Similarities and Differences in Casework and Group Work Practice

Author(s): Mary E. Burns and Paul H. Glasser

Source: Social Service Review , Dec., 1963, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Dec., 1963), pp. 416-428
Published by: The University of Chicago Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30017742

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Social Service Review

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN CASEWORK AND
GROUP WORK PRACTICE

MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

This paper has been adapted from a speech prepared for delivery
a meeting of the Council on Social Work Education in Boston, January
1963. The authors are members of the faculty of the School of So
Work of the University of Michigan.

Current interest of casework- The "Working Definition of Social

ers in work with families and Work Practice" of the National Associ-
with groups of clients other ation of Social Workers offers a begin-
than families, and of group workers ning
in general structure within which it is
possible to explore some of the common
understanding and dealing with the in-
dividual personality and behavioral and the distinctive dimensions of the two
problems of their clientele outside methods
of with which we are concerned.3
Space will not allow exhaustive treat-
the group milieu, has led to increased
ment of each area, but the paper will
effort to devise appropriate educational
attempt to indicate profitable directions
measures by which practitioners of each
method may share knowledge with theirfor more thorough analysis.
colleagues. Among the steps which have
VALUES AND SANCTIONS
been taken in our national organization,
in the Curriculum Study, in some Both caseworker and group worker
schools, and in social welfare agencies have the same broad value assumptions
have been efforts to identify some of and with little difficulty can give alle-
the common elements of casework and giance to the values stated in the "work
ing definition," which emphasizes th
group work.1 The purposes of this pres-
entation are to suggest a framework
importance of self-realization for ma
and the belief that more and better
which may lead to a better understand-
knowledge will aid in the achievement
ing of each of the methods and, within
that framework, to begin an identifica-
of this objective. The operational guides
tion of similarities and differences be- ?i.e., instrumental values such as self-
tween group work and casework.2 determination or confidentiality?^pre-
sent potential areas of disagreement.
:lMarjorie Murphy, The Social Group Work
Method in Social Work Education ("The Social Such difference is related not only to
Work Curriculum Study," Vol. XI [New York: variations in process between the two
Council on Social Work Education, 1959]), pp. methods but also to confusion about the
33-35; Commission on Practice of the National
Association of Social Workers, "Working Defini-
utility of these values, as well as to
tions, 1961" (New York: The Association, 1961), changes in understanding and applica-
especially draft statement for social work practice
as a whole and also for group work method; and 2 The authors have expressed appreciation to Ed-
Katherine Kendall, "New Dimensions in Caseworkwin J. Thomas for helpful suggestions which led to
and Group Work Practice: Implications for Pro- many ideas expressed in this paper.
fessional Education," Social Work, IV (October, 8 "Working Definition of Social Work Practice,
1959), 49-56. 1961," op. cit.

416

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 417

tion of instrumental values fromsimilarity

time to exists between the statement
time within the profession as ofa group
whole.work purpose that says that
Continued research and clinicalthis method aims to change objects of
experi-
ence may modify previous viewsgratification
of par- or modes of gratification5
ticular instrumental values.4 and the casework statement that defines
its aim as a process which helps with
Sanctions?that is, the legitimization
of practice through some organization-problems of social malfunctioning.6
al structure, national agency, or law?There is less similarity of either of
these statements to the more open-
represents another area of general simi-
larity. Both caseworkers and group
ended casework purpose of "helping
workers belong to the same national or- clients to achieve maximum self-realiza-
ganization, both operate in or are basedtion." The same may be said about the
in agencies recognized by law or cus- group work purpose of assisting "task-
tom, both have professional training inoriented groups" ?as differentiated from
schools of social work, and broadly, at "growth-oriented groups"?toward so-
least, both are devoted to the same ul- cial betterment through social action.7
timate purposes?those of the profes- Each method of practice seeks, in this
sion of social work. Even the agenciesview, to maximize the capacity of either
that utilize the services of each group
the individual, the group, or society. The
of practitioners have in recent years distinctions lie not in what is the proper
shown increased similarities so that the concern of the social worker?case-
previous demarcations between groupworker or group worker?but rather in
work agencies and casework agencieswhat is the purpose for which interac-
tion with the client is undertaken.
are blurred. Apparent differences often
represent major emphasis rather than The more narrow definitions, with a
exclusiveness of methods of practice. therapeutic focus, emphasize help given
to individuals whose social interactional
PURPOSE
processes are detrimental to their own
Within a broad purpose?thefunctioning
imple- or to that of others. The
menting of the major social work value
therapeutic purpose is to help the in-
of self-realization?divergence dividual
may be to modify his ways of thinking,
seen in statements of the more feeling,
specificperceiving, and acting so that
purposes of group work and casework.
6 Taken from a conversation with Robert D.
The question that arises, however,
Vinter andis implied in his paper, "Essential Com-
ponents
whether the differences are greater with-of Social Group Work Practice" (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan School of Social
in casework or group work than
Work, be-
1959 [mimeographed]).
tween the two methods. In neither prac-
8 Helen Harris Perlman, Social Casework: A
tice method have practitioners Problem-solving
resolved Process (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press,
the problems underlying differences in 1957), p. 4; Werner Boehm, Social
Casework Method in Social Work Education ("The
statements of purpose or reconciled theCurriculum Study," Vol. X [New
Social Work
divergent philosophical stances which
York: Council on Social Work Education, 1959]),
p. 45.
these statements represent. Certainly
7 This terminology is used by Gertrude Wilson in
"The Group Worker's Role in Group Situations,"
4 For further discussion of some of these prob-
lems, see Saul Bernstein, "Self-Determination:
in Murphy, op. cit., pp. 129-68; and Gisela Ko-
King or Citizen in the Realm of Values?" Social
nopka, "Social Group Work: A Social Work
Work, V (January, 1960), 3-8. Method," Social Work, V (October, 1960), 53-61.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
418 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

