Social Group Work

Competence and Values in Practice

Joseph Lassner, Kathleen Powell, Elaine Finnegan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135850579
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Health Care Delivery

Here is an exciting and stimulating book featuring expert evaluations and descriptions of current social work group practice with an overall focus on competence and values. The contributors give detailed information on group work theory, group structure, gender and race issues in group work, group work in health care settings, and the use of groups for coping with family issues that will be invaluable for all professionals in their daily practice. This thorough and inspiring overview of the state of the art in social group work today contains the published proceedings of a recent Symposium for the Advancement of Social Work With Groups.

Group Work Theory

The continuously evolving nature of group work theory makes group work an exciting practice modality. The contributions in this section explore, from new perspectives, several long accepted beliefs about group work. Northen presents a developing set of criteria to aid practitioners in determining when group is the appropriate practice modality. Greenfield and Rothman present a new perspective on the termination phase and suggest a stage beyond this, which they term transformation. Moore ties together group work theory and community organization theory and discusses how the practitioner can support the group in effecting change in its external environment. Getzel, Kurland and Salmon examine ways to enhance student learning of social group work by helping the student to connect knowing and doing.

Selection of Groups as the Preferred Modality of Practice

Helen Northen

ABSTRACT. One major trend in social work during the past two decades is the development of integrated practice in which a social worker serves individuals, families, small groups and social networks. The fundamental idea behind an integrated approach to practice is that the needs or problems of clients should determine the modality or combination of modalities of practice. A major dilemma is that the social worker is expected to help clients to make decisions about the desired form of service, yet there is lack of adequate knowledge concerning the criteria to be used for determining for what purposes, for whom, and under what conditions each modality would be most appropriate. In order to make viable decisions, the worker needs knowledge about the unique processes operating in each form of social work help, the goals for which group service is the preferred modality, and types of clients who can benefit most from a particular group experience.

The Dynamic Forces in Groups

Groups are powerful means for influencing change. The dynamic processes operating therein have the potential for making groups the principal means for helping people to meet certain needs or to cope with certain problems in social living. Insufficient attention, however, has been given to conceptualizing these forces in the social work literature and to testing their effects on various types of groups. It is discouraging to learn that the most complete analyses of the benefits of groups were published many years ago and that very few other writers have utilized these contributions. The first major publication was Malcolm Marks’ description of the reasons why the group is the preferred means of help for emotionally disturbed boys in residential treatment (Marks, 1956). The other major report was developed at a conference on the use of groups in psychiatric settings, primarily with adult patients (NASW, 1960). Several similar dynamic forces were identified in both reports. Since then the content on change forces in social group work has been fragmentary. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify propositions about why groups may be the most useful means for achieving some aspects of the growth and development of their members.

The motivational forces, often referred to as “curative” factors or change mechanisms, explain why groups may be the preferred modality for certain purposes and populations. As they appear in the social work literature, they may be summarized as follows:

