CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
Social Work's Focus of Concern
Every profession has a focus of concern. Social Work as a profession is concerned with the
person-in-his-life situation or, more specifically, the individual's social functioning. Social functioning,
results from the individual's performance of a diversity of roles in society, such as husbands and wives in
their marital roles, in their parental roles if they have children, and in their work roles if they are
employed.
Problems in social functioning occur when the demands of a role do not match a person's
capacities, or when one's role performance is in conflict with those of others. Problems can also occur
because of factors in the environment, such as its failure to provide resources needed for role performance
or because the resources or opportunities that are available are beyond the coping capacities of people;
The goal of social work is the "enhancement of social functioning whenever the need for such is
either socially or individually perceived." This is done through efforts whose aim is to help individuals
deal with their social situations by hanging themselves, their environment, or both.
The activities performed by social workers fall under what have been established as the three
general functions of social work: 1) preventive which is concerned with identifying and dealing with
potential areas of disequilibrium between persons and the environment; 2) remedial (including
rehabilitative) which aims to assist people in identifying and resolving problems that have resulted
from the disequilibrium between themselves and their environment; and 3) developmental which
aims to seek out, identify, and strengthen the maximum potential in individuals, groups and
communities, frequently through the provision of individual and social resources. These functions
are interrelated. In practice, many social workers engage in all three functions, particularly when dealing
with multi-problem client systems.
The functions just described have been and continue to be performed by many social workers
through the separate practice of casework, group work or community organization, the traditional
methods introduced by the Western world, Today, however, the realities and demands of social work
practice in the country appear to make the generalist approach the preferred practice methodology for a
growing number of Social workers.

The Development of Casework, Group Work and Community Organization

In the 1920s, efforts to utilize the casework method in the Philippines were started in the
Associated Charities and in government child welfare services. Many of the first social work-trained
practitioners in the country studied in the United States and came back to introduce casework concepts
and principles in the field and in the few schools established in the early 1950s. It is against this
background that we can understand why casework was for decades, the method of social work that
prevailed in the country, not only in the field of practice but in social work education as well. While the
courses in schools with social work offerings included social casework, social group work and
community organization, social casework appeared to receive the greater emphasis. In addition to the
course on casework, there were courses on the historical development of social work and interviewing
which portrayed the one-to-one helping method. The different fields of social work where social work
students had their practicum (such as hospitals, courts and public assistance agencies) used mainly the
casework method. As a result, many of these agencies came to be called "casework agencies." This
situation continued until the late 1960's when a series of national workshops were held to assess the
objectives and content of social work education and practice in the country, including the matter of social
work methods.
About the same period that casework was starting to be introduced in social welfare agencies in
the country during the 1920s, socio-civic organizations like the Young Men's Chris tian Association
(YMCA) and the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) were already starting leisure time
activities for personality development and character-building purposes. These agencies were introduced
during the period of colonial rule in the Philippines, and their purposes relate to what was termed in the
United States as the "socialization function" of group-serving agencies. They were the first group-serving
agencies in the country and the first teachers of group work were mostly recruited from these agencies.
Unfortunately, the perception in the country of group work as leisure time pursuit which requires mainly
skills in recreational activities made it quite unattractive to social work graduates, compared to the
scenarios conjured by casework practice which in the 50’s and 60’s was being practiced in mental health
and other therapeutic settings." The historical development of group work will be discussed further in the
next chapter
Community organization as practiced in our country today is a far cry from the way it was done
in the late 1950s. It started as "community chest" work, which originated from the United States. The
community chest is a voluntary organization which raises the necessary funds for the operations of its
affiliates or member agencies byway of a united fund campaign. The idea is to exercise economy and
avoid competition in fundraising efforts and to bring about cop operation and coordination among
member agencies so as to avoid duplication of services. The need for a community chest was felt because
of the proliferation of private social welfare organizations after World War 1. The Community Chest of
Greater Manila (CCGM) was organized on December 20, 1949, with 19 private agencies as its first
affiliates. The formation of other community chests in different parts of the country followed and led to
the establishment of an organization called Community Chest and Council of the Philippines (CCCP) in
1970. Its objectives have expanded to now include planning and development of innovative and relevant
programs and services.
The concept of a community chest is in line with one of the objectives of the community
organization method as defined by Dunham, that is, the meeting of broad needs and bringing about and
maintaining adjustments between needs and resources in a community and other areas. Many changes in
"CO practice" have since taken place, including the introduction of different models and approaches in
doing community organization. While the Martial Law period in the 1970s discouraged organizing
efforts, in many instances it had the reverse effect as many social work students and practitioners were all
the more challenged to engage in the kind of organizing activities which Cox, et. al, refer to as the "social
action model" of community organization. 12 Today, community organization is a very popular method,
particularly in social development settings which utilize it as the main helping approach for community
problem-solving.
 These three methods called the traditional methods of social work practice are still widely taught
and practiced as separate methods, not just in our country but, in many parts of the world.

