This article was downloaded by: [University of York]On: 01 October 2013, At: 12:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work With GroupsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

Strengths-Based Group Practice: Three Case StudiesCynthia A. Lietz PhD aa Arizona State University College of Human Services, Department of Social Work, Phoenix,ArizonaPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Cynthia A. Lietz PhD (2007) Strengths-Based Group Practice: Three Case Studies, Social Work WithGroups, 30:2, 73-87

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J009v30n02_07

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin 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 theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

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

Strengths-Based Group Practice:Three Case Studies

Cynthia A. Lietz

ABSTRACT. As the strengths perspective becomes a key influence insocial work, illustrations and applications that inform practice must beprovided. Group work has long been accepted as an important modalitythat is closely aligned with the strengths perspective. This article takes acase study approach by illustrating and exploring strengths-based appli-cations in a single-parent group and in two groups for children and youthplaced in a residential treatment facility. The examples demonstrate howdrawing on the strengths perspective led to successful groups in settingsthat had otherwise been experiencing poor attendance, premature termi-nation, and pervasive negativity. doi:10.1300/J009v30n02_07 [Article cop-ies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Group work, strengths perspective, resilience, single par-ents, residential setting, youth

Cynthia A. Lietz, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Arizona State University College ofHuman Services, Department of Social Work, Phoenix, Arizona. She teaches practiceand research that focuses on strengths-based practice in social work. In addition, shehas almost 15 years of experience working as a youth and family practitioner and as aclinical supervisor.

Address correspondence to: Cynthia A. Lietz, PhD, Arizona State UniversityCollege of Human Services, Department of Social Work, PO Box 37100, Phoenix,AZ 85069 (E-mail: clietz@asu.edu).

Social Work with Groups, Vol. 30(2) 2007Available online at http://swg.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J009v30n02_07 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

INTRODUCTION

As strengths-based approaches become more prominent in social work(Saleebey, 1996, 2006) applications need to be described in some detailin order to better inform practice. Social work with groups has a tra-dition that fits nicely with the strengths perspective. Group work has along history of seeking to alleviate various problems, including mentalhealth and substance abuse issues (Fisher, 2004). Groups are alsocommonly used for psychoeducation (Roffman, 2004; Sands and Solo-mon, 2003) such as social skills training, parent education (Plasse, 1995),and prevention (Nash and Snyder, 2004). Support groups (Schopler andGalinsky, 1995) for various populations such as caregivers (McCallionand Toseland, 1995), patients facing medical problems (Kelley andClifford, 1997), refugees (Nicholson and Kay, 1999), and those whohave experienced trauma (Glodich and Allen, 1998) are also common.

At the heart of this article are illustrations of three groups experienc-ing various psychosocial stressors that incorporated fundamental prin-ciples of strengths-based practice. All were in settings where priorattempts to form groups for similar populations were met with negativity,poor attendance, and or early termination. Group workers are portrayedas engaging group members in identifying their needs, establishing agroup purpose, and developing specific content that enable them (adultsand youth) to take ownership in the group and exercise their strengths toimprove their adaptive functioning and self-esteem. The author’s aim isto provide readers with illustrations of strengths-based applications thatwill encourage group workers to incorporate this perspective into theirgroup work practice.

STRENGTHS-BASED PRACTICEAND SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

There is a natural fit between the strengths perspective and social workwith groups as the following six strengths-based principles (Kisthard,2006) suggest:

1. Strengths-based practice starts by focusing on client strengths, notproblems.

2. The helping relationship is based on collaboration.3. Clients are responsible for their own care.4. Social workers believe in a client’s capacity to learn and grow.

74 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

5. Services should be community-based.6. Natural occurring community resources are a primary source of

services.

These six principles fit well with the concepts of mutual aid and em-powerment that are key features of social work with groups. For example,Malekoff (2004) explains that social work with groups has roots in threesocial movements (settlement, recreation, and progressive education)all stemming from “the conviction that people have much to offer toeach other to improve the quality of their lives” (p. 228). Burford andPennell (2004) state that “social work with groups has a lengthy historyof advancing the empowerment and well-being of individuals and com-munities . . .” (p. 415). Cowger, Anderson, and Snively (2006) similarlyadvocate for empowerment through a shift in the power differential thatsupports client ownership in their care. Shulman (1996) suggests thatthe paradigm shift in social work away from the medical model movingto the strengths perspective was largely influenced by the mutual aidmodel of group work. Kisthardt’s (2006) fifth and sixth principlesdiscuss the value of providing services in natural settings and seeingfamilies and communities as resources and ideas that are a part of thetradition of group work (Lee and Swenson, 1994; Shulman, 1996).

