I. Observations on introducing supervision in social services:

Paragraph 10 of Section 9 of Act No. 448/2009 on social services and on amendments to and additions to Act No. 455/1991 Coll. on Trade Licensing (the Trade Licensing Act), as amended by later regulations, specifies: the provider of a social service is required, in order to increase the professional level and quality of the social service provided, to develop and implement a supervision program. Fifteen months of the law’s validity brought the first experiences of applying paragraph 9 in practice, and as a supervisor I encounter various obstacles.

  1. The management of social service facilities usually does not understand sufficiently what supervision is and what can be expected from it, does not know who should create a supervision program or how, and does not know what a supervision program should include. From this lack of knowledge follows:
  2. low to no motivation to correctly communicate supervision programs, respectively their development with employee involvement.
  3. A large number of directors of social service facilities perceive supervision as control of the facility.
  4. When negotiating a contract, some directors have the tendency to agree to a barter-type deal—then the supervisor comes to the facility, talks with employees, and the director has fulfilled the task of ensuring supervision.
  5. More than half of directors assign expenditures on supervision the last place in the order of priorities.

Time, fear, and resistance are factors we will have to work with for a long time so that we can together overcome the barriers listed above. Examples from some social service facilities show that working with time and resistance always bears fruit.

Domov sociálnych služieb KOMPA in Banská Bystrica The head of the facility gradually communicated to staff the need for supervision. Employees attended meetings with two supervisors twice to find out what supervision could bring them. Subsequently, at the request of the staff, the director ordered supervision for the team through the Association of Supervisors and Social Counselors, focused on a specific topic. At that time, the facility had developed a supervision program. The program specifies the number of hours of individual supervision per employee, and at a designated place a form is posted where employees write down which supervisor they have selected. All this happened over a period of two years. DSS Kompa is a small facility—it provides social services for 15 children and young people in an ambulatory form, has 12 employees, and all employees took part in team supervision.

Domov sociálnych služieb DEDESO in Hnúšťa The head of the facility ordered supervision without knowing what to expect from it. In discussions about the contract, she agreed that we would focus supervision on helping employees experience its usefulness. The first experience of supervision was encouraging for the employees, and the director willingly ensured supervision in the next period as well. DSS DEDESO is a small facility—it provides services for 12 children in an ambulatory form, and 6 employees (all those working directly with clients) participated in supervision. (http://www.dedeso.sk)

Domov sociálnych služieb Symbia in Zvolen A self-help group became a supportive element for introducing supervision in DSS Symbia. The employees themselves named it “Tlačí ma ...”. Their experience from the group, and also the fact that the head of the organization is a supervisor, made it easier to develop a supervision program. Employees prepared the program together with management, and in 2009 external team supervision on a topic requested by staff was carried out. This year, the organization is still working on the supervision program. Domov sociálnych služieb Symbia is a small facility—it provides services for 35 children and young people, and 16 employees working directly with clients underwent supervision. The head of the organization is a supervisor. (http://www.symbia.sk)

II. Observations on introducing supervision in the field of social-legal protection and social guardianship:

The law imposes an obligation of supervision for workers in institutions executing court decisions (crisis center, children’s home, resocialization center).

From my supervisory practice over the last 3 years, it follows that there is interest and need for supervision for positions in other parts of the social-legal protection and social guardianship system as well:

  • social workers in social-legal protection and social guardianship departments,
  • psychologists in counseling-psychological service departments (they usually have supervision secured due to the history of their profession and their positions),
  • professional staff of accredited entities,
  • staff of municipal offices, municipal social workers.

By connecting services and professionals, using service networking, multidisciplinary meetings, and establishing partnerships in project implementation, an increasing need for supervision is gradually emerging also in organizations in prevention (e.g., schools and educational institutions, early intervention centers, leisure centers, etc.). In fact, in social service facilities, professionals also meet clients of social-legal protection and social guardianship (e.g., in emergency housing facilities, day centers for families, community centers, low-threshold centers, etc.).

Across the whole field of social-legal child protection and social guardianship, alongside supervision needs there are also various barriers, prejudices, and myths that still prevent supervision from being used as an effective and standard tool that supports professionals.

From my experience, these barriers arise mainly from:

  1. lack of understanding of the significance of supervision as such and misunderstanding of supervision itself,
  2. judgment and non-recognition of this tool without sufficient personal experience with it,
  3. in some cases, the stance of the leading worker, who is not personally convinced and sufficiently motivated to recognize supervision as a natural professional component and necessity in helping organizations,
  4. possibly also the diversity of professions and their professional starting points, which come into contact with clients of social-legal child protection and social guardianship (not only social workers and psychologists, but also educators, healthcare staff, technical-administrative staff, etc.).

