications of social development as an overarching approach to practice.
The study indicated that a good number of participants were oblivious of the social development practice approach even though the services they provide are part of the multimodal intervention services of the social development practice approach. The approach allows for integrative programmes and various intervention methods, as Patel (2015) emphasises. One participant reflected, ‘We ensure that individuals and communities are empowered through educational campaigns, dialogue, and providing skills’ (Supervisor B). This aligns with Patel’s multimodal approach to service delivery under the broader social development paradigm.
In addition to the available theoretical approaches that guide social work supervision, such as the strength-based perspective and systems theory, Ncube (2019) developed ‘A Process Model of Social Development Supervision in Social Work’ aimed at facilitating an understanding and adoption of the social development approach by supervisors. Nonetheless, in an environment where the practice of supervision is not essentialised, any approach to practice would be irrelevant. Those that were exposed to supervision remarked on the various approaches. Supervisor A noted,
Some approaches which form part of supervision are strength-based approach, family-centred approach, ecological/system approach etc.
Engelbrecht (2010) and Zastrow (2010: 76) describe the strength-based perspective as focusing on ‘strengths and abilities people already have’. Some participants indicated a mix of approaches, including the developmental approach, though not always consistently (Supervisee C). One participant said, ‘I am still applying the skills that I learnt in my undergraduate studies’ (Supervisee A). Another added, ‘Supervision emphasised facilitating change, strengths, empowerment, and social justice’ (Supervisee C).
However, not all participants felt supervision enhanced their understanding of the social development approach. One commented, ‘I don’t see it like that because the supervision is only focusing on the administration’ (Supervisee A). This suggests a disconnect between supervision practice and any approach to supervision. In essence, it may suggest that whatever is deemed to be supervision has no scientific basis. On the contrary, Ornellas and Engelbrecht (2020b) contend that neoliberal policies adopted by numerous governments, including South Africa, have significantly impacted social welfare spending. The reduction in welfare expenditure may also influence the priorities of social work supervisors, with effective supervision potentially being deprioritised, as observed in this study. These policies also entrench managerialism, the application of corporate management principles in social work that undermine the quality and processes of the profession (Engelbrecht, 2015b).
Conclusion
The findings reveal that social work supervision at the Gert Sibande District lacks alignment with the prescribed supervision framework for South African social workers. There is an absence of standardised structures and policies, leading to inadequate supervision practices. This misalignment between supervisory practices and broader social work frameworks, such as the social development approach, resonates with findings from studies in other developing contexts where systemic barriers hinder the implementation of theoretical approaches (Dominelli, 1997; Hugman et al., 2010; Lyons and Huang, 2012; Midgley, 1995).
The focus is more on the administrative function of supervision and less on the educational and supportive functions, which negatively impacts social work interventions. This is a significant challenge reflected in international literature especially in resource-limited contexts (Kadushin and Harkness, 2014). This finding corroborates what Sewpaul and Hölscher (2004) noted, stating that without adequate supervision and training, social workers struggle to operationalise developmental frameworks. While some supervisees understand the social development practice approach as an overarching approach to social welfare in South Africa better, others were oblivious to it. Nevertheless, supervisees generally showed a better understanding of the practice approach than their supervisors, who often lack specific training for supervisory roles and are burdened with managerial duties. This finding challenges traditional hierarchical models of supervision often reported in international studies, where supervisors typically possess advanced expertise (Bloom and Schaub, 2007; Kadushin and Harkness, 2014; Miers and Randle, 2004; Tsui, 2005). Supervision often defaults to ad hoc consultations rather than structured support, and planned supervision sessions frequently experience scheduling issues.
The current supervisory practices fail to foster the social development approach effectively, with minimal compliance to scheduled sessions and a lack of focus on the supervisees’ needs. This misalignment is compounded by supervisors being promoted based on seniority in the workplace rather than supervisory expertise. As a result, the Gert Sibande District’s supervision does not significantly enhance understanding or application of the social development approach, reflecting similar issues identified in previous studies (Nadesan, 2020; Ncube, 2019). An instrumental case study design was used to provide a glimpse on the phenomenon in each area.
The findings underscore the salience of structured, educational and supportive supervision, which aligns with global best practices but requires contextual adaptation. It is recommended that broader studies on social work supervision be undertaken to determine the kinds of interventions needed to recalibrate the practice as well as develop means to evaluate progress. The recommendation for broader studies and systemic reforms in South Africa contributes to international discussions on addressing supervision gaps in under-resourced settings, offering insights applicable to other regions facing similar challenges.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-isw-10.1177_00208728251324411 – Supplemental material for Understanding social work supervision in the context of social development practice: A comprehensive analysis
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-isw-10.1177_00208728251324411 for Understanding social work supervision in the context of social development practice: A comprehensive analysis by Nozipho E Nkosi and Mpumelelo E Ncube in International Social Work
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-isw-10.1177_00208728251324411 – Supplemental material for Understanding social work supervision in the context of social development practice: A comprehensive analysis
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-isw-10.1177_00208728251324411 for Understanding social work supervision in the context of social development practice: A comprehensive analysis by Nozipho E Nkosi and Mpumelelo E Ncube in International Social Work
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