1. Peer support. A climate of peer support, in addition to support from the worker, reduces anxiety and facilitates self-expression and willingness to try out new ideas and behaviors (Goldstein, 1981; Marks, 1956; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1969; Shulman, 1979; Tropp, 1976).
2. Cohesiveness. The mutual acceptance of members by each other makes the group attractive to its members. When members feel that they belong to a group that has meaning for them, they are influenced by other members and by the norms of the group. Mutual acceptance and empathy fulfills the basic human need to belong (Marks, 1956; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1969; Shulman, 1979). The quality of relationships provides a blend of support and challenge: there is the “relative safety of controlled intimacy” (Goldstein, 1982, p. 102).
3. Universalization. The realization that similar feelings and difficulties are common among the members lessens the sense of being unique and alone. Self-esteem and mutual esteem are enhanced by recognizing that others have difficulties, too, and yet are likeable people. Members discover the reassuring fact that they are not the only ones with troublesome feelings, which makes such feelings less frightening and controlling of their behavior (Couch, 1969; NASW, 1960; Shulman, 1979).
4. Hope. By identifying with the group and unconsciously perceiving the group’s expectations of health, growth, and control, the client catches by contagion the optimistic goals of the group and moves toward them. She/he sees how others have endured similar problems and coped with them successfully (Couch, 1969; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1982).
5. Altruism. Self-esteem and personal identity are enhanced as members learn that they can extend help to others as well as get something helpful back. Each member carries a contributing as well as a taking role. People relate better to others who appreciate and use what they can contribute. Contributing to others reduces morbid self-absorption and enhances self-esteem (Goldstein, 1982; Northen, 1969; Overton and Tinker, 1957).
6. Knowledge and skills. Opportunities afforded for self-expression and for trying out and mastering social skills have a beneficial effect upon the members’ self-esteem and enjoyment of being with others. The group provides a safe place to acquire needed knowledge, to risk new ideas, efforts, and behaviors, and to learn valued social skills (Maier, 1965; Marks, 1956; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1982;Shulman, 1979).
7. Ventilation self-disclosure. Free and appropriate expression of emotions and ideas, as these are accepted by others, lessens anxiety and frees energies for work toward the achievement of desired goals (NASW, 1960; Northen, 1969; Shulman, 1979; Tropp, 1976).
8. Readiness. The group provides opportunities for each member to use the group flexibly, according to his/her readiness for a particular experience at a given time (Marks, 1956; NASW, 1960; Tulane University, 1957).
9. Self-understanding. Through the observations of others, reflective thinking, and feedback from other members, a person develops understanding of his/her own patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving and the impact of these patterns on their relationships with others and on their competence in role performance. Such understanding is a step toward changes in self-defeating attitudes and behaviors (Goldstein, 1982; Northen, 1982; Tropp, 1976).
10. Reality testing. By comparing one’s perceptions with those of others, distortions of reality about self, other persons, and situations are reduced as members re-evaluate their behaviors and receive feedback from peers. Responses from peers are often more readily accepted and dealt with than are those that come from the worker (Couch, 1969; Marks, 1956; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1982; Tropp, 1976).
11. Group controls. Through group controls in the form of normative expectations, members reduce their resistance to authority, suppress inappropriate behavior, endure frustration, and accept necessary limitations. Group controls serve as a means to the goal of self-control (NASW, 1960; Northen, 1969; Wilson and Ryland, 1949).

Social workers have not tested the presence of these forces in various types of groups nor their relative importance. Members of other disciplines have, on the other hand, conducted research on the subject (Bloch, Crouch and Ribstein, 1981; Dickoff and Lakin, 1963; Hill, 1975; Lieberman, Yalom and Miles, 1973; Maxman, 1973; Rohrbaugh and Bartels, 1975). The first major project was a content analysis of 300 articles from which 166 different statements were extrapolated and subsumed under nine categories: ventilation, acceptance, spectator therapy, intellectualization, universalization, reality testing, altruism, transference, and interaction (Corsini and Rosenberg, 1955). Yalom (1975) developed a set of what he calls “curative” factors that operate in long-term psychotherapy groups for adults and tested them against the members’ views of ways that they were helped through experience in one of his groups. The factors are: instillation of hope, universality, imparting of information, altruism, corrective recapitulation of the primary family group, development of socializing techniques, imitative behavior, group cohesiveness, catharsis, and existential factors.

The formulations by Corsini and Rosenberg and by Yalom are remarkably similar to those identified in the social work literature. Appropriately, social workers seem to put somewhat more emphasis on socialization and the benefits of group controls than do the other writers. The reviews of literature and research on Yalom’s work generally support the influence of these factors on the members’ experience in groups (Yalom, 1975). Findings from research, however, suggest that some factors are more important than others for different types of groups and even for different members of the same group. By which of these means a particular member is helped depends upon his/her interpersonal needs, environmental resources, and the purposes, structure, and composition of a particular group. Furthermore, these dynamic forces need to be viewed as potential benefits; they are not present automatically in groups, but need to be fostered by the practitioner.

