Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Effects of a Solution-Focused
Mutual Aid Group for Hispanic
Children of Incarcerated Parents
Introduction
The number of incarcerated persons in Americas jails and prisons has
increased dramatically over the past two decades. According to the
1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were approximately five million adults in the United States criminal justice system in 1996 (cited
in DiMascio, 1997). Unfortunately, these numbers continue to rise
steadily. The Department of Justice projects that the federal inmate
David W. Springer, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work,
The University of Texas at Austin. Ms. Lynch, LMSW, is a social work practitioner at
the Caring Family Network in Austin, Texas. Allen Rubin, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP is Bert
Kruger Smith Centennial Professor, School of Social Work, The University of Texas at
Austin. Address correspondence to Dr. David W. Springer, The University of Texas at
Austin, School of Social Work, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd., Austin, TX 78712.
431
432
Literature Review
The literature indicates that the impact of a mother or father being
incarcerated can be traumatic for the child of the offender. It has been
reported that children may experience profound sadness, a sense of
loss similar to a death in the family, a drop in school performance, and
stigma associated with the imprisonment of a family member (Sack,
Seidler, & Thomas, 1976). In addition, some children can become defiant or aggressive and display antisocial behaviors as a result of having a parent incarcerated (Gabel, 1992). A loss of self-esteem, eating
problems, difficulty sleeping, and attachment disorders have also been
mentioned in the literature (Johnston, 1995).
Groups are a recommended intervention strategy for children who
have experienced parental incarceration (Gamer & Schrader, 1985;
Johnston, 1995). To every child, belonging to some group and having
status with his contemporaries is essential (Konopka, 1949, p. 1). According to its proponents, group treatment can address the need for
433
social support and provide a structured setting for expression of members concerns. Furthermore, such groups can create a mechanism for
diffusing the sense of shame that often accompanies parental incarceration. Children learning that other group members have similar experiences offers confirmation, affirmation, and acceptance to the child
(Kahn, 1994, p. 49).
Even though there is support in general for group work with children, including children who have experienced parental incarceration,
there is no available outcome literature on the effectiveness of group
intervention with this population. There is a major lacuna in the available literature to provide guidance (theoretical- and/or outcome-based)
regarding what group modality one should use when conducting
groups with children of incarcerated parents. In fact, the development of the child and adolescent group literature remains considerably delayed (Dagley, Gazda, Eppinger, & Stewart, 1994; cited in
Hoag & Burlingame, 1997), especially when compared to the adult
group literature. Thus, the group leaders in this study had to rely
on their practice experience and on the existing body of literature on
intervention with children in general to guide their decision on what
modalities to use.
Group Approaches
The group leaders integrated techniques and interventions primarily
from three modalities: solution-focused therapy, an interactional approach, and a mutual aid approach. Each is briefly described below.
Solution-focused therapy (SFT) (Berg & de Shazer, 1991; de Shazer,
1985; Selekman, 1997) underscores the positive attributes that clients
bring with them to treatment. It is a strengths-based approach. Using
SFT, clients are encouraged to develop future-oriented, positively
worded goals. Practitioners are encouraged to work in partnership
with the client, and to foster collaborative relationships with resources
(e.g., schools) that may benefit the client.
The interactional (Shulman, 1992; Yalom, 1995) and mutual aid
(Gitterman & Shulman, 1994; Schwartz, 1961) nature of the group
implemented in this project potentially offers several additional benefits to the participants. As the group members interact with one another in the group setting, it does not take long for them to show their
true colors, a phenomenon that Yalom (1995) refers to as the group
as a social microcosm. By focusing on the interactions between mem-
434
bers that take place in the here-and-now of the group experience, children are allowed to learn how they impact or are perceived by their
peers, to get feedback about their behavior, and to practice new skills.
This is achieved in the context of the group members providing support to one another in the form of a helping system.
The rationale behind choosing these particular modalities is rather
straightforward. The mutual aid and interactional approaches together provided the context for how the leaders viewed group process
and development. Viewing the group through a mutual aid and interactional lens, the leaders focus was on encouraging here-and-now
member-to-member interaction so members could use each other as
a source of mutual support. Yaloms (1995) therapeutic factors (e.g.,
universality, instillation of hope) were also used to amplify positive
member-to-member interaction. The mutual aid approach allowed the
leaders to also consider such factors as the childrens culture and any
oppressive forces. Within this context, the solution-focused approach
provided the group leaders with clear, direct intervention techniques
(for example, the scaling question, the miracle question) that are easy
for children to grasp. This approach also focuses on the clients
strengths. This is illustrated below when the group intervention is
described in further detail. (A description of this group intervention
also appears elsewhere [see Springer, Pomeroy, & Johnson, 1999]).
