Dissect Your Thought Processes and Clinical Interventions.

¶ … dissect your thought processes and clinical interventions. It will allow you to break down a significant clinical moment from a group session and scrutinize it to further your self- awareness and learning from two perspectives. This assignment allows you to deepen and broaden your practice wisdom through self-reflection and application of concepts from theory and practice.

An intervention is defined as a statement or action made by a group worker or a group member that impacts group process and catalyzes changes in group dynamics. It is important to remember that interventions in group work that are made by group members are just as relevant as those made by practitioners.

You will be required to extrapolate from the literature and class discussions, and integrate theoretical concepts with your evolving understanding of your role as a facilitator, and your growing awareness of and appreciation for group latent and manifest content.

You may use a group from your current or past field placement, or the in-class experiential group.

Please include all of the following information:

1. A description of the group: that includes the following elements:

community and setting in which the group functions, the purpose of the group, a brief description of the members of the group (gender, age, ethnicity, culture, presenting problems),

structure of the group-as-a-whole (norms, roles, how members communicate with each other, etc.),

Include five excerpts of process to illustrate the chosen topic. Please present the five excerpts in script form and underline them in order to make them easily identifiable. This process vignette can illustrate a moment where the group members made a demand for work, the worker made a demand for work, or some combination of the two, that impacted group dynamics.

Please integrate relevant literature to support your discussion.

4. Explore one ethical dilemma that has arisen or could arise in this group. Define the ethical concern using the NASW Code of Ethics and the AASWG Standards for Social Group Work Practice (www.aaswg.org).

5. What have you learned from this group experience with regard to group process and yourself as a social group worker?

Description of Group

I work for a child protective services (the DCFS), and the group featured in this essay is called the Father's Nurturing Program (NFP). According to the description given it on its site (http://nurturingfathers.com/), the Nurturing Fathers Program is an evidence -- based, 13-week training course designed to teach parenting and nurturing skills to men. Each 2 1/2-hour class provides proven, effective skills for healthy family relationships and child development. The program works on cognitive / behavioral / evaluative props in that it utilizes both cognitive and affective activities to encourage and sustain attitudinal and behavioral change.

The website states that: NFP has been successfully implemented in Schools, Head Start, Churches, State DSS, Prisons, Halfway Houses, Prevent Child Abuse, Parenting and Counseling Centers, Military, Community Action Agencies and many others. The group is also available in Spanish (nurturingfathers.com/).

The participants are usually about 20 fathers or other male caregivers who are, generally although not necessarily, involved with DCF (child protective services). Some of the participants are fathers who have custody of their children, others who only have visitations, but are working towards being reunified with their children. One of the fathers is actually a physician going through a divorce. Some of the father's have lengthy criminal history and in some cases are perpetrators of domestic violence. The program also attract males who wish to strengthen their ability to nurture themselves and their children and to strengthen their parent child relationships. The adult ages are 26-55. They consist of a mix of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, White, and other ethnicities.

This particular group meets at First Presbyterian Church, 270 Franklin Street, Quincy, MA Tuesday evenings from 6:00 -- 8:30. Dinner is served each night, and there is no charge for participation.

The goals of NFP are to:

Increase parents' sense of self-worth, personal empowerment, empathy, bonding, and attachment.

Increase the use of alternative strategies to harsh and abusive disciplinary practices.

Increase parents' knowledge of age-appropriate developmental expectations.

Reduce abuse and neglect rates.

NFP instruction is based on psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral approaches to learning and focuses on "re-parenting," or helping parents learn new patterns of parenting to replace their existing, learned, abusive patterns. (http://douglascountysuccessby6.org/downloads/pdf/2012%20SSK%20Proposal%20for%20Web%20Site.pdf)

Other objectives are for facilitators to assist fathers in the following areas:

1. Gain the ability for structuring safe, loving, stable, and nurtured families.

2. Acquire positive discipline tools.

3. Acquire effective family communication techniques in order to strengthen the father-child relationships.

4. Know how to stop fighting and arguing by gaining anger-management and problem solving skills.

5. The abilities of achieving cooperation and teamwork in family life. (ibid.)

This is the purpose of the group and the objective that the facilitator works towards.

The Session that I observed and its Processes.

The group has three stages: a beginning, middle, and an end. Each phase has its own characteristics and processes (Brandler & R.). Beginnings of each group are marked by some aspect of fearfulness where members are new to the group and engaged in feeling out one another. There is also fear and wariness of group of experience.

The pre-phase of each group has its own dynamics as Hannah (2000) points out. She recommends that given that members are trying to find their feet and 'sniff out' the group, the worker should introduce the fowling six component in her introduction: Commitment to the group and its work; the group as a democratic / collective component; honest interaction among members and phenomenological experience; importance of acceptance and mutual support; clarification of the worker's role; and the value of taking risks in order to achieve the goals.

