This paper presents a reflective analysis of a session observed in the Nurturing Fathers Program (NFP), an evidence-based, 13-week psychoeducational group facilitated through child protective services. The paper describes the group's composition, setting, and goals, then examines key phases of the session — beginning, middle, and end — through five process excerpts presented in script form. The author analyzes facilitator interventions, engagement techniques, and the balance between casework and group work. An ethical dilemma concerning member dignity and autonomy is explored using the NASW Code of Ethics and AASWG Standards. The paper concludes with personal reflections on what the author learned about group dynamics and their own developing identity as a social group worker.
The paper demonstrates practice-theory integration: the author consistently moves between what was observed in the session and what the scholarly literature recommends, using theory to explain and evaluate specific moments rather than treating theory and practice as separate discussions. This back-and-forth movement is the core skill of reflective professional writing in social work education.
The paper opens with a detailed group description (setting, population, goals), then walks chronologically through the session's beginning, middle, and end phases, using scripted excerpts to anchor each analytical point. A focused section on facilitator interventions follows, succeeded by an ethical analysis using NASW and AASWG standards. The paper closes with personal learning reflections and a brief conclusion that introduces a forward-looking suggestion (Clemens' "check-in" model), giving the paper a sense of professional growth and development.
I work for a child protective services agency (DCFS), and the group featured in this paper is called the Nurturing Fathers Program (NFP). According to its program description, the Nurturing Fathers Program is an evidence-based, 13-week training course designed to teach parenting and nurturing skills to men. Each two-and-a-half-hour class provides proven, effective skills for healthy family relationships and child development. The program operates on cognitive, behavioral, and evaluative principles, utilizing both cognitive and affective activities to encourage and sustain attitudinal and behavioral change.
NFP has been successfully implemented in schools, Head Start programs, churches, state departments of social services, prisons, halfway houses, child abuse prevention centers, parenting and counseling centers, military settings, and community action agencies, among others. The program is also available in Spanish.
The participants are usually around 20 fathers or other male caregivers who are, generally although not necessarily, involved with child protective services. Some participants have custody of their children; others have visitation only and are working toward reunification. The group also attracts men who wish to strengthen their ability to nurture themselves and their children and to improve their parent-child relationships. Participants range in age from 26 to 55 and include a mix of American Indian or Alaska Native, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, White, and other ethnicities. Some fathers have lengthy criminal histories and, in some cases, are perpetrators of domestic violence. One participant is a physician going through a divorce. Dinner is served at each meeting and there is no charge for participation.
The goals of NFP are to:
1. Increase parents' sense of self-worth, personal empowerment, empathy, bonding, and attachment.
2. Increase the use of alternative strategies in place of harsh and abusive disciplinary practices.
3. Increase parents' knowledge of age-appropriate developmental expectations.
4. Reduce abuse and neglect rates.
NFP instruction is based on psychoeducational and cognitive-behavioral approaches to learning and focuses on "re-parenting" — helping parents learn new patterns of parenting to replace existing, learned, abusive patterns.
Additional objectives are for facilitators to assist fathers in the following areas:
1. Gaining the ability to structure safe, loving, stable, and nurturing families.
2. Acquiring positive discipline tools.
3. Acquiring effective family communication techniques in order to strengthen father-child relationships.
4. Learning how to stop fighting and arguing by developing anger-management and problem-solving skills.
5. Achieving cooperation and teamwork in family life.
These objectives define the purpose of the group and the goals toward which the facilitator works.
The group has three stages: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Each phase has its own characteristics and processes (Brandler & Roman). The beginnings of each group are marked by some degree of fearfulness, as members are new to the group and engaged in assessing one another. There is also wariness about the group experience itself.
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 footing and assess the group, the worker should introduce the following six components in her introduction: commitment to the group and its work; the group as a democratic and collective entity; honest interaction among members and phenomenological experience; the 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 phase to establish the rules, purposes, and goals of the group while developing a trusting atmosphere. This was accomplished by the facilitator in the following way:
Worker: Hello. Thank you all for coming tonight despite the weather. 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 be leading this one. 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.
The instructor 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; and ending with The Father I Choose to Be.
What the worker did here was introduce herself, explain the rules and objectives of the group, provide members with guidelines, and invite members to introduce themselves — thereby setting the tone for comfort within the session. She incorporated some, but not all, of Hannah's (2000) recommendations.
The instructor also commented on the relationship between our own fathers (or father figures) and our individual styles of fathering. She then went on to discuss the roots of fathering, and this is where members became engaged.
