Evidence-Based Group Work in Community Settings

David E. Pollio, Mark J. Macgowan

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780789038517
• eBook ISBN: 9781317993117
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

There has been a strong recent trend towards incorporating evidence into Social Work practice in general, and into group work in particular. This trend has focused on the education of students in the use of evidence, development of evidence-based interventions, and discussion of how evidence can be used to improve practice. A limitation of most of this literature is that it has been written by researchers for the consumption of practitioners, limiting the ability of evidence-based practices to be incorporated into unique community settings and with specific populations. In spite of this difficulty, implementation of evidence-based practices continues quietly in practice settings.

This book describes efforts to integrate evidence into community settings, which have two foci. The first part details group models developed through collaborations between researchers and community agencies. Each chapter details efforts to implement, research, or review programs in community settings. The second part deals with issues around instruction and dissemination of evidence-based group work into practice settings. The volume makes a significant contribution to the discussion about evidence-based group work.

This book was published as a special issue of Social Work with Groups.

Part I: Group Models Developed from Collaborations Between Researchers and Community Agencies

Real Groups: The Design and Immediate Effects of a Prevention Intervention for Latino Children

FLAVIO F. MARSIGLIA and VERÓNICA PEÑA

Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

TANYA NIERI

University of California, Riverside, California, USA

JULIE L. NAGOSHI

Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA

This article describes the development and immediate effects of a small-group intervention designed to complement a school-based prevention program for children and youth. The REAL Groups intervention is the result of a partnership with predominately Mexican American schools located in the central city neighborhoods of a southwestern U.S. metropolitan area. The group members fN = 115) were fifth graders from six central city schools. Group members were identified and referred by their teachers as in need of additional support beyond the keepin ’it REAL classroom-based substance abuse prevention intervention, or they were invited by the referred students. The REAL Groups followed a mutual aid approach, and Masters in Social Work student interns trained in the REAL Groups intervention served as the group facilitators. This article describes the small-group intervention and provides an initial report on the results by comparing the small-group members fn = 115) with Mexican-heritage classmates fn = 306) who only received the classroom-based keepin’ it REAL prevention intervention. This is a feasibility study in preparation for the follow-up study with seventh graders. As expected due to the low drug-use rates reported by fifth-grade participants, the effectiveness results were inconclusive. The immediate findings, however, provide important information about the design and evaluation of culturally specific group interventions with acculturating children. The article provides important methodological and practice implications for small-group school-based interventions as well as recommendations for future research.

INTRODUCTION

The intervention described in this article evolved as part of ongoing efforts to respond to unacceptably high substance-use rates among adolescents (Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2007). Recent research shows that use rates among younger children are also increasing, and their rates and prodrug attitudes are the precursor of future use (Donovan, 2007). These trends are found across all ethnic groups, but the drug abuse literature tends to present Latino immigrant children across the age spectrum as protected from substance use (de la Rosa, 2002; Warner et al., 2006). Acculturation to mainstream American culture has been linked to prodrug norms and attitudes of immigrant Latino children, leading to higher rates of substance use (Kulis, Yabiku, Marsiglia, Nieri, & Crossman, 2007; Marsiglia & Waller, 2002). On the other hand, greater identification with culture of origin has been shown to be protective against substance use (Holley, Kulis, Marsiglia, & Keith, 2006; Marsiglia, Kulis, Hecht, & Sills, 2004). The dislocation produced by migration and the subsequent acculturation process appear to play an important role in the alcohol and other drug-use trajectory of adolescents, but less is known about the experience of younger children and when is the best time to intervene.

Despite a growing recognition of the risk effects of acculturation and the protective elements within cultures of origin, most prevention programs do not clearly integrate culture in their interventions (Gosin, Marsiglia, & Hecht, 2003). One notable exception is keepin’ it REAL (Hecht et al., 2003; Marsiglia et al., 2005), a culturally grounded school-based prevention program that is recognized by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) as a model program. Keepin’ it REAL is a 10-lesson intervention targeting preadolescents, implemented by trained teachers, and accompanied by instructional videos, scripted and filmed by youth. The program aims at preventing substance use by developing children’s capacity to resist drug offers with the REAL (refuse, explain, avoid, and leave) resistance strategies. The main premise of the intervention is that many children initiate substance use not because they desire to use drugs but, rather, because they lack the necessary social skills to successfully resist drug offers (Gosin et al., 2003).

As a universal prevention program (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2003), keepin’ it REAL takes place in regular classrooms within schools across the full spectrum of substance-use risk of the students. The program developers designed REAL Groups as a companion of the larger intervention to address the variation in risk among individual students and to target specifically children that appear to be more vulnerable to use drugs before entering adolescence. The research team, in partnership with the schools, designed and field tested the REAL Groups intervention guided by the following two exploratory hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Students in the REAL Groups will report greater cultural pride, higher self-esteem, and a stronger sense of mutual aid at the completion of the group sessions, relative to baseline. Even though they were at higher risk for substance use, by the time REAL Groups’ members reach middle school they will be expected to report similar use rates of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs than students who only received the classroom-based intervention.

Hypothesis 2: Students identified by their teachers as being at risk and who participate in the classroom-based and the companion small-group interventions will report similar substance use outcomes to those students who received only the classroom-based intervention.

THE MUTUAL AID APPROACH

The REAL Groups intervention follows a mutual aid approach to social work with groups. Mutual aid draws on resilience research, which highlights the value of social support networks and reciprocity in protecting children from negative outcomes and in facilitating their successful development (Bernard, 2004; Lee, 1986; Werner, 1989). Mutual aid is a mechanism for deriving effective support from the group members and for facilitating the creation of support networks (Shulman, 1984). Connections, relationships, and social networks provide the social capital needed to support children through their school adjustment process, and in the case of immigrant children through their acculturation process (Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2003, 2005). In the mutual aid approach, group participants learn and receive support mostly from the other group members; the group facilitator’s role is to support the emergence of the group process (Gitterman, 2005). A positive group process provides the stage for a fluid exchange of thoughts and experiences. Group members encourage and challenge each other through mutual aid, resulting in a collective approach to helping.

Mutual aid strengthens children’s interpersonal relationship skills, further develops their personal identity, and prepares them for adolescence’s decision-making situations (Bernard, 2004; Bogenschneider, 1996; Hair, Jager, & Garret, 2002; Malekoff, 2007). Mutual aid groups encourage children to connect with peers, express their personal power, and practice “equity and inclusion” (Bernard, 2004, p. 126). Mutual aid groups meet children’s developmental needs and assist them to acquire critical-thinking skills, to strengthen their interpersonal relationship skills, and to develop a democratic orientation.

Mutual aid is the appropriate approach to apply with immigrant children coming from communities experiencing dislocation and stressful transitions (Steinberg, 2002). Participating in mutual aid groups enhances the ability of immigrant children to connect with peers going through similar processes (Marsiglia, 2002). Group members learn to identify shared values connected to their culture of origin; and at the same time, they can share with each other possible contradictions they experience between home, school, and peers‘ expectations. This approach allows group participants to contextualize risky situations by identifying challenges, protective factors, and in the case of the REAL Groups learn and rehearse specific drug resistance strategies within a cultural context.

The small-group component follows a culturally grounded orientation— that is, the lessons taught are rooted in the cultural values and norms of the community of origin (Marsiglia & Kulis, 2009). The children learn how to integrate and discuss norms and values of their culture of origin—in this case Mexican/Mexican American culture—as a resource or strength protecting them from drug use. In keeping with the developmental needs and assets of the target age group, the REAL Groups address peer relationships and interactions, prosocial behaviors, school and neighborhood adjustment, and group membership issues (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Phinney, Baumann, & Blanton, 2001; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001; Phinney, Romero, Nava, & Huang, 2001).

REAL Groups: The Design and Implementation of the Small-Group Component

The REAL Groups intervention applies a variety of strategies to incorporate the mutual aid approach. Structured activities offer opportunities to generate relevant group thinking, whereas the group process facilitates reciprocity and authentic dialogue between the group members. Facilitators support group members‘ active participation through brainstorming, listening, evaluating options, planning, rehearsing, role-playing, applying information, and reflecting on life experiences and life choices (Gitterman, 2004; Hart, 1990). The group process promotes reciprocity by emphasizing the common needs of the members and by facilitating the development of multiple helping relationships as members give and receive support from their fellow group members.

The Role of the Group Facilitator

In the REAL Groups, group authority is decentralized and members support each other by sharing their skills and strengths (Steinberg, 1999). The facilitator engages group members as trustworthy experts on the acculturation process, school, and home experiences. The group facilitator supports members to make their voices heard and to exercise their power and potential within the safety of the group (Freire, 1998). Facilitators encourage ownership of the group by posing questions to engage students in the teaching-learning process, and by avoiding lecturing to allow students’ active engagement in setting the direction of the group. Passivity, or the traditional classroom role of spectator, is consistently discouraged; inst...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• From the Editor
• Introduction to Evidence-Based Group Work in Community Settings
• Part I: Group Models Developed from Collaborations Between Researchers and Community Agencies
• Part II: Issues Around Instruction and Dissemination of Evidence-Based Group Work in Practice Settings
• Index