his social functioning will be

not less
only of difference, as practice knowl-
edge to
troublesome and more satisfying does,
himbut also of similarity.
and to those with whom he interacts. Similarity has existed because prac-
To this degree both casework and group titioners of both methods have recog-
work define their purpose as one which nized that knowledge of human be-
havior is basic wisdom that guides in-
facilitates more satisfactory and satis-
terventional activities toward desired
fying social functioning. Difference then
lies not in the therapeutic aim but ends.
in Difference has existed concerning
the process by which the aim is what knowledge of human behavior
achieved. For purposes of economy and was to be emphasized. Caseworkers tra-
clarity it is this latter view which this ditionally have drawn heavily, and at
paper will take. times almost exclusively, upon individ-
ual psychologies, while group workers
KNOWLEDGE
have used as their guides the content de-
rived
Social work knowledge has tended tofrom education, group process,
be grouped into three generalsocial interaction theory, and other the-
areas:
(1) the social service resourcesory
of dealing
the with aggregates of humani-
community and society; (2) knowledge, ty.9 Caseworkers and group workers
largely experientially derived, of the have tended to regard "their" type of
ways in which a particular practice theory as their private preserve. Too
method can be carried out most success- often practitioners forgot that most of
fully; and (3) knowledge of the be-the knowledge of human behavior is de-
havior of individuals, groups, and largerrived from other professions and dis-
aggregates, as well as the interactions ciplines and is available for adaptation
among these and the interactions withand use not only by all social workers
aspects of the physical environment.8but by all professions working with peo-
The first area of knowledge has longple. Despite continued difference in em-
been deemed the common requisite ofphasis, there have been a steadily in-
all professional social workers, but thecreasing infusion of social-science con-
degree and the ways in which it may betent into the training of caseworkers
used vary widely. Theory and knowl- and a noticeable increase in professional
edge of each practice method have tra- articles dealing with the import for case-
ditionally been more exclusively the workers of some social-science content
property of those who concentrate theirand theory. A flurry of effort reflects
efforts in the particular practice, case- endeavors to apply such theory to prob-
work or group work, for which they arelems of casework concern, such as fam-
trained. (It is, however, worth under-ily diagnosis, family-centered thera-
scoring that this discussion recognizespeutic efforts, and work with individual
the breakdown of the earlier exclusive- clients. Efforts to include relevant and

ness.) The knowledge constituting what valuable social-science content in prac-

might be termed a "middle ground" ?
tice may seem slow, sporadic, and in-
human behavior?constitutes an area complete, but formulating, communicat-
ing, and testing clinical usefulness of
8 These three knowledge areas are reflected in
the "Working Definition of Social Work Practice, ?For a discussion of the foundation of group
1961," op. cit., as well as in curriculum guides pub- work practice, see Clara Kaiser, "The Social Group
lished by the Council on Social Work Education. Work Process," in Murphy, op. at., pp. 115-28.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 419

