Jump to content

Social work with groups: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Articleissues
|citationstyle=August 2007
|cleanup=August 2007
|essay=August 2007
|wikify=August 2007

'''Social Work with Groups '''
'''Social Work with Groups '''
Social Work with Groups represents a broad domain of [[social work]] practice (Garvin et al, 2004). Social workers work with a variety of groups in all settings in which social work is practiced. While some have proposed that social work practice with groups reflects any and all groups within which social workers participate, other definitional parameters have been established (Garvin et al, 2004). For practice to qualify as social work with groups four conditions must be met: the worker should focus attention on helping the group members become a system of mutual aid; the group worker must understand the role of the group process itself in the change process; the group worker seeks to enhance group autonomy; the group worker helps the group members experience their groupness upon termination (Middleman and Wood, 1990).
Social Work with Groups represents a broad domain of social work practice (Garvin et al, 2004). Social workers work with a variety of groups in all settings in which social work is practiced. While some have proposed that social work practice with groups reflects any and all groups within which social workers participate, other definitional parameters have been established (Garvin et al, 2004). For practice to qualify as social work with groups four conditions must be met: the worker should focus attention on helping the group members become a system of mutual aid; the group worker must understand the role of the group process itself in the change process; the group worker seeks to enhance group autonomy; the group worker helps the group members experience their groupness upon termination (Middleman and Wood, 1990).
'''Purpose of Social Work with Groups'''

Purpose of Social Work with Groups
In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section of the National Association of Social Workers proposed that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context.
In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section of the National Association of Social Workers proposed that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context.
Common needs addressed by social work groups include coping with major life transitions; the need to acquire information or skills; the need to improve social relationships; and the need to cope with illness; and the need to cope with feelings of loss or loneliness; amongst other reasons (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Group treatment offers opportunities for social support and as Toseland and Siporin (1986) explain “there is also an important helper-therapy principle that operates in groups” (p.172). Toseland and Siporin (1986) elaborate: “clients are able to help others and in so doing receive help for themselves” (p. 172).
Common needs addressed by social work groups include coping with major life transitions; the need to acquire information or skills; the need to improve social relationships; and the need to cope with illness; and the need to cope with feelings of loss or loneliness; amongst other reasons (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Group treatment offers opportunities for social support and as Toseland and Siporin (1986) explain “there is also an important helper-therapy principle that operates in groups” (p.172). Toseland and Siporin (1986) elaborate: “clients are able to help others and in so doing receive help for themselves” (p. 172).
'''Guiding Values'''


Guiding Values
Northen and Kurland (2001) identify the value system informing group work practice with “the ultimate value of social work” which they suggest is “that human beings have opportunities to realize their potential for living in ways that are both personally satisfying and socially desirable” (p.15). The perspective espoused by several social work group work experts is that people are responsible for one another and that mutual interdependence is preferable to individualism (Falck, 1989; Getzel, 1978; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004).
Northen and Kurland (2001) identify the value system informing group work practice with “the ultimate value of social work” which they suggest is “that human beings have opportunities to realize their potential for living in ways that are both personally satisfying and socially desirable” (p.15). The perspective espoused by several social work group work experts is that people are responsible for one another and that mutual interdependence is preferable to individualism (Falck, 1989; Getzel, 1978; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004).
Humanism is “built on particular values that cast people in society as responsible for and to one another” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p.13). Democratic norms of group participation promote cooperation and “fluid distribution of position, power and resources” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p. 14). These values guide practice, inform worker role and use of self, and the understanding of membership in a social work group.
Humanism is “built on particular values that cast people in society as responsible for and to one another” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p.13). Democratic norms of group participation promote cooperation and “fluid distribution of position, power and resources” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p. 14). These values guide practice, inform worker role and use of self, and the understanding of membership in a social work group.
'''Primary Rationale for Group Services in Social Work'''



Primary Rationale for Group Services in Social Work
Opportunities for mutual aid to be found in the group encounter offer the major rationale for the provision of group services by social workers. Gitterman (2006), a social work educator and group work scholar has elaborated on the role of mutual aid in the small group noting that “as members become involved with one another, they develop helping relationships and become invested in each other and in participating in the group” (p.93). The mutual aid processes that unfold help group members “to experience their concerns and life issues as universal”, to “reduce isolation and stigma”, to “offer and receive help from each other”, and to “learn from each other’s views, suggestions and challenges” (Gitterman, 2006, p.93).
Opportunities for mutual aid to be found in the group encounter offer the major rationale for the provision of group services by social workers. Gitterman (2006), a social work educator and group work scholar has elaborated on the role of mutual aid in the small group noting that “as members become involved with one another, they develop helping relationships and become invested in each other and in participating in the group” (p.93). The mutual aid processes that unfold help group members “to experience their concerns and life issues as universal”, to “reduce isolation and stigma”, to “offer and receive help from each other”, and to “learn from each other’s views, suggestions and challenges” (Gitterman, 2006, p.93).
'''Mutual Aid'''

Mutual aid as group treatment technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on the following beliefs: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006). The use of mutual aid based group work has resonance with the needs of a variety of populations. For example, in substance abuse treatment groups mutual aid has been observed to both strengthen self-esteem and affirm the value of a sober network of peers (Cicchetti, in press).
Mutual Aid
'''Mutual Aid Group Processes'''
Mutual aid as group treatment technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on the following beliefs: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006). The use of mutual aid based group work has resonance with the needs of a variety of populations. For example, in substance abuse treatment groups mutual aid has been observed to both strengthen self-esteem and affirm the value of a sober network of peers (Cicchetti, in press).
Mutual Aid Group Processes
Mutual aid is often erroneously understood as simply the exchange of support (Gitterman, 1989), the giving of advice (Steinberg, 1992), and/or an approach to problem solving. Mutual aid is better conceptualized as multidimensional with at least 10 types of processes or activities that occur amongst and between members, including: sharing data, the dialectic process, discussion of taboo topics, the all in the same boat phenomenon, developing a universal perspective, mutual support, mutual demand (including confrontation), rehearsal of new skills, individual problem solving, and the strengths in numbers phenomenon (Gitterman, 2004; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004). The primacy given mutual aid in some group approaches is due to the belief that these processes stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes yielding therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits (Berman-Rossi, 1992; Breton, 1990, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Gitterman, 1989; Gottlieb, 1985; Hartford, 1976; Hopps and Pinderhughes, 1999; Lee, 1989; Northen, 1969, 1976, 1988; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1977; Shulman 1979, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2005b, 2006; Steinberg 1992, 1997, 2004).
Mutual aid is often erroneously understood as simply the exchange of support (Gitterman, 1989), the giving of advice (Steinberg, 1992), and/or an approach to problem solving. Mutual aid is better conceptualized as multidimensional with at least 10 types of processes or activities that occur amongst and between members, including: sharing data, the dialectic process, discussion of taboo topics, the all in the same boat phenomenon, developing a universal perspective, mutual support, mutual demand (including confrontation), rehearsal of new skills, individual problem solving, and the strengths in numbers phenomenon (Gitterman, 2004; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004). The primacy given mutual aid in some group approaches is due to the belief that these processes stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes yielding therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits (Berman-Rossi, 1992; Breton, 1990, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Gitterman, 1989; Gottlieb, 1985; Hartford, 1976; Hopps and Pinderhughes, 1999; Lee, 1989; Northen, 1969, 1976, 1988; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1977; Shulman 1979, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2005b, 2006; Steinberg 1992, 1997, 2004).
'''History of Social Group Work'''


History of Social Group Work
So as to better understand the rationale for stimulating mutual aid in group work, the history and evolution of social group work/social work with groups is addressed below. Within this discussion the various theoretical, philosophical, sociocultural and political forces that influenced the development of group work theories, in particular the Mutual Aid Model, will be identified.
So as to better understand the rationale for stimulating mutual aid in group work, the history and evolution of social group work/social work with groups is addressed below. Within this discussion the various theoretical, philosophical, sociocultural and political forces that influenced the development of group work theories, in particular the Mutual Aid Model, will be identified.


The Early Years: Seminal Contributions
The Early Years: Seminal Contributions
Social group work and group psychotherapy have primarily developed along parallel paths. Where the roots of contemporary group psychotherapy are often traced to the group education classes of tuberculosis patients conducted by Joseph Pratt in 1906, the exact birth of social group work can not be easily identified (Kaiser, 1958; Schleidlinger, 2000; Wilson, 1976). Social group work approaches are rooted in the group activities of various social agencies that arose in the latter part of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Social upheaval and new found demands as a result of post Civil War industrialization, migration and immigration left many with numerous concrete and psychosocial needs (Brown, 1991; Kaiser, 1958; Middleman, 1968; Reid, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Wilson, 1976). Some of these needs were met through group work endeavors found in settlement houses, religious and charity organizations (Middleman, 1968; Wilson, 1976). Additionally group work could be found in the progressive education movement (Dewey, 1910), the play and recreation movement (Boyd, 1935), informal education, camping and youth service organizations invested in ‘character building’ (Alissi, 1980; Schwartz, 1977; Williamson, 1929; Wilson, 1976).

