common ground: the development of a support group for survivors of homicide loss in a rural...

18
This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas] On: 30 November 2014, At: 10:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Social Work with Groups Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20 Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community Theresa L. Blakley a & Nita Mehr b a Union University, Social Work Department , 1050 Union University Drive, Jackson, TN, 38305 b Director of Social Work , Freed-Hardeman University , 158 East Main Street, Box 17, Henderson, TN, 38340 Published online: 11 Oct 2008. To cite this article: Theresa L. Blakley & Nita Mehr (2008) Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community, Social Work with Groups, 31:3-4, 239-254, DOI: 10.1080/01609510801980971 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609510801980971 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

Upload: nita

Post on 04-Apr-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 30 November 2014, At: 10:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Social Work with GroupsPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

Common Ground: TheDevelopment of a SupportGroup for Survivors ofHomicide Loss in a RuralCommunityTheresa L. Blakley a & Nita Mehr ba Union University, Social Work Department , 1050Union University Drive, Jackson, TN, 38305b Director of Social Work , Freed-HardemanUniversity , 158 East Main Street, Box 17,Henderson, TN, 38340Published online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Theresa L. Blakley & Nita Mehr (2008) Common Ground: TheDevelopment of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community,Social Work with Groups, 31:3-4, 239-254, DOI: 10.1080/01609510801980971

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609510801980971

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and

Page 2: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 3: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Social Work with Groups, Vol. 31(3–4) 2008Available online at http://swg.haworthpress.com

© 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi:10.1080/01609510801980971 239

WSWG0160-95131540-9481Social Work with Groups, Vol. 31, No. 3-4, May 2008: pp. 1–22Social Work with Groups

Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide

Loss in a Rural CommunityTheresa L. Blakley and Nita MehrSOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS Theresa L. Blakley

Nita Mehr

ABSTRACT. Losing a loved one from human-perpetrated violence canlead to a debilitating process of stigma-generated isolation and trauma.Layers of social services are needed to support surviving family members,all secondary victims of homicide. Although urban populations haveenriched access to victims-of-crime services, rural-bound populations oftendo not. This article describes homicide-specific trauma and the develop-ment of a community support group for rural-bound persons sufferinghomicide loss. The support group process offers potential for real help inareas where few trauma-informed options exist. The authors chronicle theirjourney of group-work practice with underserved persons coping withhomicide loss.

KEYWORDS. Homicide-specific trauma, rural communities, victims ofcrime, violence, support groups

Theresa L. Blakley, PhD, is Associate Professor at Union University, SocialWork Department, 1050 Union University Drive, Jackson, TN 38305(E-mail: [email protected]).

Nita Mehr, MSSW, is Assistant Professor and Director of Social Work, Freed-Hardeman University, 158 East Main Street, Box 17, Henderson, TN 38340(E-mail: [email protected]).

Address correspondence to: Theresa L. Blakley, 1050 Union UniversityDrive, Jackson, TN 38305 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 4: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

240 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

INTRODUCTION

Human-perpetrated violence resulting in loss of life is a most severestressor on the stage of human events, significantly affecting the socialfabric of communities, families, and individuals left bewildered andtraumatized in its aftermath. Residents of rural communities, often havingan insular sense of safety and strong cohesive bonds (Muskat & Walsh,2007), are especially hard hit when the news of murder, solved andunsolved, sweep across local headlines. The Office for Victims of Crime(2001) acknowledged that rural communities have few services to offerthe covictims of homicide compared to urban hot zones of homicide.Equally in need of supportive services, victims of homicide loss in ruralareas have the extra burden of driving long distances to participate, oftenunaided, in the mystifying maze of criminal justice proceedings. The hor-ror of the murder and the outrage over the intentionality of the death of aloved one spins off helplessness and traumatic grief for surviving familymembers. Many such victim-survivors of violent crime living in ruralcommunities have nowhere to turn for practical help and social support,finding themselves left alone to deal with unthinkable trauma and compli-cated grief—a daunting, inhumane task.