new knowledge never proceeds at and

vention the technique, are sufficiently
particular to either casework or group
rate desired by its earnest advocates.
Increased emphasis on individual
work to
per-
require more detailed consider-
ation.
sonality theory among group The following schema is sugges-
workers
has proceeded further than emphasis
tive only and
on implies no arbitrary sep-
social-science content among aration
casework-
among its elements. There is, in
ers. It began earlier. Schools of unavoidable
fact, social overlap as well as an
work have long required thatassumption
all stu-of interaction among the
dents take beginning courses in bothof practice that follow.
components
normal and pathological behavior. Such
Basic to the two direct-practice meth-
courses have been devoted to individual ods is the worker-client relationship. A
psychology. This emphasis contributed distinctive difference between the two
heavily to an infusion of such knowl- methods, however, is that in group work
edge into group work practice. System- this relationship often takes place in the
atic teaching of social-science content context of the group, and, further, the
related to groups and social process is practitioner
a must direct his understand-
more recent development. It has been ing and interventions not only to in-
dividuals but also to the group as a
less widespread and has not had the
whole and to the interactions among
duration necessary to make such con-
group members. This difference leads to
tent part of the equipment of a large
variations in practice which will require
segment of the casework practitioner
discussion throughout the remainder of
group. Today it may well be said that
both ideally and practically there this
is paper.
considerable movement toward viewing There are, nonetheless, certain com-
knowledge of human behavior as some- mon aspects of this relationship which
thing of a continuum which ranges from can be viewed as part of the total proc-
the individual at one end to societal or ess. In both group work and casework
perhaps world-wide entities on the other. the interactional situation between the
Within this continuum different bodies client and the worker is essentially
of knowledge may be emphasized in dif- quasi-contractual. That is, the worker
ferent practice methods, but practition- and the client must arrive at some
ers of each method, it appears, will have agreed-upon reciprocal expectations
more knowledge about the entire con-concerning the ends and means of the
tinuum. Much more similarity therefore treatment process. In addition, practi-
can be anticipated in the knowledge oftioner behavior is guided by profession-
human behavior which caseworkers and ally determined expectations. For the
group workers use to guide their pro-worker in each method there is an ex-
fessional practice than was observed in pectation of impartiality, of service
the past. ideals, of commitment to the values and
PROCESS ethics of the profession, and of objec-
tivity and professional discipline based
At this point it becomes necessary
uponto
self-awareness.10 Expectations
depart from the framework of the
10 The importance of worker-client relationships
"Working Definition of Practice"is in or- by both casework and group work,
recognized
der to explicate aspects of practice
and is reflected in the literature extensively. Works
by Hollis, Towle, Perlman, Garrett, and Biestek in
which, although they may be subsumed
casework, and Coyle, Wilson and Ryland, Klein,
under more general headings ofandinter-
Konopka in group work, are examples.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 420 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

about the client's performance have

there are strong potentials for coercion
been less fully explicated. They
because the
involve,
client is dependent upon the
consciously and unconsciously, service
a degree for his welfare or survival.
of commitment to gradual expression
Whether group worker or caseworker,
of his problem as he is aware the
of worker,
it, and in utilizing the motivation
to work on his problem. The of the pace of will rely upon a conscious
client,
the therapeutic endeavor is determined
use of himself in the interpersonal rela-
by his motivation, capacity, and the
tionship to help the client effect changes
treatment considerations involved. toward improvement of social func-
In practice efforts designed to restoretioning.
or enhance social functioning, both Method.?Both caseworker and
casework and group work processes in- group worker are concerned with un-
clude recognition that the areas inderstanding the nature, cause, and pos-
which change is sought will be limitedsible solutions to the problems for which
even though the boundaries of these an individual may be seeking help.
areas may not be precisely perceived.When the group worker has the oppor-
These limitations, at least broadly, aretunity to control admission to and for-
determined by the client's needs and mation of groups, his initial diagnostic
problems and by the scope of changeactivity in relation to the individual
efforts appropriate to the professionalclient will be similar to that of the case-
practice of the worker as the representa-worker. Like the caseworker, he may
tive of a specific agency. Casework and have the benefit of extensive knowledge
group work processes also have in com- of the client from other sources, or he
mon the attribute of rationality. Inmay have little or none. Like the case-
both, the worker responds to the feel- worker, he must arrive at decisions
ing, to the verbalized cognitions, and to about the client's capacity to utilize the
the behavior of the client. The response, particular mode of treatment which the
however, is not merely reactive. It isworker and the agency are equipped to
based upon knowledge of human be- give. Unlike the caseworker, he has to
havior, of social resources, and of make an additional decision about his
the means of the particular practice client. He must evaluate each client in
method.11 relation to the composition and the ac-
Both casework and group work proc- tivity of a particular or projected group.
esses place heavy reliance upon self- To maximize the treatment potential of
motivation of the client and, generally the group for each client, he must be
speaking, use non-coercive methods ofaware of size of group; socioeconomic,
change. Non-coercive methods, how- maturational, and personality differ-
ences; and the potential support or
ever, should not imply that these prac-
tice methods are absent from authorita-stress that may result from the inclusion
of this client in this group. On the basis
tive settings or from settings in which
of his diagnostic evaluation of the in-
n Rationality?i.e., "practice guided by knowl- dividuals, the worker then must make
edge" his commitment to admit or reject this
?is implicit and explicit in the "Working Definition of Social Work Practice, 1961," op. cit.,
person for a particular group, to refer
and in professional publications that have general
usage in methods courses in schools of social work him for another kind of therapeutic pro-
and elsewhere.
cedure, or to place him on a waiting list