Although social work with groups generally fits well with the strengthsperspective, it is important to acknowledge that not all practice withgroups applies strengths-based principles. For example, curriculum-drivengroups that have a predetermined purpose and structure are being usedmore commonly in social work practice. As caseloads increase and thetime that social workers have to prepare for group work decreases, cur-riculum-driven groups that are packaged are attractive to some agenciesand practitioners. Galinsky, Terzian, and Frazer (2006) suggest thatmanualized curricula groups can be effective when the manuals arewritten and applied in such a way that supports group process. How-ever, some group work scholars are concerned that when these groupsare too rigid and prescriptive, this may hinder group members from col-laborating in decisions about the group’s purpose and content (Kurlandand Malekoff, 1998; Rubin, 2002). When groups are driven by curriculathat do not support group decision making and ownership, strengths-based practice may not be realized. Additionally, many support groupsare grounded in the medical model and require clients to submit to being“powerless” over their problems or addictions (Rhodes and Johnson,1996). Such practices may be inconsistent with the strengths perspective.

Cynthia A. Lietz 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Following are examples of a single-parent support group and two chil-dren/youth groups in a residential treatment facility that illustrate the com-patibility of social work with groups and the strengths perspective.

Single-Parent Support Group

A local outpatient counseling agency recruited two social workers towork with a single-parent support group. Single parents commonly facestruggles related to financial stress, loneliness and isolation, the needto balance personal needs with caring for a family, and struggles withco-parenting with an ex-spouse (Shulman, 1994). Creating a group inwhich the single parents participating in services at this agency couldshare these struggles and support one another seemed worthwhile. How-ever, despite this rationale, the agency faced barriers such as poor atten-dance and lack of commitment to the group. These barriers led to mostsingle-parent groups at this agency ending prematurely.

Northen and Kurland (2001) suggest that many groups fail when notenough time is spent preparing for a new group during the planningphase. The social workers charged with the task of taking over this sin-gle-parent group spent time during planning, thinking critically aboutthe vision and content of the previous groups. In the past, the agencyutilized a curriculum focused on common problems faced by singleparents. As the social workers reflected on this plan, they identified twopotential problems.

First, the group focused on problems rather than strengths. Socialwork has a long history of focusing on deficits and problem resolution(Blundo, 2001; Early and GlenMaye, 2000; McMillen, 1999; Saleebey,1996). However, recent advances in social work practice suggest thatbuilding strengths may provide a better framework for social workers toempower their clients (Early and GlenMaye, 2000; Greene, Lee, andHoffpauir, 2005; Saleebey, 1996; Walsh, 2002). The social workers de-cided that their vision for the group was one of sharing successes andsolutions as supported in various practice models that included solu-tion-focused practice (Berg, 1994) and narrative therapy (White andEpston, 1990).

Second, the social workers questioned the use of a prescribed curricu-lum. As discussed earlier, curriculum-driven groups can be problematicif they fail to include group members in the process of contracting aroundgroup purpose and activities (Rubin, 2002). Steinberg (2004) suggeststhat all participants should be given an opportunity to contribute to thegroup’s purpose. In this situation, rigidly adhering to curriculum may

76 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

have hindered the ability for the group members to adequately contributetheir ideas for the group.

Based on these two concerns, the social workers decided to eliminatethe curriculum and instead to ask the group members to work together toestablish this group’s purpose and content. Establishing helping rela-tionships that are collaborative and the decision to give the clients re-sponsibility for their own care illustrates two of Kisthardt’s (2006)principles of strengths-based practice. The first group session startedwith the group workers acknowledging the single parents for their ex-pertise as single parents. As one group worker stated:

Being a single parent is a difficult job. Think for a moment abouthow you are managing the many tasks of being a parent. When youare ready, I would like each of you to share one thing that is help-ing you to manage the stress of being a single parent.