These barriers (and possibly others) can, in practice, lead to low emphasis on the introduction and/or development of supervision in an organization, to a small or even absent direct demand for supervision from staff. This is often reflected in financial flows of the organization not being aligned to include supervision in organizational practice. Another serious obstacle to introducing supervision into practice can be an excessive focus of the child protection organization/system on performance quantity and speed (cases, solutions, etc.), instead of quality (relationships, processes, planning, evaluation, etc.). A strong support for introducing supervision into practice are, without question, people—professionals who actually apply supervision in their own practice and in the practice of their organizations and who experience it as part of their professional standard. We also regard dissemination of good practice as an effective tool for introducing supervision.

Good practice examples from the field or what attracts/motivates “untouched” (that is, inexperienced in supervision) helping professionals to supervision: Support group for helping professionals: in Banská Bystrica and Zvolen, self-help groups of social workers (monthly meetings of professionals from one field in one territory) have been operating for several years (since 2005). 100% of their participants gradually lost their own barriers to supervision and decided to undergo supervision at least once; almost 70% underwent it repeatedly, and almost 40% of participants (primarily leaders) brought supervision into their organizations and apply it mainly within specific projects, (http://www.supervizia.sk/kalendar)

“A taste” of supervision: at the beginning of 2010, a professional seminar on child protection for 10 helping professionals from the social-legal child protection system was held, and part of it included group case supervision. 100% of seminar participants perceived supervision as the greatest benefit of the seminar and asked for additional information about it (the seminar “Keď treba chrániť dieťa” was organized by Návrat, o. z.), (http://www.navrat.sk)

Saturation of work needs: helping professionals in Banská Bystrica (2008) and Zvolen (2009) attended weekend psychohygiene stays oriented toward relaxation, stress reduction, and building a collaborative regional team. The stays also included group supervision. 100% of participants stated in feedback that the experience of supervision intensified the meaning of psychohygiene. (The stays were organized by Návrat, o. z., in cooperation with regional supervisors, with financial support from the city of Banská Bystrica and the city of Zvolen), (http://www.supervizia.sk/referencie)

Innovative offers for the development of helping professionals: in 2009 Návrat, o. z., in cooperation with Co/Man, 1. systemická spol. s r.o., implemented a local project to support the development of leaders and managers of social organizations called 10x3 (each registered managerial employee received support in the form of coaching in the scope of 3 coaching sessions). 80% of participants in project feedback emphasized the need for coaching and supervision in the social field not only for managers and heads, but also for frontline workers, (http://www.supervizia.sk/Referencie)

Printed materials on supervision and available information: Since 2008, regional supervisors have been actively promoting supervision in the Banská Bystrica and Zvolen regions, both by distributing printed materials (they prepared 2 own regional leaflets promoting supervision) and through the active website http://www.supervizia.sk (with a calendar of supervision and helping-professional development events, profiles of supervisors and coaches, professional articles on supervision, etc.).

III. Observations from supervision in a local project supporting families.

Since 2008, a pilot project of three partner organizations (the city of Banská Bystrica, the Socia Foundation, and Návrat, o. z.) has been running in Banská Bystrica focused on strengthening the importance of family and building accessible and sensitive services for families: Banská Bystrica – a city of family. Its part was a subproject: “The Child’s Right to Respect His or Her Rights.” As part of this subproject, a local ethical document/standard, the Child Protection Code, was developed so that organizations operating in the city would be aligned around shared standards in favor of families.

The development of the Child Protection Code involved 16 organizations. A 10-point ethical standard of organizational conduct was created. One of the points adopted by local organizations (Point 10 of the Child Protection Code) is the introduction of a system of training and supervision for organization staff as a basic quality system of family services.

As part of the implementation of the Child Protection Code (according to the Manual for implementing the Child Protection Code in organizations—the handbook for ethically responsible organizations in the city of Banská Bystrica), it is required that an organization undergo external supervision to verify implementation of the Child Protection Code in the organization. At present, 7 organizations have implemented the Child Protection Code, meaning 7 organizations (in Banská Bystrica) have introduced a supervision system in the organization and have also undergone external organizational supervision (2 organizations fall under the Social Services Act, 1 under the Act on Social-Legal Child Protection and Social Guardianship, 1 is an educational institution, 3 operate in prevention—maternal centers). Another 3 organizations are in the implementation process. Organizations with implemented Child Protection Code (and therefore with supervision introduced) are given the designation: “With our services, we protect a peaceful and safe childhood.” The full text of the Child Protection Code is available at http://www.bb.mestorodiny.sk.