As Clara Kaiser (1958) has indicated there have been numerous philosophical and theoretical influences on the development of social group work. Chief amongst these influences are the ethics of Judeo-Christian religions; the settlement house movement’s charitable and humanitarian efforts; theories eminent in progressive education, especially those of Dewey (1910); sociological theories about the nature of the relationship between man and society, i.e. Mead (1934); the democratic ethic articulated by early social philosophers; the psychoanalytic theories of Rank and Freud; the practice wisdom, theory building, educational and research efforts of early social group workers (Alissi, 1980; Kaiser, 1958; Wilson, 1976). Early theoretical, research and practice efforts of Grace Coyle (1930, 1935, 1937, 1947, 1948), Wilber Newstetter (1935), and Neva Boyd (1935) paved the way for the advancement and development of social group work.
Social group work and group psychotherapy have primarily developed along parallel paths. Where the roots of contemporary group psychotherapy are often traced to the group education classes of tuberculosis patients conducted by Joseph Pratt in 1906, the exact birth of social group work can not be easily identified (Kaiser, 1958; Schleidlinger, 2000; Wilson, 1976). Social group work approaches are rooted in the group activities of various social agencies that arose in the latter part of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Social upheaval and new found demands as a result of post Civil War industrialization, migration and immigration left many with numerous concrete and psychosocial needs (Brown, 1991; Kaiser, 1958; Middleman, 1968; Reid, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Wilson, 1976). Some of these needs were met through group work endeavors found in settlement houses, religious and charity organizations (Middleman, 1968; Wilson, 1976). Additionally group work could be found in the progressive education movement (Dewey, 1910), the play and recreation movement (Boyd, 1935), informal education, camping and youth service organizations invested in ‘character building’ (Alissi, 1980; Schwartz, 1977; Williamson, 1929; Wilson, 1976).
As Clara Kaiser (1958) has indicated there have been numerous philosophical and theoretical influences on the development of social group work. Chief amongst these influences are the ethics of Judeo-Christian religions; the settlement house movement’s charitable and humanitarian efforts; theories eminent in progressive education, especially those of Dewey (1910); sociological theories about the nature of the relationship between man and society, i.e. Mead (1934); the democratic ethic articulated by early social philosophers; the psychoanalytic theories of Rank and Freud; the practice wisdom, theory building, educational and research efforts of early social group workers (Alissi, 1980; Kaiser, 1958; Wilson, 1976). Early theoretical, research and practice efforts of Grace Coyle (1930, 1935, 1937, 1947, 1948), Wilber Newstetter (1935), and Neva Boyd (1935) paved the way for the advancement and development of social group work.
Grace Coyle presented an early theoretical framework for social group work articulating the need for a democratic value base (Coyle, 1935), identifying the role of the worker as a group builder (Coyle, 1937) and noting the benefits of ‘esprit de corps’ or group morale (Coyle, 1930). As the editor of several small group research compendiums Hare (1976) would later point out, “many of her insights about group process were ahead of her time” (p.388).
Grace Coyle presented an early theoretical framework for social group work articulating the need for a democratic value base (Coyle, 1935), identifying the role of the worker as a group builder (Coyle, 1937) and noting the benefits of ‘esprit de corps’ or group morale (Coyle, 1930). As the editor of several small group research compendiums Hare (1976) would later point out, “many of her insights about group process were ahead of her time” (p.388).
Social group work debuted at the National Conference for Social Work in 1935. At this conference, Newstetter (1935) introduced the concept of social group work and identified group work as a field, process and set of techniques. He described group work as an “educational process” concerned with “the development and social adjustment of an individual through voluntary group association” and “the use of this association as a means of furthering other socially desirable ends” (p.291). As with other early perspectives Newstetter (1935) noted that the worker’s task involved cultivating social interaction, “a ‘we’ feeling…a bond” (p.292). Noting that all work with groups is not group work, Newstetter (1935) advanced the perspective that the worker needed to cultivate the “group work process” (p.296).
Social group work debuted at the National Conference for Social Work in 1935. At this conference, Newstetter (1935) introduced the concept of social group work and identified group work as a field, process and set of techniques. He described group work as an “educational process” concerned with “the development and social adjustment of an individual through voluntary group association” and “the use of this association as a means of furthering other socially desirable ends” (p.291). As with other early perspectives Newstetter (1935) noted that the worker’s task involved cultivating social interaction, “a ‘we’ feeling…a bond” (p.292). Noting that all work with groups is not group work, Newstetter (1935) advanced the perspective that the worker needed to cultivate the “group work process” (p.296).

The Mid-Thirties to the 1950s: a period of growth and Expansion
The Mid-Thirties to the 1950s: a period of growth and Expansion
The period of time between the 1930s and the 1950s was one of growth and expansion for social group work (Alissi, 1980; Wilson, 1976). The economic despair of and varied psychosocial needs resultant of the Great Depression paved the way for greater affiliation between the social work profession and the field of group work (Alissi, 1980; Konopka, 1983; Wilson, 1976). The psychological needs of returning war veterans who served in World War II resulted in the more frequent application of social group work in psychiatric treatment (Konopka, 1983). It was during this period of time that the field of social group work would appear at the National Conference for Social Work; establish academic courses and research institutions; form a professional organization, The American Association of Social Work with Groups (AAGW); and establish the journal, The Group. The first textbooks would appear as well, written by Harleigh Trecker (1948) and Wilson and Ryland (1949).

The 1950s would usher in even greater affiliation of group work with the profession of social work (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The merger of the AAGW with six other organizations to form the National Association of Social Work (NASW) in 1955 solidified the identification and integration of social group work with the social work profession (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The impact of the merger was reflected in efforts at definitional shifts regarding group work. In 1956 the NASW formed a group work section which issued a new definition that contrasted in focus with that proposed by the AAGW. The new definition dismissed the idea of group work with normal growth and adjustment and instead saw group work as a “service to a group where the primary purpose is to help members improve social adjustment, and the secondary purpose is to help the group achieve objectives approved by society…the definition assumes that the members have adjustment problems” (Alissi, 1980, p. 24). Less than one fifth of the group work section agreed with this definition at the time (Alissi, 1980). The ensuing tensions regarding the defining parameters of social group work lead to a reconceptualization that included recognition that there existed different models to be used for different purposes (Hartford, 1964; Papell and Rothman, 1966).
The period of time between the 1930s and the 1950s was one of growth and expansion for social group work (Alissi, 1980; Wilson, 1976). The economic despair of and varied psychosocial needs resultant of the Great Depression paved the way for greater affiliation between the social work profession and the field of group work (Alissi, 1980; Konopka, 1983; Wilson, 1976). The psychological needs of returning war veterans who served in World War II resulted in the more frequent application of social group work in psychiatric treatment (Konopka, 1983). It was during this period of time that the field of social group work would appear at the National Conference for Social Work; establish academic courses and research institutions; form a professional organization, The American Association of Social Work with Groups (AAGW); and establish the journal, The Group. The first textbooks would appear as well, written by Harleigh Trecker (1948) and Wilson and Ryland (1949).
The 1950s would usher in even greater affiliation of group work with the profession of social work (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The merger of the AAGW with six other organizations to form the National Association of Social Work (NASW) in 1955 solidified the identification and integration of social group work with the social work profession (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The impact of the merger was reflected in efforts at definitional shifts regarding group work. In 1956 the NASW formed a group work section which issued a new definition that contrasted in focus with that proposed by the AAGW. The new definition dismissed the idea of group work with normal growth and adjustment and instead saw group work as a “service to a group where the primary purpose is to help members improve social adjustment, and the secondary purpose is to help the group achieve objectives approved by society…the definition assumes that the members have adjustment problems” (Alissi, 1980, p. 24). Less than one fifth of the group work section agreed with this definition at the time (Alissi, 1980). The ensuing tensions regarding the defining parameters of social group work lead to a reconceptualization that included recognition that there existed different models to be used for different purposes (Hartford, 1964; Papell and Rothman, 1966).




Toward greater theoretical conceptualization
Toward greater theoretical conceptualization
The attention given to the interaction between the function of the worker and the cultivation of group process would be of central focus in theory building efforts during this time period. Cohen (1944/1952) advanced the following perspective: “Group work, as we understand it, begins with a conscious effort to work the process. The group worker…stimulates and guides the group so that it will function in a democratic way rather than arbitrary way” (p.197). For Coyle (1944/1952) group work implied that “some leader is aware of the group inter-action and discerns social inter-actions of the group as well as the program activities which the group is doing (that is process and content)” (p.201).
The attention given to the interaction between the function of the worker and the cultivation of group process would be of central focus in theory building efforts during this time period. Cohen (1944/1952) advanced the following perspective: “Group work, as we understand it, begins with a conscious effort to work the process. The group worker…stimulates and guides the group so that it will function in a democratic way rather than arbitrary way” (p.197). For Coyle (1944/1952) group work implied that “some leader is aware of the group inter-action and discerns social inter-actions of the group as well as the program activities which the group is doing (that is process and content)” (p.201).
The philosophical and operational conceptualization of both social group work and the role of the group worker were further addressed by the American Association of Group Workers. The draft of the association’s definition of group work in 1948 identified group work as “a method by which the group worker enables various types of groups to function in such a way that both group interaction and program activities contribute to the growth of the individual, and the achievement of desirable social goals” (originally mimeographed and printed in Sullivan, 1952, p.420).
The philosophical and operational conceptualization of both social group work and the role of the group worker were further addressed by the American Association of Group Workers. The draft of the association’s definition of group work in 1948 identified group work as “a method by which the group worker enables various types of groups to function in such a way that both group interaction and program activities contribute to the growth of the individual, and the achievement of desirable social goals” (originally mimeographed and printed in Sullivan, 1952, p.420).
Grace Coyle lead a committee charged with developing the “Definition of the Function of the Group Worker” which concluded that the group worker bears responsibility for promoting both group interaction and program activities that contribute both to individual growth and advances the achievement of socially desirable goals (originally mimeographed and published in Sullivan, 1952). A primary task of the worker was to influence the group process, which in large part included member to member interaction in service of achieving group goals. Wilson and Ryder (1949) promoted the following perspective about the role of the worker, “it is through the professional use of this relationship that the members and the group as a whole are helped to achieve their personal and corporate purposes. The success of the social group work method depends upon the worker’s wisdom and discretion in developing the interpersonal relationships within the group and with other groups” (p.85)
Grace Coyle lead a committee charged with developing the “Definition of the Function of the Group Worker” which concluded that the group worker bears responsibility for promoting both group interaction and program activities that contribute both to individual growth and advances the achievement of socially desirable goals (originally mimeographed and published in Sullivan, 1952). A primary task of the worker was to influence the group process, which in large part included member to member interaction in service of achieving group goals. Wilson and Ryder (1949) promoted the following perspective about the role of the worker, “it is through the professional use of this relationship that the members and the group as a whole are helped to achieve their personal and corporate purposes. The success of the social group work method depends upon the worker’s wisdom and discretion in developing the interpersonal relationships within the group and with other groups” (p.85)
In 1956 the Council on Social Work Education undertook a three year study to examine the curriculum in the education of social workers (Murphy, 1959). This study included examination of group work curricula to identify the essential characteristics of social group work being taught to students (Murphy, 1959). The project included review of curricula of ten schools of social work and from this was derived “a set of descriptive propositions” regarding social group work (Murphy, 1959, p. 37).
In 1956 the Council on Social Work Education undertook a three year study to examine the curriculum in the education of social workers (Murphy, 1959). This study included examination of group work curricula to identify the essential characteristics of social group work being taught to students (Murphy, 1959). The project included review of curricula of ten schools of social work and from this was derived “a set of descriptive propositions” regarding social group work (Murphy, 1959, p. 37).
The propositions reflected beliefs primarily about the nature of group interaction, the role of group process, and the tasks of the worker (Murphy, 1959). The following propositions were made by the curricula review committee: members bring to the group experiences and patterns of behavior “first learned in the primary family group”; “the development of group characteristics in a given group can be examined, understood, and evaluated”; group work is simultaneously concerned with both content and process; worker efforts at helping members function optimally in the group has the benefit of helping them function optimally in “other social situations”; the worker deals with “multiple interactions of group members”; problem solving in the group considers “multiple points of view”; the worker helps “members use relationships with others more constructively” (p.37-39).
The propositions reflected beliefs primarily about the nature of group interaction, the role of group process, and the tasks of the worker (Murphy, 1959). The following propositions were made by the curricula review committee: members bring to the group experiences and patterns of behavior “first learned in the primary family group”; “the development of group characteristics in a given group can be examined, understood, and evaluated”; group work is simultaneously concerned with both content and process; worker efforts at helping members function optimally in the group has the benefit of helping them function optimally in “other social situations”; the worker deals with “multiple interactions of group members”; problem solving in the group considers “multiple points of view”; the worker helps “members use relationships with others more constructively” (p.37-39).
With regard to theory building, a significant contribution to group work later reflected in Schwartz’ (1961) model was the concept of ‘engagement’ proposed by Phillips (1957). Phillips (1957) noted the interaction between the worker and group process and suggested that it was amongst the worker’s primary functions to engage the individual member with the group process, help the group identify and accept common goals, and enable the group to develop their within group relationships.
With regard to theory building, a significant contribution to group work later reflected in Schwartz’ (1961) model was the concept of ‘engagement’ proposed by Phillips (1957). Phillips (1957) noted the interaction between the worker and group process and suggested that it was amongst the worker’s primary functions to engage the individual member with the group process, help the group identify and accept common goals, and enable the group to develop their within group relationships.
In sum, the history of social group work to this point reflected the following practice principles: allegiance to democratic principles; primacy was placed on the role of member to member interactions; members were viewed as possessing inherent strengths and competencies; and the function of the worker was viewed as “working” the process (Trecker, 1948) or “engaging” the group members (Phillips, 1957). In Schwartz’ (1959/1994) own review of the history of social group work while he appreciated the gains made he acknowledged what he felt was the lack of adequately developed practice theory. He noted that “a theory of method must be formalized, transmissible, and amenable to interpenetration to those in whose service it is pledged. Without a theoretical foundation for method, we have knowledge and cannot use it, or we have goals without a sense of how they can be reached” (Schwartz, 1959/1994, p.217-218).
In sum, the history of social group work to this point reflected the following practice principles: allegiance to democratic principles; primacy was placed on the role of member to member interactions; members were viewed as possessing inherent strengths and competencies; and the function of the worker was viewed as “working” the process (Trecker, 1948) or “engaging” the group members (Phillips, 1957). In Schwartz’ (1959/1994) own review of the history of social group work while he appreciated the gains made he acknowledged what he felt was the lack of adequately developed practice theory. He noted that “a theory of method must be formalized, transmissible, and amenable to interpenetration to those in whose service it is pledged. Without a theoretical foundation for method, we have knowledge and cannot use it, or we have goals without a sense of how they can be reached” (Schwartz, 1959/1994, p.217-218).