After giving the group members some time to think, the socialworker noticed that one woman in the group made eye contact withher. The social worker asked if she would like to be first in sharing andshe said:

I have a teenage daughter who is angry at her dad for leaving andangry at me for having rules. Recently, she ran away from homeand I was so afraid. I spend a lot of time worrying about her, aboutwhat she was doing, who she was with, and what she will do next.It was really hard. I have realized recently that I have to take careof myself so that I can be there for her. I have been reading, I havebeen trying to eat better and I decided to come to this group. Be-fore I felt guilty when I did things for myself but now I know thatI have to or I won’t be able to handle my daughter when her angergets going.

The social workers supported this mom for her insight and initiativein caring for herself. After this interchange, other parents shared theirideas. One person shared that she tried to be physically active to take outher frustrations. Another said that the support of his extended family wasgetting him through. Another stated that her spiritual beliefs were a sup-port to her. By starting the group by asking members to share what wasworking, the social workers redirected the focus away from problems tostrengths and successes. The participants of the group responded by en-couraging one another for their successful efforts and achievements. The

Cynthia A. Lietz 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

positive tone helped facilitate engagement. Within one group session, theparticipants were giving and receiving support around acknowledgingstrengths and successes rather than focusing on problems/deficits.

Early on, the group workers urged the parents to take ownership forthe group by encouraging members to arrive at a group purpose and todevelop ideas for structure and content. Northen and Kurland (2001)define the group purpose as the desired end result whereas the contentrefers to the activities or means to get there. Structure refers to the logis-tics of the group. In this group, the parents identified the group’s purposeas follows: to increase the members’ confidence with their parenting.The members decided when the group would meet, how often meetingswould last, and how often they would meet. Through this process, theparents were engaged in the group experience in a way that had not beenpreviously observed at this agency. Including group members in deci-sion making affirms their expertise and empowerment (Greene, Lee,and Hoffpauir, 2005).

Once the details of the structure were worked out, the group workersasked the participants to think about content by considering the topicsthey would like to cover. Sticking with a focus on strengths, the partic-ipants suggested that they would like to hear from one another aboutwhat was working for them. The group decided to assign each groupmember to be in charge of one group session during an eight-week series(there were eight participants). Each group member would be responsiblefor preparing a brief talk about a strategy that they found as helpfulto them in their role as a single parent. A schedule was made and eachmember chose a topic that they would develop and share with the group.Topics that were discussed ranged from practical issues such as healthyeating, developing self-esteem, and a session on financial planning.

Throughout the course of this group, the social workers were struckby two aspects of the discussions led by the group members. First, thegroup members took their leadership roles in this group quite seriously.They gave much thought to their presentations and often brought re-sources to their fellow group members such as hand-outs or readings tohelp support the others in their personal growth. Second, the group com-mitment to the process seemed to increase as members supported one an-other through their attendance, attentiveness, and positive comments.Early in the group, a few members expressed feeling nervous abouttheir presentation. The response of the group was one of encourage-ment. Statements such as “Don’t worry, we’ll all be here for you” and“We know you can do it” suggested to the social workers that the com-mitment to the group was heightened as the members supported one

78 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

another in this task. As the social workers reflected on this group, theyboth agreed that if they had presented on issues of budgeting or self-esteem, the group members would likely not have had the same invest-ment in the process as they did have when these discussions were led bytheir peers. The group workers observed that attendance was much im-proved in this group as compared with previous groups. Members werecommitted to attend the group regularly in order to be there for one an-other. This group was the first single-parent group in several years thatmaintained regular attendance and active participation. In fact, thegroup continued until a planned termination.

As colleagues asked the social workers about the success of thisgroup, they responded that empowering the participants by identifyingand building strengths served to increase members’ sense of ownershipand commitment to the group. On an individual level, they also felt thatself-esteem was enhanced, as they were able to actively contribute tothe group process. Being a part of the group increased connection andreduced isolation. Overall, the strengths approach increased the effec-tiveness of this single-parent group.

Residential Treatment Group

In addition to psychiatric evaluation and monitoring, family counsel-ing and individual therapy, a residential treatment center incorporatedweekly therapy groups as a part of their counseling program. The treat-ment program offered services to boys aged 6 to 17 who faced severeemotional and/or behavioral problems.