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 421

until a suitable group is available. continue to constitute differences which

Thus
the method employed by the group
affect the caseworker or group worker
worker in the initial stage ofinworker- his ongoing therapeutic efforts. The
client interaction is complicated by worker
group the must bear in mind effects
necessity to consider the therapeutic of his treatment interventions not only
value of any group for any individual upon the particular client but upon other
and also to evaluate the impact ofmembers
group any who are perceiving his
individual upon the group. actions and his feeling directly. The
Practitioners of both methods have to caseworker may or may not be dealing
deal with a second type of group, a na- with more than one person, particularly
tural group of relatives and/or friends in family situations. If he is working
who are intimately involved with the with more than one person or in the
patient and his problem outside of themore traditional one-to-one situation,
treatment situation. Furthermore, thethe caseworker must be aware of the
worker generally has minimal controlimpact of therapeutic efforts as they may
over such groups and their members. reverberate among persons intimate-
The traditional social work means for ly involved in the client's difficulties.
Lack of discernment of these reverbera-
handling this difficulty has been to bring
such relatives as spouse or parent into tions, together with inadequate knowl-
the treatment situation by having in- edge concerning them, both in particu-
dividual interviews or group sessionslar cases and in general, constitutes a
with them. The more recent use of real hazard, of which practitioners have
joint interviews and family therapyoften may been generally rather than speci-
be considered a further step in this di- aware.
fically
rection. This difficulty is compounded Context.?The context of the prac-
for the group worker in that such a
tice efforts of caseworkers traditionally
natural group exists for each client is the
in one-to-one interactional situation,
the treatment group. while the group worker works with
Both caseworker and group worker small groups. Recent trends in casework
are faced with the "ready-made" situa- have introduced some modifications of
tion. In casework it is the rule rather the tradition. Family interviewing for
purposes of family diagnosis or treat-
than the exception that the diagnostic
process starts from the unknown andment, joint interviews in marital situa-
moves to the known. The caseworker tions, use of playmate groups in some
and the client constitute, so to speak, aschool social work situations?all have
ready-made group. The group worker
changed the previous exclusiveness of
the one-to-one mode of operation.
very often is faced with this same situa-
Viewed from the perspective of either
tion. It is, however, complicated by the
multiple diagnostic job of understand- tradition or innovation, the caseworker
in interaction with client or clients is
ing not only one but several clients and
still operating in a group. Usually this
their social-functioning problems, while
group is a dyad?a two-person group?
at the same time appraising their inter-
actions in terms of effects upon each it also may be a larger group made
but
other and upon the group as a whole. up of those vitally concerned with the
problem of the person we are wont to
These differences, apparent in the in-
call the "primary" client. Differences
itial phase of casework and group work,

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
422 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