This article chronicles the development of a community support groupfor persons in West Tennessee who have lost a loved one to homicide.Trauma specific to homicide loss is briefly examined as a severe lifestressor that can generate durable and adverse biopsychosocialconsequences. An overview of support-group work practice as applied tohomicide loss is then discussed, followed by a brief accounting of how theauthors designed, developed, and operationalized a homicide survivors’support group in response to a gap in services in rural West Tennessee.Implications for research and social work practice are then noted.

HOMICIDE TRAUMA: A SEVERE LIFE STRESSOR

Murder is the criminal taking of human life. The impact of theintentional, violent death act is intensified for surviving family by theunexpectedness of the event—the suddenness in which the loved one,vibrantly going about the business of life in one instance, is beingprepared for burial in the next. This shocking element of surprise creates asense of horror, a nightmarish air of disbelief that such a thing couldhappen. Horror, disbelief, and shock give way to devastating grief further

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 5: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 241

complicated by the profane manner in which the family member died.Outrage, offense, and a maddening sense of helplessness overwhelmthose who are left reeling after having a loved one so physically violatedand forever terminated. Murder is irreparable loss without appeal.

Janoff-Bulman (1995) sharply underscored how death by homicidediffers from other unexpected deaths in eliciting agonizing questions forsurvivors. “Diseases, accidents, and natural disasters do not raise thequestion of evil, something has to be intended, as is the case in violentvictimizations” (p. 79). Fundamental assumptions about life implode inthe aftermath of traumatic loss (Doka, 2002), as in the murder of a spouse(“I always thought we would grow old together”); or the murder of a child(“I never expected to outlive my child”). “The road to recovery is pavedwith jagged rocks and broken glass,” said one survivor of homicide loss,“so great is the psychological shock of losing a cherished one throughcold, calculated violence” (Blakley, 2007, p. 91).

Rynearson (2001) identified violence, violation, and volition as threeunique markers of untimely, intentional death and identified correspondingjustice-focused survivor responses such as retaliation, retribution, andpunishment. Yearning for justice is often frustrated as victim rights takesecond seat to offender rights in the American justice system (Armour,2006). Justice that is perceived as minimized, delayed, or denied caninspire outrage, eliciting further feelings of powerlessness by survivingfamily members. These potent feelings alone can overwhelm and exhaustthose who experience them. However, survivors of homicide loss are fur-ther destabilized by a host of other affect-laden phenomena that arise to arresttheir sense of justice, well-being, and safety in the world (Bucholz, 2002).

Adverse psychophysiological changes, spun of trauma etiology, canculminate in significant disturbances in sleep, concentration, anxiety, andaffect regulation (van der Hart, Steele, & Ford, 2001). Further complicat-ing this profile of distress is a tendency toward hypervigilance (Miller,2005), a constant state of being on high-alert that causes the survivor toconstantly scan the environment for further threat to self and significantothers. Perhaps the most distressing posttrauma phenomenon is the reex-periencing of the stressor event in a variety of representative forms, suchas nightmares, fantasies, flashbacks, and other intrusive thoughts aboutthe murder (Henry-Jenkins, 1997; Ross, 2003; Rothschild, 2000). Thesehighly charged and unwanted experiences are evidence of what Lerner(2004) described as the “imprint of horror” (p. 3). Trauma-based biopsy-chosocial and behavioral phenomena can converge, leading to exhaustionand interfering with basic functioning in all spheres of the survivor’s life.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 6: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

242 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Such deep, traumatic loss requires a skilled, compassionate, trauma-informed service response. The support group is one such social workresponse for victims of violent crime. The following offers a brief over-view of the support group modality as a useful intervention for personssuffering homicide loss.

SUPPORT GROUP AS HELP FOR HOMICIDE LOSS: AN OVERVIEW

Homicide loss has been described as a most severe traumatic event thatcan potentiate clinical symptoms of acute posttraumatic stress and, intime, post-traumatic stress disorder (American Psychiatric Association,2000). Individual and family therapy are indicated as critical to recovery.The creation of a network of caring and therapeutic connections for survi-vors of such horrific loss is indicated as well. Because those left in thewake of homicide can experience stigma-imposed isolation (Spungen,1998), natural systems of social support can weaken or evaporate(Bucholz, 2002). Social support is especially needed in the posthomicidefamily as they seek safe harbor for feelings of separation distress, grief,fear, and outrage.