The program struggled to create an engaging group experience fromwhich clients would benefit. Social workers who conduct groups in resi-dential settings face many barriers. These include clients coming in andout of the program affecting group cohesion, peer dynamics that arecomplicated by the fact that group members live together, and living ina highly structured environment that may reduce opportunities for feel-ing empowered (Evans and Cook, 1993). As Nadelman (1994) states,“a crucial question for those responsible for the socialization of institu-tionalized adolescents . . . is whether adolescent mutual aid will be es-sentially constructive or destructive” (p. 163). Issues of boundaries andcontrol are commonly faced in groups with children and adolescents.Dangerous behaviors can even erupt in such groups (Dwivedi, 1993;Fatout, 1996). In this program, clients would often use group sessions toseek negative attention creating increased needs for limit setting. Asrule setting and redirection became a regular part of facilitating groups

Cynthia A. Lietz 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

at this residential treatment center, the group sessions became character-ized by negativity.

Similar to the previous group, the social workers in this programengaged in the planning phase of group work as they looked at these ongoing patterns and considered ways that they could break this tone ofnegativity that had become common in these groups. In group workwith children, it is important during the planning phase to also considerdecisions such as location, whether the group will be open or closed,whether the group will be ongoing or time limited and session length inorder to best meet the developmental needs of the children (Fatout,1996). The social workers at this agency decided to change these groupsto be time limited, lasting six sessions rather than to continue conductingthem as ongoing, open groups. This structure allowed the social workersto set a new tone in each group and to periodically have an opportunity toget a fresh start. This decision also helped to manage membership issuesthat occur in residential treatment as children come in and out of thegroup due to admissions and discharges. One group will be describedusing this new structure and will illustrate strengths-based practice witha group for preadolescent children.

The members of this new group included five participants of this pro-gram ranging in age from 10 to 13. The members were diverse: twoboys who identified themselves as Hispanic and lived in urban neigh-borhoods located relatively close to the facility; one boy identified asNative American and came to this program from a reservation locatedseveral hours away from the facility; one boy identified as Caucasianand came to the program from a small rural community about three hoursfrom the facility; and the final participant was an African Americanyouth who was raised in a nearby city. The social worker leading thegroup was a Caucasian woman in her twenties. During the contractingstage, the social worker decided to start this six-week group by asking theboys “What would you like to accomplish in this group?” Similar tothe single-parent group, asking group members to contribute to theestablishment of the group’s purpose fits the strengths perspective ashighlighted by Kisthardt’s principles regarding collaboration, owner-ship of care, and a belief that people can learn, grow, and change. Simi-larly, Malekoff (2004) suggests that in strengths-based group workwith children and adolescents, group workers decentralize authority bygiving control for decisions back to its members. A significant part ofapplying these strengths-based principles involves the questions thatare asked and the ways that they are asked. The role of language andasking questions in group work that acknowledges client abilities can

80 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

help clients to construct new views of themselves (Greene, Lee, andHoffpauir, 2005).

As the boys in this group were encouraged to talk about how theywould like to spend their time, the issue of culture was raised. The boystalked about the diverse communities from which they came to the pro-gram and expressed their interest in learning more about this. As thegroup talked about their culture, issues such as traditions, food, andcommunity practices were discussed. The clients in this program wereboys who had faced problems such as failed foster placements, prob-lems with the legal system leading to detention, and problems in theeducational system leading to placement in a self-contained classroom.These clients often had difficulty identifying any successes as they havefaced many emotional and behavioral problems. Yet, as they discussedtheir cultures and their communities, there was a pride that could beseen that was not apparent during other discussions. In addition, as themembers shared about their culture, they displayed esteem in the factthat they knew something about which no other group member wasknowledgeable. Malekoff (2004) suggests that groups with children andyouth should “welcome the whole person, not just the troubled parts”(p. 232). By encouraging the group members to talk about their culture,communities, and families, the young people were able to share storiesof success rather than to be limited to discussing their struggles.