The 1960s to the present: Further Development of Practice Theories
The 1960s to the present: Further Development of Practice Theories
The 1960s and the 1970s saw the expansion of the social welfare state; the Vietnam War; the emergence of the war on poverty; the Women’s Rights Movement; the Black Power Movement; and the Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). The above social, intellectual and cultural factors influenced the social work profession including social group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). With such a wide range of social and therapeutic needs there seemed to be an even greater appreciation of group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Hartford, 1964; Somers, 1976).

Having expanded into differing practice settings, the purposes and goals of group work had been more broadly described at this juncture than in previous decades. While consensus would not be found in accepting any one theory of practice or approach, it is best said that social group work comprised differing approaches with differing goals. In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section would agree that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context. The facilitation of interpersonal relationships amongst members was regarded as a central work task (Hartford, 1964).
The 1960s and the 1970s saw the expansion of the social welfare state; the Vietnam War; the emergence of the war on poverty; the Women’s Rights Movement; the Black Power Movement; and the Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). The above social, intellectual and cultural factors influenced the social work profession including social group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). With such a wide range of social and therapeutic needs there seemed to be an even greater appreciation of group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Hartford, 1964; Somers, 1976).
Group work scholars made great strides in developing practice theories. The work of Vinter and Schwartz and their respective associates would dominate the group work scene for much of this decade and the next (Galinsky and Schopler, 1974). In Vinter’s approach (1967) the treatment group is thought of as a small social system “whose influences can be planfully guided to modify client behavior” (p.4). In this approach the worker takes a central position in providing treatment, interventions are planned, group process is highly structured, and great emphasis is given to outcome evaluation and research (Vinter, 1967; Garvin, 1987; Galinsky and Schopler, 1974).
Having expanded into differing practice settings, the purposes and goals of group work had been more broadly described at this juncture than in previous decades. While consensus would not be found in accepting any one theory of practice or approach, it is best said that social group work comprised differing approaches with differing goals. In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section would agree that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context. The facilitation of interpersonal relationships amongst members was regarded as a central work task (Hartford, 1964).
Schwartz (1961) proposed his vision of the small group as an enterprise in mutual aid. In what would become regarded as the ‘mainstream of social work practice with small groups’ (Lang, 1979) the cultivation of mutual aid would be viewed as a central worker task over and above the purpose for which the group was formed (Hartford, 1976; Papell and Rothman, 1980).
Group work scholars made great strides in developing practice theories. The work of Vinter and Schwartz and their respective associates would dominate the group work scene for much of this decade and the next (Galinsky and Schopler, 1974). In Vinter’s approach (1967) the treatment group is thought of as a small social system “whose influences can be planfully guided to modify client behavior” (p.4). In this approach the worker takes a central position in providing treatment, interventions are planned, group process is highly structured, and great emphasis is given to outcome evaluation and research (Vinter, 1967; Garvin, 1987; Galinsky and Schopler, 1974).
In 1965 Bernstein and colleagues introduced another social group work practice theory (Bernstein, 1978; Lowy, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). The centerpiece of the edited collection was a developmental stage model, known as the Boston Model, which presented a framework for understanding how groups navigate degrees of emotional closeness over time (Bernstein, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). In 1966 Papell and Rothman (1966) presented a typology of social group work that included the social goals model (in the tradition of Coyle), the remedial model (as developed by Vinter) and the reciprocal model (as articulated by Schwartz). In 1968 Middleman (1968) made a seminal contribution in articulating an approach to group work practice that utilized non-verbal activities. In 1976 Roberts and Northen presented a collection of ten group work practice theories (Roberts and Northen, 1976) further illustrating the diversity of approaches to group practice.
Schwartz (1961) proposed his vision of the small group as an enterprise in mutual aid. In what would become regarded as the ‘mainstream of social work practice with small groups’ (Lang, 1979) the cultivation of mutual aid would be viewed as a central worker task over and above the purpose for which the group was formed (Hartford, 1976; Papell and Rothman, 1980).
As theory building proliferated there was a simultaneous effort to distill the essential elements of social group work. In 1980 Papell and Rothman suggested the essential characteristics of the mainstream model were “common goals, mutual aid, and non-synthetic experiences” (1980, p.7). Also, as previously indicated Middleman and Wood (1990a) identified the common characteristics of various approaches to social work with groups.
In 1965 Bernstein and colleagues introduced another social group work practice theory (Bernstein, 1978; Lowy, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). The centerpiece of the edited collection was a developmental stage model, known as the Boston Model, which presented a framework for understanding how groups navigate degrees of emotional closeness over time (Bernstein, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). In 1966 Papell and Rothman (1966) presented a typology of social group work that included the social goals model (in the tradition of Coyle), the remedial model (as developed by Vinter) and the reciprocal model (as articulated by Schwartz). In 1968 Middleman (1968) made a seminal contribution in articulating an approach to group work practice that utilized non-verbal activities. In 1976 Roberts and Northen presented a collection of ten group work practice theories (Roberts and Northen, 1976) further illustrating the diversity of approaches to group practice.
Contemporary group work practice continues to be informed by the work of early pioneers and the vanguards of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups, the Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work Model is recognized as influential on contemporary group work practice (Rose, 2004). The approach suggested by Rose (1989, 2004) integrates cognitive and behavioral interventions with small group strategies. While primacy is not placed on establishing the group as a mutual aid system in quite the same way as with the Mutual Aid Model, Rose (2004) suggests the worker promote group discussion and member interaction. Furthermore, drawing upon Yalom’s Therapeutic Factor construct Rose (2004) points out the benefits of universality, altruism, and group cohesion as well as mutual reinforcement, factors which are conceptually resonant with mutual aid.
As theory building proliferated there was a simultaneous effort to distill the essential elements of social group work. In 1980 Papell and Rothman suggested the essential characteristics of the mainstream model were “common goals, mutual aid, and non-synthetic experiences” (1980, p.7). Also, as previously indicated Middleman and Wood (1990a) identified the common characteristics of various approaches to social work with groups.
Contemporary social workers continue to build upon group work theory. For example, Schiller (1995) has proposed a model of practice that builds upon developmental stage theory and integrates Feminist theory. The Relational Model considers the developmental needs of women, places primacy on cultivating safety and views power and control issues as less important to the group’s growth as compared to other approaches (Schiller, 1995). Schiller (2002) suggests that this model has application to group work with oppressed and vulnerable populations as well. Another example of theory building can be seen in group approaches that integrate technology mediated communication (Meier, 2004).
Contemporary group work practice continues to be informed by the work of early pioneers and the vanguards of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups, the Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work Model is recognized as influential on contemporary group work practice (Rose, 2004). The approach suggested by Rose (1989, 2004) integrates cognitive and behavioral interventions with small group strategies. While primacy is not placed on establishing the group as a mutual aid system in quite the same way as with the Mutual Aid Model, Rose (2004) suggests the worker promote group discussion and member interaction. Furthermore, drawing upon Yalom’s Therapeutic Factor construct Rose (2004) points out the benefits of universality, altruism, and group cohesion as well as mutual reinforcement, factors which are conceptually resonant with mutual aid.
Contemporary social workers continue to build upon group work theory. For example, Schiller (1995) has proposed a model of practice that builds upon developmental stage theory and integrates Feminist theory. The Relational Model considers the developmental needs of women, places primacy on cultivating safety and views power and control issues as less important to the group’s growth as compared to other approaches (Schiller, 1995). Schiller (2002) suggests that this model has application to group work with oppressed and vulnerable populations as well. Another example of theory building can be seen in group approaches that integrate technology mediated communication (Meier, 2004).