in the dimensions of groups needbeen paid

to beto the potential and actual
contradictory
identified. At least some implications of demands of these roles
these differences should be highlighted,
than to other aspects of casework inter-
action.with-
particularly as they relate to roles Further exploration is needed.
Power
in the group, power structure of in the dyad clearly lies with
the
the caseworker, who brings to it knowl-
group, and size and range of difference
edge and skill upon which the client is
among the members of the group.
Within group structure one dependent
may de-for help. Yet in one vital way
the balancefor
lineate two important roles essential of power lies with the client
to a accom-
perpetuation of the group and greater degree than in larger
plishment of its tasks?thegroups.
"system-Merely by absenting himself
maintenance" role and the "problem-
the client can exercise decisive power
over the existence of the group. This fact
solving" role.12 The system-maintenance
leader has the tasks of being sensitive
may well influence in subtle, or not so
to feeling, of giving supportsubtle, ways the decisions that case-
and reas-
surance, of easing tension?inworkers short, of about professional inter-
make
supporting the emotional components ventions when they are faced with con-
necessary to keep the grouptradictions together between the problem-solving
and able to devote itself to its task. The and the system-maintenance roles. This
problem-solving leader has the task offact may also explain casework's tradi-
proposing the ideas, the leads, the solu- tional interest in the worker-client rela-
tions which are vital to understandingtionship and in transference phenomena.
and solving the problems of the group. Group workers are less vulnerable to
These roles usually devolve upon dif-such contradictions since these roles
ferent individuals within the group. may be filled at different times by mem-
In the casework dyad, however, thebers of the group as well as by the
responsibility for both problem-solvingworker, and since larger groups are not
and system-maintenance rests upon one wholly dependent on the decision of
person, the worker. It is the worker whoone person for continuance. Obvious
must take responsibility both for theexceptions exist when the casework sit-
professional nature and conduct of theuation can be maintained by authority
relationship and for the professional di-or by the administration of concrete
rection of purposive interaction in the services upon which the client is de-
interest of solving or ameliorating thependent.
problem for which the client is seeking Clearly, the contextual differences be-
help.13 It is possible, and at points in-tween casework and group work also
deed probable, that one of these func-offer differences in the degree to which
tions requires action which is contra-the structure and activities of the group
indicated by the simultaneous require-may be modified to accomplish treat-
ments of the other. Less attention has ment ends. Some aspects of this differ-
ence can be mentioned without pretense
12 For the most recent formulation, see Robert F. of exhausting important possibilities
Bales, "Task Roles and Social Roles in Problem-
that need more specific articulation.
solving Groups," in Readings in Social Psychology,
ed. Maccoby, Newcomb, and Hartley (3d ed.; With few exceptions, primarily in work
New York: Henry Holt k Co., 1958), pp. 437-47. with children, the "program activities"
"Perlman, op. cit., pp. 64-83. of the caseworker-client interaction are

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 423

restricted to verbal discussions of the Further study of the differences in ac-

problem at hand, or to matters imping- tivity forms, in roles, and in vulnera-
ing upon the client's problem either in bility of group continuance could in-
crease understanding of relationship
the therapeutic situation itself or in the
and its use for both group workers and
client's life situation. The group worker,
caseworkers.
though he uses the same activity?dis-
cussion?has in addition a potentialInterventional targets.?Both case-
range of program possibilities upon
workers and group workers need clear
which clients can focus interest and
classification of those persons or aspects
of the physical environment toward
from which they may derive satisfac-
tion in addition to that which can ac- which change effort is directed. The con-
crue from improvement in dealing withstant problem of disentangling interven-
their problems. tional goals and techniques from targets,
In addition, the formal structure of athe frequent multiplicity of targets, and
group can sometimes be deliberately differences in traditional terminology
modified by the worker for treatment between the two treatment methods
purposes by appointment of particularhave operated to confuse and obscure
clients to power or prestige roles withinboth similarities and differences in the
the group. For the caseworker such ac- targets toward which professional help
tion is less possible. In the usual dyadic is directed. In the interest of simplicity,
interaction the roles of worker and it may be helpful to consider the pri-
client are predetermined. When the mary target of change as distinct from
casework practitioner is dealing with the
a persons who may be the "primary"
clients, though most frequently these
group such as the family, this "natural"
group has an already existent powerwill be the same. The primary target of
structure and role distribution not change then becomes the human or
easily subject to modification in the physical
in- environment toward which pro-
terest of therapy. To put this more fessional efforts via direct interaction
graphically, the group worker may ap-
are aimed in order to facilitate change.
point a group chairman who will take
Secondary targets are the human or
certain authority and responsibihty, physical
but aspects of the environment for
the caseworker will have more difficulty
which change is sought as the result of
in suggesting or appointing an eight-
change in the primary interventional
year-old child to chair a family group
target. An example may make this dis-
when parents are present. When the tinction clear.
caseworker or group worker handlesUpon a appraising a situation, a worker
"natural" as opposed to a "formed"
may conclude that work with the mother
group, he has less control of the compo-
of a family, with the goal of modifica-
sition of the group as to age, interests,
tion of her ways of being a mother and
spread of abilities, and other variables.
a wife, is the key to changing the whole
These and other factors inherent in way in which a family organizes and
the context in which the caseworker op-"Harry L. Lennard and Arnold Bernstein, in
erates, in contrast to that in which The
theAnatomy of Psychotherapy (New York: Col-
group worker operates, make for umbia
dif- University Press, 1960), present some inter-
esting research findings relative to worker-client
ferences in relationship which have activity
not along these and other small-group dimen-
been explored more than superficially.14
sions.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
424 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