A support group for survivors of homicide loss can provide a protectedtime, place, and group in which trusted bonds with like others can be cre-ated. A clinician-facilitated support group, focusing on psychoeducation,mutual support and sharing, and trauma distress reduction, offers potentialfor new insights and understanding of how to navigate uncharted watersof the posttrauma world. Briere and Scott (2006) noted the advantages ofgroup intervention for persons who are traumatized who “can learn fromthe similar experiences of others; a process that may be more powerfuland enduring than when similar material is delivered solely by thetherapist” (p. 88).

The support group provides a holding environment in which the survivorscan safely review the new landscape of their lives, process their owntrauma narratives, and be accepted and understood by other traumainitiates. Psychoeducation, delivered within the sanctuary of a supportivegroup, offers opportunities for group members to learn about commontrauma phenomena and its effects on the human being under extremestress. As secondary gain, “lessons learned” in the support group settingcan be passed along to others in the family system affected by the trau-matic loss, thus expanding the group’s influence.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 7: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 243

Victor Frankl (1963) conceptualized man’s search for meaning in themost difficult of situations. Facilitated trauma narrative within thesupport-group work setting channels Frankls’ “meaning making” conceptas each participant is invited to explore and reframe his or her traumaticloss from the stance of victim to that of survivor. The challenge for groupmembers is to make sense out of nonsense (Rynearson, 2001), to wrestlewith the cognitive dissonance of losing a loved one needlessly and violently.To struggle with these cognitive tasks in the safety of a supportive group ofothers, who share the common ground of homicide loss, validates anduniversalizes powerful and sometimes foreign feelings and thoughts. Inmoments of “me too” realization, the support group becomes the epicen-ter from which the trauma shock waves are felt and safely stabilized.Finally, it is the support group setting that allows for peer interaction andfeedback, vital elements to self-awareness, and the reinforcement of posi-tive modeling behaviors for increased adaptation and coping skills.

HOMICIDE SURVIVORS’ SUPPORT GROUP IN RURAL TENNESSEE: DEVELOPMENT, PURPOSE, AND DESIGN

Development

As murder rates rose in West Tennessee, professionals from legal ser-vices, police, and district attorneys offices reported becoming overwhelmedwith the needs of surviving family members who had few places to turn forsupport services in the affected area. With resource-rich urban centers 1½ to2 hours away from Jackson, Tennessee, the needs of victim families strainedat the net of the few services that existed, prompting the call for help.

The authors responded by creating a collaborative partnership todesign, launch, and sustain a community-based support group for homi-cide survivors. The first task was to assess community need by consultingwith the few front-line veteran professionals in the region who were expe-rienced in victim advocacy work. West Tennessee Legal Services, operat-ing out of federal Victim’s of Crime Act (VOCA) funds, had two suchcrime victim advocates who acted as key informants and guides inaddressing urgent community needs. Meeting with these key victim ser-vices personnel also served to establish trust and generate multidirectionalreferral pathways.

Consultation with outside victims’ rights groups and support groupfacilitators in other regions of the state added to the groundwork that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 8: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

244 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

helped to guide the construction of the group. Finally, the members of thefledgling support group informed the facilitators as to what they felt theyneeded and wanted from group meetings, a feedback process that contin-ues to inform the group’s ongoing development.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the group is to provide a protected timeand safe place for homicide survivors to begin to understand how to copewith life after traumatic loss, and to experience mutual support from otherhomicide loss survivors. The purpose of the group is a not fixed, ratherfluid and dynamic to meet the need of the group as it evolves over time, asnoted by group-work practice wisdom (Kurland & Salmon, 1998). A dis-cussion of group purpose is routinely facilitated at the start and midpointof each new round of group sessions for group leaders to stay current andtuned in to participants’ trauma-specific support needs.

Design

The group was conceptually constructed and operationalized as1) community based, 2) relationally rich, 3) trauma informed, 4) self-advocacy reinforced, and 5) focused in resiliency and survivor strength.The group is community based and offered as a free service to adults inand around the West Tennessee region. The facilitators volunteer theirservices and pay for the minimal costs of paper, printing, postage, andlight refreshments for the group. Use of space and utility is donated by alocal private university. The group is promoted through free communityservice announcements in a variety of media. Key victim-rights stake-holders collaborate with group facilitators through consultation, referrals,and promotion.