Criteria for the Selection of the Group Modality

Through understanding the dynamic forces that can be mobilized in groups, it should be possible to develop criteria for selecting a group experience for a given client or category of clients. Very little attention, however, has been given to developing and testing such criteria. For example, authors of chapters of Theories of Social Work with Groups (Roberts and Northen, 1976) were asked: “Are there criteria for defining when a client is best served by the group method, by casework, or by a combination? If so, what is the empirical justification or theoretical rationale for such criteria?” The results were discouraging.

Five of the eleven authors did not address the issue. Four either stated or implied that no criteria exist for such decisions. McBroom (p. 299) was the only one to make a positive assertion that group work is usually the method of choice for purposes of socialization (McBroom, 1976). Tropp’s conclusion was that the group is used for “the realization of a common goal” (p. 235), but stated further that method of choice is one of the knottiest problems to resolve and has tended to be handled intuitively or practically. The sparse material in the book does suggest that the group is useful in preventing or treating problems in social relationships (Hartford, 1976; Northen, 1976), for socialization or re-socialization of clients (Hartford and McBroom, 1976), for the realization of a collective goal (Tropp, 1976), and that a major criterion is client choice (Schwartz, 1976). Since the choice, however, must be an informed one, other criteria must guide the decision-making process.

Goals and Needs of Members

An important principle of social work practice is that the means used should be consistent with the ends sought. The purposes, in turn, must be such that the group deals with certain needs or problems of its members. There are certain types of purposes, with their concomitant needs or problems, for which the group is likely to be the modality of choice.

From a review of the literature, it becomes clear that the group is usually the preferred modality when the purpose is some form of enhancement of social relationships. In her study of definitions of group work from the first one in 1920 to 1964, Hartford (p. 70) concluded that a consensus had emerged that one important purpose of group work was to help people to resolve problems in social relationships and also to help “normal people to grow socially” (Hartford, 1964). Another way of stating this purpose is that group work “ought to be directed toward the strengthening of mutual and reciprocal relationships” (Abels and Abels, 1979), or that groups often aim to correct maladaptive patterns of relationships (Goldstein, 1981). Numerous other writers have emphasized that the group is used to help people to relate to other people and to resolve problems in interpersonal relationships (Boer and Lantz, 1974; Douglas, 1978; Garvin and Glasser, 1970; Gitterman, 1979; Henry, 1981; Knee, 1955; NASW, 1960; Northen, 1976, Ormont and Strean, 1978; Sherman, 1962; Winters and Easton, 1983).

The particular dynamics of groups as described previously make them ideal environments for coping with deficits or difficulties in social relationships. Many people with problems in relating to others need considerable acceptance and support from others who are in a peer role with them. They need to learn how others perceive them and to practice new behaviors in a social situation that is removed from their daily relationships, one in which feedback comes from other members as well as from a professional person. The perspective provided by multiple views of problems, people, and situations provides a context for reality testing and makes the group particularly desirable when clients have unrealistic perceptions of themselves or others or when they suffer from a low sense of self-esteem or personal inadequacy. A small group which is meaningful to its members affords an ideal environment in which individuals can be helped to work on dependence-independence conflicts, sibling rivalries, or problems with authority and to cope with problems of loneliness and loss.

Even when the major problems are in the functioning of the family system, usually indicating service to the family, a member may benefit from a group service. A person may not be able to bear the anxiety of family sessions or may not be able to overcome a fear that other members will retaliate for his/her expressions of feelings and ideas. When the boundary of the family is too closed to new inputs, multiple family groups may stimulate the members to new ways of feeling, communicating, and decision-making (Strelnick, 1977). In groups, the relationship with the worker and other members can begin at whatever level of participation each person is ready for until, through observation of what happens to others, she/he learns that the worker is interested in him/her as well as in each other member.

A second purpose of social work service, which usuall...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the Authors
• Introduction
• Social Work with Oppressed Populations: Jane Addams Won’t You Please Come Home?
• Group Work Theory
• Group Work Structure
• Gender and Race Issues in Group Work
• The Use of Groups for Coping with Family Issues
• Group Work in Health Settings
• Appendix