Finally, our rationale for choosing these approaches was based on existing literature that supports the use of these modalities with youth
(Corder, Whiteside, & Haizlip, 1981; Selekman, 1997; Vastola, Nierenberg, & Graham, 1994).
Methodology
Clients
Ten subjects participated in the study: 5 subjects in the experimental
group and 5 subjects in the comparison group. It is recommended that
no more than six members be allowed in a childrens group in order
to meet all of the needs of each member (Tutty & Wagar, 1994). The
research design was quasi-experimental. More specifically, a pretestposttest non-equivalent comparison group design with one dependent
variable was used. Other designs were considered (e.g., pretest-post-
435
test control group design) but were discarded due to the constraints of
conducting the research in a school setting, as described below.
The school counselor at the elementary school had become alarmed
at the growing number of children who were experiencing the impact
of familial incarceration and were exhibiting trauma-reactive behaviors such as depression, aggressive behavior (verbal and physical), lying, stealing, and withdrawal. Thus, the counselor requested that the
schools teachers refer to her any child that would benefit from a group
that addressed having a family member incarcerated. The counselor
took the first five children referred and placed them into the group.
Any subsequent referrals composed the comparison group. It was not
feasible to utilize random assignment in this particular scenario. The
school counselor and teachers were not comfortable randomly withholding services from certain children. Rather, they viewed it as more
fair to provide services on a first-come, first-serve basis and to create
a wait-list comparison group for the remaining children. School administrators also supported this view.
The comparison group was composed of three girls and two boys.
All children in the comparison group were Hispanic American, were
in 4th or 5th grade, and knew a family member in prison. On these
particular characteristics, the comparison and experimental groups
were very similar.
The experimental group was composed of three girls and two boys.
All members shared the following characteristics: they were Hispanic
American, they were in 4th or 5th grade, and they knew a family
member in prison.
The fact that all children in the group were of Hispanic American
ethnicity was extremely important to consider in determining how to
practice in a culturally competent manner. Cartledge, Lee and Feng
(1995) point out several factors to consider when teaching social skills
to Hispanic children. They emphasize that family unity is a sacred
value. This holds special importance for our particular group of children, as they all knew a family member who was incarcerated. Additionally, Cartledge et al. highlight the notion that Hispanic children
may be protective of their Hispanic culture, and that this population is
often expressive and animated in their interpersonal communications.
Such factors were strongly considered throughout the duration of the
group. It is critical that social work practitioners learn to provide culturally competent services to Latino youth at-risk of involvement, or
currently involved in, the juvenile justice system (Pablon, 1998).
436
437
with 1 being really sad and 10 being really happy, what number would
you give yourself?) and to assist with individualized goal-setting.
The majority of time in the first group session was spent getting to
know each other and establishing group rules and expectations. The
group rules included general school rules (e.g., respect property and
others, keep hands and feet to self, one person talking at a time, no
cursing, and follow directions the first time), as well as the rule of
confidentiality. Group members knew prior to the first meeting that
the group was formed for children who had an incarcerated parent.
The group leaders also reminded members that this was a group in
which they could learn about and work toward achieving their target
goal, which they had already identified in the individual screening
meetings with one of the group leaders. With help from the group
leaders, each child stated his or her target goal. Three of the children
seemed relieved to learn that they shared the same goal. Four out of
five group members disclosed fairly superficial information yet were
able to offer support to a member who cried and told of her wish to
spend more time with her father before he was sent back to prison.
One member, who quickly emerged as a natural leader in the group,
sympathized with her by telling the group that he too felt sad that his
father was in prison. The group then played a ball-toss game designed
to facilitate group-building (cohesiveness), in which players told the
group something about themselves each time they caught the ball.
In session two, the leaders continued to focus on group building and
establishing trust with and among group members, who were still hesitant to disclose personal information and feelings. Members cut and
pasted pictures and phrases out of magazines onto a large poster
board that represented them as individuals. For example, one group
member pasted pictures of athletic events on his part of the poster
board. Group members then shared why they pasted what they did on
the collage. There was some reluctance with a couple of the group
members initially to participate in this exercise, but once underway
things went very smoothly. Members learned quite a bit about each
other as a result of this exercise.
By the third group session, members seemed to feel safer within the
group setting and were testing limits a little more. Group members
self-disclosed with low to moderate levels of intensity. However, there
was a discussion around disappointments in group members lives.
Sessions four and five were marked by a high amount of self-disclosure with emotional subject matter. Group members quickly engaged
in a lengthy, in-depth discussion about prison life, visiting family
438
439
whereas many of the comparable measures are strictly uni-dimensional. For example, the Behavioral Self-Concept Scale (BSCS) measures childrens self-concept, but only as it relates to school. Focusing
only on school-related self-concept was thought to be too narrow for
purposes of this study. Two other measures that were considered were
the Rosenberg (1965) and Coopersmith (1967) self-esteem scales.