Contemporary Challenges
Contemporary Challenges
The late seventies saw the reemergence of a professional journal, Social Work with Groups in 1978. Additionally, in 1978 social group workers formed a committee to host a symposium in honor of Grace Coyle which paved the way for an annual conference in subsequent years (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The conference planning committee was transformed into the membership driven organization, the Association for the Advancement for Social Work with Groups, now an international organization (AASWG, 2006).
The late seventies saw the reemergence of a professional journal, Social Work with Groups in 1978. Additionally, in 1978 social group workers formed a committee to host a symposium in honor of Grace Coyle which paved the way for an annual conference in subsequent years (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The conference planning committee was transformed into the membership driven organization, the Association for the Advancement for Social Work with Groups, now an international organization (AASWG, 2006).
Despite the proliferation of professional activity there has been deep lamentation for the state of both group work education and practice since the late 1960s onward (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Goodman, 2006; Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Tropp, 1977b; Steinberg, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2004; Strozier, 1997). While it has been observed that work with groups has been happening with great frequency, it is often not group work grounded in theory, the values of the profession, and/or evidence (Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992). The concern has been traced most prominently to the Council on Social Work Education’s policy shift leading to an approach to education that calls for a generalist foundation so as to promote integrative practice (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
Despite the proliferation of professional activity there has been deep lamentation for the state of both group work education and practice since the late 1960s onward (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Goodman, 2006; Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Tropp, 1977b; Steinberg, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2004; Strozier, 1997). While it has been observed that work with groups has been happening with great frequency, it is often not group work grounded in theory, the values of the profession, and/or evidence (Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992). The concern has been traced most prominently to the Council on Social Work Education’s policy shift leading to an approach to education that calls for a generalist foundation so as to promote integrative practice (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
The concern about practice was forcefully stated by Tropp in 1968 at the 95th Annual Forum National Conference on Social Welfare in California (Tropp, 1977b). Tropp (1977b) stated his worry: “throughout social work today, groups are found adrift, at sea, with very little sense of direction, weak motivation or engaging in games of cooperative talk…to accommodate the worker, but signifying very little” (p.78). Tropp (1977b) saw this problem as stemming from a philosophy that promoted generalization instead of specialization. In 1966 Tropp cautioned that “the newest wave of the future in social work is the movement toward a unitary method of practice” (Tropp, 1977b, p.47).
The concern about practice was forcefully stated by Tropp in 1968 at the 95th Annual Forum National Conference on Social Welfare in California (Tropp, 1977b). Tropp (1977b) stated his worry: “throughout social work today, groups are found adrift, at sea, with very little sense of direction, weak motivation or engaging in games of cooperative talk…to accommodate the worker, but signifying very little” (p.78). Tropp (1977b) saw this problem as stemming from a philosophy that promoted generalization instead of specialization. In 1966 Tropp cautioned that “the newest wave of the future in social work is the movement toward a unitary method of practice” (Tropp, 1977b, p.47).
Northen and Kurland (2001) explain the profession’s stance toward integrative practice: “The rationale for the integration of modalities is the view that social work practice is an entity made of several approaches…calling for work with an individual…family…small group…or with organizations in the community” (p.13). Consequently, social workers should be able to draw upon the specific skills needed to work effectively with each particular system (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
Northen and Kurland (2001) explain the profession’s stance toward integrative practice: “The rationale for the integration of modalities is the view that social work practice is an entity made of several approaches…calling for work with an individual…family…small group…or with organizations in the community” (p.13). Consequently, social workers should be able to draw upon the specific skills needed to work effectively with each particular system (Northen and Kurland, 2001).
The problem, however, is that many schools of social work fail to adequately prepare graduating students to work effectively with groups (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000). In 1963 seventy six percent of MSW programs offered a group work concentration; in 1981 the percentage dropped to 22%; and in 1992 only 7% of MSW programs offered a group work concentration (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). According to research conducted by Birnbaum and Auerbach in 1991 only 19% of schools require that students take a specific group work course, leaving most students to obtain their knowledge from the generalist foundation courses (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). Survey research of faculty teaching generalist practice courses, however, indicates that meaningful group work concepts are not being taught sufficiently (Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000).
The problem, however, is that many schools of social work fail to adequately prepare graduating students to work effectively with groups (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000). In 1963 seventy six percent of MSW programs offered a group work concentration; in 1981 the percentage dropped to 22%; and in 1992 only 7% of MSW programs offered a group work concentration (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). According to research conducted by Birnbaum and Auerbach in 1991 only 19% of schools require that students take a specific group work course, leaving most students to obtain their knowledge from the generalist foundation courses (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). Survey research of faculty teaching generalist practice courses, however, indicates that meaningful group work concepts are not being taught sufficiently (Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000).
The erosion of group work education has resulted in practice that bears little resemblance to the professional standards for effective group work practice, as evidenced by research conducted by Steinberg (1992). Steinberg’s (1992) research comparing differences in approach to practice of those with more than two semesters of group work specific education and those with less indicated that group workers who had taken at least three group work courses were more likely to view their work from the two-client perspective; actively cultivate mutual aid and group autonomy; and view conflict as a normative aspect of group development.
The erosion of group work education has resulted in practice that bears little resemblance to the professional standards for effective group work practice, as evidenced by research conducted by Steinberg (1992). Steinberg’s (1992) research comparing differences in approach to practice of those with more than two semesters of group work specific education and those with less indicated that group workers who had taken at least three group work courses were more likely to view their work from the two-client perspective; actively cultivate mutual aid and group autonomy; and view conflict as a normative aspect of group development.
Consequently, in the absence of substantial exposure to group practice theory, workers are left to draw upon strategies most appropriate for work with individuals (Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). This approach to practice typically looks like work with an individual in a group setting (Hartford, 1978; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). As a result of this approach members are typically recipients of the worker’s help; and do not engage in reciprocal relationship with one another (Steinberg, 2004). Group work is likely to become sterile; uninspired; devoid of mutual aid; and arguably ineffective (Freeman, 1987; Steinberg, 1992, 2004).
Consequently, in the absence of substantial exposure to group practice theory, workers are left to draw upon strategies most appropriate for work with individuals (Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). This approach to practice typically looks like work with an individual in a group setting (Hartford, 1978; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). As a result of this approach members are typically recipients of the worker’s help; and do not engage in reciprocal relationship with one another (Steinberg, 2004). Group work is likely to become sterile; uninspired; devoid of mutual aid; and arguably ineffective (Freeman, 1987; Steinberg, 1992, 2004).
The concern has not gone unacknowledged by the CSWE and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. In 1995 the two organizations partnered to develop publications designed to address the educational gaps (Shulman, 1998). Toward that end Kurland and Salmon (1998) published the first of this series entitled “Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups” written with the neophyte group work instructor in mind. A major goal of the teaching approach described is to facilitate students’ appreciation of what is uniquely group work “…especially, the essential power of mutual aid” (Kurland and Salmon, 1998, p.147).
The concern has not gone unacknowledged by the CSWE and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. In 1995 the two organizations partnered to develop publications designed to address the educational gaps (Shulman, 1998). Toward that end Kurland and Salmon (1998) published the first of this series entitled “Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups” written with the neophyte group work instructor in mind. A major goal of the teaching approach described is to facilitate students’ appreciation of what is uniquely group work “…especially, the essential power of mutual aid” (Kurland and Salmon, 1998, p.147).
Ironically perhaps, Schwartz (1977) was a proponent of an integrative approach to social work education. “It becomes clearer that the interactionist impetus is essentially integrative”, suggested Schwartz (1977, p. 1337). In theory there may be great benefit to such an educational approach, but as the evidence indicates, many social workers are inadequately prepared to work with groups effectively (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). More research of both practice and education needs to be conducted to fully understand the impact of generalist education on group work practice (Kurland and Salmon, 2006; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Steinberg, 1992).
Ironically perhaps, Schwartz (1977) was a proponent of an integrative approach to social work education. “It becomes clearer that the interactionist impetus is essentially integrative”, suggested Schwartz (1977, p. 1337). In theory there may be great benefit to such an educational approach, but as the evidence indicates, many social workers are inadequately prepared to work with groups effectively (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). More research of both practice and education needs to be conducted to fully understand the impact of generalist education on group work practice (Kurland and Salmon, 2006; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Steinberg, 1992).


Models of Practice
The Mutual Aid Model
The Mutual Aid Model of group work practice (Gitterman, 2004) has its roots in the practice theory proposed by William Schwartz (1961) which was introduced in the article, “The Social Worker in the Group”. Schwartz (1961) envisioned the group as an “enterprise in mutual aid, an alliance of individuals who need each other in varying degrees, to work on certain common problems” (p.266). Schwartz elaborated: “the fact is that this is a helping system in which clients need each other as well as the worker. This need to use each other, to create not one but many helping relationships, is a vital ingredient of the group process and constitutes a need over and above the specific tasks for which the group was formed” (1961, p. 266).
Schwartz (1976) regarded this approach as resonant with the demands of a variety of group types including, natural and formed; therapeutic and task; open and closed; and voluntary and mandatory. Both the Mutual Aid Model and the concept of mutual aid have endured and continue to inform social work practice with groups (Gitterman, 2004). The model proposed by Schwartz followed a historical, theoretical path along the mainstream of social group work (Papell and Rothman, 1980; Tropp, 1977a). According to Tropp (1977a) “the mainstream was more deeply explored by William Schwartz, who further elaborated the concepts of group function and worker involvement, while adding the dimensions of the mutual aid phenomenon and the contractual relation between worker and group” (p.1322).
Schwartz (1961, 1964) initially thought of this approach as an organic systems model (as he viewed the group as an organic whole) later to refer to it as the mediating model and then the interactionist model (Schwartz, 1977). The model initially proposed by Schwartz has been further developed most notably by Lawrence Shulman and Alex Gitterman, who have since referred to this model as the Mutual Aid Model (Gitterman, 2004, 2005; Shulman, 1979, 1992, 1999, 2005b; and Steinberg, 1997, 2004).
The change in nomenclature reflects shifting focus on the various facets of the model with attention to its philosophical underpinnings (reciprocal); to the focus on worker function and activity (mediating); to the emphasis on member interaction (interactional); and with the current appellation, the Mutual Aid Model, to the quality and nature of the interaction of the members (Gitterman, 2004; Middleman and Wood, 1990a; and Steinberg, 1997). Recently Shulman (2005a) introduced the alternate appellation “Mutual Aid Group Treatment” (MAGT) to contrast worker lead treatment groups with mutual aid self help groups (MASH).
Subsequent to presentation of this practice theory, Schwartz elaborated on this model in the following articles and/or chapters” “Toward a Strategy of Group Work Practice (1961); “Small Group Science and Group Work Practice” (1964); “Analysis of Papers Presented on Working Definitions of Group Work Practice” (1964); “On The Use of Groups In Social Work Practice” (1971a); “Social Group Work: The Interactionist Approach (1977); and “Between Client and System: The Mediating Function” (1976). Finally, an unfinished text believed to be written from the period of 1968 to 1972, entitled “Social Work with Groups: The Search for a Method”, was published in a collection of Schwartz’ work in 1994 by Toby Berman-Rossi called “Social Work: The Collected Writings of William Schwartz”.
Noting the importance of this model, Papell and Rothman (1966) identified the model’s primary contribution to social group work practice theory: “its outstanding contribution” is as “the construct of a mutual aid system with professional interventions” (p. 130). For Papell and Rothman, the conceptual strength of the model lay in the observation that “what had been vaguely referred to in the past as ‘helping members help themselves’ has acquired a higher level of theoretical statement. It is now possible to consider the attributes and culture of a specialized system and to transmit the skills necessary to support its realization. This is probably the single most important contribution that group work method can make to the social work profession at large (italics mine, 1966, p. 130). Sharpening Papell and Rothman’s observation, Schwartz (1976) would note that the worker invested in cultivating mutual aid had “the additional task of not only helping people help themselves, but to help each other as well” (p. 194).

Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work
In addition to the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups, the Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work Model is recognized as influential on contemporary group work practice (Rose, 2004). The approach suggested by Rose (1989, 2004) integrates cognitive and behavioral interventions with small group strategies. While primacy is not placed on establishing the group as a mutual aid system in quite the same way as with the Mutual Aid Model, Rose (2004) suggests the worker promote group discussion and member interaction. Furthermore, drawing upon Yalom’s Therapeutic Factor construct Rose (2004) points out the benefits of universality, altruism, and group cohesion as well as mutual reinforcement, factors which are conceptually resonant with mutual aid.

Establishing the Group as a Mutual Aid System
The purpose of this section of the literature review is to address key components of a mutual aid based approach to group practice drawing from the social work with groups/social group work literature. The discussion will address the following: premise for a mutual aid based approach to group work; the role of the member; the role of the worker; phases of helping; themes of authority and intimacy; group developmental stage theory; communication patterns; conflict; and specific worker skills.

Premise for a Mutual Aid Based Approach to Group Work
As previously indicated, a mutual aid based approach to group work is premised on the belief that members need each other to work on common problems (Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1977; Steinberg, 2004). Consequently, “a group should be formed when it is the modality of choice in a given situation, not as a cheap or second-class type of service”, according to Northen and Kurland (2001, p. 116).
View and role of the member

While the language is not consistent in the social work literature, in general the understanding is that the group worker employing a mutual aid based approach works with ‘members’ of groups rather than ‘clients’ as well as the group itself (Konopka, 1978; Trecker, 1948; Shulman, 1999; Steinberg, 2004). The concept of membership versus client is not insignificant nor simply a matter of semantics (Falck, 1989). As Konopka (1978) pointed out, “the concept of member instead of client indicates a democratization of the helping process, an acceptance of the legitimacy of indigenous leadership and the concept of mutual aid as a goal” (p.128). Members are viewed as active, “self-realizing” and “energy producing” rather than passive recipients of treatment (Schwartz, 1977, p.1331). In this approach the strengths of members are recognized (Schwartz, 1977).
A mutual aid based approach to group work has implications for understanding not only the role of the member but the nature of the ideal relationship between and amongst members as well. Members are viewed as interdependent (Northen and Kurland, 2001) with responsibilities to and for one another (Falck, 1989; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Falck (1989) makes the point that implicit in the notion of member is the “principle of connectedness” (p.24), that we are all a part of a larger whole. Falck (1989) observes that “nobody exists aside from others; no social interaction is possible without others” (p.24/25).
This perspective within the context of the group experience subjugates the notion of self-determination to that of social self-determination (Falck, 1989). Illustrating the point, Falck (1989) notes that there is a difference in asking “what do you want to talk about?” than “what shall we discuss?” (p. 29). This framework has implications for the role of the worker whose responsibility includes mediating the reciprocal relationship to be found between the group and member and the members with one another.


Role of the worker
The purpose of this section is not to identify specific skills as they will be discussed in subsequent sections. Rather the scope of this discussion is to identify the role of the worker in the mutual aid based social work group. Of note, as with the discussion of ‘member’ the use of the title ‘worker’ is of philosophical importance and can be contrasted with ‘leader’, as leadership is thought to emerge amongst the membership (Trecker, 1948). The understanding of the role of the ‘worker’ is that she/he too is a member, albeit with special skills and the responsibility to ‘work the process’ (Newstetter, 1935; Lang, 2004; Trecker, 1948). The worker seeks to build the group through purposeful worker activity (Coyle, 1937; Hartford, 1976; Trecker, 1948), cultivate indigenous leadership (Konopka, 1983) and support the group’s autonomy (Middleman and Wood, 1990b). Successful group building requires the worker to engage the individual member with the group, help the group identify and accept common goals, and enable the group to develop their within group relationships (Coyle, 1937; Murphy, 1959; Newstetter, 1935; Phillips, 1957).
Schwartz (1976) viewed mediation as the primary worker function. Mediation, he suggested, was meant to “create not harmony but interaction, based on a sense of strength, feeling and purpose” (Schwartz, 1976, p. 184). Eventually, Schwartz (1986) would come to think of his client as the process of social interaction itself.
Through purposeful worker activity the strength of members could be harnessed and the potent dynamics of mutual aid unleashed (Steinberg, 2004). The mediation function suggests the following worker tasks: identifying members’ common ground; cultivating mutual aid; and identifying and working through obstacles (Gitterman, 2004; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999, 2006). As Schwartz (1976) indicated an important worker task was “helping people not only help themselves but to help each other as well” (p. 196).
Schwartz (1994) recognized that the worker is also a representative of the agency and needs to present the purpose of the group in light of agency function. Where there could be tension between the agency and the group, Schwartz envisioned the worker role as mediating the connection between these systems (Gitterman, 2004; Schwartz, 1994).


Phases of Helping

The concept of the phases of helping indicates there is a preferred sequence of worker activity so as to help the group become a mutual aid system and achieve group purpose (Gitterman, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schwartz, 1961, 1976, 1977). The phases occur over the course of the group’s life cycle and include: preparation, beginning, work and ending phases (Schwartz, 1961; Gitterman, 2004). This framework has relevance for conceptualizing the sequencing of worker activity in each group session as well (Birnbaum and Cicchetti, 2000; Birnbaum, Mason and Cicchetti, 2002; Shalinsky, 1983; Shulman, 2005b).


The Preparation Phase

The preparation phase attends to ‘tuning in’, pre-group planning, and work with the prospective members (Gitterman, 2004; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006). Tuning-in helps the worker anticipate members’ needs and feelings and develop preliminary empathy (Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999, 2006). The worker also tunes-in to one’s own feelings, attitudes and thoughts about the ensuing group encounter (Shulman, 1999, 2006). A framework for pre-group planning proposes that the worker consider such interrelated factors as group purpose, composition, structure, size, content, and the environmental context of the group (Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Group workers, in addition to preparing the new group member, need to work with other staff members to gain sanction for their group and to facilitate referrals (Shulman, 1999, 2005b). Member outreach and preparation provides an opportunity to identify the goodness of fit between the group purpose and the prospective member’s needs and address feelings of ambivalence or reluctance about attending the group (Shulman, 1999, 2005b).



The Beginning Phase

The beginning phase has as its central assignment a collaborative approach to developing an initial contract for work (Henry, 1992; Schwartz, 1961, 1971a; Shulman, 1999, 2006). According to Schwartz (1971), “The contract, openly reflecting both stakes, provides a frame of reference for the work that follows, and for understanding when the work is in process, when it is being evaded, and when it is finished” (p.8) The work of the beginning stage is understood as group building. Phillips (1957) explains the role of the worker in group building indicating that the worker should focus her attention at “understanding and using the worker’s activity in a process that enables each group member to find and take part in the whole, in relationship with other members” (p.142).
Several developmental frameworks postulate that member ambivalence about both the work and connecting with one another is normative (Bennis and Shepherd, 1956; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Schiller, 1995; Shulman, 2006). Shulman (2006) incorporated ideas from Bion’s group-as-a-whole approach, in particular his observation that members approach emotionally threatening material with a ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ response further explicating the understanding of ambivalence. In response to this the worker engages in purposeful group building so as to cultivate a climate of safety and trust which in turn contributes to establishing a culture for work (Schiller, 1995; Shulman, 2006).


The Work Phase

In the work phase the group’s energy is directed to “the main body of problems and to the major tasks of the helping process” (Schwartz, 1977, p.1335). The worker considers when to intervene with the group as a whole, the interactional process and the individual member (Shulman, 1999, 2006; Toseland and Rivas, 2005). Central worker tasks include the maintenance of the group as a mutual aid system and actualizing group purpose (Schwartz, 1977). The tasks of this phase according to Schwartz (1977) include: the search for common ground; detecting and challenging obstacles to task accomplishment; worker contribution of ideas, facts and values; the sharing of the worker’s vision, that is “his feelings about the process, and his faith in the clients’ strengths and capacities”; and defining the boundaries of the “situation in which the small group is set” (Schwartz, 1977, p. 1335).
How the work is conceptualized is in large part informed by the population, the nature of the group and the purpose for which the group was formed (Shulman, 2006). The nature of the therapeutic work for people with SUDS is conceptualized as a developmental process with early treatment tasks focused on establishing abstinence, deepening motivation and eroding denial (Flores, 1997; SAMHSA, 2005a). The nature of treatment for people with SUDS will be discussed further in a subsequent section.


The Ending Phase

The ending phase presents the group members the opportunity to consolidate gains, explore feelings and thoughts about endings, review and evaluate their work and make plans for the future (Gitterman, 2004; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999). Variations on endings occur when the worker leaves the group and when members leave a group that is ongoing (Shulman, 1999).

Stages of Group Development

There are several models developed both within and out of the field of social work with groups that suggest that a group moves through developmental stages (Bennis and Shepherd, 1956; Garland, Kolodney, and Jones, 1978; Hare, 1973; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977; Schiller, 1995). Schwartz’ (1961) understanding of the members experience of the group was informed by the group development theory proposed by Bennis and Shepherd (1956). Bennis and Shepherd (1956) postulated that throughout the life of the group members have emotional reactions, at first to the worker’s authority and then to the growing sense of intimacy amongst and between their peers. According to Bennis and Shepherd (1956) the first theme centers on members feelings about the distribution of power and the second on the distribution of warmth and affection.
Using Stage Theory in Service of Cultivating the Mutual Aid System

Understanding the developmental stages of group development has implications for fostering a mutual aid system (Berman-Rossi, 1992, 1993). Berman-Rossi (1992, 1993) suggests a framework for understanding the implications of the impact of developmental schema on the development of mutual aid. Her approach draws most prominently from the Bennis and Shepherd model (1956) and the Garland et al (1978) model. The Garland et al (1978) model proposes a linear stage theory that indicates a group moves through five stages: pre-affiliation; power and control; intimacy; differentiation; and separation. While presented as a linear model, Berman-Rossi (1992) suggested that often groups move back and forth between stages, especially in open ended groups.
In examining the interplay between stage theory and mutual aid development Berman-Rossi (1992) draws five conclusions. The first is that stage theory guides the sequence of worker activity to match the developmental needs of the group and the members. The second is that the worker should understand that the members may need to negotiate the “authority theme” before developing intimacy. The worker should take the opportunity to model acceptance of “examination and scrutiny” (Berman-Rossi, 1992, p. 251). The third point of this framework is that the worker should support member connections and address obstacles to mutual aid. The fourth point is that promoting movement through the stages of group development simultaneously helps the group to become a mature helping system. Finally, empowerment oriented practice “demands a helping strategy designed to increase members’ experience of mastery, competence, power and influence” (Berman-Rossi, 1992, p. 251).