The group is relationally rich, which means that the facilitators strive tocreate a warm person-focused environment in which each participant ismade to feel welcomed and singly important to the group process. Facili-tators also reach out to group members between sessions with phone callsand letters of encouragement. Furthermore, group members are intro-duced to the concept and practice of mutual aid as they learn to supportone another and other homicide loss survivors from urban-based groupsacross the state in annual retreat and memorial events.

The group is trauma informed. The facilitators are academically trainedin traumatic loss and bereavement and have personal histories of homi-cide loss. Psychoeducation on trauma processes is a primary task of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 9: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 245

support group, thus empowering participants to begin to understand andcope with the onslaught of biopsychosocial phenomena that emerge fromhaving experienced a severe traumatic event.

The group is reinforced through self-advocacy that is encouraged at themicrolevel through mutual aid among members and through victim rightsorganizations; at the mezzolevel through community crime vigils, com-memorations, and marches; and at the macro level through networkingwith statewide victim rights organizations and groups.

The group is strengths focused with facilitators modeling, identifying,acknowledging, and promoting participants’ strengths as each memberuniquely struggles with posthomicide loss and grief. The group is resil-iency focused as facilitators underscore and facilitate discussion of mem-bers’ self-reports of increased mastery over posttrauma symptoms andposthomicide circumstances.

THE HOMICIDE GROUP: ELEMENTS AND OPERATIONS

Referral and Screening

Persons experiencing homicide loss are referred to support groupfacilitators primarily through the district attorney’s office, local lawenforcement, or through West Tennessee Legal Services. Other familymembers of homicide victims self-refer, learning of the group by publicservice announcements or word of mouth in the community. Screeningfor appropriateness for participation in the support group is routine andmandatory. An initial phone call interview is followed by a face-to-faceinterview, with facilitators screening for potential biopsychosocial concernsthat may interfere with the person’s current appropriateness for supportgroup participation. Potential members are provided with informationregarding other community resources, such as individual, family, andcrisis counseling services. The assumption of vulnerability of personsexperiencing homicide loss prompts facilitators to take special care not toleave individuals with a sense of abandonment if deemed unready for supportgroup participation. Providing information of other avenues of potentialhelp and suggesting a future time to reconsider group participationmitigates prospective feelings of rejection, abandonment, or hopelessness.Self-selecting out of the support group process, however, is the most com-mon response of those who are not appropriate or ready for this particularavenue of help, with the facilitators only having to respectfully acknowledge

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 10: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

246 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

the individual’s decision. Those who are deemed appropriate for the sup-port group are asked to review and sign a simple, brief consent formacknowledging the nature and parameters of the support group.

Orientation, Frequency, and Duration

Formal orientation of the support group occurs during the first meetingof each new round of sessions. Facilitators orient the group regardinggroup process and rules, reviewing aloud with members a handout thatspecifies safety issues, confidentiality, self-care issue, and referral sourcesin the community. Each member is provided with facilitators’ office andevening contact numbers. Critical group rules, such as confidentiality andself-care, are reviewed briefly before each group session.

The support group is designed around 10 consecutive weekly sessions,at which time there is a 2-week break, followed by the next round ofgroup meetings. A planned break between 10-week rounds allows formembers to reassess their posthomicide circumstances and provides naturalentry and exit points to the group. Each group session is consistentlyconducted on Monday evenings, from 6:30–7:30 p.m. to allow for work-ing participants adequate travel time, with some traveling significant dis-tances from outlying counties to the meeting site.

Group Size, Place, and Format

Jacobs, Masson, and Haryill (2006) upheld as ideal five to eight mem-bers in the support group setting. The homicide support group in WestTennessee has yet to surpass this parameter, with a typical gathering offive to six participants on any given week.