The Generalist Approach

The trend in the last two decades has been to place at the disposal of the professional social
worker a generic helping process for use with all types of client systems and a repertoire of models and
approaches from which the worker can draw selectively, as necessary, given the client problem to be
addressed.
When did we start to consider a generalist orientation for social work practice in the country?
In the first national workshop held to assess the objectives and content of social work education,
Filipino educators and practitioners recommended that as a deliberate force for change, the schools should
teach methods based on the holistic approach so that the individual, the group, and the community are
used as functional points of entry, and develop skills based on the generic aspects of the methods used by
social workers. Furthermore, in 1968, an initial effort was made to develop "models of intervention"
applicable to all types of Filipino client systems. This was premised on the fact that the separate practice
of the three traditional methods by different social workers is not relevant and appropriate to local
realities, ie, there is usually just one social worker responding to the needs and problems presented by a
client system, whether individual, family, group or community. That premise, plus the view that personal
problems cannot be taken out of their situational contexts, has reinforced the belief that what we actually
need are social workers, not "caseworkers," "group workers:' and "C.O. workers." This trend in the
direction of a generalist approach to practice is clearly seen in the more recent social work literature
which uses such terminology as "integrated method," "genetic practice," multi-method practice," "unitary
approach," and "general method of social work practice. These efforts in the direction of a generalist
approach to practice stem from the view that social problems involve different social systems and that one
cannot/should not deal with one system in isolation from other systems. That a social worker has the
capability of dealing with different social systems, i.e., individuals, groups and communities, comes from
the recognition that there is a basic or minimum foundation in values or knowledge that one applies in
practice. We will now review this framework.

Values Foundation
The values foundation of professional social work consists of its philosophy, values, principles
and professional ethics. The philosophy or basic belief of social work is that every human being has
worth (halaga) and dignity (pagkatao). This is true whether one works with that human being on a one-on
one basis, as member of a small group, or as part of a larger collectivity.
Social work adheres to many values, but the ultimate value of the profession rests on the
conviction that it is good and desirable for every human being to fulfill his potential, to realize himself,
and to balance this with equal efforts to help others do the same. This value commitment implies that
every individual has a potential and capacity that can be harnessed toward his own self-realization, but
that the individual also has a social responsibility, that is, to contribute to the common good. This value
commitment is clearly evident in the way a social worker uses the group as an instrument to respond to
the need or problem of one group member even as this person also contributes to the development or
problem solving of other group members.
 Social Workers are guided by basic principles or rules of action which emanate from the belief
that every human being has worth and dignity. Let us briefly review these principles, and how they apply
to work with groups.
1. Acceptance. The social worker’s education and the agency's support of his helping role form
the basis for respecting the group whatever its circumstances.
It means the worker must deal with the group in its own reality. It means understanding the
meaning and causes of the behavior of the individuals that compose the group, and the meaning and
causes of the behavior of the group as a whole. It means that one should always accept the individual and
the group even if one does not always approve of the individual's or group's action.