carries out its common family worker would like to achieve during and
activities.
Not only is the mother a keyasperson
a result in
of the treatment process.
the family situation, but she is therefore,
Goals, moti- may be immediate or
vated to change and is available for pro-
long-range. Whether immediate or long-
fessional interaction with the social range, goals should be stated specifi-
worker. The mother, then, becomescally the enough to make possible evaluation
of their attainment throughout, and at
person with whom the direct interaction
takes place, i.e., she is the primary the conclusion of, the treatment process.
tar-
The initial diagnostic process of case-
get of interventional efforts. The other
members of the family?husbandworkers
and and group workers may be
viewed as an immediate goal that is a
children?become secondary targets,
step toward establishment and achieve-
even though the family may have come
ment of long-range goals. Immediate
to the attention of the agency through
goals for practitioners of both methods
one of the other members of the family.
The worker hopes to effect changemayin well include the alleviation of
acute stress-producing factors and re-
the mother, change which in turn will
inforcement of motivation. In different
have a salutary effect upon the whole
family through modifications in ways contexts,
of practitioners of either method
may utilize social service resources to
thinking, feeling, and acting in response
to or reflective of the change inrelieve
the environmental pressures.
mother. The point may well be raised In some situations either the case-
that other members of the family worker
may or the group worker may en-
deavor to achieve only limited, imme-
also need help in order to avail them-
diate, short-range goals. Either may
selves constructively of the changes
which the mother has made. If others have a purely diagnostic function with-
do need direct professional help, theyout ongoing treatment responsibility.
in turn become primary targets of inter-Either method may be utilized to con-
vention, though the goals of interven-vey information to the client or clients,
tion may then be different. to provide appropriate opportunity for
It will be noted that this example hasventilation, to give advice, and to fur-
avoided designating whether the profes-ther short-term educative efforts.
sional method of helping achieve change Interventional goals must be related
is casework or group work. Workersto and consistent with the purpose of
using both methods of practice may social work practice and agency func-
have the same kinds of primary and tion. Often long-range goals, because
secondary interventional targets, maythey have not been stated specifically,
be working with multiple primary orhave been confused with the purpose of
secondary targets, and may find in var-practice. The essential distinction be-
ious situations that the preponderancetween purpose and goals is that purpose
of their interventional activity must beis general, while goals must be stated
directed toward either primary or sec- and their content specified in relation to
ondary targets. the particular client and his particular
Interventional goals.?^Interventionalsituation. Thus interventional goals are
goals may be conceived of as states orstatements of the ways social dysfunc-
conditions of change in social function- tion is to be ameliorated.15 Both group
ing of the client which client and/or "Vinter, op at., pp. 4-6.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 425

of interventional
work and casework statements imply, goals in casework
tended
in the accomplishment of their to reduce the number to two.
goals,
that substitute satisfactions must be The "supportive" level included efforts
sought to replace those surrendered to andhelp the client improve his function-
that internal and external pressures ing within the framework of his estab-
lished ego mechanisms; such efforts
that militate against social functioning
must be reduced or the client's tolerance
were designed to modify the outward
for them must be increased. form of behavior but not to modify
Interventional levels.?Interventional
internal processes. A second level in-
levels are closely related to interven-
cluded efforts to modify not only the
outward form of the client's behavior
tional targets and interventional goals.
In essence, levels are conceptual state-
but also some selected internal psycho-
ments of the specific aspects of func-
logical processes.17
tioning of the person or his social en-Some of the latest thinking about in-
vironment toward which interventional terventional levels reflects the convic-
techniques will be directed in order totion that, rather than discrete levels of
achieve treatment goals particular totreatment, there is actually a continuum
the individual client. To state this some-
of treatment efforts.18 Analysis of case-
what differently, if we consider the in- work process, in this view, lends itself
terventional target as the person andnot so much to a distinction of levels
consider goals as desired steps towardas to recognition that among and with-
accomplishment of practice purpose, wein cases there is a continuum of aspects
may then say that the interventionalof environment or personality toward
level designates that segment of the en-which change endeavors are directed.
vironment or of the personality which Although intervention levels in group
requires a specific kind of modification work have not had a similar history, dis-
in order to achieve the desired inter- tinctive differences in levels have been
ventional goals. It has been thought that
implied among the variety of group
when the interventional target, goals,
therapeutic methods advocated in the
and levels have been determined thehelping professions. For example, the
techniques to be utilized will to some
descriptions of the processes of group
counseling, activity group therapy,
degree be predetermined. This assump-
tion has involved a closer relationship
group therapy, and analytic group psy-
of technique to level than later exper-
16 Lucille N. Austin, "Trends in Differential Treat-
ience has proved valid. ment in Social Casework," Journal of Social Case-
For over a decade and a half case- work, XXIX (June, 1948), 203-11; and Florence
workers have been attempting to iden-Hollis, "The Techniques of Casework," Journal of
Social Casework, XXX (June, 1949), 235-44, and
tify the levels at which the major em-
Women in Marital Conflict (New York: Family
phasis of practice falls in various kinds
Service Association of America, 1949).
17 Several statements of two levels of treatment
of casework situations. Efforts by Hollis
may be found. One clearly and carefully developed
and Austin in discerning and clarifying
is available in "Statement on Social Casework Prac-
levels of treatment are familiar to case- tice" (New York: Community Service Society, 1957
work practitioners.16 Although the two[mimeographed]).
classifications were somewhat different, 18 Florence Hollis, "Analysis of Treatment Meth-
ods and Their Relationship to Personality Change,"
each set forth four levels of interven-
Smith College Studies in Social Work, XXXII
tion. Further exploration of the problem
(February, 1962), 97-117.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
426 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

