Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
Supervision: a luxury or critical to good practice in times of
austerity?
Jane Wonnacott
Director In-Trac Training and Consultancy
I am going to start with stating what might be obvious – I am standing here because I
passionately believe that supervision is critical to good practice and that to fail to invest in
high quality supervision is a false economy that will do great disservice to children and
their families (Wonnacott 2012) and the professionals who provide services to them. I am
not alone, and there is accumulating practice evidence of the very real difference that
supervision can make. Empirical research is lagging behind but a recent review of the
research evidence (Carpenter et al 2012) did conclude that good supervision is associated
with:

Job satisfaction

Commitment to the organisation

Staff retention

Employees’ perceptions of the support they receive from the organisation
Since retaining staff is important for organisations and children and families alike, on this
measure alone, it is clear that providing “good” supervision is something that is important
to pay attention to.
What I intend to do for the next 35 minutes is to explore why I believe supervision is
fundamental to child protection practice in particular and what good supervision looks like.
I will draw on my own experience of training supervisors for the past 20 years, In-Trac’s
experience of training over 9000 supervisors since 2009, as well as an understanding of
current issues facing child protection practice from our consultancy work, including serious
case reviews. Since this is a conference organised by the National Centre for Post
Qualifying Social Work I have focused particularly on social work supervision in the
examples I have used but I do want to state that if we are looking at child protection
practice more generally, the importance of supervision cannot be underestimated. I spend
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 1
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
much of my time working on serious case reviews and I find that the components which
make up effective supervision cut across all organisations, although some of the
challenges in how to deliver supervision may vary.
One of the ways in which we train supervisors, is to encourage them to reflect on their own
experience of supervision and how this might affect them as supervisors. In that spirit I
thought I would start by reflecting on my own experience and why I feel passionately that
supervision is important. When I left school I started out life as a student nurse, against
the advice of almost everyone who knew me. With hindsight I was totally unprepared for
the emotional impact of dealing with seriously ill patients, death and dying. I found myself
coping in ways that did not like or understand, including what , at the time, I described as
“becoming hard”. I left after a year to pursue a career in social work as I was struck that
social workers spent time on the ward actually talking to patients, which seemed to me
infinitely preferable to tidying the linen cupboard or cleaning the sluice!
My subsequent social work training in the late 1970s was based on a psychosocial model
which promoted the importance of the “casework relationship” (Biestek 1961) and one text
that influenced my practice at the time was one by Mattison and Sinclair (1979) which
explored their work at the Institute of Marital Studies. In this book they discussed the work
of Isabel Menzies-Lyth (1970) who had studied the high level of stress and anxiety
exhibited by nurses. Her understanding of this in terms of the need to defend against
intolerable anxiety through, amongst other things, the depersonalisation of the individual,
rang many bells for me. It is, I believe, still a major driving force behind my belief that
organisations will retain staff who are able to empathise and develop effective
relationships with service users if they pay attention to the emotional impact of the work
and, in particular, the impact of anxiety on practice. This is particularly relevant in the child
protection field where, over the thirty five years I have been in practice, I have seen
anxiety levels rise and permeate all areas of organisational life. It is interesting (and
perhaps not surprising) that we seem to have come full circle with the relevance of the
work of Menzies-Lyth to contemporary child protection practice being the subject of a
paper in a recent British Journal of Social Work (Lees 2013). This, alongside recent work
on the importance of emotional intelligence (Morrison 2007; Howe 2008), and relationship
based practice (Ruch et al 2010), has reminded us of key role that emotions and
relationships play in our work with children and their families.
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 2
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
In summary the components that underpin effective practice are:

An honest, open and supportive relationship

An opportunity to explore the link between feelings thoughts and actions

Critical examination of practice knowledge, skills and practice.
So, on one level, there is much to be optimistic about, with the Social Work Reform Board
(2010) acknowledging the importance of supervision, and the Munro review promoting a
sea change in the way we approach our work away from the prescriptive managerialism of
the past decade or so to an approach based on professional judgement and an
acknowledgment of the complexities faced by practitioners every day. The argument in this
paper is that in order to achieve this, the development of an effective relationship with a
supervisor, who can contain anxiety whilst providing a safe relationship where practice can
be explored, challenged and developed, is crucial to good child protection work.
The need for a change in the style of supervision from a task centred approach to one
which engaged with the emotional impact of the work was eloquently voiced by Lord
Laming (2009) following the death of Baby P:
Regular, high quality, organised supervision is critical, as are routine opportunities for peer
learning and discussion. Currently not enough time is dedicated to this and individuals are
carrying too much personal responsibility with no outlet for the sometimes severe
emotional and psychological stresses that staff involved in child protection often face.
Supervision should be open and supportive, focusing on the quality of decisions, good risk
analysis and improving outcomes for children rather than meeting targets.
Lessons from serious case reviews have reinforced this with Brandon and colleagues
(Brandon et al 2005; 2008; 2009; 2012) noting, for example:

Practitioners who are well supported, receive supervision and have access to
training are more likely to think clearly and exercise professional discretion
(Brandon et al 2005)
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 3
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013

Effective and accessible supervision is essential if staff are to be helped to put in
practice the critical thinking required … it needs to help practitioners to think, to
explain, to understand … it is essential to help practitioners cope with the emotional
demands of the job (Brandon et al 2008)

Robust supervision is needed to help the worker to recognize the impact of hostility
and to guard their own safety (Brandon et al 2008)

Practitioners should be aware of their gut feelings and reflect on what they mean
(Brandon et al 2008).
From my own experience of writing many overview reports for serious case reviews, I
would add that not only is supervision a crucial element in supporting staff and promoting
individual capacity for exercising professional judgement, critical reflection/ thinking, it is
also a vital component in influencing positive relationships across professional boundaries.
For so long we have been hearing that one of the key lessons from serious case reviews is
that we need to improve communication and information sharing, with the response being
the development of protocols rather than consideration of how relationships may be
affecting the process. Yet, as Reder and Duncan (2003) described in a paper written after
the Climbié inquiry, if we really look at what would have made a difference, it is an
understanding of the psychology of communication between professionals and all the
factors that might be influencing the way that information is shared received and
understood. Developing such an understanding, I believe, requires supervisors to engage
with conversations which explore both the content and the meaning of communication
including why information may have been interpreted in a particular way, either by the
social worker, or another professional. For example why did a newly qualified social
worker defer to the health visitor’s explanation that there was nothing to worry about
despite an injury to a non mobile baby? How were they feeling about working with this
family? Were they confident in their role and knowledge base? Without the supervisor
asking the right questions, the fact that the social worker was lacking confidence and
assumed that a more experienced health professional would be right, it is unlikely that it
would be become clear that the health visitor also lacked confidence and competence in
this area of work.
In a recent serious case review, the evidence suggested that a highly anxious social
worker who initially was correctly identifying risks began to “not see” child protection
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 4
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
concerns and became abrupt and “aggressive” towards other professionals who, in turn,
withdrew and stopped raising their anxieties with Children's Social Care. Power
relationships within the network became distorted and crucially the social worker did not
exercise appropriate authority with the family. The assessment was flawed, leaving twin
babies at risk. The model we used to describe these dynamics in the national training
programme is:
Emotion
Assessment
Purpose
Observation
Use of
authority
(c) Morrison & Wonnacott Training Materials 2009
In the above example supervision had failed to address the complexities of supporting
vulnerable parents whilst protecting the child and the social worker became increasing
anxious as her role and purpose appeared unclear. The anxieties of the social worker
were not addressed within supervision, her capacity to see risk reduced and she failed to
use her professional authority appropriately with the family. With the professional network
she assumed inappropriate power and authority and the supervisor did not appear to be
aware of the limitations in the interpersonal skills of the social worker which were having
an adverse effect on the network.
This model recognises the complexity of the task and through recognising complexity
suggests a style of supervision which moves beyond a focus on task, to one where asking
the right questions is crucial. The work of Grint may be helpful here. Grint’s work on
problem solving describes problems as being either critical, tame or wicked.