2. Participation. This principle requires the worker to involve the group in all the steps of
problem-solving. Professional training is not an excuse for taking over" in the course of the helping
relationship. The worker should build upon and utilize the group's own strengths and resources. A wise
move would be to make the group understand that its active involvement is expected from the start until
the end of the helping relationship
3. Self Determination. The worker must respect the group's right to determine its own goals and
the means for achieving them. It is expected, however, that with the worker's presence as a helping
person, he will contribute his knowledge and experience towards the group's problem-solving efforts. A
clear understanding of this principle can help avoid the ever present danger of manipulating the group for
personal ends, or, on the other extreme, of agreeing to everything the group wants to do regardless of its
implications or consequences. Self-determination does not mean that the worker should not intervene or
set limits on plans and actions of the group if it is necessary to do so.
4. Individualization. No two groups are the same even as there are characteristics common to all
groups. It is therefore necessary to know the specifics relating to every group, such as the people that
compose it their concerns, values and attitudes, expectations, goals, etc., the group's level of organization,
its goals, its communication, affectional and leadership structure, and other important dynamics, and the
environment in which the group exists and with which it interacts. The principle of individualization
makes the worker conscious of the group's particular situation, and the need to respond accordingly. This
is especially important in the Philippines where most social workers deal with groups coming from
poverty-stricken families and communities, and it is so easy to make generalizations about the nature of
their needs and problems, which can make one in effective in his helping efforts.
5. Confidentiality. In working with groups, the worker often finds members sharing information
of a confidential nature. Planned group experiences also tend to make for uninhibited expression of
thoughts and feelings. It should be presumed that in these, as in all similar situations, the worker can be
trusted to observe the principle of confidentiality. Certain realities in the Philippine setting, 4g.,
inadequate facilities, a highly personalistic culture ("I think of the group as my family") make the
principle of confidentiality difficult to observe. However, a professional helper should exercise good
judgement and handle a situation in such a way that client privacy is protected. The worker should also
bear in mind that a group situation may have more constraints with regard to the principle of
confidentiality than in a one-to-one helping relationship and so he must know how to set limits on the
extent of sharing confidential information in the group.
 6. Worker self-awareness. This requires self-understanding (beliefs, values, biases, eye.) and
consciousness of one's responses to the group, i.e., whether they are professionally motivated, (ie, to be
helpful to the group) or personally motivated (i.e., to meet his own needs or aim). Self-discipline is
crucial here, considering that in the Philippines majority of the poor feel that they owe the worker a debt
of gratitude ("utang na loob") for helping them. Such a situation makes it easy for the worker to
manipulate a group.
However, it is just as possible for a group to manipulate a worker who is inexperienced and lacks
self-confidence. Given all these, self-awareness, is crucial to effective helping as it makes possible the
workers conscious use of self which is very important in social work.
7. Purposeful relationship. A social worker's professional relationship with a group does not just
happen or move in a desired direction. It is deliberately planned, based on a careful study of the group's
problem or situation. In social work, the generic helping/social work problem-solving process involves a
series of sequential steps which proceed through time, with each step characterized by certain events and
activities unique to it. The steps are: assessment (study and problem definition); action-planning plan im
implementation intervention); evaluation assessment of helping results), and termination of the helping
transaction. Each step has a thrust that gives meaning to the worker-group relationship at any given time.
The steps combine into a process that illustrates a purposeful relationship.
Ethics is the science that is concerned with morals and right conduct. Professional ethics is the
system of ethical principles and rules of conduct which, in social work, is the concrete expression of its
philosophy, values and principles that have just been described. They guide the social worker's
professional relationship with clients, co-workers, the social work profession, the agency, and the
community/public.
Many of these principles and rules of conduct are articulated in the profession's formal, written
Code of Ethics. We are guided not only by the Code of Ethics formulated by the Philippine Association of
Social Workers, but also by the International Federation of Social Workers' 1994 Ethics of Social Work:
Principles and Standards, because the PASW is a member of the IFSW.
In addition, part of the profession's regulative code consists of informal and unwritten rules, ie,
duties and obligations expected from the social worker in his professional dealings with the parties
mentioned earlier. These are the "givens" that do not have to be written down; they come from the
professional social worker’s sense of reason as well as conscience which helps him to discern what is
right from what is wrong
The unwritten rules carry the weight of written prescriptions and are therefore as important as
what are in the Code. This system of ethics - written and unwritten-serves as a compass which guides
social workers on what path to follow in their professional relationships.
Knowledge Foundation
In professional education for social work, the courses are grouped into curriculum areas:
knowledge of the person and the environment, knowledge about social problems and society's response to
them in terms of social welfare policies, programs and services, and knowledge about social work
practice. These curricular areas represent the knowledge Social work students are, taught theories that
help them understand a person in terms of bio-physical and psycho logical factors, and theories that
explain the environment - physical, social, cultural, political and economic forces-all of which influence
behavior. This area of knowledge continues to comprise a major part of the knowledge foundation for
social workers. However, whereas earlier thinking saw the individual and the environment as distinct
units, with a cause-effect relationship between them and usually considered separately, social work
literature in the last decade has increasingly turned to a framework that shows the person situation as an
interrelated whole. This framework is the general systems theory (or ecological systems approach") which
is very useful given the main concern of social work which is social functioning.
All the foundation knowledge about Human Behavior and the Environment-personality theory,
ego psychology theory, learning theory, role theory, communication theory, culture theory, small group
theory, community processes, bureaucracy, -fit into this systems framework.
Another aspect of the knowledge foundation of social work pertains to the varied social problems
that exist today and the Social Welfare Policies, Programs and Services including general policies, laws,
institutions) that respond to the unmet needs of people in society. In working with different kinds of
groups, the worker has to know what unmet human needs are reflected in the problems they present, and
he must utilize the social resources crucial to problem-solving,
The knowledge foundation that refers to the specific area called Social Work Practice includes the
goal of social work (enhancement of the person-situation interaction), its functions (preventive,
remedial/rehabilitative, and develop mental), and the social work helping process consisting of the
steps/processes of Assessment, Action-Planning, Plan Implementation, Evaluation and Termination.
Subsumed under the helping process are different interventive models and approaches, some applicable to
all client systems," and some applicable to particular client systems, ie, individuals, groups and
communities. The use of helping tools/techniques like communication, interview, records,
programs/activities and community resources also form part of the knowledge foundation of social
workers under this area.
To be able to work with a group with some sense of at least beginning competence, the
practitioner must have for a minimum "equipment, the values and knowledge foundations that have just
been presented.

