26th June 2026
“At its best professional supervision provides a safe space where feelings stirred up by close and sustained involvement in this kind of work can be given expression so that practitioners retain the ability to feel empathy; to see, to hear and to think clearly”
(Frances Patterson, 2019)
Image from lead-academy.org
Introduction
This third blog post on The Supervision Space, is intended to be one of the building blocks to setting out some of the foundations of knowledge about social work supervision. It follows the second blog in the series which focused on ‘becoming a supervisor’.
This blog focuses on messages from research, policy and practice about supervision in England, which is something I consider an art form at its best! It is quite dense with research findings and theory about supervision practice, although is a useful stepping stone of knowledge and shares some key perspectives on contemporary practice.
The blog explores definitions of supervision, the functions, purpose and what and who it is set out to help. Some of the research is shared in terms of critiques of practice in England and the contemporary picture. Following a summary of key points there are some reflective questions to help you process your thoughts and impressions on the knowledge shared.
What is supervision?
What we actually mean by the term ‘supervision’ in social work has long been a topic for debate, where it seems to have a malleable definition which is both a social and personal construct, depending on context. The British Association for Social Workers (2011, p.4) suggest it is:
“The systematic, reflective process which supports social workers to make ethical decisions…it also improves confidence, competence and morale, leading to a better service for those who use social work services”.
Having scoped out the extent of the literature into staff supervision globally, Karen Sewell (2018, p. 253), a Canadian researcher, suggests a definition of supervision itself as:
“the relationship between supervisor and supervisee in which the responsibility and accountability for the development of competence, demeanour and ethical practice takes place”.
From my own professional experience and observations of practice supervisors and their supervisees over an extensive period, I would agree that the relationship is a central mechanism and therefore is supervision itself, with the supervisor being the vehicle by which it is achieved.
What is the function and purpose of supervision?
There is an established global consensus that supervision encompasses the three primary functions of management, development and support (e.g. Morrison, 2005; Davys and Beddoe, 2010; Wilkins, 2019). Morrison (2005) added a fourth function of ‘mediation’ which recognises the UK specific context that supervision also has a role in reconciliation between the social worker and the agency, helping to connect practitioners’ experiences of practice, organisational life and the wider political or structural system within which social work is provided.
How does supervision help?
Within the recognised functions of supervision, several scholars suggest that it is also important in processing social workers’ emotions (Morrison, 2005; Munro, 2010; Ruch, 2012; Featherstone et al., 2014; Wilkins, 2019) and combatting the effects of emotional labour within the role, manifesting as tiredness and stress, which may make social workers prone to cognitive error (Featherstone et al., 2014).
Additionally, within a framework for encouraging reflective practice, other English scholars argue for the role of supervision in developing resilience (Grant and Kinman, 2014) and providing containment (Ruch, 2012), alongside the more pragmatic functions of ‘task assistance’ (Mor Barak et al., 2009) and ‘problem solving’ (Wilkins, 2019).
Who is supervision for?
Supervision has a role in helping social workers to build resilience, feel emotionally contained and express the powerful feelings which can arise within their practice. Relationship based approaches to practice can help supervisees to navigate the emotional and relational complexity of practice in the context of multi-agency working.
Ferguson (2011, p. 199) suggests that supervision serves in “making the unbearable bearable”, in enabling workers to keep on doing the job well. If supervisors’ model empathic and compassionate approaches, they can create a ‘parallel process’ whereby this approach is extended from the social worker to people who access services.
Supervision in England
In England, supervision is a professional requirement for social workers, as outlined in the professional standards set by Social Work England (2019). Section 4.2 of the standards reflects the globally understood functions and includes decision-making and alignment with legal and statutory guidance.
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW, 2011), Social Work England’s professional standards (2019), and Ofsted (Stanley, 2018) underscore supervisions role in maintaining well-being in addition to serving as a mechanism for professional oversight, development, and emotional support.
In terms of the modern social work task, safeguarding remains a dominant factor for social work organisations to address, perhaps considering supervision as a mechanism for managing risk. This is supported in recommendations and learning from safeguarding practice reviews and inspections relating to the abuse of adults receiving social work support in England, which state the importance of supervision for social work practice (Galpin and Morrison, 2010; Institute of Public Care, 2013).
Similarly, for practice with children and families, insufficient supervision is cited as a contributory factor to inadequate practice (Brandon et al., 2011; NSPCC, 2020). In her seminal review of the child protection system in England, Munro (2010, p. 53) stated that supervision is
“a core mechanism for helping social workers reflect on the understanding they are forming of the family, their emotional response and whether this is adversely affecting their reasoning”.
Criticism from research
The responsibility to manage risk has been met with an approach to supervision in England which employs the administrative function heavily, with even higher scrutiny over compliance and performance (Beddoe, 2010; Beddoe et al., 2015; Wilkins, 2018), within a neoliberal (Wilkins, 2019) and conservative (Hafford-Letchfield and Engelbrecht, 2018) context.
Current research is telling us that one-to-one supervision sessions often involve the manager and supervisor sitting at a computer (Ferguson, 2011) expressing descriptive “verbal deluge” (Wilkins et al., 2017, p. 944), providing case updates and information gathering (Baginsky et al., 2010; Manthorpe et al., 2015; Turner-Daly and Jack, 2017, Wilkins et al., 2017). This is observed as being to the detriment of learning and development or support, which Manthorpe et al. (2015, p. 60) suggest are seen as “optional extras”.
Contemporary practice in England
So, is a focus on surveillance what has become of the supervision process in England in the 21st Century and are these managerialist audit skills the extent of the supervisor role? My experience is that supervisors do much more than this and that providing supervision to meet the needs of supervisees and the organisation is a significant balancing act.
The emerging picture from more recent qualitative studies, including my own, has started to show supervision as a much more dynamic phenomenon than just the monthly one-to-one meeting, something that Gregory (2024) refers to as “dispersed practice”. Ferguson et al. (2020) and Beddoe et al. (2021) in their significant study of child protection practice in England noted “live” supervision happening in a range of places and spaces, which reflects my own experience and research findings.
We are also seeing more recognition of the benefits of group supervision or reflective spaces, with models such as systemic or reflective practice models, presenting as a different way of doing some elements of supervision. This promotes practitioners exploring work with families as part of group discussions, to enable several perspectives, learn from each other (Williams et al., 2022) and promote relationship-based practice (Lees, 2017).
Evaluations of group supervision models are concluding with promising findings for the impact on social work practice (Bostock et al., 2017; Lees, 2017; Smith, 2022; Williams et al., 2022; Wilkins et al., 2025) and the findings of these studies mark a critical turning point in the evolution of social work and supervision practice in England.
Summary of key points:
- Supervision can be considered as the relationship itself as well as a process or task.
- The main functions of supervision in England are administration, education, support and mediation alongside emotional containment and practical assistance.
- Supervision is to provide a line of sight on supervisee wellbeing, practice and outcomes for people who receive services.
- Supervision in England is a policy requirement, with safeguarding and managing risk being a dominant feature.
- Research suggests that focus on risk and performance can be to the exclusion of support and learning.
- Contemporary practice requires a lot from practice supervisors and research has found that supervision happens in a lot of places and spaces.
- Group supervision has additional benefits alongside the more traditional one-to-one meeting.
Reflective questions:
- What have you learnt from reading this blog today?
- What struck you the most?
- What will you take away and think about more deeply?
- What impact might this/has this had on your own practice and the people you work with i.e. your supervisees or people who use services?
- What might they say they have noticed about you since you read the blog?
- Who might you have a peer reflection with about your learning from the blog i.e a colleague or your manager? Or your team?
- What key points arose from the peer reflection?
Contact
www.jwsocialworkconsulting.com
Email: jo.williams@jwsocialworkconsulting.com
Phone: 07940036618
LinkedIn: Jo Williams | LinkedIn
References
Baginsky, M., Moriarty, J. Manthorpe, J., Stevens, M., MacInnes, T. and Nagendran, T. (2010) Social Workers Workload Survey: Messages from the Frontline. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Beddoe, L. (2010) Surveillance or Reflection: Professional Supervision in ‘The Risk Society’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beddoe, L., Karvinen-Niinikoski, S., Ruch, G., & Tsui, M. (2015) Towards an international consensus on a research agenda for social work supervision: Report on the first survey of a Delphi study. British Journal of Social Work, 46(6), 1568–1586.
Beddoe, L., Ferguson, H., Warwick, L., Disney, T., Leigh, J., & Cooner, TS. (2021) ‘Supervision in child protection: a space and place for reflection or an excruciating marathon of compliance?’, European Journal of Social Work, pp. 1- 13
Bogo, M., and McKnight, K. (2006) Clinical supervision in social work: A review of the research literature. The Clinical Supervisor, 24(1–2), pp. 49–67.
Bostock, L., Forrester, D., Patrizo, L., Godfrey, T., Zonouzi, M., Antonopoulou, V., Tinarwo, M. (2017) Scaling and deepening the reclaiming social work model, evaluation report. London: Department for Education.
British Association of Social Workers (BASW) (2011) UK Supervision Policy. Available at: BASW: UK Supervision Policy | BASW
Brandon, M., Sidebotham, P., Bailey, S. and Belderson, P. (2011) A Study of Recommendations Arising from Serious Case Reviews 2009– 2010. London: Department for Education.
Davys, A. and Beddoe, L. (2010) Best Practice in Professional Supervision: A Guide for the Helping Professions. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Featherstone, B., White, S. and Morris, K. (2014) Reimagining Child Protection. Bristol: Policy Press.
Ferguson, H. (2011) Child Protection Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferguson, H., Warwick, L., Cooner, T.S., Leigh, J., Beddoe, L., Disney, T. and Plumridge, G. (2020) The nature and culture of social work with children and families in long‐term casework: Findings from a qualitative longitudinal study. Child & Family Social Work. 25, Pp. 694-703.
Galpin, D. and Morrison, L. (2010) National Competence Framework for Safeguarding Adults – Final Report. Bournemouth University.
Grant, L. and Kinman, G. (Eds.) (2014) Developing Resilience for Social Work Practice. London: Palgrave.
Gregory, M. (2024), Supervision as a Dispersed Practice: Exploring the Creation of Supervisory Spaces in Day-to-Day Social Work Practice. Child & Family Social Work.
Hafford-Letchfield, T., and Engelbrecht, L. (2018) Contemporary practices in social work supervision: time for new paradigms? European Journal of Social Work, 21 (3). Pp. 329-332.
Institute for Public Care (2013) Evidence Review: Adult Safeguarding. Available at: http://www.skillsforcare.org.uk/Document-library/Skills/Safeguarding/Safeguardingevidencereviewfull.pdf [Accessed on 18.06.2026.
Lees, A. (2017) Evaluation of reflective practice group project: Brighton and Hove children’s services preliminary report, Available at: www.cfswp.org/perch/resources/cfswp-rpg-evaluation-dr-a-lees-2017.pdf , Accessed on 01.06.2026.
Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J., Hussein, S., Stevens, M., and Sharpe, E. (2015) Content and Purpose of Supervision Practice in England: views of newly qualified social workers, managers and directors, British Journal of Social Work. 45 (1), pp. 52-68.
Mor-Barak, M. E., Travis, D. A., Pyun, H., and Xie, B. (2009) The impact of supervision on worker outcomes: A meta-analysis, The Social Service Review, 83(1), pp. 3–32.
Morrison, T. (2005) Staff Supervision in Social Care. (revised edition) Brighton: Pavilion.
Munro, E. (2010) Munro Review of Child Protection: Interim Report – The Child’s Journey. London, Department for Education.
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children) (2020) Learning from Case Review Briefings, Available at: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/case-reviews/learning-from-case-review-briefings , Accessed on 14.06.2026.
Patterson, F. (2019) Supervising the supervisors: What support do first-line supervisors need to be more effective in their supervisory role? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 31(3), 46-57.
Ruch, G. (2012) Where Have All the Feelings Gone? Developing Reflective and Relationship-Based Management in Child-Care Social Work, British Journal of Social Work, 42 (7), pp. 1315-1332.
Ruch, G. Turney D, and Ward, A (2010) Relationship Based Social Work. Getting to the heart of practice. (First edition). London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Sewell, K. (2018) Social work supervision of staff: A primer and scoping review (2013–2017), Clinical Social Work Journal, 46(4), pp. 252–265.
Social Work England (2019) Professional standards – Social Work England
Smith, H. (2022). Learning from experience – anxiety, defence and leadership in group supervision: the implications for supervision and reflective practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 36(2), 209–225.
Stanley (2018) Supervision and effective social work practice – Ofsted: social care
Turner-Daly, B., and Jack, G. (2017) Rhetoric vs. Reality in Social Work Supervision: The Experiences of a Group of Child Care Social Workers in England, Child and Family Social Work, 22 (1), pp. 36–46.
Wilkins, D., Grant, L. and Forrester, D. (2017) What Happens in Child and Family Social Work Supervision? Child and Family Social Work, 22 (2), pp. 942–951.
Wilkins, D. (2018) Does reflective supervision have a future in English local authority child and family social work? Journal of Children’s Services, 12 (2-3), pp. 164-173.
Wilkins, D. (2019) Social work supervision in child and family services: Developing a working theory of how and why it works, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 31(3), pp.7-19.
Wilkins, D., Thompson, S., Jones, R., Bezeczky, Z., & Bennett, V. (2025). Implementing Schwartz Rounds in children’s social care: Enablers and barriers. Journal of Social Work, 25(1), 61-82.
Williams, J., Ruch, G., and Jennings, S. (2022). Creating the conditions for collective curiosity and containment: insights from developing and delivering reflective groups with social work supervisors. Journal of Social Work Practice, 36(2), pp.195-207.
Wonnacott, J. (2011) Mastering social work supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Leave a Reply