MSW 551 Module 2: (DISCUSSION) Engagement with Groups

ATTACHED FILE(S)
Module 2: Engaging Groups, Communities, and
Organizations
Definitions of Engagement
True to our ongoing commitment to critically deconstructing the terms we use in social work,
let’s explore the different domains of meaning that are implied in the term engagement. Probably
the first thing we think of when we consider engagement is a professional skill to be learned
during our education as social workers. We see engagement as the first stage in a social worker-
client relationship. We understand that without successful engagement, the other stages
(assessment, intervention, and evaluation) will not be successful either. And when we consider
how to be effective at engagement, we think of interrelated components, such as those necessary
conditions identified by Carl Rogers (1957) in his research-informed practice:
1. Congruence: the willingness to transparently relate to clients without hiding behind a
professional or personal facade.
2. Unconditional positive regard: the therapist offers an acceptance and prizing for their
client for who he or she is without conveying disapproving feelings, actions or
characteristics and demonstrating a willingness to attentively listen without interruption,
judgement or giving advice.
3. Empathy: the therapist communicates their desire to understand and appreciate their
client’s perspective.
This view of engagement is not wrong. Without these conditions or skills, we can’t hope to
connect with our clients and win their trust. But one crucial contribution of the field of social
work is its recognition that all human relationships are embedded in unequal power dynamics
and cultural frictions. We may do more harm than good if we blithely assume that our good will
and lack of negative judgments are enough to telegraph to clients that we are “on their side.”
Instead, we can think of engagement against the backdrop of specific histories of oppression. To
do so we need learn these histories, to understand, for example, how redlining has prevented the
healthy development of a certain Black neighborhood; or how the U.S. government’s placement
of the Navajo reservation surrounding the Hopi mesas created longstanding conflicts over
resources that diverted attention from a lack of federal investment in either tribe.
To clients, we often represent both threat and possibility. The institution of social work has
always served two masters: the marginalized/vulnerable/colonized/oppressed/other, and the
welfare state. On the one hand, the modern welfare state came about as an answer to the cruelties
of unfettered market-based economics and cultural values favoring individual freedoms over
mutual responsibilities. Social workers were instrumental in advocating for and designing the
network of policies that theoretically act as a social safety net. Yet, as discussed in the first half
of advanced practicum, social workers have also been the designated implementers of social
policies that are at best compromises between said economics and values, and a more truly
collective approach to our common welfare.
Why is all this macro-level background important to keep in mind when meeting a client?
Because consciousness of your role within the larger historical context will help you have an
accurate empathic understanding of the people you meet. Being aware of how they may feel
about social services, which have the power to take and withhold and well as the power to give,
will allow you to pick up on signals of ambivalence and distrust. These signals will often be
indirect, because members of oppressed communities are in the unenviable position of having to
present themselves as willing participants in services in order to gain the providers’ good will,
even as they maintain vigilance against social control. In fact, it may be unethical to make too
sharp a distinction between voluntary and involuntary services. Even when help-seeking is
initiated by clients, there is a compulsory element. Often, they would not have taken the risks of
engaging with an agency unless desperate, and their desperation is often the result of failures or
deliberate policies of other institutions that look and sound a lot like yours, complete with
acronyms and bland institutional architecture. Being aware of this potential backdrop can spur
you to emphasize your humanity and the humanity of your client even more strongly, and to
acknowledge the impersonal aspects of the agency and the help-seeking process.