Critical – requires immediate intervention, needs an answer. Requires use of
hierarchical power

Tame - encountered regularly, so have organisational procedures. Requires use of
legitimate power
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 5
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013

Wicked - The problem is ill-structured, with an evolving set of interlocking issues
and constraints. There are so many factors and conditions, all embedded in a
dynamic social context, that no two wicked problems are alike, and the solutions to
them will always be custom designed and fitted. There may be no solutions, or
there may be a host of potential solutions and another host that are never even
thought of.
It is not too hard to see that although some problems in child protection may be critical
most fall into the wicked category. Grint goes on to explore what the best response might
be to each type of problem:
A typology of problems, power and
authority (Grint K 2005)
Wicked
Leadership:
ask questions
Tame
Critical
Command:
provide
answer
Manage:
organise
process
Increasing requirement for collaboration
‘hard’ power/coerce
Managerial/organise ‘soft’ power/ask questions
In recent years our response to problems in child protection has been mainly to treat
problems as “tame” rather than “wicked” with a proliferation of procedures and protocols.
Supervision has therefore tended to follow suit with a focus on compliance which research
would suggest (Manzoni and Barsoux 1999) could set people up to fail. If we recognise
that most problems are “wicked” this leads us a different style of supervision where the
role of the supervisor is to ask the right questions. This is more challenging for the
supervisor and does take more practice to get right. Skill development is therefore crucial
which involves time and effort and may all too easily fall by the wayside in times of
austerity. Too often the approach to supervisor development is to “sheep dip” supervisors
through a short training course (sometimes as short as a day) and then leave them to get
on with it. Unsurprisingly the quality of supervision does not improve as, although
intellectually supervisors may understand the need for a shift in supervisory style, they
need time and support to practise the skills required to work differently with their
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 6
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
supervisees and without this are likely to revert to their comfort zone of closed task centred
questions.
Have you visited the child? is not difficult to ask and will elicit a “yes” or “no” answer which
can be easily be recorded. Thinking of questions which are going to get the heart of issues
that are important in the case may be harder, take more time and be more complex to
record. They are however, likely to save time in the long run as they will allow a fuller
understanding of the quality of practice, potential gaps and all the factors that need to be
taken into account in developing an analysis of the needs of the child and any potential
risks. The supervisor may for example ask:
What did you see during your visit?
What did the child say/communicate?
What might have inhibited the child?
How did you react at the time- what did you feel?
What are your thoughts about how the child reacted to you?
What was going on in the room at the time?
Do you feel that you had enough time- what are the areas that we have not been
able to explore?
Crucially, such questions are more likely to get to the heart of all the factors that might be
affecting the interaction, including issues of power, authority and the impact of diversity on
the relationship. Questions such as these give a very important message – i.e that practice
is unlikely to be perfect, our intuitive responses are important information and we are
unlikely to have the whole picture. This is important in addressing an issue that has so
often emerged from serious case reviews; i.e that people did not identify missing
information and the impact this might have had on the assessment. The recognition that
“wicked” problems need questions that move beyond a procedural response is crucial and
supporting supervisors to undertake this task must be the hallmark of an effective child
care organisation.
Let us now turn to where these issues in relation to child protection practice fit with the
overall context for supervision.
Many of my ideas about supervision have stemmed from the work of Tony Morrison, with
whom I was privileged to work closely in developing supervision training. Just before his
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 7
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
unexpected death we wrote a short paper with the title Supervision: Now or Never.
Reclaiming Reflective Supervision in Social Work (2010). At the time we were very excited
and optimistic by the recognition of the importance of supervision by the Social Work Task
Force and the investment by Government in training initiatives based on a reflective model
would provide the impetus to embed effective supervision within social work organisations.
However, the title made clear that this was a chance to “seize the day” and there could be
a danger that it could slip from our grasp. Since then, we have had a change in the political
and economic landscape with a danger that the move towards a reflective style of
supervision could be lost in a drive to reduce budgets. It is somewhat disheartening to see
that the Community Care survey last week reported that:

37.5% of respondents said they did not receive supervision because “it is not
prioritised in my organisation”

54% of respondents said none of their supervision was reflective – while 28% said
the reflective elements made up roughly half

73% of respondents said supervision was about monitoring targets and timescales.
I was also somewhat alarmed to hear a respected social work consultant on Radio 4
taking about the new Fast Track into social work scheme, commenting that social workers
needed training and coaching; with no mention of supervision. Whilst I would not dispute
that training and coaching are important, they are not a substitute for good supervision
which allows for an exploration of how feelings, emotions and intuitive responses will
influence of the way we think and understand and ultimately act.
If we are not to lose the momentum and make supervision relevant in times of austerity we
need to make sure that we are absolutely clear what we mean by supervision and what the
costs and benefits are. Why is it crucial to improving outcomes for vulnerable children and
families and what do we need to do to make sure it supports good practice?
What do we mean by supervision? Although it generally assumed that we know what it
means, you only have to get a group of child protection professionals from different
organisations in a room together to realise that our understanding of supervision and
supervision cultures will vary from place to place. Even within social work there are varying
ideas as to what supervision should look like and phrases emerging such as reflective
supervision, professional supervision, managerial supervision ... and so on. There is no
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 8
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
time for a detailed discussion of all the various definitions and models, although I should
clarify that the definition that has always underpinned my work and I believe is most
relevant in a child protection context is the definition set out by Tony Morrison (2005) in
Staff Supervision in Social Care. Namely:
Supervision is a process by which one worker is given responsibility by the organisation to
work with another worker(s) in order to meet certain organisational professional and
personal objectives which together promote the best outcomes for service users. These
objectives and functions are:
1. Competent, accountable performance (managerial function)
2. Continuing professional development (developmental / formative function)
3. Personal support (supportive/restorative function)
4. Engaging the individual with the organisation (mediation function).
This definition describes a way of thinking about supervision which recognises the need to
integrate all four functions, includes an acknowledgment that the supervisor is in a position
of authority, is focused on the quality of practice and works alongside the supervisee to
support them in recognising and managing the emotional impact of the work. The 4x4x4
model of supervision developed by Morrison goes on to set this within an integrated
framework which recognises the need to engage with all four functions in order to
positively impact on four key stakeholders and uses the supervision cycle (based on the
Kolb adult learning cycle) as a way of achieving this.
Management
Plans &
action
Service Users
Staff
Organisation
Partners
Reflection
Development
Mediation
Experience
Analysis
©T.Morrison & Jane Wonnacott 2009
Support
The 4 x 4 x 4 model
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 9
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
The key importance of the supervision cycle is that avoids the “quick fix” whereby the
supervisor gets half a story and moves to action without engaging in reflection and
analysis.
THE SUPERVISION CYCLE
Experience
(engaging and observing)
The story – what happened?
Action Plans
(preparing for action, trying
things out)
What next?
Quick
Fix
Reflection
(investigating experience)
What was it like?
Analysis
(seeking to understand,
hypothesising, asking why, what
does this mean?)
Morrison, 2005
This model is, I believe, highly relevant in the light of some of the current discussions
which seem to frame managerial supervision as “bad” and reflective supervision as “good”,
when the best supervision of child protection work will integrate the two. Even more than
the discussion about the nature of supervision in general, what constitutes effective child
protection supervision can be a contested notion, particularly outside social work (Botham
2012). It is concerning that a recent push to use a restorative supervision model within
Health, a model which focuses on emotional wellbeing (Wallbank 2011 & 2013), has led to
a comment on an NHS website (http://learning.nhslocal.nhs.uk/features/managingyourself-and-others/restorative-clinical-supervision-increases-job-satisfaction-re) that
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 10
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
safeguarding supervision is a type of supervision which focuses on “telling people what to
do”. Some safeguarding supervision may be delivered in this way but this is not good
supervision and as demonstrated in this paper is not the type of supervision that is likely to
have positive outcomes for children. The best safeguarding supervision will include
elements of restorative supervision alongside an understanding of the way in which
emotions and may be influencing practice in individual cases and a focus on safe practice.
There is also a danger that for many, reflective supervision excludes the crucial analytical
component where knowledge and thinking inform practice. Working with a focus group
recently as part of the development of a supervision policy it was worrying that they
struggled with the idea of using research and practice knowledge to inform supervision
discussions. In fact, I am now uncertain about using the term reflective supervision at all,
as it seems for some people to have become synonymous with a style of supervision
which focuses on only one aspect of the supervision process.