As the discussion continued, one client, a Native American boytalked about his family tradition of making Indian Fry bread. The othergroup members supported him by asking if he would show them how tomake the bread. He asked the group worker if he could take one groupsession to show the group how to make this traditional food. As this dis-cussion continued, the other members supported the idea and identifiedfood items that they would also like to make for the group. Coward andDattani (1993) have observed that including the sharing of food ingroups that explore cultural differences can prompt expressions ofvalue, respect, and appreciation within the group. Strengths-based groupwork with children and youth should incorporate both verbal and non-verbal activities (Malekoff, 2004). Each group member decided to teachtheir peers how to make one food that was meaningful to their cultureand family. Each client was responsible for putting together a grocerylist of the items needed. The group worker purchased the items and eachgroup member was put in charge of one group session, teaching theirfellow group members how to make the various cultural foods.

As each member met with the group worker to put together theirshopping list, she again noticed the pride they took in their preparations.

Cynthia A. Lietz 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Similarly, as the members took the leadership needed to teach the groupabout their recipe, the effect was markedly different from previousgroups. In other settings, the group worker observed these clients ex-pressing irritation, impulsiveness, and negative self-statements. Yet,during these cooking presentations, the boys showed leadership, confi-dence, and commitment to the group process. One group member was aLatino youth who used his group session to teach the group membershow to make chimichangas. As he cut the vegetables, cooked the meat,and fried the shells, he made many references to doing it like his motherand grandmother do. The social worker was aware that this client hadrecently had an argument with his mother during a visit home. Never-theless, during his cooking demonstration, he spoke of her with respectand appreciation. Once he finished, he asked if the group could bringsome of the chimichangas they had made to the front office to sharewith the receptionist, nurse, and an administrator at the agency. The so-cial worker agreed, and the group then prepared plates complete withshredded lettuce and sour cream carefully displayed along side thechimichangas to bring up to the office. The facial expressions of theseyouth suggested that they were pleased with their efforts. In previousgroups and in other settings in the program, negative attention seekingwas a common pattern. Yet, in this cooking group, the clients receivedpositive attention for something that they had to offer.

For clients who have faced many struggles, such as children placed ina residential treatment center, the experience of being successful withpeers or in school is not common. Constructing an experience such asthe cooking group that can facilitate success can be powerful (O’Neal,1997).

Daily Unit Group

Group sessions are commonly used in hospital settings as a way oftransitioning clients through the day’s schedule. At the residential treat-ment center, the boys attended school on campus during the day andtransitioned to their units in the afternoon. Unit groups were a part ofthis program for many years and were used, in part, to set a plan for theafternoon and evening activities. The social workers noticed that thetone that was set in the unit groups was often negative. As the programwas seeking to become more strengths-based, one area that was targetedas a potential opportunity for change was the unit groups (Lietz, 2004).

In this group, program staff prepared themselves by reviewing litera-ture on promoting strengths and chose to concentrate on resiliency in

82 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

youth development as a model for restructuring the vision for this group.Wolin and Wolin (1993) conducted a qualitative study that looked atadults who experienced significant risk factors during their childhoodyears. The study identified seven resiliency factors that these adultsidentified that allowed them to be successful despite the difficulties theyfaced. They include insight, humor, relationship, independence, initia-tive, morality/spirituality, and creativity. The residential program staffdecided to focus on one resiliency factor each week, with daily activitiesthat involved talking about, journaling about, and reading about the resil-iency factor of that week (Lietz, 2004). Through this structure, the clientswere able to (1) learn about seven strengths that could help them copewith difficulties they face, (2) talk about times in which they themselveshad used these strengths, and (3) develop a plan regarding how they couldfurther incorporate these strengths into their daily lives.

There was one group session that occurred in which a new client hadbeen admitted to the program. The group members were asked to ex-plain the purpose of this group to this new member. One group membersaid, “In this group, we talk about being resilient.” The social workerasked the members to explain what this meant to them. One client usedthis story to illustrate the concept.

Being resilient means that you are strong even when life is tough.A good example is my aunt. My aunt got leukemia when she wasjust nine years old. She got treatments and missed a whole year ofschool and she was in remission. Now she is 22 and she has hadleukemia two more times since then. What is weird is that my auntnever complains. If anyone had a good reason to complain it wouldbe her. She missed a lot of school, time with her friends, and she al-most died twice. She still might die from leukemia. But, somehowshe is always happy. She never complains. She never yells at any-one. When I think of being “resilient,” I think of her.

As this youth talked about his aunt, the group members listened in-tently. No one interrupted as he shared showing both an interest and re-spect for this story. Once this boy was quiet, there was initially a silence.Then one boy stated:

My mom has lupus and she almost died twice. My dad and brotherand I have had to learn how take care of things when she is sick andin the hospital.

Cynthia A. Lietz 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

The social worker responded stating:

These are great examples of being strong even when things gettough. What do you think helped your aunt Marcus, and you andyour family Roberto, to stay strong?

The group continued by sharing other stories of resilience as well asdiscussing what strengths help us to deal with the difficulties we face.These interchanges show how the group members came to understandthe concept of resilience and about several resiliency factors duringtheir time in this daily group.

The group was successful at changing the negative tone that had beena regular part of this unit group. When the group’s sole focus was onproblems and resulting consequences for acting out behavior (Dwivedi,1993), a negative tone was set in this community. When the group’sfocus was on identifying successes, skill building and resilience, ratherthan deficits, the tone was more open and supportive. Group settingscan give an audience for negative behavior despite efforts by staff to seta positive tone. A strengths-based focus offers members an opportunityto move beyond negativity.

CONCLUSION

These case studies offer three illustrations of how strengths-basedprinciples can be incorporated into group work. They point out theunique opportunity that group work has in identifying and buildingupon client strengths. In individual practice, it is important to help cli-ents to see their strengths. Yet, it can be even more powerful when expe-rienced with one’s peers in a group setting. In individual practice, it isimportant to help clients to seek opportunities in their lives to practicenew skills and experience success. In group work, as illustrated inthe first two groups, clients can use the group experience to demonstrateand share their expertise with others, thereby creating an opportunity, inthe group itself, for success. In individual practice, it is important to talkabout strengths and their impact on a client’s life. In a good group, agroup of peers can exchange personal stories of resilience and receiveinstant validation from their peers.

Social work practice with groups has a long history of valuing em-powerment and mutual aid. As the social worker becomes more alignedwith the strengths perspective, applications of these principles in groupsettings are a natural fit.

84 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

REFERENCES

Berg, I.K. (1994). Family based services: A solution focused approach. New York,NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Blundo, R. (2001). Learning strengths-based practice: Challenging our personal andprofessional frames. Families in Society, 82(3), 296-304.

Burford, G. and Pennell, J. (2004). From agency client to community-based consumer:The family group conference as a consumer-led group in child welfare. InC. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrez and M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work withgroups (pp. 415-432). New York: The Guilford Press.

Coward, B. and Dattani, P. (1993). Race, identity and culture. In K.N. Dwivedi (Ed.),Group work with children and adolescents: A handbook (pp. 245-264). London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Cowger, C., Anderson, K., and Snively, C. (2006). Assessing strengths: The politicalcontext of individual, family, and community empowerment. In D. Saleebey (Ed.),The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 93-115). Boston,MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Dwivedi, K.N. (1993). Conceptual frameworks. In K.N. Dwivedi (Ed.), Group workwith children and adolescents: A handbook (pp. 28-45). London: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.

Early, T. and GlenMaye, L. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with fami-lies from a strengths perspective. Social Work, 45(2), 118-130.

Evans, B. and Cook, P. (1993). Group work in residential child care. In K.N. Dwivedi(Ed.), Group work with children and adolescents: A handbook (pp. 281-289).London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Fatout, M. (1996). Children in groups: A social work perspective. Westport, CT:Auburn House.

Fisher, M. (2004). Groups for substance abuse treatment. In C. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrezand M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 259-276).New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Galinsky, M., Terzian, M., and Fraser, M. (2006). The art of group work practice withmanualized curricula. Social Work with Groups, 29(1), 11-26.

Glodich, A. and Allen, J.G. (1998). Adolescents exposed to violence and abuse: A re-view of the group therapy literature with an emphasis on preventing traumareenactment. Journal of Child & Adolescent Group Therapy, 8(3), 135-154.

Greene, G., Lee, M.L., and Hoffpauir, S. (2005). The languages of empowerment andstrengths in clinical social work: A constructivist perspective. Social Work, 86(2),267-277.

Kelley, P. and Clifford, P. (1997). Coping with chronic pain: Assessing narrativeapproaches. Social Work, 42(3), 266-277.