The group meets in the social work suite at Union University, a privateinstitution that is centrally located within the West Tennessee area. Asidefrom the fact that the location is well known and offers easy access to per-sons in and around the West Tennessee region, the facility is well lit andhas active security guards on duty during the group meeting hours. Thephysical location also allows for uninterrupted group sessions, ensuranceessential to privacy and confidentiality. This emphasis on safety, security,and privacy helps to ease the discomfort of participants already on alert topersonal safety issues, a consequence of having lost a loved one tosudden, violent attack.

Given the circumstantial chaos frequently accompanying homicideloss, the facilitators chose an open, rather than closed, format for thisparticular support group. The open group format maximizes service

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 11: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 247

responsiveness, allowing for the introduction of new members to enter ata time when motivation is high, without having to wait until the next rota-tion of sessions.

Addressing Conflict and Termination

Corey and Corey (2006) noted “conflict that arises early in the groupmust be adequately dealt with, or it is likely that it will inhibit the cohesionof the group” (p. 137). In a homicide survivors’ group, conflict may ariseover the interpretation of another member’s grief journey, whether a caseis solved or unsolved, and whether or not one feels he or she has receivedadequate attention within a session. Addressing conflict in the “here andnow” of the session moves the group forward, maximizing the potentialfor insight that can be applied outside of the group.

Termination is addressed during screening, the initial stage of thegroup, and throughout each session. Providing clear information about thestructure of the group setting, type of group, or number of sessions, andbreaks reduces anxiety and promotes a sense that help is offered anddelivered as stated. Due to the extraordinary life demands upon membersof the West Tennessee homicide support group, the open format strategi-cally allows members to come in and out of the group without penalty.As members self-terminate their involvement in the group, they then haveopportunity to “consolidate their learning and develop strategies for trans-ferring what they learned in the group to real life” (Corey & Corey, 2006,p. 269).

Cultural Considerations

Homicide crosses all socioeconomic, ethnic, racial, educational, andreligious lines. The West Tennessee support group reflects the demo-graphic profile of the region, with primarily Black and White partici-pants from a variety of socioeconomic and educational backgroundscommon to the region. Women have been the primary participants ofthe support group thus far, with an occasional male visiting the group.This gender-specific trend is reflective of the makeup of otherhomicide survivor support groups around the state. Although membershave respectfully offered mutual support across different culturalgroups, it is the responsibility of the facilitators to assist participants inrecognizing, respecting, and honoring different ways that trauma andgrief are experienced, defined, and processed across diverse groups ofsurvivors.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 12: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

248 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Ethical Considerations

The professional mandate to “do no harm” is fundamental to any socialwork endeavor, and especially important when working with vulnerablepopulations such as those in the homicide survivors support group. Harmis sometimes done to trauma survivors by helping professionals who pressfor an accounting of the most distressing details of the stressor eventbefore safety, rapport, and a sense of trust has been established. Pushing aperson who is traumatized to put words to what is still unspeakable canoverwhelm important defense and coping strategies that keep the personfunctional. A person whose sense of control has been violated may rejectpsychological support and counseling if that person perceives the helpingprofessional as intrusive and overbearing.

Although the support group is not a therapy group, members are invitedto recount their tales of violent loss with one another as they feel comfort-able, sharing only what they wish to share, and choosing when to share, if atall. Common ground is experienced by group members as they each relateto the painful losses and life struggles of the other, making for a relationallyrich group experience. Facilitators are vigilant regarding overly graphicnarratives and their potential to further traumatize the teller and the listener.They guide participants to be sensitive when sharing their stories so furtherharm is not done. Participants with open cases or unsolved homicides arealso asked to censor any information that, if shared, could potentially inter-fere with the legal integrity of their case. This may be especially relevant inrural communities where information tends to be shared openly and quickly(Gumpert & Saltman, 1998). Information that has been disseminatedthrough the media is deemed safe. Participants share this “public” informa-tion as they wish, but within limits to guard against retraumatization.

Other serious considerations are given to respecting the rights of participantsto self-determination and confidentiality. Facilitators take special care in ensur-ing that participants feel unconditional positive regard, communicating and act-ing in such a way as to extend each member a sense of dignity and worth.