In another subproject activity, Family-Threat Networking Course (a 52-hour professional skills development course for helping professionals), supervision (and coaching) was part of the course when participants selected a family at risk for whom they would prepare service networking. The course was completed by 7 staff members in BB (each had at least 1 individual supervision session on a case). A written output of the Service Networking Course and the experiences of building support networks for families is the publication Tvoríme siete pomoci pre rodiny [We Build Support Networks for Families], published by Návrat, o. z. in April 2010. The publication supports the inclusion of supervision into the practice of helping organizations. (http://www.navrat.sk)

The last subproject activity in which supervision was applied was the creation of a local Support Network for a Pregnant Woman at Risk. The group currently has 14 members, of whom 9 are active and 2 are honorary members. Membership in the network includes a human resources development system through the Support Group of network members and case supervision in a group. (http://bb.mestorodiny.sk/?page_id=720)

The subproject “The Child’s Right to Respect His or Her Rights,” implemented by the Návrat Center in Banská Bystrica, is financed by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, the EEA Financial Mechanism, and resources from the State Budget of the Slovak Republic.

IV. Observations on the impact of European initiatives

In several projects implemented in recent years in Slovakia in the field of family support and child protection and financed by European Union funds—whether from the European Social Fund, the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism, and of course the State Budget of the Slovak Republic—supervision appears as one of the tools of external support for helping professionals. As examples, I will cite:

  • the National Project XII-2 Development and strengthening of human resources and systematic deepening of qualification of workers (project implemented by Ústredie PSVaR), available at http://www.upsvr.sk,
  • project: “Návrat k stabilite rodín” (project implemented by Návrat, o. z.), available at http://www.socia.sk,
  • project: Community Centers - comprehensive community service centers as a tool for improving social inclusion of residents of marginalized Romani communities at the local level (project implemented by Člověk v tísni, spol. pri ČT, o. p. s. branch Slovakia), available at http://www.socia.sk.

These and other projects can serve as examples of how experiences from international projects (also in the area of supervision) and the overseas experiences of our professionals are transferred into Slovak practice, including in family support and child protection.

In this area, I also recommend for reference and use the material European Quality Standards for Help to Children Living Outside Their Family (available for free download in Slovak at http://www.quality4children.info). In decision-making processes (regarding the child and its situation), as well as in direct support (in removing a child from the family environment, in placement into alternative care and in ending it), the material focuses on process quality and on supervision of professionals working in this entire field. Among the benefits of the material is that it was created “from below” through the direct experience of adolescents and adults from 32 countries in Europe who were in the social-legal protection system—that is, users of services. The material may support both frontline workers and supervisors. Good-practice examples from the use of this material in Slovakia are available in a PowerPoint presentation at http://www.vzd.cz/standardy.

Note: The reflections from these experiences arose not only from the authors’ own experience but also from several years of collaboration with other regional supervisors: Ing. Mária Filipová and Mgr. Eva Teťáková, and with coach Ing. Alfonz Haviar, as well as from the authors’ own participation in the majority of the projects and activities listed.

Autorky: PaedDr. Jana Izraelová - with academic training as a special educator, she professionally works as the director of Domov sociálnych služieb Symbia Zvolen, professionally works under external supervision since 2004, and has actively practiced supervision since 2004. Domov sociálnych služieb Symbia Zvolen has had a supervision system in place across the entire organization since 2009. http://www.symbia.sk

Mgr. Dana Žilinčíková – with academic training as a social pedagogue, she professionally works as a social counselor, trainer of educational programs, coach, and therapist in the accredited organization Návrat, o. z., at the Návrat Center in Banská Bystrica. She has worked professionally under external supervision since 2003 and has actively practiced supervision since 2004. From 2005 to 2009 she served as the national coordinator of the pan-European project European Quality Standards for Help to Children Living Outside Their Family. The accredited organization Návrat, o. z., has had a supervision system in place across the whole organization for all professional employees since 2006. (http://www.navrat.sk)

The article was presented at an international conference on the topic “Social Counseling and Supervision as a Means of Increasing the Professional Competence of Social Workers,” held on 7–8 April 2010. The organizer of the conference was Vysoká škola zdravotníctva a sociálnej práce sv. Alžbety n.o