Guiding Metaphors for Engagement
How we engage with clients is often based on guiding metaphors or schemas we carry around
unconsciously. One assumptive framework that helpers often and mistakenly bring to
engagement is the Drama Triangle of perpetrator, victim, and rescuer (Thomas, 2007). The social
worker, is, of course, the rescuer in this framework. The perpetrator may be the client’s abusive
partner, parent, or an organization that the client finds oppressive, like a payday lender or a
megabank with unscrupulous practices. Yet the roles can easily change. If the social worker must
report dangerous behavior and invoke social control, such as arrest, foster care, or involuntary
psychiatric hospitalization, then suddenly the social worker goes from rescuer to perpetrator in
the mind of the client. Or if the client, trying to safeguard their economic well-being or family
unity, lies to the social worker about their income or parenting practices, then the social worker
may feel manipulated and become the victim. It’s even possible that the client becomes the
rescuer, as when an idealistic social worker is viewed as needing protection from grim realities
or when the client feels obliged to educate the social worker about cultural truths.
What framework would be more helpful to effective engagement, and less likely to fall into a
paradigm that replicates unhealthy power relationships? Think back to your immersion
experience working with the hypothetical scenario involving Louisa and her aunt and uncle, as
well as your supervisor. One quality that applies to every participant is in-betweenness. Louisa is
caught in between her feelings for her boyfriend and her desire to not upset her relatives who are
acting as foster parents. They are caught between their support for Louisa’s happiness and their
fear for her safety. You are caught in the same ways and are also situated between Louisa and
her aunt and uncle, as a mediator. Not only that, but you are in between your supervisor and your
clients, seeking to explain your thinking to the former, get feedback, and translate that feedback
into practice.
On a macro level, everyone involved is also in-between: powerful institutions like the
educational system, the criminal justice system, the immigration and naturalization system and
the child welfare system may all exert support and/or control over the lives of Louisa and her
family. And don’t forget the institutions that govern you in this immersion experience: on a
hypothetical level, your field agency, and on a real level, your university, which is in turn
governed by the Council for Social Work Education.
Overwhelmed yet? And this is just a made-up situation! But fear not. The truth is, we have
abundant experience at being in-between. Our lives are inherently made up of these mutually
mediating relationships, where shifts in the needs and wants of the different stakeholders demand
a response in real time. The more of this interdependence we recognize and understand, the more
skillful our responses become. And the engagement framework of “being in-between” has
several advantages over that of “Perpetrator-Victim-Rescuer.”

1. When we recognize that we are in-between, involved from the get-go in mediated
relationships among self, clients, agency, organizations, and historic inequalities, then
we communicate differently. We acknowledge our own role in mediating these forces
and the vulnerabilities and strengths we must respect in playing this role.
2. When we recognize that our clients are in-between, we can help them see their options in
mediating their own relationships with each other and with the institutions and
community partners that influence them. We frame the social problems that clients bring
in terms of the pushes and pulls they experience and share.
3. When we see how we are all in-between together, yet in different positions vis-a-vis
power and privilege, we understand the importance of aligning ourselves with those
pushes and pulls that stand to support client well-being and development, as well as the
important of pushing back against those forces that stand to undermine such well-being
and development.
4. Another result of being “in-between together” is that we convey authentic solidarity with
our clients. From our own lived experience of being in-between, we know how complex
it is to fulfill our roles and meet our mutual responsibilities in a world that is often
organized to undermine that fulfillment.
5. From the perspective of in-between-ness, we can better appreciate the social nature of
meaning-making.We can participate in that process by helping our clients observe how
they are constructing their stories and by extending those stories to include the
underlying love, care, hurt, injustice, helplessness, intelligence, wisdom, perseverance,
courage, loss, and healing that happen when we live in between.
6. By knowing we are located in between our clients and our agency (with its policies,
culture, supervision, and teamwork), we can better interpret and navigate our roles. At
different points we may act as translators, advocates, integrators, coaches, investigators,
and defenders.

Practice Exercise
Let’s imagine that your practicum experience includes clients mandated for treatment,
whom you see at a county jail. For example, partners found guilty of domestic violence
(now referred to more commonly in research literature as Intimate Partner Violence) are
often required to participate in anger management groups as a condition of release. You
are holding your first group meeting today. Having read each participant’s file, you
expect a range of levels of personal accountability. How would you respond to each
group participant’s statement in a way that deepened individual and group
engagement? Remember, on the way to a working relationship the three stages of
engagement are receptivity, expectancy, and investment. These stages apply to groups
as well as to individuals and families. The difference is that these stages apply both
individually and to the group as a whole. Within the group there will be leaders and
followers: those who buy in sooner, and those who are more ambivalent. Review each
group member statement below, and think about how you can utilize the power of the
group itself in your responses.
Group Engagement
1. Group Member Statement: “This is bullshit. It takes two to tango. Every time I
lost my temper, she pushed and pushed until I couldn’t help it.”
Your Response:“You’re right, it does take two to tango. I’m sure a lot of people
in this room have similar experiences. We’ll look at what pushes each of your
buttons and what choices you have when that happens. When we get to that
part of the conversation, would you be okay with sharing what she does that
makes it hard for you to control yourself?”
2. Group Member Statement: “I’m just here to get my card checked and get out of
here. I’ve already learned my lesson.”
Your Response:“It sounds like you feel pretty confident that you won’t repeat
the same mistakes. I wonder if other group members might benefit from your
experience. How did you learn your lesson?”
3. Group Member Statement: “What do you know about real life? You look like
you’re about 15 years old. Go out and get roughed up a little, and then see if
you have something to teach me.”
Your Response:“You have every right to doubt my ability to help you. That’s
one reason we do this in groups. My job isn’t to dispense advice about how you
should live your life. It’s more about setting up the rules and the topics so you
can help each other.”
4. Group Member Statement: Hey, guys. You won’t believe what the guard told
me last night. So juicy!Your Response: “It sounds like you have a great story
to tell, but I’m going to ask you to hold off until the group is over. We could
easily tell stories for the whole two hours, and I’m sure you’re not the only one
with a good one, but if we don’t stick to the mission you won’t get off probation
and you won’t learn what you need to stay off. Speaking of which, that’s my first
question for each of you: Why are you here?”
As you can see, as a group facilitator entering into a subculture with different rules of
engagement, you have to find a way to create strong group norms without alienating the
members. Every response you make tells the members what kind of group you are
hoping to create. While establishing roles can be collaborative, in group settings much
of this work is done during group screening and orientation. By the time the first group
meeting is held, there should be an intellectual agreement as to the purpose of the
group, based on the goals of the members (even if those goals are simply to conform
with requirements). The first two or three sessions are then devoted to converting this
intellectual agreement into an emotional investment.
Summary
In this second week of our focus on engagement, we have gone beyond individual and
family engagement to learn about how to apply the same principles to engaging groups,
communities, and organizations. We have challenged you to be alert for the impulse to
be a rescuer, and instead see yourself as a bridge, connecting clients to their own
histories, resources, and each other. We have considered the deeper global meaning of
being in-between: a condition of interdependent humanity that we share with our clients.
We have used case examples to get a feel for how the engagement process (gathering
information, bracketing biases, making human connections, and collaboratively
determining roles, problems, goals and methods) happens on mezzo and macro levels.
We have also left the comfort of more familiar settings to see how being both flexible
and goal-focused looks when we are the cultural minority, whether in a rural community
in a developing country, a prison, or a foster home. One of the greatest rewards of
globally aware social work is that is changes us if we let it. Engagement is much more
than a set of techniques. It is a way of life.
Next up we will seek to understand the assessment process infused with global values.
It is tempting to go right from engagement to planning for action. After all, we now know
what our clients want and, to some degree, how we can help them get there. We’ve
done a lot of assessment already as we’ve engaged individuals, families, groups and
communities regarding their problems. But short-cuts in the assessment process often
lead to dead ends in the intervention stage. Over the next two weeks we will delve into
the assessment process. Since assessment is continual, start thinking now about what
you know and don’t know about your clients, and notice how you play an active role in
constructing that knowledge.

Social Work in Global Settings
Perhaps the ultimate experience of being in-between, and one that can help us empathize more
fully with displaced people, is that of international social work. While global social work has
been defined so far in terms of global values and awareness of global trends that impact
vulnerable people, we can also look at global social work as what occurs in international settings.
Although your practicum setting is (as of this writing, anyway!) within the boundaries of the
United States, you should be prepared to translate your practice to settings in which the
worldviews and resources are vastly different. We will examine a case study (from the actual
experience of the author’s friend) that sheds light on this process of translation. This example
also demonstrates how social workers can effectively situate themselves between communities
and organizations, bringing to light opportunities for solving social problems that were latent but
not yet visible.
Group Engagement
Whether inside the walls of a community-based organization, or out in the community itself,
social work often involves getting together with groups. Some of these groups are already
formed along natural lines of affiliation, such as the fisherfolk in the case study above, and some
are formed intentionally with help from the organization, to meet a specific need at a specific
time. A global approach to group engagement means creating norms of mutual respect and
recognizing the interdependence, resilience, and history of the community you serve. The word
“community” may also be deceiving, because members of oppressed/marginalized/colonized
populations often do not have a strong sense of cohesion. Those who are clients of social service
agencies are often there because they have fallen through the cracks and may not be considered
community members in good standing. They may be dealing with a great deal of shame and
internalized messages about their “badness.” One purpose of group engagement, then, is to
restore the sense of belonging: first to the group as a microcosm, and then to the community
itself.
Practice Exercise
Let’s imagine that your practicum experience includes clients mandated for treatment, whom you
see at a county jail. For example, partners found guilty of domestic violence (now referred to
more commonly in research literature as Intimate Partner Violence) are often required to
participate in anger management groups as a condition of release. You are holding your first
group meeting today. Having read each participant’s file, you expect a range of levels of
personal accountability. How would you respond to each group participant’s statement in a way
that deepened individual and group engagement? Remember, on the way to a working
relationship the three stages of engagement are receptivity, expectancy, and investment. These
stages apply to groups as well as to individuals and families. The difference is that these stages
apply both individually and to the group as a whole. Within the group there will be leaders and
followers: those who buy in sooner, and those who are more ambivalent. Review each group
member statement below, and think about how you can utilize the power of the group itself in
your responses.
Summary
In this second week of our focus on engagement, we have gone beyond individual and
family engagement to learn about how to apply the same principles to engaging groups,
communities, and organizations. We have challenged you to be alert for the impulse to
be a rescuer, and instead see yourself as a bridge, connecting clients to their own
histories, resources, and each other. We have considered the deeper global meaning of
being in-between: a condition of interdependent humanity that we share with our clients.
We have used case examples to get a feel for how the engagement process (gathering
information, bracketing biases, making human connections, and collaboratively
determining roles, problems, goals and methods) happens on mezzo and macro levels.
We have also left the comfort of more familiar settings to see how being both flexible
and goal-focused looks when we are the cultural minority, whether in a rural community
in a developing country, a prison, or a foster home. One of the greatest rewards of
globally aware social work is that is changes us if we let it. Engagement is much more
than a set of techniques. It is a way of life.
Next up we will seek to understand the assessment process infused with global values.
It is tempting to go right from engagement to planning for action. After all, we now know
what our clients want and, to some degree, how we can help them get there. We’ve
done a lot of assessment already as we’ve engaged individuals, families, groups and
communities regarding their problems. But short-cuts in the assessment process often
lead to dead ends in the intervention stage. Over the next two weeks we will delve into
the assessment process. Since assessment is continual, start thinking now about what
you know and don’t know about your clients, and notice how you play an active role in
constructing that knowledge.
References
Coleman, M., & Agnew, J., Eds. (2018). Handbook on the geographies of power. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.

Module 2: Engagement with Groups
Share an experience of engaging a group in which finding common ground was
challenging.