GROUP TECHNIQUE

Grounding

Grounding techniques are used to refocus participants experiencingdissociative emotional pain back to a state of present mindedness andbody awareness (Naperstek, 2004). Grounding is facilitated by group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 13: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 249

leaders at any point in the session that the intensity of content or processof the session is deemed nonconstructive. A grounding ritual is con-ducted, as well, at the end of every group to ensure the physical andemotional safety of members as they prepare for their drive home. Thisclosing routine has facilitators guiding participants in controlled breathing,tense-and-relax exercises, shared laughter and humor, and a group read-ing of “The Survivor’s Psalm” by Ochberg (1995, p. 262). After theseclosing rituals, members spontaneously reach out to touch or hug oneanother and verbally communicate warmth as they accompany oneanother to their vehicles, further grounding participants back safely tothe “here and now.”

Mutual Aid

Niemeyer (2006) noted that, though grief and loss is intensely private,“much of this grief work has to do with affirming, strengthening, andenlarging our connectedness to others” (p. 53). The mutual aid dynamicof the West Tennessee support group is evidenced by the free exchange ofparticipants reaching out to each other through eye contact, attending,encouragement, empathy, support, and positive modeling. Mutual aid,modeled and facilitated in the early phases of the group process, takes ona life of its own. Members demonstrate evidence of having developed richrelational bonds. Group members, initially intimidated by the fear of theunknown, now serve as the welcoming committee to frightened newcomersseeking solace. The rite of passage from neophyte to altruistic memberdemonstrates the power of common ground in group-work practice andpoints to the value of a strength-based, survivor-resiliency approach.

Psychoeducation

At the core of group’s work is learning in areas of trauma and griefprocesses, criminal proceedings, state-specific victim rights, self-care,and symptom management. Facilitators act as educators, weaving inteaching moments among trauma-related circumstances and experiencesreported by group members. Trauma symptoms are brought to life, forexample, as facilitators role-play a conversation between a personifiedsymptom (e.g., flashback, avoidance) and a homicide loss survivor whoexperiences it. Enacting this duet before the group can be humorous andenlightening as group members learn to universalize their distressingexperiences and understand these symptoms in terms of healing pro-cesses. Developed by the facilitators specifically for this group, “The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 14: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

250 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Trauma Dialogues” has been an effective teaching tool and has helpedsurvivors grasp ways of coping with emotionally laden posttraumaexperiences.

Another constructive learning tool has been the use of a homicide-specific trauma model. Adapting Parad and Parad’s (1990) theoreticalframework for viewing families in crisis, the facilitators teach groupmembers to self-monitor their own process and progress, starting from thetime just preceding their loss to the present here-and-now experience. Asparticipants learn the principles of the model, they contemplate theirprogress weekly, marking it on the timeline before the group on a largechalk board. Participants express feelings of empowerment as insight andunderstanding about their own internal processes grows from week toweek. Group cheers and applause erupt spontaneously at such progress, asdo soft words of empathy and encouragement for those members who feelthey will never be able to move from a place of deep sorrow.

By invitation only, guest speakers are chosen to address the group asneeds arise. The director of Victims Services from the Tennessee Departmentof Corrections has been one such speaker, along with local victimadvocate and assorted legal professionals. Films are used on occasion,and with discretion, so as not to retraumatize an easily triggered group.Reading material is recommended by facilitators and participants alike inareas of trauma and grief. Finally, participants offer each other lessonslearned from their own experiences in a variety of domains, such as navi-gating difficult systems of the media, VOCA applications, or the criminaljustice system.

Narrative Retelling

Scaer (2005) described trauma as an “aberration of memory (that)freezes us in the past event that thereafter dictates our entire perception ofreality” (p. 252). The need to tell and retell the trauma narrative evidencessurvivor efforts to test new and forming perceptions of postevent reality.Tucked in between the lines of the trauma narrative are questions as to thehow (“How could this have happened to me and mine?”), and why (“Whydid this happen to me and mine?”) of the violent loss—a search for under-standing and meaning to senseless and cruel loss of human life. Becauseso many surviving family members lose their supportive networks of carequickly, they lose caring listeners as well. The value of the support groupthen comes to the fore as participants act as safe others who welcome,with unconditional regard and understanding, each others’ storytelling

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 15: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 251

process. Repetition is welcomed with patience and understanding that thevery act of telling again the horror of the loss powerfully exorcises theunspeakable, unthinkable reality—even if by microbits. All is in serviceof courageously moving forward, coping, and surviving.

