Group social work analysis of the Nurturing Fathers Program

Group Social Work: Nurturing Father's Program

The group investigated for this paper is the Nurturing Father's Program. I encountered the Nurturing Fathers Program while working for my state's child protective services division (DCFS). The NFP 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" (Nurturing Fathers, 2012). The goal of the program is to help men transform themselves into nurturing fathers by enabling cognitive, behavioral, and affective changes in the group participants. The NFP program has been used successfully in a wide variety of contexts, including, but not limited to schools, preschools, churches, government child-safety programs, and the military.

This particular NFP group meets at First Presbyterian Church, 270 Franklin Street, Quincy, MA on Tuesday evenings from 6:00pm to 8:30pm. There is no charge for participation, and group participants are given dinner. At this location, there are about 20 participants in the group. They ranged in age from 26 to 55. They were an ethnically diverse group, consisting of a mix of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African-American, Hispanic or Latino, White, and some other ethnicities. Most of them are fathers, although some of them are male caregivers who are not biological fathers. Furthermore, the men have various relationships with their children or the children in the home; some of the men are custodial parents, while others have visitation rights. Moreover, the men came from various parts of the social spectrum. At the time of my observation, one of the fathers was a physician going through a divorce, while some of the fathers had criminal histories. Not surprisingly, many of the men had committed domestic violence offenses. What they all had in common was that they were seeking to change their behavior in a positive way, to benefit their relationship with their children.

The overarching goal of the group is to enhance the parent-child relationship. It attempts to do so by targeting several areas for parenting enhancement. First, it focuses on the fathers, hoping to increase their own feelings of self-worth in the hope that doing so will increase their empathy, attachment, and ability to bond with their children. Next, it teaches appropriate disciplinary procedures and discourages the use of harsh or abusive disciplinary practices. NFP teaches age-appropriate developmental expectations (Nurturing Fathers, 2012). NFP facilitators help the fathers reach their goals by teaching them: how to structure safe, stable, loving families; how to discipline in a positive manner; how to communicate effectively in the family environment; how to stop fighting; anger management; problem-solving; and how to work as a team with the family unit (Nurturing Fathers, 2012).

Excerpts of process

For the excerpts of process, the facilitator will be referred to simply as "Facilitator" and the participants will be referred to with the use of an alias. Each of the excerpts features an instance where something occurred in the group that impacted group dynamics

Excerpt One: This occurred on the first day of a new session, and I overheard two of the participants talking.

John (leaning over to the guy next to him): Why are you here?

Bob: The judge won't let me see my kids unsupervised till I do this.

John: What happened?

Bob: My wife and I got in a fight, and things got out of hand.

John: Did you hit her?

Bob: Yeah.

John: See, here's your mistake. You didn't hit her hard enough. Hit her hard enough the first time, and the bitch isn't gonna call the cops, she's not gonna complain; she's just gonna do what you tell her to do.

Excerpt Two: This is the facilitator speaking to John from the excerpt above, several sessions later

Facilitator: How long has it been since you've seen your daughter?

John: Well, she's busy.

Facilitator: How long has it been?

John: I said she's busy.

Facilitator: And you haven't met your grandson, yet?

John: I told you she's busy.

Facilitator: Bob, we also know your daughter lives less than 10 minutes away from you. You aren't helping yourself or anyone else not being honest. How old is your grandson.

John: He's three, damnit, and he's the only reason I'm at this circus!

Discussion

The first excerpt reveals a conversation between two of the men, both of whom have apparently committed family violence. This is an interesting dynamic to bring into the group, and some might believe that a man with views like John's should be excluded. "Pregroup contact refers to the securing of appropriate members for the group that is being planned and the preparation for their participation in the group" (Malekoff, 2004, p.83). However, the reality is that men like John have children. Men like Bob are going to be in contact with men like John, men who do not hold other men accountable for violence, but who encourage violence. This is a dynamic that has to be dealt with. In fact, attitudes towards women can really impact parenting styles, particularly the father-daughter dynamic. No one directly addressed this exchange when it occurred. However, in excerpt two, the facilitator is challenging John, asking him about seeing his daughter. He was in the group because his daughter refused to even allow him to meet her son until he had completed some type of counseling. All these dynamics were revealed over the course of group work. Looking back, I have to agree with the facilitator's decision to allow some of these revelations to come organically.

One of the issues that occurred in this group, and which I understand occurs in many NFP programs, is the debate over the appropriateness of physical discipline, particularly spanking. In this scenario, it led to a confrontation between two of the members. Abe asked a legitimate question about spanking, one that was bound to occur in the context of the group, and the facilitator was prepared to answer that question when Mark interrupted. What is not conveyed in the script of the excerpt is that Mark's voice was raised and he was very upset. I made me think that the facilitator should have intervened, particularly since one of the group's rules was no interrupting. However, Mark clearly had some strong feelings about spanking, and it may have been just what Abe needed to hear. "In any confrontation, the task for the worker is to allow intense feelings to surface to the degree that the expression can be cathartic and yet to maintain sufficient control to permit healing" (Brandler & Roman, 1999, p.211).

One of the other things to keep in mind is that in a class aimed at improving fathering skills, one is likely to encounter men who have some issues with the women in their lives. Many of them have not been able to see their children or may be estranged from their wives or girlfriends, and misogynist language is not unusual. In the interaction between Dave and the facilitator, Dave calls his ex -- a bitch. He then goes on to make it clear that he has based his opinion of her totally on the basis of her sexual behavior. This is an offensive way to discuss women. "Even the most seasoned practitioners may feel discomfort when faced with offensive behavior by group members. Many instinctively respond by trying to control and inhibit the expression of crude language, rude actions, and interpersonal conflict" (Wayne & Gitterman, 2003, p.23). However, this can stifle group growth. In this scenario, the facilitator did not challenge Dave when he called his ex -- a bitch, but he did ask probing questions that made Dave consider why he was calling his ex -- a bitch and what he was ignoring when did so.

What is interesting to me is that the different cultural groups help determine what it taboo to discuss and what is appropriate to discuss. The group had several members who had been in jail or prison for some part of their children's childhoods. The fact that they were not present had been discussed, but over several group sessions, no one in the group had discussed the fact that these men made choices that landed them in jail. It was not until Kevin made fun of the fathers who were complaining about the everyday challenges of parenting that this taboo was broached. Kevin had been in prison for 10 years; he went in when his daughter was an infant and his girlfriend was expecting his son, missing the first decade of their lives. Therefore, when he mentioned being absent, he opened the door to the taboo discussion, but Abe's response, where he made it clear that he though Kevin was responsible for his own absence was the real taboo. "Discussing taboos is a dynamic with a great deal of power- but its power can be negative as well as positive" (Steinberg, 2004, p.104). If this statement had been made earlier, it may have resulted in Kevin leaving the group and failing to come back. Kevin did have a negative response to what Abe said, but it also led to a transformative moment. Kevin had been acting as if he was prevented from being with his children. What he had to acknowledge was that he was the one who made him miss his children's childhood.

Ethical Dilemma

The most obvious ethical dilemma that could have arisen in the group context would have been for one of the men to admit current child abuse. Most people believe that their communications to mental health professionals are protected under confidentiality rules. In many ways this is true, however, under Massachusetts law, certain people are mandatory reporters. Social workers are included in that group (Department of Children and Families, 2012). It is important for group members to know that if they discuss current child abuse, they are subject to being reported, although this could stifle some group communications. In fact, in the Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups, VI, one of the mandates is, "Discussion of the importance, limits, and implications of privacy and confidentiality with the members" (AASWG, 2006, p.25). Therefore, group members should be advised what would trigger reporting. They may also need to be advised that confidentiality rules only apply to the mental health workers leading the groups; although other group members are asked to respect privacy, there is no mechanism to ensure that this occurs.

Benefits of the Experience

Working with the facilitator of this group was probably one of the most enlightening experiences that I have had in my progression towards becoming a social group worker. The group was much larger than any that I had experienced in my past. It was also composed of a really diverse group, which made me wonder how the different members would work together. I was very concerned that there would be so much emphasis on differences that no one would work on the issues. However, I was reminded that some things transcend differences. All of the men wanted to have better relationships with their children. Every single one of them wanted to be a father that their children could admire. This reminded me that, while social workers must be aware of cultural differences and always be certain to respect diversity, human beings are much more alike than they are different. Basic human needs are the same across different cultural groups. I believe that this will help me as a social group worker, because it will serve as a reminder that, no matter how different the group members may seem from me, I will be able to find some common ground with them, so that we can work together to accomplish the group's goals.