Macro Practice Theories - Empowerment
Macro Practice Theories - Empowerment
Macro Practice Theories - Empowerment
in Social Work
Ruth J. Parsons
INTRODUCTION
The profession of Social Work has historically and traditionally
been concerned with populations at risk. The overriding goal of
social work activity has been to enable people to overcome those
conditions which hinder them from participating in the benefits of
the society, and to get their needs met s o they can develop and
function within their environment to the best of their potential. So-
cial workers have often defined their role as intervention in the
'
transaction between individuals and their environments. Social
. wor k activities have been directed toward both the individual, fam-
ily or group end of that transaction, helping those micro and macro
systcms to change their understanding and coping skills in their
POWERLESSNESS AS A TARGET
OF SOCIAL. WORK INTERVENTION
.Excessive powerlessness felt by the general population has been
a source of much discussion and commentary in recent decades.
Powerlessness is particularly a common condition perceived by
groups in society discriminated against by the general society, such
as lower socio-economic, ethnic minorities, women, the aging pop-
ulation, and handicapped (Kieffer, 1984, pp.9-36; Torre, 1985). But,
powerlessness is viewed not only as a problem of stigmatized
groups, but of the general population (Berger and Neuhaus, 1977,
Ruth J. Parsons
ment of attitudes and beliefs about one's efficajl to take action; the
development of critical thinking about one's world; the acquisition
of knowledge and skills needed to take action; the support and mu-
tual aid of one's peers in any given situation; and the taking of
action to make change in the face of impinging problems. It has
both a processsand an outcome. It is a process in which individuals
become critically aware of their relation to the environment as well
as interactive with it. The critical question is not in which end of
the transaction between individuals and their environment social
work intervention is directed, but for what purpose that intervention
is focused. It is suggested that the focus must be upon the
components of empowerment presented here.
PRACTICE EXAMPLE
The Approach
A social worker assigned to a Head Start agency in an inner city
housing project was asked to intervene with the mothers of specific
children in the Head Start program. The mothers were identified as
having children who were having some difficulty in school. The
women were identified by Head Start staff as being single parents
who seemed to have problems with the discipline of their 'children.
The problems relating to lack of discipline showed up in the class-
room, and were therefore the concern of the teachers.
The worker approached each woman individually to discuss her
child, parenting issues and to assess specifically identified
concerns regarding discipline. While some women identified the
discipline of children as a specific problem, others seemed to view
parenting in stride along with other stress producing situations.
Environmental conditions were identified which contributed to not
only parenting issues, but impacted their lives in general. The
worker did not iden-tify each woman as having a discipline
problem with her child, but instead asked each woman if she would
like to be a part of a group of women much like herself who had
children in the Head Start Center. The worker said the purpose of
the group would be to share parenting hassles and solutions. Seven
women agreed to come to the group and try it out.
The Group
The worker was Anglo, 29 years old, had no children of her own,
and was trained in social group work. She had 3 years pre masters
degree experience working with AFDC programs in Hispanic com-
munities, and two year post masters experience as a group worker.
The group consisted of 7 members initially, all but two were
Hispanic. One was an Anglo woman who was severely scarred
from multiple birth defects and subsequent surgeries. Another An-
glo woman was illiterate. Their ages ranged from 30 to 45. All were
single parents in practice. Two were involved intermittently with
the father of their children (he was in and out of the house). All
were low income, living either on AFDC or at a similar subsistence
level. All lived in a public housing project in the same neighbor-
hood. A Hispanic woman, Lupe, who was a teacher aide in Head
Start joined the group also. She identified with the other women as
single parents, living at a low level of economic security and as
having been in a very similar situation. She also stated that if she
were a group member, it would encourage the other woman to par-
ticipate in the group, which it did.
16 SOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS
The Contract
The worker began the group by supporting all of them for being
a part of a support group wherein we would share common
problems and common solutions about parenting. The group
followed a mu-tual aid model and was left open for development by
members. The model could be characterized as the mainstream
model in its allow-ance for the group to set goals and to set
activities for achieving them (Papell and Rothman, 1980).