CHAPTER TWO

Social Work with Groups: A Historical Background

Introduction
 Games and recreational activities are what many people associate with social work practice with
groups. I am sure you know of social work agencies that still offer mainly these kinds of experiences as
ends in themselves, or as instruments to meet certain agency objectives. However, social work practice
with groups in the country has changed through the years because of different events which we will now
review,

Before the Sixties: Socialization Goals

I mentioned previously that the development of the social work method of working with groups
or "social, group work" (henceforth to be simply referred to as "group work") may be traced to the
introduction of socio-civic movements during the period of American colonial rule. These movements
included the YMCA (1911), the YWCA (1926), and the Boy Scouts of the Philippines (1936). They
paved the way for the establishment of agencies that used groups for personality development and
character building through wholesome leisure time or recreational activities, Leadership in these groups
was initially carried out by volunteers until these movements moved into the training of workers along the
different agencies' specific programs. Much later, these workers were required by their agencies to take
formal courses in group work.
Many of the first teachers of group work in the Philip pines were formerly employed in these
socio civic agencies. Groups were used for the development of the individual through training in social
skills and inculcating social values. Socialization the process by which people selectively acquire the
values and attitudes of the groups of which they are a part - was the main goal of group-serving social
agencies during their first decades in the country. These agencies' service-users were organized into
groups that participated in wholesome recreational activities such as arts and crafts, camping, sports, etc.,
from which people derived a lot of fun and enjoyment. The socialization goals were perhaps not fully
appreciated, and social work in this field of practice did not seem to be very attractive to social work
graduates. The image of group work as leisure-time activity seems to have persisted despite the fact that
by the late 1950's there were already group-serving agencies like the Philippine Youth Welfare
Coordinating Council using groups for preventive and developmental goals through leadership and skills
training for out-of-school youth. About the same time, social workers in family welfare agencies like the
Foster Parents Plan, Inc. also began organizing groups to promote responsible parenthood, vocational
efficiency, and citizenship training. It is evident that during the fifties, social agencies were, organizing
groups for socialization goals but not anymore by way of recreational activities only.
Even earlier, from 1958 to 1959, the Philippine Mental Health Association already had a
community Outreach program for the prevention of juvenile delinquency in selected communities in the
city of Manila. Based on data obtained on the incidence of juvenile delinquency in the city, we (yes, that
was my first job as a social worker) were able to implement parent-education programs that utilized skits
and drama pre sensations focused on themes related to the problems of delinquency which were discussed
after each presentation.