However, the HSS combines ideas from the Rosenberg and Coopersmith scales, and the Rosenberg does not measure the specific areas
of self-esteem that the HSS does.
Results
The experimental group had the following mean pretest and posttest
scores on the HSS: pretest = 91; posttest = 95.6. The comparison group
had the following mean pretest and posttest scores on the HSS: pretest = 91.4; posttest = 90.4. Thus, there was an increase of 4.6 points
from pretest to posttest for the treatment group, and a decrease of 1
point for the comparison group.
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test revealed significant differences
(alpha = .05; p = .005) in pre- and posttest HSS scores for the experimental group, and revealed no significant differences (alpha = .05; p =
.08) in pre- and posttest HSS scores for the comparison group. The
Wilcoxon is the nonparametric equivalent to the paired-samples t test,
and in this case, tests the hypothesis that the pre- and posttest have
the same distribution. Even when all of the assumptions of the t test
are met, the Wilcoxon has a relative power-efficiency of 95% (Siegel &
Castellan, 1988).
Experimental group subjects were compared to comparison group
subjects on HSS posttest scores using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the pretest as the covariate. No significant differences
were found (F = 1.074, df = 1) between the two groups on posttest
scores at the .05 level.
An effect size (ES) of .57 was computed. According to Cohen (1977),
this is a moderate effect size. The effect size indicates the effect that
the group intervention had on the outcome variable (Rubin & Babbie,
1997), which in this study is self-esteem as measured by the HSS.
The non-significant findings in the analysis of covariance noted above
confound the ES finding, as there is a possibility (p = .335) of Type I
error.
440
441
References
Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1991). Solution talk. In D. Sollee (Ed.), Constructing the
future (pp. 1529). Washington, DC: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
Bjannes, A. (1995). Children and families of prison inmates: A challenge to the research
and service communities. Paper presented at the 42nd Semi-annual Conference of
the Association for Criminal Justice Research, California.
Cartledge, G., Lee, J. W., & Feng, H. (1995). Cultural diversity: Multicultural factors
in teaching social skills. In G. Cartledge & J. F. Milburn (Eds.), Teaching social
skills to children and youth: Innovative approaches (3rd ed.) (pp. 328355). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Child Welfare League of America [CWLA] (1996). Parents in prison: Children in crisis.
Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Corder, B., Whiteside, L., & Haizlip, T. (1981). A study of curative factors in group
psychotherapy with adolescents. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31,
345354.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
DiMascio, W. M. (1997). Seeking justice: Crime and punishment in America. New York,
NY: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent fathers: The issue of separation. Family Process, 31, 303314.
Gamer, T., & Schrader, A. (1985). Children of incarcerated parents. In I. Stuart & I. At
(Eds.), Problems and interventions. Children of separation and divorce: Management and treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhild.
Gitterman, A., & Shulman, L. (Eds.) (1994). Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations,
and the life cycle (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
442
Hare, G. R. (1980). Self-perception and academic achievement: Variations in a desegregated setting. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 683689.
Hoag, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of child and
adolescent group treatment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(3), 234246.
Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.),
Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 5988). New York: Lexington Books.
Kahn, S. R. (1994). Childrens therapy groups: Case studies of prevention, reparation,
and protection through childrens play. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group
Therapy, 4(1), 4760.
Konopka, G. (1949). Therapeutic group work with children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
McWhirter, A., McWhirter, B., McWhirter, E., & McWhirter, J. (1998). At risk youth: A
comprehensive response. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Pablon, E. (1998). Providing culturally competent juvenile justice services to the Latino
community. Professional development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 1(1), 3846.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997). Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Sack, W. H., Seidler, T., & Thomas, S. (1976). Children of imprisoned parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(4), 618628.
Schwartz, W. (1961). The social worker in the group. In New perspectives on services to
groups: Theory, organization, and practice (pp. 734). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Selekman, M. D. (1997). Solution-focused therapy with children: Harnessing family
strengths for systemic change. New York: The Guilford Press.
Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping: Individuals, families, and groups (3rd ed.).
Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Springer, D. W., Pomeroy, E. C., & Johnson, T. (1999). A group intervention for children
of incarcerated parents: Initial blunders and subsequent solutions. Groupwork,
11(1), 5470.
Tutty, L. M., & Wagar, J. (1994). The evolution of a group for young children who have
witnessed family violence. Social Work with Groups, 17(1/2), 89104.
Vastola, J., Nierenberg, A., & Graham, E. H. (1994). The lost and found group: Group
work with bereaved children. In A. Gitterman & L. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid
groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle (2nd ed.) (pp. 8196). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York:
Basic Books.