Self-Care

Emotional and physical exhaustion born of grief and traumatic stressseriously affects the lives of survivors of homicide loss. Self-care isneglected as basic life tasks are carried out with depleted reserves ofenergy, and survivors struggling to place one foot in front of the other. Eat-ing, sleeping, and even breathing become burdensome, foreign tasks. Vul-nerabilities to illness and disease can result (Allen, 2005; Schupp, 2004).The focus on self-care a priority for any support group organized aroundhomicide loss. Participants learn from one another ways of caring for self.Some describe journaling and praying as bringing relaxation and comfort,whereas others name exercising or attending group as ways in which theycare for themselves. Facilitators acknowledge and model positive self-care,so crucial to the recovery process and general well-being of each member.

IMPLICATION FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

A social work response to the needs of rural-bound persons trauma-tized by homicide loss is critical. VOCA programs provide an array ofservices to victims of violent crimes, but such programs are dependentupon adequate numbers of trained personnel to facilitate such services toeligible recipients. Victims of homicide loss living in rural areas cansuffer from the lack of critical supportive services, such as financial sup-port, legal aid, and mental health services that are routinely offered anddelivered to urban-dwelling victims of crime.

Establishing a community support group for homicide loss survivors isone way to begin to address these needs, but there are challenges specific torural communities. McCabe and Macnee (2002) noted stigma as a barrier tomental health care in rural-bound areas. Even a support group can be viewednegatively, as a prop for those who are “weak minded” and unable to handlethe difficulties of life on their own. Furthermore, there is a greater risk ofviolation of confidentiality in circumscribed communities where populationsare relatively small. Despite group rules to keep all information confidential,sensitive data regarding solved and unsolved crime may be innocentlyleaked into the community by members. Additionally, the admonition

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 16: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

252 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

against dual relationships may be compromised as group participants aremore likely to know of and to interact with group facilitators in other aspectsof rural community life. These rural-specific challenges further complicatean already demanding modality of social work practice, calling for routineself-evaluation and consultation on the part of the group facilitators.

Social workers in rural regions of the country must investigate ways inwhich they can create a network of help for this particularly vulnerable,distressed population. A needs assessment specific to secondary victimsof homicide should include discussions with law enforcement, the localdistrict attorney’s office, and any VOCA-funded program that may be inthe area. These efforts, along with other region-specific tasks, are thebeginning points in which homicide survivors’ needs are assessed, collab-orations are developed, and social work responses are devised.

REFLECTIONS AND CONCLUSION

Developing and conducting an ongoing community support group forpersons with homicide loss has been a journey arduous and rewarding andcould not have been accomplished without the encouragement and supportof key advocates of victims’ rights in West Tennessee. The collaborativeprocess between two social work colleagues underscores the adage that “twoheads are better than one.” To facilitate a support group of this kind alone issimply unwise social work practice, with cofacilitation offering importantchecks and balances necessary for sustaining good group-work practice.

The authors note that facilitating this weekly support group has addedstress and responsibility to an already full professional schedule but alsonoted that the process has been an invigorating adventure in social workpractice. More important, a gap in services to our rural community hasbeen filled as some survivors of homicide loss find a measure of solaceand help for their deep distress. As common ground is experienced withlike others, this uncommon fellowship of sorrow and pain resilientlypresses onward toward healing and recovery.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. G. (2005). Coping with trauma: Hope through understanding (2nd ed.).Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 17: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

Theresa L. Blakley and Nita Mehr 253

Armour, M. P. (2006). Meaning making for survivors of violent death. In E. K. Rynearson(Ed.), Violent death: Resilience and intervention beyond the crisis (pp. 101–121). NewYork: Taylor & Francis.

Blakley, T. (2007). The anatomy of trauma and faith: A reflective post-mortem. SocialWork and Christianity, 34(1), 88–103.

Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2006). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide to symptoms, evaluation,and treatment. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Bucholz, J. A. (2002). Homicide survivors: Misunderstood grievers. Amityville, NY:Baywood Publishing.

Corey, G., Corey, M., Callanan, P., & Russell, J. (2004). Group techniques. Belmont, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Corey, M., & Corey, G. (2006). Group process and practice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Doka, K. (2002). How could God: Loss and the spiritual assumptive world. In J. Kauffman

(Ed.), Loss of the assumptive world: A theory of traumatic loss (pp. 49–54). New York:Brunner-Routledge.

Frankl, V. (1984). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy (3rd ed.).New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gumpert, J., & Saltman, J. (1998). Social group work practice in rural areas: The practitio-ners speak. Social Work with Groups, 21(3), 19–34.

Henry-Jenkins, W. (1997). Just us: Homicidal loss and grief. Omaha, NE: CenteringCorporation Resource.

Jacobs, E., Masson, R., & Harvill, R. (2006). Group counseling: Strategies and strengths.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1995). Victims of violence. In G. S. Everly & J. M. Lating (Eds.), Psy-chotraumatology: Key papers and core concepts in post-traumatic stress (pp. 74–82).New York: Plenum.

Kurland, R., & Salmon, R. (1998). Purpose: A misunderstood and misused keystone ofgroup work practice. Social Work with Groups, 21(3), 5–18.

Lerner, M. D. (2004). Are we prepared for the hidden trauma? Trauma Response, 10(1), 3–6.Lerner, M. D., & Shelton, R. D. (1995). In Acute traumatic stress management: A trau-

matic stress response protocol for all emergency responders. New York: AmericanAcademy of Experts in Traumatic Stress.

McCabe, S., & Macnee, C. L. (2002). Weaving a new safety net of mental health care inrural America: A model of integrated practice. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 23,263–278.

Miller, M. C. (Ed.) (2005). The biology of child maltreatment: How abuse and neglect ofchildren leave their mark on the brain. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 21(12). Boston,MA: Harvard Medical School.

Muskat, B. T., & Walsh, J. A. (2007). Reaching underserved victim populations:Special challenges relating to homeless victims, rural populations, ethnic/racial/sexual minorities, and victims with disabilities. In R. C. Davis, A. J. Lurigio, &S. Herman (Eds.), Victims of crime (3rd ed., pp. 315–336). Los Angeles, CA: SagePublications.

Naperstek, B. (2004). Invisible heroes: Survivors of trauma and how they heal. New York:Bantam Dell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Page 18: Common Ground: The Development of a Support Group for Survivors of Homicide Loss in a Rural Community

254 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Lessons of loss: A guide to coping. Memphis, TN: Center for theStudy of Loss and Transition.

Ochberg, F. M. (1995). Post-traumatic therapy. In G. S. Everly & J. M. Lating (Eds.), Psy-chotraumatology: Key papers and core concepts in post-traumatic stress (pp. 245–263).New York: Plenum.

Office for Victims of Crime. (2001). Report to the nation 2001. Retrieved July 28, 2007,from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2001/chp2.html.

Parad, H. J., & Parad, L. G. (1990). Crisis intervention: An introductory overview. InH. J. Parad & L. G. Parad (Eds.), Crisis intervention book 2: The practitioner’s source-book for brief therapy (pp. 3–66). Milwaukee, WI: Family Service America.

Ross, G. (2003). Beyond the trauma vortex: The media’s role in healing fear, terror, andviolence. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Rothschild, B. (2000). The body remembers. The psychophysiology of trauma and thetrauma treatment. New York: W. W. Norton.

Rynearson, E. K. (2001). Retelling violent death. Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.Scaer, R. (2005). The trauma spectrum: Hidden wounds and human resiliency. New York:

W.W. Norton.Schupp, L. J. (2004). Grief: Normal, complicated, traumatic. Eau Claire, WI: PESI

Healthcare.Spungen, D. (1998). Homicide: The hidden victims. A guide for professionals. In J. R.

Conte (Series Ed.), Interpersonal violence: The practice series. Thousand Oaks: Sage.van der Hart, O., Steele, K., & Ford, J. D. (2001). Introducing issues in treatment of

complex PTSD. Traumatic Stress Points, 15(4), 10.

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: October 22, 2007MANUSCRIPT REVISED: November 29, 2007

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED: December 3, 2007

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 1

0:16

30

Nov

embe

r 20

14