chotherapy imply considerable different

differ-and possibly more complex
ence in levels. Generally, group work-
concepts may be required. Some of the
ers, like caseworkers, take a flexible more recent
ap- formulations distinguish
proach and work at the level between along thethose interventions intended to
continuum which is appropriate influence the individual client directly
for the
achievement of client goals, consonant in the context of the group and those
with agency policy and services, aimed atand
modification of the structure
of the group as a whole or at the in-
suitable to the training and experience
of the practitioner. teraction among all the members of the
Interventional techniques.?Casework group in order to effect change in a
has developed a considerable particular array of client or clients. A second
techniques which usually aredistinction labeledhas to do with interventions
either by the means used or, more often,
intended to modify the attitudes, feel-
by the intent of the practitioner's ings, or behavior of clients in the pres-
effort.
The exact nature and content of the ent, and interventions expected to lead
to changes in attitudes, feelings, and
verbalizations used to implement partic-
ular techniques are determined by the behavior of clients at some future time.
particular client and the nature of hisThus it is possible to have direct in-
problem and by the activity of the terventions aimed at achieving modifi-
worker. Among caseworkers, agreement cations either in the present or in the
is general rather than particular aboutfuture and indirect efforts similarly
whether certain kinds of practitioner used for present or future effect. Recog-
efforts should be called techniques, and
nition of the four major logical possibil-
about what particular label should be ities from such a formulation of the
assigned to a technique. Although thereframework of intervention may lead to
is general agreement about the meaning more precise delineation of a variety of
of familiar terms such as reassurance, techniques and their potential points
ventilation, clarification, universaliza-
of effectiveness. Such delineation may
tion, and support, there is less agree-also lead to identification and specifica-
ment about other terms such as logicaltion of a variety of more precise tech-
discussion, demonstrating behavior, niques such as the use of the worker
and confrontation. Less consensus is as symbol of or spokesman for legiti-
found about what is included under the mate values and norms, as motivator
particular label of the technique or, andinstimulator of accomplishment of
some cases, about whether such inter- individual tasks, and as definer of group
ventional activity should be consideredpurpose. Much more work is needed to
as a technique. describe clearly particular direct and
The group work method is in a simi- indirect interventional techniques and
lar state of ambiguity concerning inter-
to identify when and under what cir-
vention techniques, although many cumstances
such such techniques will be ef-
techniques have been implied infective
the means to achieve modifications
preceding discussion. When working
in the present or in the future.19
with groups in which discussion is the
main program tool, the practitioner"Vinter (op. cit.) identifies interventional tech-
niques. The relationship between present and future
tends to borrow terms used in casework
orientation and the techniques described is the for-
practice. For activity groups, somewhat
mulation of Paul H. Glasser.

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CASEWORK AND GROUP WORK PRACTICE 427

