Publications from ODSW Social Work Supervsion | Page 28

Dialogue Session: Dilemmas in Social Work Supervision and the Way Forward

Dr Wong raised her curiosity about the reason for such a difference. She speculated that it
might be the case that supervisors are good relationally (such that supervisees are
satisfied), but are less proficient when it comes to service delivery. She then questioned
what respondents would define as quality supervision, since this can be interpreted
differently. Prof. Tsui added on to Dr Wong’s point remarking that a strong relationship
with the supervisor usually results in satisfaction with supervision but this may not actually
solve or tackle issues that the supervisee has brought up. Hence, he commented that
supervisors need to include more educational components in supervision. A/P Ki eran
added there is a difference between being evaluating the satisfaction with and quality of
supervision. The key question to ask is how one should be evaluating a supervision session.
There is a need to find ways to evaluate supervision sessions in terms of key areas related
to learning and development, practice development and client outcomes.
The discussion then expanded to consider how social workers make such evaluations
regarding satisfaction, quality and development. Dr Wong provided participants with an
analogy of how supervisees may interpret what is a “good” experience. For example, some
may attribute reasonable price, wide selection of food or even companionship as reasons
for their good experience at a top restaurant serving buffet. Hence, a supervisor needs to
pay attention to how one’s supervisee constructs the idea of good supervision. In addition,
this should not only involve the supervisor and supervisee, but also include client
outcomes. The supervisor-supervisee relationship should have certain client outcomes and
supervisors should consciously link supervision sessions to it. Supervisors should also
embed sessions within organisational practices, structure, mission and purposes and
position them in terms of the professional beliefs of what supervision should be.
Accreditation of Supervisors
Panellists were then prompted to share their thoughts regarding the accreditation of
supervisors from the context of their home countries, with Prof. Tsui being based in Hong
Kong, and A/P Kieran in New Zealand. Prof. Tsui shared that there are 3 existing
supervision schemes in Hong Kong. The first is administered by the Social Workers
Registration Board (SWRB). 7 years ago, the SWRB set up guidelines and standards for
accrediting social work supervisors. There have been some resistance from the field,
especially from young frontline social workers, because they feel that this may involve
greater amounts of managerial monitoring not only on practice but also on behaviour
which adds more pressure to their job. This scheme is currently still in the process of being
reviewed.
The second is the Supportive Supervision Scheme which is funded by the Hong Kong
government. This has been in practice since 2014. The plan for the first phase is to train up
to 50 certified social work supervisors. They would have to go through a post graduate
training course and 5 years of practice in social work supervision before becoming certified
social work supervisors. They would have to fulfil their obligations of providing free of
charge supervision to smaller Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as these NGOs are
often unable to buy the services of external supervisors.
The third is a voluntary scheme administered by the Hong Kong Professional Counselling
Association (HKPCA). In Hong Kong, the social work profession is licensed and the title is
protected by law. The HKPCA organizes a voluntary qualified supervisors scheme where
social workers who have at least 5 years of experience, complete a post-graduate training
course on supervision and pass an additional assessment can become a qualified
supervisor. There are currently about 80 qualified supervisors. The privilege of being a
26