The worker reached for the commonality of the group members,
including, but not exclusive to parenting concerns. While members
were willing to share parenting concerns, many other concerns were
voiced very early in the group. These concerns included many
stresses associated with single parenthood such as low incomes,
housing problems including problems in the housing project itself,
ex-husbands, boyfriends, relationships with men in general, and
general feelings of anger about their lives. The anger seemed to be
about being left by men in their lives to raise children by them-
selves, with no support and no economic base from which to do so.
Quickly, the group turned into a venting and sharing of feelings
group. This represented the need to have feelings and perceptions
validated and supported.
The worker assumed a role of facilitating the supportive and vali-
dating environment of the group. The members quickly perceived
themselves to have common feelings, problems, experiences. Feel-
ings regarding their circumstances were heard and validated. The
contracted goals for the group expanded beyond dealing with par-
enting to that of supporting each other in dealing with the stresses
of being poor and being a single parent.
The Group Process
Members were reluctant to trust one another with confidentiality
due to their close living proximity. They were also reluctant to trust
the worker who was from a different social class and lifestyle than
they. Acceptance of the worker as a leader came about partially
because of the presence of Lupe, the Head Start teacher aide and co-
worker in the center. Because Lupe was a teacher and a community
resident, her presence served to bridge the gap between the worker
Ruth J. Parsons
REFERENCES
Albee, G. (1980). A competency model must replace the defect model. In
Bond, L.A. and Rosen J. C.. (Eds.), Competence and coping
during adulthood. Hanover: University Press of New England.
Berger, P. L. & Neuhaus, R. 1. (1977). To empowerpeople. Washington, DC:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (p. 2).
Conway, M. (1979). Risegonna rise. New York: Anchor Books.
Cox, E. (1988). Empowerment interventions in aging. Social Work With
Groups, 1l(4) (pp. 111-125).
Friere, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Germain, C. B. & Gitterman, A. (1980). The life model of social work practice.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Hegar, R. & Hunzeker, 1. (1988). Moving toward empowerment-based
practice in public child welfare. Social Work, 33(6).
Kieffer, C. H. (1981) The emergence of empowennent: The developmenr
of par-licipatory competence among individuals in citizen opnizationr .
Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Kieffer, C.H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective.
Pre-vention in human services, 3 (winter/spring), (pp. 9-36).
Lee, J. (1986). The concept of mutual aid. In Gitterman, A & Schulman, L.
(Eds.). Mutual aid groups and the life cycle. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
Eerncr, M. (1986). Surplus powerlessness. Oakland, Ca.: The Institute
of Labor and Mental Health.
Maluccio, A. (Ed.). (1 981). Promoting competence in clients. London:
The Free Press.
Nisbet, R. (1953). Community and power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Papell, C. & Rothman, B. (1980). Relating the mainstream model and social
Ruth J. Parsons
work with groups to group psychotherapy and the struc!ured group approach.
Social work with groups, 3(2) (pp. 5-23).
Phares, J. (1965). Internal control as a determinant of amount of social influence
exerted. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2(5) (pp. 642-647).
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external
control rein-forcement. Psychological monographs, 80 (p. 1).
Seeman, M. (1985). Alienation studies. In Coleman, J. & Smelser, N.
(Eds), Annual review of sociology, (pp. 91-123).
Seligman, M. (1972). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman & Co.
Sennet, R. and Cobb, J. (1972). The hidden injuries of class. New York:
Vintage Books.
Simmel, G. (1977). The Metropolis and Mental Life. I n Warren, R. (Ed.),
New Perspectives on the American Community (3rd ed.). Chicago:
Rand McNally College Publishing Co.
Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowemtent: Social work in oppressed communi-
ties. New York: Columbia University Press.
Staples, L. (1987). Powerful ideas about empowerment. Unpublished manuscript.
Torre, D. (1985). Empowemtent: Structured conceptualization and instrument
development. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University, New
York.
Webster's New World Dictionary (1982, Second College Edition). New York:
Simon and Schuster.