In our training work we have increasingly been referring to authoritative supervision.
Drawing on the research into parenting styles (Baumrind 1978; Lexmond 2009) and the
focus on authoritative practice in the second serious case review in respect of Baby Peter,
(Haringey 2009) we have use the following model to consider the need to develop a
supervisory style which is both demanding in terms of expected practice but also
responsive to the needs of the practitioners.
This promotes an integrated approach to supervision which focuses on the individual
supervisee, the service being delivered as well as considering all the factors that might be
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 11
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
affecting practice. Within this the skilled supervisor will use authority appropriately and
skilfully in order to operate at a number of different levels.
THE
INDIVIDUAL
Understanding
the whole
person
The
Authoritative
Supervisory
Relationship
THE SERVICE
THE
ENVIRONMENT
Critical
appraisal and
constructive
challenge
Factors
affecting
practice
An integrated approach to supervision
Supervisors cannot do this alone, without training, and ongoing support and development.
A whole systems approach is needed. Last year I spent ten weeks working in Toronto
supporting two large children’s organisations as they implemented the 4x4x4 model of
supervision. I feel we have a lot to learn from their approach. Both organisations
researched models of supervision and thought carefully about the model they wished to
adopt, gained agreement for this approach within their organisation and set up a
committee which included practitioners, front line and senior managers to oversee the
process. Training was delivered to all supervisors and practitioners within the organisation
including the senior management team, further action learning has been put in place for
supervisors and the implementation is being systematically evaluated. Key to this
approach is, I believe, an understanding that the responsibility for good supervision does
not lie solely with the supervisor but with everyone involved, and crucial to success is the
support and effective supervision of the supervisors themselves.
That approach is rare in the UK although we are currently working with one or two local
authorities to support and develop supervisors beyond a one off short training event. In the
Community Care report last week Kent County Council described the investment they
have been making into the development of their supervisors. We have been working with
them to not only deliver training but to follow this up by observations of supervisory
practice and skill development through action learning sets. Other Local Authorities are
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 12
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
making sure that supervisees are trained and are therefore aware of what good
supervision looks like. From my own perspective the key must be providing the type of
supervision to supervisors that we are expecting them to deliver. Bring a front line
manager can be a lonely stressful job which some have described as being like the jam in
the sandwich (Gibbs 2001):
The supervisor as jam in the
sandwich?
Meeting the needs and demands of the
organisation
Working with emotionally charged responses
and complexity
The danger of feeling like squashed jam, squeezed from both sides by demands from the
organisation and supervisees without attention being paid to the emotional impact of the
work is that either the supervisor will retreat into the type of defensive behaviour described
by Menzies-Lyth and distance themselves from their team or, they will collude with the
team, aiming to protect them from the demands of the organisation. Where we have seen
this happening poor performance is not challenged, the demands of the organisation
increase, and a vicious circle is set up.
Organisational anxiety
Increased Demands of Organisation on the team
Supervisor – jam in the
sandwich
Decrease in
quality of
practice
COLLUSIVE BUFFERING
BEHAVIOUR
DISTANCING BEHAVIOUR
Lack of
Challenge
Team
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 13
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
As cuts bite, we could be heading for a perfect storm – as families face increased
hardship, child protection workers are likely to be dealing with ever more complex
problems with a reduction in external resources at the same time as they are being asked
to move beyond a compliance based model of practice. The main resource that they will
be drawing on is their own skills and in many ways this is good. For those of us who
believe that the worker/family relationship is fundamental to affecting change we will be
forced back on using this relationship in ways that may well improve outcomes for children.
However, to do this safely should not be seen as an easy (or necessarily cheap) option.
Those workers working on the front line in this way will, amongst other things, need the
opportunity to:
 explore the emotional impact of this work
 manage anxiety
 consider how their own biases and beliefs may be affecting practice
 reflect on the dynamic of the interaction between themselves and the children and
families they are working with
 develop their own interpersonal skills
 use their intellectual capabilities to form professional judgements, decisions and
plans.
It is hard to see how this will be achieved without really effective high quality supervision.
Training, coaching and peer discussion will also support the task but it is in one to one
supervision where workers should have a safe space receive the individual support and
challenge that they need to practice effectively and maintain a focus on the child.
A rough look at the costs and potential benefits of supervision does I believe set out a
compelling case for seeing supervision as a necessity - not a luxury.
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 14
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
Costs and Benefits of Effective Supervision
Costs
Benefits

Staff time

Job Satisfaction

Staff Training

Commitment to the Organisation

Support for Supervisors

Staff retentions

Physical Space

Reduced stress/sickness through staff
feeling supported

Consistent relationships with children and
families

Creative thinking

Recognition of impact of biases on
decision making/emotional impact of the
work leading to emotionally intelligent
practice

Risk sensible practice and defensible
decision making
In this age of austerity we cannot afford not to supervise effectively. When we are
struggling with scarce resources and dealing with ever more complex problems we need to
foster resilience by providing front line staff with the scaffolding they need to get out there,
work with the most vulnerable members of our society with the emotional intelligence and
compassion that will make a difference. Relationships are at the heart of good social work
practice and relationships must be at the heart of the way we supervise and manage as
well.
“It would be hard to overstate the importance of good supervision at a time when there is
such intense political and professional concern about the quality of children's services. It is
in such a climate that the role of supervision in leading practice as well as managing
performance is so critical. Good supervision and good outcomes for children and families
are inextricably bound together. Ensuring that all those responsible for the supervision of
staff are properly trained and supported must therefore rank as one of the most urgent
priorities within any Children and Young People’s service” (Morrison 2009)
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 15
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
References
Biestek, F. (1961) The Casework Relationship London: George Allen & Unwin.
Baumrind, D, (1978) ‘Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in
children’, Youth and Society 9, 1978
Botham, J., (2013) ‘What constitutes safeguarding children supervision for health
visitors and school nurses?’ Community Practitioner 86 Number 3
Brandon et al (2008) ‘The preoccupation with thresholds on cases of child death or
serious injury through abuse and neglect’ Child Abuse Review Vol 17 313-330
Brandon, M., Dodsworth, J. & Rumball, D. (2005) ‘Serious Case Reviews: Learning
to Use Expertise’ Child Abuse Review 14 160-176
Brandon, M., Belderson, P., Warren, C., Howe, D., Gardner, R., Dodsworth, J.,
Black, J. (2008) Analysing Child Deaths and Serious Injury Through Abuse and
Neglect: What Can We Learn. London DCSF Research report DCSF-RR023
Brandon, M., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Gardner,. R., Sidebottom, P., Warren, C.,
Dodsworth, J., Black, J. (2009) Understanding Serious Case reviews and their
Impact: A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case reviews 2005-7 London DCSF
Brandon, M., Sidebotham, P., Bailey, S., Belderson, P., Hawley, C., Ellis, C., and
Megson, M. (2012) New Learning from Serious Case Reviews London. DFE
Research report DFE-RR226
Carpenter, J., Webb, C., Bostock, L., and Coomber, C. (2012) Effective Supervision
in Social Work and Social Care London: SCIE
Department for Education (2010) Building a Safe and Confident Future: One Year
On, Detailed Proposals from the Social Work Reform Board.
Gibbs, J. (2001) Maintaining front Line Workers in Child Protection: a case for refocusing supervision. Child Abuse Review 10 323-335