Communication, Stage Theory and Mutual Aid

Communication includes verbal and non-verbal expression in the small face to face group (Toseland et al, 2004). Communication patterns are likely to be informed by sociocultural norms and power differentials related to culture, gender and ethnicity (Toseland et al, 2004). Communication patterns are understood to evolve over time (Shulman, 1999) and require worker effort in order to be as productive as possible (Glassman and Kates, 1990; Gitterman, 1989; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Toseland et al, 2004).
Typically interaction in the small group is fostered by members sitting in a circle (Anderson, 1985). Despite the possibility of face to face interaction, members initially direct their communication to and through the worker (Shulman, 1999). Common patterns of group communication include: the maypole style wherein all communication is directed to and through the worker; the round robin approach where each member gets their turn, often truncating group discussion or dialogue; the hot seat approach popularized by Gestalt Therapy; and a free floating pattern that fosters communication between and amongst members and to the group (Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Toseland et al, 2004; Steinberg, 2004).
The stance toward communication in the social group work tradition is that it is the free floating pattern of communication that most prominently fosters mutual aid (Steinberg, 2004). To promote this pattern the worker fosters full participation and utilizes group facilitation skills (Glassman and Kates, 1990; Middleman and Wood, 1990b). Related to this style of communication is the belief that time is pluralistically distributed in the group (Steinberg, 2004). The group is encouraged to see that time is shared rather than apportioned and that while one member may be presenting a topic of concern, all members have the potential to gain from the experience by listening with a self referential ear (Steinberg, 2004).


Conflict, Stage Theory and Mutual Aid

Some developmental stage theories (Bernstein, 1978; Cooper et al, 1986; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978; Shulman, 1999; Tuckman, 1965) view conflict as a normal aspect of group life. While sometimes erroneously perceived by counselors to be anathema to the work of the group or the establishment of mutual support amongst and between members, in actuality it is the failure to work through conflict that impedes these endeavors (Gitterman, 1989). Gitterman (1989) suggests that the worker “invite and sustain group conflict” (p. 17). Gitterman (1989) explains, “By inviting negative feelings and thoughts, the worker conveys interest and respect for each member and faith in their ability to communicate and work on interpersonal issues. And by overcoming them, mutual support is enhanced” (p. 17).
Involuntary Status of Members, Stage Theory and Mutual Aid
The dynamics of working with involuntary group members has been addressed in the social work with groups’ literature in general (Behroozi, 1992; Rooney and Chovanec, 2004) and with regard to the group treatment of people with SUDs in particular (Milgram and Rubin, 1992). The concept of “treating” involuntary clients has raised concerns about professional ethics and values as well as treatment effectiveness (Behroozi, 1992; Breton, 1993; Milgram and Rubin, 1992; Rooney and Chovanec, 2004).
The involuntary client can be understood as someone who is pressured by some external source to seek social services (Rooney and Chovanec, 2004). Mandated involuntary clients are pressured to seek services as a result of the legal system (Rooney and Chovanec, 2004). Rooney and Chovanec (2004) identify reactance theory as an explanatory framework for the attitude and behaviors of the involuntary client and the mandated involuntary client. Reactance theory suggests that as a person is pressured to relinquish certain behaviors as a result of treatment efforts they experience reactance, “a motivational drive to restore those free behaviors” (Rooney and Chovanec, 2004, p.213). Rooney and Chovanec (2004) suggest an approach that draws upon the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model and Motivational Interviewing in identifying strategies for engaging involuntary clients in the group process.
Behroozi (1992) has noted tensions between the concept of working with mandated clients and professional ethics, such as the belief in fostering self determination. The chief concern is whether or not “involuntary applicants” are in fact “clients”, as to become a client of a professional social worker requires “mutual agreement” (Behroozi, 1992, p.224). In social work practice, the primary task given this issue is to help the applicant “transform to clienthood” (Behroozi, 1992, p.224). In the absence of this transformation, the mandated “client” is likely to be superficially compliant and deny they have any problems warranting social work attention (Behroozi, 1992; Breton, 1993; Milgram and Rubin, 1992).
Behroozi (1992) recommends that the primary strategy in transforming the applicant to clienthood is supporting them in owning the choice to be in treatment, as the best possible option given the range available to them. The worker should help the applicant identify and acknowledge feelings about being mandated to treatment, be given ample opportunity to exercise choice, and encouraged to identify their perception of their problems (Behroozi, 1992).
The process of transforming to clienthood has implications for group practice (Behroozi, 1992; Milgram and Rubin, 1992). Behroozi (1992) drawing upon the work of Lacoursiere’s developmental stage model identifies an additional pre-treatment stage identified as ‘negative orientation’ which is characterized by open hostility and suspicion. The work includes helping members identify and express their feelings; “examine the reasons for their reluctance”; “consider what would happen if they were not in the group”; and help participants “appreciate the usefulness of the group experience” (Behroozi, 1992, p.235).


Worker Skills

Various group work skills have been identified in previous portions of this discussion. Rather than engage in excessive repetition, this section will highlight specific worker skills that establish and strengthen the group as a mutual aid system. The concept of skill can be understood as the “production of specific behavior under the precise conditions for their use” (Middleman and Wood, 1990b). Worker skills have received various appellations in the social group work literature, including: worker task and activity (Schwartz, 1961); techniques (Glassman and Kates, 1990); skills (Toseland and Rivas, 2005); and intervention techniques (Beckerman, 1996).
The consensus amongst social work theorists is that special skills are required for effective group work practice (Coyle, 1937; Gitterman, 1989, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Hartford, 1971; Henry, 1992; Klein, 1970; Kurland and Salmon, 1998; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Newstetter, 1935; Phillips, 1957; Reid, 1997; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2005, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Toseland and Rivas, 1995; Trecker, 1948; Wilson and Ryder, 1949). Middleman and Wood (1990b) offer a useful typology of worker skills related to establishing and cultivating the group as a mutual aid system. The skill categories include: continuous, group building, and facilitative (Middleman and Wood, 1990b).


Continuous Skills

Continuous skills include: thinking group, scanning, and fostering cohesion (Middleman and Wood, 1990b). The phrase, thinking group, refers to a mindset that calls for the worker to consider the group as a whole. This idea has resonance with the ‘two client perspective’ which calls for the worker to consider the group-as-a-whole as one client, the individual members as the second client, and charges the worker with facilitating the connection between the two (Trecker, 1948). Scanning is identified as an attending skill that is comprised of ongoing observation of the whole group and of members’ non-verbal communication (Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Shulman, 2006; Toseland and Rivas, 2005). Effective scanning assists the worker in mediating the connection between the individual member and the group (Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Shulman, 1999; Toseland and Rivas, 2005). Cohesion lacks definitional consensus in group treatment, but for Middleman and Wood (1990b) the concept refers to group morale and attraction to the group and is evidenced by attendance, expressed satisfaction, and behavior that is congruent with productive group norms. An activity that is postulated as fostering cohesion is use of inclusive language exemplified in words like ‘we’ and ‘ours’ (Middleman and Wood, 1990b).


Group Building Skills

As indicated social group work theorists and practitioners place high priority on group building (Coyle, 1937; Gitterman, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Phillips, 1957; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004; Trecker, 1948). Group building is a task calling for interrelated worker skills used to help the group become a group (Hartford, 1971).
Group building requires that the worker help members identify their common ground (Gitterman, 2004, 2005; Schwartz, 1961; Steinberg, 2004). Workers can foster the identification of common ground by making a statement of group purpose and reaching for feedback from the whole group about the purpose (Gitterman, 2004; Henry, 1992; Schwartz, 1961). This can be understood as an aspect of establishing a contract for work (Henry, 1992; Schwartz, 1961). Other worker activities that promote group building include: teaching members about how and why mutual aid is warranted (Steinberg, 2004); selecting and promoting member to member communication (Middleman and Wood, 1990b); verbalizing group norms (Middleman and Wood, 1990b); and linking members’ comments (Gitterman, 2004).
While attention is given to identifying common ground, the worker supports the group in appreciating and respecting differences as well. Gitterman (1989) points out that “a collectivity is only as strong as its ability to allow and tolerate differences. Members can only be supportive of each other if they feel comfort to state their thoughts and feelings openly” (p. 15).

Facilitative Skills

Facilitating skills are used by the worker to assist the members in engaging in productive, purposeful communication (Anderson, 1985; Gitterman, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 1999; Toseland and Rivas, 2005). The skill set has been referred to alternately as linking members (Reid, 1997); reaching for the group response to the individual (Shulman, 1999); catalyzing skills (Anderson, 1985); mediation (Schwartz, 1961); and facilitative skills (Glassman and Kates, 1990; Middleman and Wood, 1990b; Smalley, 1961).
Middleman and Wood (1990b) identify the following worker activities that foster facilitation: amplifying subtle messages; softening overpowering messages; reaching for an information link; inviting full participation; turning issues back to the group; reaching for consensus; and reaching for differences. Glassman and Kates (1990) identify the need to assess the group’s capacity to cope with strong expression of painful affect. By employing these skills the worker supports the members in hearing one another, responding empathically, and in cultivating group autonomy based on their capacity (Middleman and Wood, 1990b).
The worker does not refrain from drawing upon her expertise when warranted (Northen and Kurland, 2001) but at the same time takes every opportunity to promote mutual aid (Middleman and Wood, 1990b). In addition to active facilitation skills the worker contains himself/herself and holds back allowing the group members to work with one another (Northen and Kurland, 2001; Shulman, 1999).
Specific skills can be used to stimulate particular mutual aid processes (Steinberg, 2004; Wasserman and Danforth, 1988). Wasserman and Danforth (1988) suggest the following skills: encouraging and modeling information sharing; reinforcing the groups capacity for solidarity and tolerance for diversity; promoting norms that support safety, trust and vulnerable discussion of taboo topics; modeling empathic communication; making a demand for work; promoting individual problem solving that engages the group as a whole; and supporting members in behavioral rehearsal.
Problem solving in the mutual aid based group has received considerable attention by social group workers (Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Somers, 1976; Steinberg, 2004). The concern is that simply offering advice results in “casework in a group” (Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978). Kurland and Salmon (1992) proposed an approach to problem solving based on the model initially described by Dewey (1910). The process involves eight steps: raising a problem; identifying the problem by both the individual and the group; exploring collaboratively; the worker encouraging members with relevant experience to share; generating potential solutions; the individual with the group’s assistance deciding on a course of action; the worker asking the members what they have gained from the discussion; and the group following up with the individual in a subsequent session (Kurland and Salmon, 1992). Kurland and Salmon (1992) add that “the process of mutual aid…takes place when members draw upon their own experiences and deep felt needs to help their fellow members” (p.12).

Revision as of 20:20, 19 August 2007

Social Work with Groups Social Work with Groups represents a broad domain of social work practice (Garvin et al, 2004). Social workers work with a variety of groups in all settings in which social work is practiced. While some have proposed that social work practice with groups reflects any and all groups within which social workers participate, other definitional parameters have been established (Garvin et al, 2004). For practice to qualify as social work with groups four conditions must be met: the worker should focus attention on helping the group members become a system of mutual aid; the group worker must understand the role of the group process itself in the change process; the group worker seeks to enhance group autonomy; the group worker helps the group members experience their groupness upon termination (Middleman and Wood, 1990). Purpose of Social Work with Groups In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section of the National Association of Social Workers proposed that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context. Common needs addressed by social work groups include coping with major life transitions; the need to acquire information or skills; the need to improve social relationships; and the need to cope with illness; and the need to cope with feelings of loss or loneliness; amongst other reasons (Gitterman and Shulman, 2005; Northen and Kurland, 2001). Group treatment offers opportunities for social support and as Toseland and Siporin (1986) explain “there is also an important helper-therapy principle that operates in groups” (p.172). Toseland and Siporin (1986) elaborate: “clients are able to help others and in so doing receive help for themselves” (p. 172). Guiding Values Northen and Kurland (2001) identify the value system informing group work practice with “the ultimate value of social work” which they suggest is “that human beings have opportunities to realize their potential for living in ways that are both personally satisfying and socially desirable” (p.15). The perspective espoused by several social work group work experts is that people are responsible for one another and that mutual interdependence is preferable to individualism (Falck, 1989; Getzel, 1978; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004). Humanism is “built on particular values that cast people in society as responsible for and to one another” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p.13). Democratic norms of group participation promote cooperation and “fluid distribution of position, power and resources” (Glassman and Kates, 1990, p. 14). These values guide practice, inform worker role and use of self, and the understanding of membership in a social work group. Primary Rationale for Group Services in Social Work Opportunities for mutual aid to be found in the group encounter offer the major rationale for the provision of group services by social workers. Gitterman (2006), a social work educator and group work scholar has elaborated on the role of mutual aid in the small group noting that “as members become involved with one another, they develop helping relationships and become invested in each other and in participating in the group” (p.93). The mutual aid processes that unfold help group members “to experience their concerns and life issues as universal”, to “reduce isolation and stigma”, to “offer and receive help from each other”, and to “learn from each other’s views, suggestions and challenges” (Gitterman, 2006, p.93). Mutual Aid Mutual aid as group treatment technology can be understood as an exchange of help wherein the group member is both the provider as well as the recipient of help in service of achieving common group and individual goals (Borkman, 1999; Gitterman, 2006; Lieberman, 1983; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961; Shulman, 2006, Steinberg, 2004; Toseland & Siporin, 1986). The rationale for cultivating mutual aid in the group encounter is premised on the following beliefs: 1) members have strengths, opinions, perspectives, information, and experiences that can be drawn upon to help others in the group; 2) helping others helps the helper, a concept known as the helper-therapy principle (Reissman, 1965) which has been empirically validated (Roberts et al, 1999); and 3) some types of help, such as confrontation, are better received when emanating from a peer rather than the worker (Shulman, 2006). The use of mutual aid based group work has resonance with the needs of a variety of populations. For example, in substance abuse treatment groups mutual aid has been observed to both strengthen self-esteem and affirm the value of a sober network of peers (Cicchetti, in press). Mutual Aid Group Processes Mutual aid is often erroneously understood as simply the exchange of support (Gitterman, 1989), the giving of advice (Steinberg, 1992), and/or an approach to problem solving. Mutual aid is better conceptualized as multidimensional with at least 10 types of processes or activities that occur amongst and between members, including: sharing data, the dialectic process, discussion of taboo topics, the all in the same boat phenomenon, developing a universal perspective, mutual support, mutual demand (including confrontation), rehearsal of new skills, individual problem solving, and the strengths in numbers phenomenon (Gitterman, 2004; Shulman, 2006; Steinberg, 2004). The primacy given mutual aid in some group approaches is due to the belief that these processes stimulate cognitive and behavioral processes yielding therapeutic, supportive and empowering benefits (Berman-Rossi, 1992; Breton, 1990, 2004; Glassman and Kates, 1990; Gitterman, 1989; Gottlieb, 1985; Hartford, 1976; Hopps and Pinderhughes, 1999; Lee, 1989; Northen, 1969, 1976, 1988; Northen & Kurland, 2001; Schwartz, 1961, 1971, 1976, 1977; Shulman 1979, 1986, 1992, 1999, 2005b, 2006; Steinberg 1992, 1997, 2004). History of Social Group Work So as to better understand the rationale for stimulating mutual aid in group work, the history and evolution of social group work/social work with groups is addressed below. Within this discussion the various theoretical, philosophical, sociocultural and political forces that influenced the development of group work theories, in particular the Mutual Aid Model, will be identified. The Early Years: Seminal Contributions Social group work and group psychotherapy have primarily developed along parallel paths. Where the roots of contemporary group psychotherapy are often traced to the group education classes of tuberculosis patients conducted by Joseph Pratt in 1906, the exact birth of social group work can not be easily identified (Kaiser, 1958; Schleidlinger, 2000; Wilson, 1976). Social group work approaches are rooted in the group activities of various social agencies that arose in the latter part of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Social upheaval and new found demands as a result of post Civil War industrialization, migration and immigration left many with numerous concrete and psychosocial needs (Brown, 1991; Kaiser, 1958; Middleman, 1968; Reid, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Wilson, 1976). Some of these needs were met through group work endeavors found in settlement houses, religious and charity organizations (Middleman, 1968; Wilson, 1976). Additionally group work could be found in the progressive education movement (Dewey, 1910), the play and recreation movement (Boyd, 1935), informal education, camping and youth service organizations invested in ‘character building’ (Alissi, 1980; Schwartz, 1977; Williamson, 1929; Wilson, 1976). As Clara Kaiser (1958) has indicated there have been numerous philosophical and theoretical influences on the development of social group work. Chief amongst these influences are the ethics of Judeo-Christian religions; the settlement house movement’s charitable and humanitarian efforts; theories eminent in progressive education, especially those of Dewey (1910); sociological theories about the nature of the relationship between man and society, i.e. Mead (1934); the democratic ethic articulated by early social philosophers; the psychoanalytic theories of Rank and Freud; the practice wisdom, theory building, educational and research efforts of early social group workers (Alissi, 1980; Kaiser, 1958; Wilson, 1976). Early theoretical, research and practice efforts of Grace Coyle (1930, 1935, 1937, 1947, 1948), Wilber Newstetter (1935), and Neva Boyd (1935) paved the way for the advancement and development of social group work. 

    Grace Coyle presented an early theoretical framework for social group work articulating the need for a democratic value base (Coyle, 1935), identifying the role of the worker as a group builder (Coyle, 1937) and noting the benefits of ‘esprit de corps’ or group morale (Coyle, 1930).  As the editor of several small group research compendiums Hare (1976) would later point out, “many of her insights about group process were ahead of her time” (p.388).

Social group work debuted at the National Conference for Social Work in 1935. At this conference, Newstetter (1935) introduced the concept of social group work and identified group work as a field, process and set of techniques. He described group work as an “educational process” concerned with “the development and social adjustment of an individual through voluntary group association” and “the use of this association as a means of furthering other socially desirable ends” (p.291). As with other early perspectives Newstetter (1935) noted that the worker’s task involved cultivating social interaction, “a ‘we’ feeling…a bond” (p.292). Noting that all work with groups is not group work, Newstetter (1935) advanced the perspective that the worker needed to cultivate the “group work process” (p.296). The Mid-Thirties to the 1950s: a period of growth and Expansion The period of time between the 1930s and the 1950s was one of growth and expansion for social group work (Alissi, 1980; Wilson, 1976). The economic despair of and varied psychosocial needs resultant of the Great Depression paved the way for greater affiliation between the social work profession and the field of group work (Alissi, 1980; Konopka, 1983; Wilson, 1976). The psychological needs of returning war veterans who served in World War II resulted in the more frequent application of social group work in psychiatric treatment (Konopka, 1983). It was during this period of time that the field of social group work would appear at the National Conference for Social Work; establish academic courses and research institutions; form a professional organization, The American Association of Social Work with Groups (AAGW); and establish the journal, The Group. The first textbooks would appear as well, written by Harleigh Trecker (1948) and Wilson and Ryland (1949). The 1950s would usher in even greater affiliation of group work with the profession of social work (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The merger of the AAGW with six other organizations to form the National Association of Social Work (NASW) in 1955 solidified the identification and integration of social group work with the social work profession (Alissi, 1980; Andrews, 2001). The impact of the merger was reflected in efforts at definitional shifts regarding group work. In 1956 the NASW formed a group work section which issued a new definition that contrasted in focus with that proposed by the AAGW. The new definition dismissed the idea of group work with normal growth and adjustment and instead saw group work as a “service to a group where the primary purpose is to help members improve social adjustment, and the secondary purpose is to help the group achieve objectives approved by society…the definition assumes that the members have adjustment problems” (Alissi, 1980, p. 24). Less than one fifth of the group work section agreed with this definition at the time (Alissi, 1980). The ensuing tensions regarding the defining parameters of social group work lead to a reconceptualization that included recognition that there existed different models to be used for different purposes (Hartford, 1964; Papell and Rothman, 1966). Toward greater theoretical conceptualization 

The attention given to the interaction between the function of the worker and the cultivation of group process would be of central focus in theory building efforts during this time period. Cohen (1944/1952) advanced the following perspective: “Group work, as we understand it, begins with a conscious effort to work the process. The group worker…stimulates and guides the group so that it will function in a democratic way rather than arbitrary way” (p.197).   For Coyle (1944/1952) group work implied that “some leader is aware of the group inter-action and discerns social inter-actions of the group as well as the program activities which the group is doing (that is process and content)” (p.201).

The philosophical and operational conceptualization of both social group work and the role of the group worker were further addressed by the American Association of Group Workers. The draft of the association’s definition of group work in 1948 identified group work as “a method by which the group worker enables various types of groups to function in such a way that both group interaction and program activities contribute to the growth of the individual, and the achievement of desirable social goals” (originally mimeographed and printed in Sullivan, 1952, p.420). Grace Coyle lead a committee charged with developing the “Definition of the Function of the Group Worker” which concluded that the group worker bears responsibility for promoting both group interaction and program activities that contribute both to individual growth and advances the achievement of socially desirable goals (originally mimeographed and published in Sullivan, 1952). A primary task of the worker was to influence the group process, which in large part included member to member interaction in service of achieving group goals. Wilson and Ryder (1949) promoted the following perspective about the role of the worker, “it is through the professional use of this relationship that the members and the group as a whole are helped to achieve their personal and corporate purposes. The success of the social group work method depends upon the worker’s wisdom and discretion in developing the interpersonal relationships within the group and with other groups” (p.85) In 1956 the Council on Social Work Education undertook a three year study to examine the curriculum in the education of social workers (Murphy, 1959). This study included examination of group work curricula to identify the essential characteristics of social group work being taught to students (Murphy, 1959). The project included review of curricula of ten schools of social work and from this was derived “a set of descriptive propositions” regarding social group work (Murphy, 1959, p. 37). The propositions reflected beliefs primarily about the nature of group interaction, the role of group process, and the tasks of the worker (Murphy, 1959). The following propositions were made by the curricula review committee: members bring to the group experiences and patterns of behavior “first learned in the primary family group”; “the development of group characteristics in a given group can be examined, understood, and evaluated”; group work is simultaneously concerned with both content and process; worker efforts at helping members function optimally in the group has the benefit of helping them function optimally in “other social situations”; the worker deals with “multiple interactions of group members”; problem solving in the group considers “multiple points of view”; the worker helps “members use relationships with others more constructively” (p.37-39). With regard to theory building, a significant contribution to group work later reflected in Schwartz’ (1961) model was the concept of ‘engagement’ proposed by Phillips (1957). Phillips (1957) noted the interaction between the worker and group process and suggested that it was amongst the worker’s primary functions to engage the individual member with the group process, help the group identify and accept common goals, and enable the group to develop their within group relationships. In sum, the history of social group work to this point reflected the following practice principles: allegiance to democratic principles; primacy was placed on the role of member to member interactions; members were viewed as possessing inherent strengths and competencies; and the function of the worker was viewed as “working” the process (Trecker, 1948) or “engaging” the group members (Phillips, 1957). In Schwartz’ (1959/1994) own review of the history of social group work while he appreciated the gains made he acknowledged what he felt was the lack of adequately developed practice theory. He noted that “a theory of method must be formalized, transmissible, and amenable to interpenetration to those in whose service it is pledged. Without a theoretical foundation for method, we have knowledge and cannot use it, or we have goals without a sense of how they can be reached” (Schwartz, 1959/1994, p.217-218). The 1960s to the present: Further Development of Practice Theories The 1960s and the 1970s saw the expansion of the social welfare state; the Vietnam War; the emergence of the war on poverty; the Women’s Rights Movement; the Black Power Movement; and the Lesbian and Gay Rights Movement (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). The above social, intellectual and cultural factors influenced the social work profession including social group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Somers, 1976). With such a wide range of social and therapeutic needs there seemed to be an even greater appreciation of group work (Balgopal and Vassil, 1983; Hartford, 1964; Somers, 1976). Having expanded into differing practice settings, the purposes and goals of group work had been more broadly described at this juncture than in previous decades. While consensus would not be found in accepting any one theory of practice or approach, it is best said that social group work comprised differing approaches with differing goals. In 1964 the Committee on Practice of the Group Work Section would agree that group work was applicable for the following purposes: corrective/treatment; prevention; normal social growth and development; personal enhancement; and citizenship indoctrination (Hartford, 1964). Hartford (1964) advanced the perspective that the “group is the means for providing social group work service” (p.69) as opposed to simply the context. The facilitation of interpersonal relationships amongst members was regarded as a central work task (Hartford, 1964). Group work scholars made great strides in developing practice theories. The work of Vinter and Schwartz and their respective associates would dominate the group work scene for much of this decade and the next (Galinsky and Schopler, 1974). In Vinter’s approach (1967) the treatment group is thought of as a small social system “whose influences can be planfully guided to modify client behavior” (p.4). In this approach the worker takes a central position in providing treatment, interventions are planned, group process is highly structured, and great emphasis is given to outcome evaluation and research (Vinter, 1967; Garvin, 1987; Galinsky and Schopler, 1974). Schwartz (1961) proposed his vision of the small group as an enterprise in mutual aid. In what would become regarded as the ‘mainstream of social work practice with small groups’ (Lang, 1979) the cultivation of mutual aid would be viewed as a central worker task over and above the purpose for which the group was formed (Hartford, 1976; Papell and Rothman, 1980). In 1965 Bernstein and colleagues introduced another social group work practice theory (Bernstein, 1978; Lowy, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). The centerpiece of the edited collection was a developmental stage model, known as the Boston Model, which presented a framework for understanding how groups navigate degrees of emotional closeness over time (Bernstein, 1978; Garland, Kolodney and Jones, 1978). In 1966 Papell and Rothman (1966) presented a typology of social group work that included the social goals model (in the tradition of Coyle), the remedial model (as developed by Vinter) and the reciprocal model (as articulated by Schwartz). In 1968 Middleman (1968) made a seminal contribution in articulating an approach to group work practice that utilized non-verbal activities. In 1976 Roberts and Northen presented a collection of ten group work practice theories (Roberts and Northen, 1976) further illustrating the diversity of approaches to group practice. As theory building proliferated there was a simultaneous effort to distill the essential elements of social group work. In 1980 Papell and Rothman suggested the essential characteristics of the mainstream model were “common goals, mutual aid, and non-synthetic experiences” (1980, p.7). Also, as previously indicated Middleman and Wood (1990a) identified the common characteristics of various approaches to social work with groups. Contemporary group work practice continues to be informed by the work of early pioneers and the vanguards of the 1960s and 1970s. In addition to the Mutual Aid Model of social work with groups, the Cognitive-Behavioral Group Work Model is recognized as influential on contemporary group work practice (Rose, 2004). The approach suggested by Rose (1989, 2004) integrates cognitive and behavioral interventions with small group strategies. While primacy is not placed on establishing the group as a mutual aid system in quite the same way as with the Mutual Aid Model, Rose (2004) suggests the worker promote group discussion and member interaction. Furthermore, drawing upon Yalom’s Therapeutic Factor construct Rose (2004) points out the benefits of universality, altruism, and group cohesion as well as mutual reinforcement, factors which are conceptually resonant with mutual aid. Contemporary social workers continue to build upon group work theory. For example, Schiller (1995) has proposed a model of practice that builds upon developmental stage theory and integrates Feminist theory. The Relational Model considers the developmental needs of women, places primacy on cultivating safety and views power and control issues as less important to the group’s growth as compared to other approaches (Schiller, 1995). Schiller (2002) suggests that this model has application to group work with oppressed and vulnerable populations as well. Another example of theory building can be seen in group approaches that integrate technology mediated communication (Meier, 2004). Contemporary Challenges The late seventies saw the reemergence of a professional journal, Social Work with Groups in 1978. Additionally, in 1978 social group workers formed a committee to host a symposium in honor of Grace Coyle which paved the way for an annual conference in subsequent years (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The conference planning committee was transformed into the membership driven organization, the Association for the Advancement for Social Work with Groups, now an international organization (AASWG, 2006). Despite the proliferation of professional activity there has been deep lamentation for the state of both group work education and practice since the late 1960s onward (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Goodman, 2006; Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Tropp, 1977b; Steinberg, 1992, 1993, 1997, 2004; Strozier, 1997). While it has been observed that work with groups has been happening with great frequency, it is often not group work grounded in theory, the values of the profession, and/or evidence (Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992). The concern has been traced most prominently to the Council on Social Work Education’s policy shift leading to an approach to education that calls for a generalist foundation so as to promote integrative practice (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The concern about practice was forcefully stated by Tropp in 1968 at the 95th Annual Forum National Conference on Social Welfare in California (Tropp, 1977b). Tropp (1977b) stated his worry: “throughout social work today, groups are found adrift, at sea, with very little sense of direction, weak motivation or engaging in games of cooperative talk…to accommodate the worker, but signifying very little” (p.78). Tropp (1977b) saw this problem as stemming from a philosophy that promoted generalization instead of specialization. In 1966 Tropp cautioned that “the newest wave of the future in social work is the movement toward a unitary method of practice” (Tropp, 1977b, p.47). Northen and Kurland (2001) explain the profession’s stance toward integrative practice: “The rationale for the integration of modalities is the view that social work practice is an entity made of several approaches…calling for work with an individual…family…small group…or with organizations in the community” (p.13). Consequently, social workers should be able to draw upon the specific skills needed to work effectively with each particular system (Northen and Kurland, 2001). The problem, however, is that many schools of social work fail to adequately prepare graduating students to work effectively with groups (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000). In 1963 seventy six percent of MSW programs offered a group work concentration; in 1981 the percentage dropped to 22%; and in 1992 only 7% of MSW programs offered a group work concentration (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). According to research conducted by Birnbaum and Auerbach in 1991 only 19% of schools require that students take a specific group work course, leaving most students to obtain their knowledge from the generalist foundation courses (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994). Survey research of faculty teaching generalist practice courses, however, indicates that meaningful group work concepts are not being taught sufficiently (Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000). The erosion of group work education has resulted in practice that bears little resemblance to the professional standards for effective group work practice, as evidenced by research conducted by Steinberg (1992). Steinberg’s (1992) research comparing differences in approach to practice of those with more than two semesters of group work specific education and those with less indicated that group workers who had taken at least three group work courses were more likely to view their work from the two-client perspective; actively cultivate mutual aid and group autonomy; and view conflict as a normative aspect of group development. Consequently, in the absence of substantial exposure to group practice theory, workers are left to draw upon strategies most appropriate for work with individuals (Hartford, 1978; Kurland and Salmon, 1992; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). This approach to practice typically looks like work with an individual in a group setting (Hartford, 1978; Middleman, 1978; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). As a result of this approach members are typically recipients of the worker’s help; and do not engage in reciprocal relationship with one another (Steinberg, 2004). Group work is likely to become sterile; uninspired; devoid of mutual aid; and arguably ineffective (Freeman, 1987; Steinberg, 1992, 2004). The concern has not gone unacknowledged by the CSWE and the Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. In 1995 the two organizations partnered to develop publications designed to address the educational gaps (Shulman, 1998). Toward that end Kurland and Salmon (1998) published the first of this series entitled “Teaching a Methods Course in Social Work with Groups” written with the neophyte group work instructor in mind. A major goal of the teaching approach described is to facilitate students’ appreciation of what is uniquely group work “…especially, the essential power of mutual aid” (Kurland and Salmon, 1998, p.147). Ironically perhaps, Schwartz (1977) was a proponent of an integrative approach to social work education. “It becomes clearer that the interactionist impetus is essentially integrative”, suggested Schwartz (1977, p. 1337). In theory there may be great benefit to such an educational approach, but as the evidence indicates, many social workers are inadequately prepared to work with groups effectively (Birnbaum and Auerbach, 1994; Birnbaum and Wayne, 2000; Steinberg, 1992, 1993). More research of both practice and education needs to be conducted to fully understand the impact of generalist education on group work practice (Kurland and Salmon, 2006; Northen and Kurland, 2001; Steinberg, 1992).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_work_with_groups&oldid=152310088"