Kisthardt, W. (2006). The opportunities and challenges of strengths-based, person-centered practice: Purposes, principles, and applications in a climate of systems’integration. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspective in social work practice(4th ed., pp. 171-196). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Kurland, R. and Malekoff, A. (1998). Editorial. Social Work with Groups, 21(1/2), 1-3.

Cynthia A. Lietz 85

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Lee, J. and Swenson, C. (1994). The concept of mutual aid. In A. Gitterman andL. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle(2nd ed., pp. 413-430). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Lietz, C. (2004). Resiliency based social learning: A strengths based approach to resi-dential treatment. Residential treatment for children and youth, 22(2), 21-36.

Malekoff, A. (2004). Strengths-based group work with children and adolescents. InC. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrez and M.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work withgroups (pp. 227-244). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

McCallion, P. and Toseland, R.W. (1995). Supportive group interventions with care-givers of frail older adults. Social Work with Groups, 18(1), 11-25.

McMillen, J.C. (1999). Better for it: How people benefit from adversity. Social Work,44(5), 455-466.

Nadelman, A. (1994). Sharing the hurt: Adolescents in a residential setting. InA. Gitterman and L. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations, andthe life cycle (2nd ed., pp. 163-184). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Nash, J. and Snyder, S. (2004). Prevention groups. In C. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrez andM.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 176-192). NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Nicholson, B. and Kay, D. (1999). Group treatment of traumatized Cambodian Women:A culture-specific approach. Social Work, 44(5), 470-479.

Northen, H. and Kurland, R. (2001). Social work with groups (3rd ed.). New York, NY:Columbia University Press.

O’Neal, G. (1997). Focusing on strength in a special education class: A primary pre-vention approach. Social Work in Education, 19(4), 279-284.

Plasse, B.R. (1995). Parenting groups for recovering addicts in a day treatment center.Social Work, 40(1), 65-74.

Rapp, R. (2006). Strengths-based case management: Enhancing treatment for per-sons with substance abuse problems. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), The strengths perspec-tive in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 128-147). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn &Bacon.

Rhodes, R. and Johnson, A. (1996). Social group work with recovering women: Anempowerment model. In B. Stempler and M. Glass (Eds.), Social group work todayand tomorrow (pp. 87-102). New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Roffman, R. (2004). Psychoeducational groups. In C. Garvin, L.M. Gutierrez andM.J. Galinsky (Eds.), Handbook of social work with groups (pp. 160-175). NewYork, NY: The Guilford Press.

Rubin, M. (2002). Making curriculum purposeful in group work wit persons with se-vere mental illness. In S. Henry and C. Schmitz (Eds.), Social work with groups:Mining the gold (pp. 163-186). New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in social work practice: Extensions andcautions. Social Work, 41(3), 296-305.

Saleebey, D. (2006). Introduction: Power in the people. In D. Saleebey (Ed.), TheStrengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed., pp. 1-24). Boston, MA:Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Sands, R.G. and Solomon, P. (2003). Developing educational groups in social workpractice. Social Work with Groups, 26(2), 5-21.

86 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Schopler, J. and Galinsky, M. (1995). Expanding our view of support groups as opensystems. In M. Galinsky and J. Schopler (Eds.), Support groups: Current perspec-tives on theory and practice (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Shulman, L. (1994). Healing the hurts: Single parents. In A. Gitterman and L. Shulman(Eds.), Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle (2nd ed.,pp. 349-366). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Shulman, L. (1996). Social work and groups: Paradigm shifts for the 1990s. InB. Stempler and M. Glass (Eds.), Social group work today and tomorrow (pp. 1-18).New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Shulman, L. (2006). The skills of helping: Individuals, families, groups, and communi-ties (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson & Brooks/Cole.

Steinberg, D.M. (2004). The mutual-aid approach to working with groups: Helpingpeople help one another (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework: Innovative practice applications.Family Relations, 51(2), 130-137.

White, M. and Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York,NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

Wolin, S. and Wolin, S. (1993). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled familiesrise above adversity. New York, NY: Villard.

MANUSCRIPT RECEIVED: 02/10/06MANUSCRIPT REVISED: 08/14/06

MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED: 09/10/06

doi:10.1300/J009v30n02_07

Cynthia A. Lietz 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Y

ork]

at 1

2:49

01

Oct

ober

201

3