The worker uses the beginning to structure the rules, purposes, and goals as well as developing a trusting atmosphere. This was done by the facilitator in the following ways:

Worker: Hello. Thank you all for coming tonight despite the weather. My name is Mary. I am a social worker who is as new to this group as you are but I have facilitated several groups in the past and am excited to leading this own. As you know this group is about... Its goal is to... What we will be doing in this session is...

I would now like each of you to share something about yourselves and tell us what brought you to this group.

Mary then told them that the program's activities would include the following curriculum:

-- Nurturing Our Children and Ourselves

-- Fathering Sons/Fathering Daughters

-- Discipline without Violence

-- Managing Anger/Resolving Conflict

-- Communication/Problem Solving

-- Balancing Work and Fathering

Ending with: -- The Father I Choose To Be

What worker did here was to introduce herself, tell the group about the rules and objectives of the group, thereby giving them guidelines, and having members introduce themselves thereby setting the tone for comfort within the session. She included some, but not all, of Hannah's (2000) recommendations.

Mary also commented on the relationship between our fathers (or father figures) and our own style of fathering.

Mary then went on to discuss the Roots of Fathering and this is where people became involved.

After a brief break, she got them to role-paly and actively father "The Little Boy Within"; share visions of "The Father I Choose to Be." explore different cultural styles of fathering; learn to identify the "little boy" within each man/father; and learn to establish a nurturing relationship (self-nurturing) with this little boy.

This made the mid-phase of the session and represented a second process of engagement. The process of engagement is ongoing through the duration of the group and is where the facilitator encourages members to participate within the group (Brandler & R). We see the facilitator's attempt at engagement from the following script:

Jim: Um... I always had problems with... um. My daughter...

Mary: (pause) So you came to this group?

Jim: Yuh. I heard about it from a friend. Sam's been coming here for a while... This is my first time.

Mary: That must have taken a great deal of courage for you to come

Olson-McBride and Page (2012) advocate three techniques: process, linking and inclusion. Process refers to the tight-paced, structured and organized flow of the session; linking is the scheme of events with each following the other; and inclusion refers to including members within the group so that each feels needed and participates.

Engagement was further seen in the facilitator's discussion on The Power to Meet My Own Needs which involved identifying principles and practices for meeting one's own needs; identifying strategies for overcoming blocks to self-nurturance; and formulating encouraging messages for meeting specific needs.

The problem was that Mary may have accorded Jim (and other unconfident individuals) too much time that may have aggravated others. Giving people just the right amount of time whilst engaging all is challenging, but may make all the difference between group work and casework (Kurland & Salmon, 1993). This was a groupwork situation where the facilitator needs to give time equally to each participant. Focusing too long on one or on each in turn transmogrifies the situation into one of case work. Rather, the facilitator needs to pay respect and attention to each, using the counseling skills to do so, but simultaneously utilizing the talents and capacities of each member to benefit the group as a whole. In other words, the focus should be on each, but just as long, and to the extent that, the group as a whole benefits. In fact, *(Manifest vs. latent) says as much noting that the worker's greatest challenge is to uncover the strengths and agenda of each individual (to identify them) whilst, at the same time, moving hate group as a whole. No one person should stand out; the group works as a unit. Doing so is not always possible. Discontentment or frustration may be in the wings. It needs just one member to feel so. And then you may have one or more individuals who are outliers. The worker has to 'tune-in' to non-verbal causes too to get at underlying messages. The togetherness of the group is one of the key components that contributes to the growth of the group (*Manifest vs. latent).The worker seemed to achieve the happy mean.

Skills involved in the engagement process include listening, accepting, and sustaining.

Moving from the concrete to the thematic is another process segment. We see this from the way that the worker opened the group:

Mary: Hi I am pleased to see you.… I am pleased to see some old members and new ones. Now that we have all introduced ourselves, this is what we will be covering today.

(She writes it on the board for all to see)

In her haste to proceed, Mary may have assumed too much of an authoritative role overwhelming others. The worker has the challenge of striking a balanced trajectory where all -- she and members -- can participate equally. Although she is leader, it doesn't mean that she is boss and this can be difficult to implement.

Summarizing is another process that the worker adopts in order to make the process easier for the group and to move the group along (Brandler & R). Examples of summarizing can be seen in the following excerpts.

Mary: Well, now that we have introduced ourselves we can proceed.

As said, our goals are to become the most effective father that we can possible be (after reading of the objectives)

Our aims in this session are to...

She also concluded the session summarizing what they had done that day and asking for questions.

The end-middle phase is preparation for the sense of termination. The worker has gone through three stages: the beginning where she helped the members gain trust in the group and the leader, feel comfortable with each other and the group, and open up. The middle stage where she sustained and encouraged spontaneity and engagement, and now the end where she is winging them towards separation and towards frission of the group. Mary does this in various ways:

Mary: almost end of session... my time goes fast! A pity so much to cover... It has been an enjoyable session.