Grint, K. (2005) ‘Problems, Problems Problems: the Social Construction of
“Leadership”. Human Relations Vol 58 1467-94 London: Sage
Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board (March 2009) Serious Case Review
‘Child A’ Published by Department for Education on 26th October 2010. Harkness,
D., & Hensley, H. (1991) ‘Changing the focus of social work supervision: effects on
client satisfaction and generalised contentment. Journal of Social Work 36 (6) 506512
Howe, D. (2008) The Emotionally Intelligent Social Worker Basingstoke: Palgrave:
MacMillan
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 16
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
Laming, W. H. (2009) The Protection of Children in England. London: The
Stationery Office
Lees, A. (2013) ‘From Menzies-Lyth to Munro: The Problem of Managerialism’ British
Journal of Social Work 43, 542-558
Lexmond, J. and Reeves, R. (2009) Building Character, London: Demos,
2009
Manzoni, J-F, & Barsoux, J-L. (1999) ‘The Set-Up-to-Fail Syndrome’ in Harvard
Business Review on Managing People. Harvard Business School Press
SCIE Managing Poor Performance www.sciepeoplemanagement.org.uk/resource/docPreview.asp?
Mattison, J., & Sinclair, I. (1979) Mate and Stalemate Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Menzies-Lyth, I. (1970) The Functioning of Social Systems as a Defence Against
Anxiety. London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
Morrison, T. (2005) Staff Supervision in Social Care. Brighton: Pavilion
Morrison, T. (2007) ‘Emotional Intelligence, Emotion and Social Work: Context,
Characteristics, Complications and Contribution.’ British Journal of Social Work 37 2
245-263
Morrison, T, and Wonnacott, J. (2010) Supervision: Now or Never Reclaiming
Reflective Supervision in Social Work. http://www.in-trac.co.uk/supervision-now-ornever/
Munro, E. (2010) The Munro Review Part One: A Systems Analysis London:
Department for Education
Munro, E. (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection Interim Report: The Child’s
Journey. London, Department for Education
Munro, E. (2011a) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report: A Child –
Centred System. London, Department for Education
Reder, P., & Duncan, S. (2003) ‘Understanding Communication in Child Protection
Networks’ Child Abuse Review 12 82-100
Ruch, G., Turney, D., & Ward, A. (2010) Relationship Based Social Work London:
JKP
The Social Work Task Force (2009) Building a safe, confident future – The final
report of the Social Work Task Force. London, Department for Education
The Social Work Reform Board (2010) Building a safe, confident future – One Year
On London, Department for Education
Wallbank, S. (2011) ‘Reducing burnout and stress: the effectiveness of clinical
supervision’ Community Practitioner 84 7
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 17
Bournemouth University National Centre for Post Qualifying Social Work Conference:
Child Protection in a Time of Austerity
28th June 2013
Wallbank, S. (2013) ‘Recognising stressors and using restorative supervision to
support a healthier maternity workforce: a retrospective, cross-sectional,
questionnaire survey’ Evidence Based Midwifery 11(1): 4-9
Wonnacott, J (2012) Mastering Social Work Supervision London: Jessica Kingsley
Publisher
© Jane Wonnacott June 2013
Page 18