The Sixties: Prevention, Treatment, and Developmental Goals

By the 1960s, an increasing number of agencies was using the group method for both preventive
and therapeutic purposes. Mental health agencies like the Special Child Study Center, Inc. organized
parents' groups to help the participants to understand, accept, and deal with their children's conditions. At
the Philippine Mental Health Association, this writer was part of a team (consisting of a psychiatrist, a
clinical psychologist, and a psychiatric social worker) which conducted group therapy sessions, including
the use of psycho-drama with emotionally disturbed patients in its Day Care Center.
A great deal of group work was also undertaken in the field of government housing and
resettlement during the sixties. Much of the work involved efforts of social workers in the (then)
Department of Social Welfare. I know this because I supervised a number of graduate students who did
their field practicum in the DSW's numerous tenement housing community centers in the Metropolitan
Manila area. These centers were established mainly to help the tenants deal with common concerns and
problems and to help them integrate into the surrounding community. What the social workers did was to
first form tenants' associations in the housing area. Once this was done, the members would then identify
their common problems and form small groups, each of which dealt with a particular problem. Thus, an
out-of-school youth group would address the problem of idleness, un employment, lack of skills and gang
was among themselves, a group of heads of households would deal with the problem of water supply and
garbage disposal, a mothers' group would address their concerns relating to child cake, household ma
management and family planning. This kind of group work is what is described in social work literature
as developmental group work which is, of course, so different from the leisure time group work activities
that prevailed in the early years, Similar efforts continue and in fact have expanded particularly in
agencies that emphasize socio-economic or livelihood programs.
The contribution of some schools of social work to the development of social group work cannot
be overlooked. It is common knowledge that the need to provide students with experiences in the use of
the method provided some impetus to its further development particularly in demonstrating to social
agencies other approaches to social work with groups. Among the first social group workers in
government housing community centers were University of the Philippines' graduate social work students
who were persuaded to demonstrate this developmentally-oriented form of group work. While convinced
of the relevance of this type of group work, many social agencies suffered from staff limitations and
could embark on innovative programs only with the placement of field practicum students who could do
the work. Two other examples of this can be cited both of which took place during the middle up to the
late sixties: (1) the cooperative endeavor between the Philippine School of Social Work (Philippine
Women's University) and the Philippine Youth Welfare Coordinating Council, where students worked
with youth groups for socialization and development goals and the University of the Philippines (then)
Department of Social Work (now College of Social Work and Community Development) and the St.
Luke's Hospitals field placement program for social work students where preventive and developmental
goals with poverty stricken families being served on an out-patient, basis and therapeutic goals with
patients in the hospital's psychiatric ward were pursued.

The Seventies: Emphasizing Developmental Goals

In the following decade, the government's pursuit of its Development Plan was reflected in efforts
in the Department of Social Welfare (which in 1976 had become, the Department of Social Services and
Development) to undertake developmental programs and services for the bottom 30-percent of the
country's population. Emphasis on developmental social welfare was spurred by the United Nations
declaration of the First Developmental Decade in the sixties and the Second Developmental Decade in the
seventies. Intended mainly to support increased productivity on the part of individuals, groups, and
communities, social workers implemented self-employment assistance, leadership training, day care,
responsible parenthood, and family life education programs. The "barangay approach" facilitates these
efforts, i.e., the use of the existing political structure, the barangay, as the worker's point of entry and the
basis for problem identification and prioritizing. In all these activities, the group was used as the main
instrument of service.
During the late sixties and seventies, social workers in juvenile and domestic relations courts also
used groups to help provide legal offenders with group experiences aimed at their socialization and/or re-
socialization, while those employed in orphanages provided their wards with group experiences for
socialization purposes. These settings were used for the supervised field work of social work students
who needed to be provided with such kinds of experiences. Socialization and re socialization were
therefore important concerns but no longer just through wholesome voluntary leisure time activities as
was the thrust of the socio-civic movements in their earlier years.
The declaration of Martial Law (1972 to 1981) had significant effects on social work education
and practice. The period provoked a great deal of consciousness-raising efforts which were aimed at
making many rural and urban poor citizens realize that many of their problems lack of basic amenities
like water, low-cost housing, medical facilities, employment opportunities, etc.), were due to deficiencies
in their social situations. It became clear that to change or modify the nature of these situations it was
imperative for social workers to help people organize and use themselves as the major resource. Efforts
alone this line again invariably engaged social workers in work with small groups, or, what is referred to
in the literature as "community group work.""

The Present Scene

Today, most social welfare agencies in the country offer some type of group service. Many of
these agencies engage in group service not just for one but for several purposes, developmental,
socialization/re-socialization, and treatment or rehabilitation.
The developmental purpose emphasizes human and community resource mobilization. Examples
are public agencies which invest a major portion of their resources for the support of livelihood programs.
These programs income organizing clients into groups which go through training for leadership and
small-scale business management and then make decisions on the livelihood project(s) to be undertaken,
rules governing collection and payment of loans, marketing of products, etc. Another example would be
the many day care centers whose social work staff organize mothers into groups which are used to help
them, acquire knowledge and skills in effective parenting, household management, personal
enhancement, and the like.
The socialization purpose is carried out by organizing groups that are intended primarily to help
the members to acquire the values, attitudes and norms of the society of which they are a part. Many
public and private agencies and institutions have programs for street children and runaways which focus
on values formation using the group mode of service. Probation officers and correctional institutions also
conduct group programs which emphasize their clients learning or re-learning of acceptable ways of
behaving and handling situations
The treatment purpose focuses on the use of the small group to help individuals who already have
a problem or breakdown in their social functioning. Thus, we find in the country today many social
agencies which organize groups of victims of natural disasters, child abuse, adult sexual abuse, and drug
abuse. There are also group programs for the terminally ill, the physically handicapped, patients
undergoing kidney dialysis, etc. Many of these programs serve mainly therapeutic functions. However,
because of the multi-problem situations of the individual group members, the practitioner working with
the group frequently also engages in more comprehensive case management activities, particularly of the
kind which address groups members' socio-economic concerns and problems.
Except for the limited pursuit of the socialization purpose of group work by socio civic
organizations in the early decades of their existence in the country (1920 to 1960s) and the active pursuit
of developmental group work programs during the seventies, it can be concluded, based on the turn of
events in the last ten or so years, that there is no one group work purpose that has emerged as
predominant. The varied problems confronting Filipino social welfare clients indicate the relevance and
responsiveness of group programs which have developmental, socialization and therapeutic purposes or
goals.
CHAPTER THREE

The Uses of Groups

Today, more than any other time, social workers have vast opportunities to work with different
groups given their employment in an increasingly wide variety of social welfare settings. There are, for
example, opportunities offered in traditional settings" like those found in homes for abandoned and
neglected children, institutions for youth and adult legal offenders, rehabilitation centers for the mentally
and physically handicapped, and health centers and hospitals. Other settings provide opportunities to
work with groups of children and women who are victims of physical and other forms of abuse, former
political prisoners and migrant urban poor and be beneficiaries of livelihood and other economic
development programs. Areas which have been struck by natural disasters also offer a new setting for
group work practice. The group approach can be employed in various phases of disaster response, from
the early phase concerned primarily with resource provision through the subsequent period of
rehabilitation of victims of these disasters.
For social workers, the group approach offers the following advantages:
1. Many individuals feel more comfortable, or are encouraged to participate and share ideas
because of the interaction that takes place in a group. They receive support and assurance from the
realization that other participants have the same, or even more serious problems.
2. Group members receive psychological rewards from the experience of helping others with their
problems. This is the "helper therapy" principle.
3. Internal forces in groups (such as contagion, affectional ties, group pressure, leadership) can
influence attitudes, values and behaviors, making groups potent instruments for effecting desired changes
in the individual and the group.
4. The group lends itself to the use of a variety of activities that are not only relevant to the
group's goals but also respond to the individual members' needs and interests (eg, group discussions,
group dynamics exercises, role play, audio-visuals
5. The cooperative thinking process that takes place in a group, especially if guided properly, can
hasten decision making on the part of its members.
6. Many individuals have similar problems that are best handled with a group engaged in
collective action instead of acting individually.
7. For certain purposes, it may be more economical to work with groups than with individuals.
The best laid-out plans for working with individual clients on a one-to-one basis are often not
implemented in many agencies in the country because of staff constraints. The group approach should be
considered as an alternative, supplemented, if appropriate, with work with individual members.
Given the preceding advantages, social workers form groups because they recognize that groups
can be effectively utilized to bring about planned change. The following are specific reasons for using the
group mode of service:
1. To use the group as the primary means of helping (g, form a treatment/rehabilitation-oriented group for
youth offenders in a correctional institution);
2. To augment individual methods (eg, form a counseling group to reinforce treatment goals in a one-to-
one helping relationship);
3. To augment work with individual families (eg., organize a parents' group);
4. To augment community methods (eg, form a "core group" to facilitate community problem-solving);
and
5. To work with groups in the context of intergroup app roaches at the community level (eg, help a group
become effective in coalitions of various community groups toward defined objectives).

Uses of Groups
Since social workers use the group approach for many reasons and we also realize that there are
many advantages found in this mode of service delivery, let us now study how social workers can use
groups.
There are no clear-cut rules that tell us when or when not to use groups. We know, however, that
the group approach is not useful for all client problems. Margaret E. Hartford's suggestion on the use of
groups can serve as a helpful frame of reference. The targets for what she calls a "common sense
classification" are (1) the individual members; (2) problems in interpersonal relationships; (3) a small
system in the neighborhood, community, or institution; and (4) large systems of institutions, regions,
state, or nation. On the basis of social science theoretical formulae and studies,
Hartford offers the following categories of group use:
1. For effect on participants: socialization - resocialization; acquiring or changing concept of self,
identity, motivation; attitude formation and change, formation and modification of values and beliefs,
behavioral change; achieving a sense of belonging and support, education.
Many social workers today are employed in settings in which the primary purpose for using the
group mode is to effect desired changes on the part of the group members. One example of this is the
work being done in child-caring institutions for former street children. The children are provided with
group experiences that are intended to help them learn or re-learn positive attitudes and values and be
motivated to give up street life. Another example is the work going on with groups of disadvantaged
women in many community social agencies pursuing developmental goals. Through the groups the
women are helped to learn new knowledge and skills that not only help them become better wives and
mothers but also improve their self-esteem which, in turn, leads to even more positive results like the
women becoming contributing members in their respective communities.
2. For collective problem-solving: work on common or joint tasks, particularly in the area of ideas, group
thinking, cognitive, emotional, or social, or individual, group, or social situation.
Many social work groups are organized because there are people who need help in dealing with
their common concerns or problems. In many communities, social workers for resident groups who want
to undertake specific projects like the construction of a multi-purpose community center, or the building
of safe footpaths for school children in the, barangay, or obtaining the needed resources for their group
income-generating business enterprise. Many practitioners, on the other hand, are working with groups in
institutions like those for unwed teenage mothers for whom a guided group experience can help them
decide whether to keep their babies or give them up for adoption, and also help them resolve problems
like family rejection, returning to school of finding employment, and others. Many social workers today
are also working with groups who need help in dealing with crisis situations like male heads of
households who are confronted with, the effects of disasters on themselves as well as their families, and
women who are victims of domestic violence.
3. For change in the social situation or conditions outside the group: modification of the institution or
social system within which the group exists or of the social situation including the community or society -
through pressure, dissemination of information, or organization; modification of attitudes of outsiders.
Many practitioners tend to think of social action or problem. Two examples of such group efforts
stand out among many that have been described to me by social workers. One is about how a group of
mothers in a remote rural area in the Mountain Province was able to pressure their town mayor to order
the closure of a gambling den in the area. The gambling den was operating very near the school premises,
resulting in school truancy and other problems on the part of their teen-age children like hanging around
with undesirable characters and taking alcoholic drinks. The other example is about how a group of eight
patients in a hospital ward succeeded in making the hospital administration change the rules pertaining to
the visiting hours for patients. The rule seemed to have been established to respond to the convenience of
the hospital personnel and did not take into consideration the constraints faced by the patients’ relatives,
many of whom come from distant places. In both examples, the goals were achieved with the worker
serving primarily as a guide and enabler.

How Groups Effect Change

There is a wide selection of social science literature that inform us about how groups bring about
change. Of these, think Dorwin Cartwright's three ways of viewing how groups enter into the process of
change are particularly relevant:
In the first view, the group is seen as a source of influence over its members, Efforts to change behavior can be
supported or blocked by pressures on members stemming from the group. To make constructive use of these pressures the group
must be a medium of change. In the second view, the group itself becomes the target of change. To change the behavior of
individuals it may be necessary to change the leadership, its emotional atmosphere, or its stratification into cliques and
hierarchies Even though the gods may be to change the behavior of individuals, the target of change becomes the group. In the
third view, it is recognized that many changes of behavior can be brought about only by the organized efforts of groups as agents
of change

The Group as Medium of Change

If the group is a "medium of change the target of influence is the individual member, and the
source of that influence is the group (e.g, the members' interaction with each other, the worker and the
interaction with the members). Guided group processes are utilized to help members of the group with
their particular problems. An example of this would be youngsters whose disadvantaged upbringing has
prevented them from learning the norms of the larger society, or who may have learned these but for
some reason, have forgotten them. Others may require guidance in developing their sense of identity or in
enhancing their feeling of be longingness and self-esteem. There are also those who may need help in the
areas of interpersonal relationships, motivation, and learning. In all these situations, the group serves as a
small social system whose influence can guided by the social worker so as to induce desired changes
among individual participants. Thus, the group becomes a medium of change.

The Group as Target of Change

It may also be necessary for the group as a whole or certain aspects of the group to change in
order to effect change in its members, Robert Vinter calls this "indirect means of influence" where
practitioner interventions are used to effect modifications in group conditions which, in turn, affect the
members. These conditions include the group's composition, climate, structure (including size, governing
and operating procedures, and sub-groups) and processes. Use of such means of influence is unique to
group work the group serves as the "action system". Thus, the group's size may have to be changed if it is
affecting the quality of member-member and worker-member interactions and relationship, and a highly
formal or autocratic leadership style may have to be modified if it is blocking individual participation and
group decision making. These and other changes in different aspects of the group system often have to be
undertaken in order to achieve desired effects on the individual members as defined by their treatment or
helping goals. When these are done, the group becomes the target of change.
The Group as Agent of Change
The concept of the group as "agent of change” refers to the active involvement of the group in
efforts to modify, or redirect features or forces in its social environment which make demands, create
pressures, and impose constraints on the group which can have adverse effects on its development and
goal achievement. In many cases, change in the individual or group can only come about after the social
environment has been modified or changed.
The use of the group as an agent of change is done nor only to supplement the worker's own
efforts, but to enable the group to be an active player in its own goal-achieving process. Such an
experience, constantly repeated, helps to develop in the group members a sense of autonomy and
confidence which is what ultimately leads to human empowerment, a priority value in social work.
Vinter and Galinsky state that a group's social environment includes the (a) separate social
affiliations and personal environments of the group's members (e, family, school, etc.) and (b) objects,
persons and other units collectively encountered by the group as a social entity (g, the guards in a
correctional institution, the house parents in a rehabilitation center, local officials who promulgate and
enforce rules). These two environments often overlap (such in the case of a group whose members all
reside in the same institution) but they are also, in many cases, mutually exclusive.
Individual group members, on their own, or with encouragement from the worker may want to
modify some conditions in their personal environments, Group attention can be focused on these, with the
members sharing past experiences, ideas on appropriate behavior, and problem solving tasks.
In the case of homogeneous groups, individual members often find that they have many common
experiences, so, that the group's efforts in dealing with one member's personal situation are also directly
relevant to the other members' own situations.
 The group's effort at modifying conditions in its social environment which impinge on the whole
group may relate to varied concerns such as the lack or absence of essential resources (eg, medical
supplies in a government hospital), unreasonable agency policies and rules, non-observance of laws and
regulations, negative attitudes of service providers, and hostile attitudes of the outside community. The
worker provides the necessary guidance to the group in its efforts at being an agent of change. The change
it seeks is done through information dissemination, persuasion, bargaining or negotiation pressure,
confrontation, and other change techniques. The worker may have to perform varied roles in relation to a
group that seeks to modify its social environment. These roles can include being an information-giver,
facilitator, mediator, counselor, adviser, catalyst, and consultant.
The group's ability to act as an agent of change is affected by the opportunities, facilities and
constraints created or imposed by its own environment. These opportunities and facilities include access
to technical and material resources, provision of physical facilities for group meetings, changes in work
schedules to encourage attendance in group meetings, etc. The constraints, on the other hand, might be
imposed by bureaucratic processes which discourage collective action and create additional problems, or
legal and other restrictions on group activity.
A reciprocal relationship exists between intragroup factors and conditions, and the group's
immediate and broader environment. More specifically, a group exerts greater influence on its
environment (eg, the social agency) if group cohesiveness obtains through individual acceptance or
recognition of the group's leadership, common values, and established norms. When such degree of
cohesiveness gets perceived by and gains adequate recognition from the larger environment, the group
tends to be all the more influential. Similarly, an environment, to be influential on a group, has to be
perceived by the latter as supportive of its efforts to change, or concerned about the group's well-being.
The give and take relationship between the two systems help the group become more effective in
achieving its goals.

An Integrated Approach to Work with Groups

Given existing social and cultural realities in the Philippines, we cannot overemphasize the
interdependent relationship of the group and its environment. Thus, the practitioner who wants to be
effective in the use of the group approach, should be prepared for the challenge of working with a group
on an intragroup level (the group as medium and target of change), and also to engage in extragroup
activities that are essential to group learning and problem-solving with the group as the main resource
(the group as an agent of change).
This stance can very well be called an integrated approach to work with groups in which the
worker uses the group as a medium of change, as a target of change, and as an agent of change. This does
not mean that the worker must use every group as a medium, target, and agent of change in order to be of
help. A generalist orientation to social work practice also does not mean that every practitioner in the
country is expected to engage individuals, groups and communities in the helping process every time he is
dealing with one client system's problem or situation. What is expected is that a social worker will do
what is necessary and appropriate, not withholding any effort that would make for more effective helping
Keeping in mind the preceding discussion on the uses of groups in social work will make for a
better appreciation of the models and approaches in work with groups which will be presented later.