After a brief break, she got members to role-play 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; and learn to establish a nurturing relationship — one of self-nurturing — with this inner child.
This constituted the mid-phase of the session and represented a second process of engagement. The process of engagement is ongoing throughout the duration of the group and is the phase where the facilitator encourages members to participate (Brandler & Roman). The facilitator's attempt at engagement is illustrated in the following script:
Jim: Um… I always had problems with… um. My daughter…
Instructor: (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.
Instructor: 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 tightly paced, structured, and organized flow of the session; linking is the scheme of events where each follows from the other; and inclusion refers to incorporating members within the group so that each feels needed and participates.
Engagement was further demonstrated 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 addressing specific needs.
One concern was that the instructor may have accorded Jim — and other less confident individuals — too much individual time, potentially aggravating others. Giving people just the right amount of time while engaging all members is challenging, but it may make all the difference between group work and casework (Kurland & Salmon, 1993). This was a group-work situation where the facilitator needed to distribute time equitably among all participants. Focusing too long on one individual at a time risks transforming the situation into casework. Rather, the facilitator needs to pay respect and attention to each member, using counseling skills to do so, while simultaneously drawing on the talents and capacities of each member to benefit the group as a whole. The focus should be on each individual, but only to the extent that the group as a whole benefits.
As noted in the literature on manifest versus latent content, the worker's greatest challenge is to uncover the strengths and agenda of each individual while simultaneously moving the group as a whole forward. No one person should stand out; the group functions as a unit. This is not always possible — discontentment or frustration may linger beneath the surface. It takes only one member to feel this way for outliers to emerge. The worker must also tune in to nonverbal cues in order to access underlying messages. The togetherness of the group is one of the key components that contributes to its growth. The worker in this session appeared to achieve a reasonable balance.
Skills involved in the engagement process include listening, accepting, and sustaining. Moving from the concrete to the thematic is another important process element. We see this in the way that the worker opened the group:
Instructor: Hi, I am pleased to see you… I am pleased to see some returning members and some 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, the instructor may have assumed too authoritative a role, which risked overwhelming others. The worker faces the challenge of striking a balanced trajectory in which both she and the members can participate equally. Although she is the leader, she is not a boss, and this distinction can be difficult to implement in practice.
Summarizing is another process tool the worker used to facilitate group progress (Brandler & Roman). Examples of summarizing can be seen in the following excerpts:
Instructor: Well, now that we have introduced ourselves we can proceed.
As stated, our goals are to become the most effective father that we can possibly be. (After reading of the objectives.) Our aims in this session are to…
She also concluded the session by summarizing what had been covered and inviting questions.
The end-middle phase prepares members for the sense of termination to come. The worker had moved through three stages: the beginning, where she helped members gain trust in the group and the leader and feel comfortable enough to open up; the middle, where she sustained and encouraged spontaneity and engagement; and the end, where she began transitioning members toward separation and closure. The instructor accomplished this in various ways:
Instructor: Almost end of session… time goes fast! A pity — so much to cover… It has been an enjoyable session.
Instructor: OK folks, two minutes left — let's sum up…
She also told members what she planned to cover the following week, provided meeting details, and thanked them for attending — concluding on a positive note.
It is worth noting that the instructor — both through her introduction and her conclusion — clarified and affirmed the group's purpose. Groups need a clearly stated purpose in order to know how to proceed and to feel confident in their activity. Groups without clearly stated purposes often fail. Furthermore, it is not only the worker who should be aware of the purpose; the members themselves should be able to articulate it (Kurland & Salmon, 1998). For this reason, it was helpful that the instructor particularized the purpose according to the group's stated objectives and succinctly returned to it throughout, in paraphrase: "Remember, we are here to become the best father that we can be."
Also positive was the fact that the instructor reminded members to share their commitment statements with their children and family members, reflected on group relationship and growth, and reminded them — seemingly as an aside, though possibly as a deliberate strategy — of the Certificate of Achievement they would receive at the end of the program.
The NFP group has the objective of giving fathers the necessary skills to relate to and help their children succeed in life. The prerequisites of the leader, according to Brandler and Roman, are to be flexible in order to respond to the needs of the group and individuals while preserving the basic content of the curriculum and its relationship to other corresponding curricula; to provide a safe, respectful, and nurturing environment; and to demonstrate an understanding of and belief in the Nurturing Parenting Program philosophies of discipline and methods of creating healthier families.
You’re 57% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.