Mary: Ok folks two minutes left, let's sum up...

She also tells them about what she aims to do the coming week, provides them with details of the meeting the coming week, and thanks them for attending. In this way, she concludes on a positive note.

In an aside, it seems to me that Mary -- both with her introduction and her conclusion -- has clarified and informed the group of their purpose. Groups need a clear purpose in order to know how to proceed and to be confident in their activity. Often groups without clear-stated purpose fail. Purpose in content is insufficient. It is not only the worker who should be aware of the purpose, but the members should be able to particularize them too (Kurland & Salmon (1998)). For this reason, it was helpful that Mary particularized the purpose according to the stated objective of the credo of the group and that she succinctly reverted to this (in a paraphrase form:

"Remember we are here to become the best father that we can be").

Also positive was the fact that Mary reminded them to share their commitment statements with children and/or family members; she reflected on group relationship and growth; and she reminded them, seemingly as an aside (but this may have been a strategy) of their Certificate of Achievement that they would receive at the end.

The Interventions.

As mentioned, interventions in this session consisted of Mary getting members to role-paly and actively father "The Little Boy Within"; share visions of "The Father I Choose to be"; explore different cultural styles of fathering; learn to identify the "little boy" within each man/father; and learn to establish a nurturing relationship (self-nurturing) with this little boy.

Before each intervention, the members had been generally relaxed, but Mary calling out names for recruits caused a palpable stir of anxiety within the audience. It may be better, I reflected, to ask people to volunteer (for individuals can then choose to decline) since some individuals may be too shy to commit to engaging, some (being that it is the same one who is always called) may not get the chance to participate, others may dislike the fact that it is frequently the same individual who assents whilst they are ignored. This may create feelings of conflict which Mary would be wise to avoid.

On the other hand, it struck me that these interventions awaken the people out of their apathy, and that many of them actually enjoy it -either for the chance of themselves acting or for the chance of observing others. It is good in that it breaks up the monotony and dramatizes the session. The feelings that followed were mixed: there was palpable relief on the one hand that the 'risky' moment has passed. On the other hand, members settled themselves to return to the monotony of talk. Nonetheless, this monotony does not last long since Mary had a good way of always breaking it up and sandwiching it with discussion, debate, and soliciting others for feedback. Sometimes, I thought that the ratio given to speech was too long. The trick is to balance it just right between speech (where the worker takes too much of an active role which is not good (Brandler & R)) and action with both worker and members playing together, but the worker centering the group on the needs and involvement of the members.

Sometimes, actors did show feelings of anxiety. Here is where I saw what Shulman (2005) calls, the "worker's prepatory empathy" on Mary's part. The leader managed to tune into feelings or to sensitize herself to clients' concerns as Shulman recommends. She clarified the purpose of the role-paly and tasks of role, once joked that she knows that member can play role adequately, solicited members feedback after the role was played ensuring that no insensitive remarks were made about the acting, and encouraged intermember interaction. The group was also free of professional jargon. Other counseling-related skills, mentioned by Shulman, also existed here.

In general, the main line that the facilitator had to tread was tricky. As Kurland and Rose (1998) noted, there are various differences between groupwork and casework. Casework, it seems to me, too also demands a greater need for counseling skills that group work does. Casework is one -- on-one and therefore the worker needs empathy. This situation, more in need of excellent communication, requires sympathy. The group becomes like a mini community with the worker trying to assure that each helps the other, that each feels comfortable, that each is encouraged to contribute, and that none assumes a more prominent spot than the other. Sternberg's (2004) treatise on the subject makes this sound like a mini utopian community, and perhaps it is in kind. Run well, it should serve its utilitarian purposes; and to do so it needs to emanate a sense of harmony and togetherness.

Ethical dilemmas in the group

The group largely conformed to each of the dictates of both the NASW Code of Ethics and the AASWG Standards for Social Group Work Practice but I felt that the group, in certain ways, violated the third precept of Dignity and Worth of the Person. This was more so in the way that Mary pressured anyone to speak and introduce himself; some may have felt uncomfortable. It was also seen in the way that Mary actively called on people to role-paly. I think people should have been given the opportunity to refuse.

To a certain extent, they violated the Forth precept that states that:

Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity.

Although, Mary certainly dignified the members, it seemed to me that her insensitivity to members' possible concerns of conformity and insensitivity to how much they wanted to reveal of their lives as well as compelling them into role-play objectified members rather than treating them as individuals. I see this as an ethical concern.

The ASWG describes itself as advocating for:

The value and importance of diversity to enrich and strengthen our work and its relevance in the broad social environment. & #8230; all aspects of [social work] will be characterized by respect for, inclusion, and representation of people across all aspects of social identity. Committed to social justice, AASWG gives particular attention to people systemically disadvantaged by the power differential inherent in oppressive social structures.