Phases of treatment.?Theofexistence
the client into the agency and the
diagnosis orby
of phases of treatment is recognized formulation of the treat-
ment goals al-
both caseworkers and group workers, for the particular client.
Treatment
though their identifications then is planned, including
of these
the determination
phases are different and to some degree and formulation of
the tasks inherent in the phases are purposes of a treatment
the particular
group.gener-
somewhat different. Caseworkers This phase is followed by group
ally recognize that, althoughcomposition
the study, and group formation, with
diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation
due regard to the relevant theory about
groups.
processes are simultaneous and The worker, through his direct
ongoing,
and indirect
emphasis among these components dif- interventions, facilitates
fers during the beginningthe phase, the processes of the group
interactional
middle phase, and the terminaland thephase
emergence of the structure
within the group. Group development
of treatment. Implicitly, problem-solv-
and group
ing is a process inherent in each phase,treatment to effect tie in-
but the emphasis and perhaps dividual treatment goals for particular
the prob-
lems under consideration mayclients are sought by the worker
be differ-
through
ent throughout the recognized hisof
phases indirect interventions with
casework. More particular specification
the group and his direct interventional
of the content and processes of with
efforts eachparticular group members.
phase has been attempted. TheThere is, in the treatment se-
final phase
except for the beginning phase, little evaluation and termina-
quence includes
casework explication of variations inactivities.
tion of group
Implicitly
the process from phase to phase. Many and explicitly, both case-
of the formulations about thework
terminal
and group work have recognized
phase in casework have been twoborrowed
additional phases which are part of
from other professions. The aprofession-
total sequence, but which fall outside
the treatment sequence proper. The
al literature reflects less experientially
derived casework knowledge first is the
about occurrence of the client's
this
phase than might be anticipated. This
social dysfunctioning problem which
lack may stem from concentration of outside of and prior to
has its genesis
interest elsewhere or from insufficient the treatment sequence proper. The
experience with planned termination ofconsequence of this problem, or the dis-
casework to provide the knowledge nec-comfort concerning it, is sufficient to
essary to identify differences in proc- bring the client of his own volition, or
esses at this phase of treatment. impelled by others, into interaction with
Group workers have identified phasesthe agency. If the agency offers, and
in the treatment sequence in a way that,the client enters, treatment, the se-
from certain points of view, is somewhatquence of the treatment process begins.
more specific. The different treatment Both casework and group work assume
context?that is, the group itself?andalso a final phase of improvement in the
the utilization of research and theoryclient's social functioning in his life-sit-
related to small groups may have con-uation outside of and beyond the treat-
tributed to this specificity. Group work ment situation. Research evidence tends
phases have been identified. The workerto support this final assumption in
speaks of the intake or initial entrance many therapeutic situations. There is

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
428 MARY E. BURNS AND PAUL H. GLASSER

evidence of continuation or of increase and analysis. The framework derives in

its initial formulation from the "Work-
in the efficiency of the client's social
functioning over time which extends be-ing Definition of Social Work Practice,
yond the end of the treatment proper.1961," and utilizes that statement's
Client comfort with his situation also general areas?values and sanctions,
increases, although increase here seemspurpose, knowledge, and process. Be-
yond this initial formulation, process
to occur more readily and to level off
earlier than his improved social func-
itself has been viewed from the perspec-
tioning.20 tives of context, method, interventional
Comparing casework and group work targets, interventional goals, interven-
development in the identification of tional levels, interventional techniques,
phases in treatment, one may say that and process phases. This scheme offers
caseworkers have within the delinea- opportunity for more careful delineation
tion of beginning, middle, and of
endthe similarities and differences be-
tween these two practice methods.
phases developed the beginning phase
more thoroughly than other phases.The second purpose was to compare,
within this framework, casework and
Group workers have explicated phases
somewhat more specifically and in group
do- work practice.
ing so have drawn upon relevant re-Similarities are most prominent in
values and sanctions, purpose, and
search from other disciplines. It might
knowledge common to the social work
well be that utilization of research, par-
profession. The processes used by the
ticularly that related to the two-person
group, would enable caseworkerspractitioners
to of the two methods reflect
identify more sharply differencessimilarity
in in interventional targets,
process as they may vary from goals,
one and levels. Distinctions are ap-
phase of the sequence to another, and
parent in interventional techniques and
particularly might shed some lightprocess
on phases. Here the different con-
the factors pertinent to the formation,
texts within which practice functions?
development, and continuation of the two-person context of casework
two-person group. and the small-group context of group
work?result in differences in roles and
SUMMARY
power structure within groups, which
This comparison of casework
have and
implications for relationship, con-
group work practice has endeavored to and treatment. The context
tinuance,
achieve two major objectives. The first
of each practice method brings particu-
purpose was to present a framework
lar problems for the practitioner of that
within which the two practice methods
method. It is clear that further analysis
may be compared and which will offer
of these problems can be productive
fruitful avenues and suggest profitable
of knowledge valuable for both case-
dimensions for further investigation
work and group work practice.
20 Jerome D. Frank, M.D., Persuasion and Heal-
ing (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1961). Received January 2,1963

This content downloaded from

111.94.112.25 on Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:08:22 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms