Listen to thisIndividual emotionally disturbed children and adolescents have their own issues and life problems, but residential care, by its very nature, is a group process. In addition, the residential group presents unique problems for staff: members are constantly entering and leaving the group; there are a large number of staff involved in working with residents; “living rooms” become “meeting rooms”, and so on. This article will attempt to examine and identify some specific issues and intervention techniques for staff as they work in this type of setting.
The cottage as a social system
Human beings do not live independently of each other, but rather are
involved in a series of relationship networks which are called social
systems. Members of a social system are interdependent, so that a change
in one will influence the others and the entire system. An example of a
social system is the family. Aspects of social systems include:
statuses and roles which identify one’s place and behavior in the system;
formal and informal rules which guide behavior and influence the way people communicate with one another;
boundaries which are flexible and include those individuals who share the same norms and maintain relationships with the system;
values, which are powerful beliefs, attitudes and prejudices upon which roles, rules and boundaries are based.
The living unit staff come together and form a social system which subscribes to the combined values which the staff bring with them. When adolescents come to the facility, there is a strong possibility of an oppositional social system developing which is based on delinquent values. If this happens, each young person who comes to the living unit must decide whether to join the delinquent system of his peers, or the basically middle-class system of the staff, or be in limbo between the two. The pressure to join the peer system is often much greater than that of the adult system.
It is important for child care workers to recognize the possibility of a delinquent system developing and to develop strategies for working with it. If they focus only on the individual they disregard the peer social system as both a powerful reality in the lives of these individuals and an effective tool for treatment.
Two typical responses to the peer subculture by adults are as follows:
l. The storm trooper approach: The adult develops an extremely rigid structure which gives youngsters few significant choices and which uses power and intimidation to control behavior. Such an approach is often characterized by a very orderly living unit which is always neat and clean, and a very strong identification by the resident with the leader. In this situation, the staff views problems as trouble and they go to great lengths to deal with them rather than having the youngster deal with them. For instance, if there is stealing taking place, the staff will lock everything up and develop a more rigid structure rather than require the residents themselves to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the end result of the storm trooper approach is that often the youngsters will develop adaptive behavior on the surface while the deviant behavior goes underground. Sadly, we find a quick reversion to former anti-social behavior patterns once the youngster leaves the program.
2. The surrender approach: In an attempt to “buy” the cooperation of the residents, the staff provide little structure, have a few confrontations and give much freedom. As indicated in Howard Polsky’s Cottage Six, the staff actually became a part of the delinquent subculture pecking order and in many ways, are controlled and intimidated by it. This approach is characterized by a living unit which is often messy and disorganized and which sustains considerable damage. A great deal of individual counselling takes place as staff attempt to indicate that there is work going on.
The authors advocate an alternative approach, called the “Work-care approach,” which views problems as opportunities for work and which is characterized by:
clear-cut behavioral and responsibility expectations from a strong staff; the conscious development of a culture of concern and responsibility for one another. This is where the “work” comes in and although the description of its implementation is beyond the scope of this summary, it is reflected when there is a change in staff approach from, “It’s none of your business why he ran away,” to “What did any of you do to help him stay here?”
the development of opportunities within the environment in which the group can take control of and responsibility for their lives.
Some of the tasks and techniques of the work-care approach include:
deciding which behavioral expectations are necessary and which are arbitrary;
examining and recognizing the peer culture, both in terms of its negative elements and as a catalyst for change;
staff posturing, which is a general heading for an approach which includes modelling (behavior, concern, reliability, strength, positive values, etc.), avoiding lecturing, active listening, avoiding defensiveness, etc;
a push for “work” by the residents, which means not smoothing over or taking responsibility for solving problems, but helping the youngster to struggle through to a reasonable solution;
maintaining an awareness for and a willingness to intervene in situations which affect members of the social system (moodiness and depression around the holidays, acting out behavior at termination time, sexual acting out behavior on the part of one or more members of the group, new staff members, etc.);
Providing opportunities for the group members to identify themselves as a positive force.
Recognizing the powerful influence which the group has on thinking and behavior of individual members, one can use a variety of groupings in the living unit to carry out treatment tasks and to further reinforce the idea of “work” on problems as the primary reason for the individual being in placement. Three of these unit groups are as follows:
Cottage life groups
A good part of life consists of having to negotiate systems and cottage
meetings can be used as an opportunity for members to work out mutually
agreeable solutions to problems which arise in the process of living
together. Cottage life groups are based on the premise that everything
that happens in the group living situation replicates what has
previously gone on in the youngster’s life. There are a number of issues
specific to cottage life groups of which the staff must remain
cognizant. For example, at the end of the meeting the members do not go
their separate ways, but remain together in the living unit, a situation
which might encourage the existence of a “What’s that you said about my
mother?” syndrome. Thus, staff must take pains to help the group members
to resolve or put aside issues raised until the next meeting. Similarly,
agreement concerning confidentiality of the material discussed must be
forged in order to both protect the members and to encourage them to
talk about personal issues. Finally, the open-ended nature of the group,
with new members constantly coming in and old members leaving, raises
other issues related to security and abandonment, and these, too, must
be sensitively dealt with by the leaders.
Task groups
There are many issues which youngsters feel more comfortable about if
they are dealt with in a group setting rather than individually. Task
groups deal with specific issues such as orientation to the institution,
termination, school problems, or sexuality. The topics of these groups
depend on the needs and interests of youngsters in the living unit at
the time. Task groups may relate either to “emotional” issues or to “functional” issues (such as planning a trip), but regardless, there
will always be an emotional component to the discussion. Again, as in
cottage life groups, the issue of material discussed by the group
outside of the meeting and the maintenance of confidentiality must be
dealt with.
Serendipitous groups
The group process is constantly occurring in the living unit. Residents
are always interacting with one another, reacting to the behavior and
thoughts of others and trying out relationships. The astute worker will
seize on conversations during lunch, “bull” sessions, bus trips, etc. to
help youngsters to work on issues which are important to their growth.
These group encounters give rise to all of the systems characteristic of
the groups previously discussed, including roles, values and rules of
behavior. The worker who can identify this wealth of information and
expression and help the group to reflect on it has taken a major step
toward effective treatment of his or her clients.
Residential care is rich with group work opportunities. This article has identified only three. The worker who wants to be most effective will constantly be aware of, and looking for opportunities to utilize, the unique opportunities presented by this reality.
Recommended Readings
Adler, J. (1981). Relationships with The Group. Fundamentals of Child Care. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Adler, Jack. (1979, Fall). The Child Care Worker’s Leadership in Group Process. Child Care Quarterly, 8(3).
Biolsi, R. & Gerard, R. (1980, Fall). Training and Evaluating Child Care Workers: The identification of Tasks and Skills. Residential and Community Child Care Administration, 1(4).
Gitelson, P., Moore, J. G., & O–Reilly, W. Teaching Group Skills to Child Care Workers. Unpublished. Available from author.
Gitelson, P. (1983, April). Modifying Group Work Techniques with Living Groups in a Residential Milieu. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium on Social Work with Groups: Toronto.
Gitterman, A. & Shulman, L. (Ed.). (1986). Mutual Aid Groups and the Life Cycles. Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.
Jones, M. (1953). The Therapeutic Community: A New Treatment Method in Psychiatry. New York: Basis Books.
Maier, H.W. (Ed.). (1965). Group Work as Part of Residential Treatment. New York: NASW.
Mayer, M.F. (1972, October). The Group in Residential Treatment of Adolescents. Child Welfare, 51(8).
Polsky, H.W. (1962). Cottage Six. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Richardson, C. & Meyer, R.G. (1972, October). Techniques in Guided Group Interaction Programs. Child Welfare, 51(8).
Vorrath, H. H. & Brendtro, L. K. (1974). Positive Peer Culture. New York: Aldini Publishing Company.
This feature: Biolsi, R., & Gitelson, P. (1989) Working with groups in residential settings. Journal of Child and Youth Care, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 17-22
