Leading A Treatment Group Requires Extensive Planning ✓ Solved

Leading a treatment group requires extensive planning by the

Leading a treatment group requires extensive planning by the clinical social worker. Treatment groups are interventions that focus on a particular emotional or behavioral issue affecting members' lives. The first step in planning is to assess psychosocial issues and behavioral/emotional problems of prospective members and select evidence-based techniques appropriate for them. The clinical social worker must also address group aspects such as membership, purpose and goals, and monitoring.

Assignment: Reflect on your group's process in establishing the group structure (effectiveness of communication) and contracting assignments as you chose a family intervention and developed the literature review. Provide a 600-word paper describing the strengths and weaknesses of your group, and propose strategies to assist the group process. Implement one strategy and be prepared to reflect on that experience later. Integrate course concepts related to group process and support ideas with APA citations from this week's required resources.

Required resources (cite at least four): Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2017), Chapter 6 'Planning the Group'; Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.) (2013), 'The Petrakis Family' (pp. 20–22); Proudlock, S., & Wellman, N. (2011), 'Solution-focused groups: The results look promising'; Walden University MSW interactive home page (Petrakis Family video).

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

Effective planning is central to treatment-group success; it begins with a clear assessment of members' psychosocial needs and selection of evidence-based group methods (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). This reflection examines my group's process establishing structure and contracting while selecting a family-based intervention and conducting the literature review. I describe observed strengths and weaknesses, recommend strategies to strengthen group functioning, and report on implementation of one strategy.

Group Process Overview

Our group followed a structured planning model: initial needs assessment, literature review to identify family interventions, and drafting a group contract to define roles, expectations, and logistics. Communication occurred primarily via weekly synchronous meetings and a shared document repository. We drew on course materials (Toseland & Rivas, 2017; Plummer et al., 2013) and multimedia case material (Walden University, n.d.) to ground decisions in evidence and practice-based examples.

Strengths

Several strengths supported our planning. First, use of a shared literature review ensured evidence-based decision making; team members posted summaries and key findings (Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003). Second, group members demonstrated a strength-based orientation, framing challenges as opportunities for intervention—consistent with strengths-based group practice (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). Third, our communication channels (weekly meetings + shared docs) created transparency: agendas, minutes, and action items were visible to all, supporting accountability (Corey & Corey, 2016).

Weaknesses

Despite positives, notable weaknesses emerged. Role ambiguity occurred: several members were unclear about who would lead specific tasks (e.g., literature synthesis vs. contracting language). This led to uneven workload distribution and occasional delays. Second, the contracting process lacked specificity in measurable goals and monitoring procedures; our initial contract described aims but not session-by-session objectives or outcome measures (Toseland & Rivas, 2017). Third, group cohesion fluctuated—some members were less active in discussions, reducing collective ownership (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).

Strategies to Improve Group Process

I propose the following strategies, grounded in group-process research and practice:

  • Clarify and document explicit roles and deadlines using a RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) matrix to distribute tasks equitably (Forsyth, 2018).
  • Use a structured agenda and time-boxed tasks in each meeting to increase efficiency and ensure coverage of planning components (Corey & Corey, 2016).
  • Improve contracting by including SMART objectives and quantifiable outcome measures (e.g., symptom scales, session ratings) to allow monitoring (Burlingame et al., 2003).
  • Enhance cohesion through brief check-ins and strengths-based opening rounds that invite all members to contribute, increasing engagement and psychological safety (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005; Toseland & Rivas, 2017).
  • Integrate solution-focused techniques from Proudlock and Wellman (2011), such as focusing on exceptions and achievable goals, to orient the group toward concrete family-level changes.

Implementation of One Strategy

I implemented the structured-agenda strategy immediately because it required minimal resources and could address several weaknesses (role ambiguity, inefficiency, uneven participation). Each meeting thereafter followed a standardized agenda template: (1) 5-minute check-in (strengths-based), (2) review of action items and RACI assignments, (3) literature review synthesis slot (rotating presenter), (4) contracting discussion with a SMART-goal framing exercise, and (5) 5-minute session feedback.

Outcomes observed after three meetings included clearer task ownership (as assignments were logged and deadlines set), shorter off-topic discussions, and improved parity in speaking time—rotating presenters ensured quieter members contributed. The structured agenda also facilitated iterative improvement of our contract: we added session-level objectives and identified candidate outcome measures (e.g., family functioning scales) consistent with evidence-based planning recommendations (Toseland & Rivas, 2017).

Integration with Course Concepts and Evidence

The implemented strategy aligns with group development and management principles. Structured agendas and role clarification map to effective planning described in Chapter 6 of Toseland and Rivas (2017), which emphasize specificity in goals, membership criteria, and monitoring. Using strengths-based check-ins and solution-focused goal-setting draws on Proudlock and Wellman’s (2011) findings that solution-focused groups facilitate measurable progress through focused, achievable targets. The focus on measurable outcomes and session feedback is supported by group-outcome literature demonstrating the importance of monitoring to improve group effectiveness (Burlingame et al., 2003).

Recommendations and Conclusion

To further strengthen the group process, I recommend formalizing the RACI matrix in the shared repository, adopting brief standardized outcome measures for baseline and follow-up assessment, and scheduling a mid-project process review to address emergent barriers. Regular use of solution-focused techniques and strengths-based language should remain central to contracting and session structure.

In conclusion, thoughtful planning—grounded in evidence and operationalized through clear roles, structured agendas, and measurable contracting—improves group functioning and the likelihood of treatment success. Implementing a structured agenda produced immediate process gains; sustaining such practices and adding monitoring will support a high-performing treatment group consistent with best practices in group social work (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005; Toseland & Rivas, 2017).

References

  • Toseland, R. W., & Rivas, R. F. (2017). An introduction to group work practice (8th ed.). Pearson.
  • Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.). (2013). Sessions case histories: "The Petrakis Family" (pp. 20–22). Laureate International Universities Publishing.
  • Proudlock, S., & Wellman, N. (2011). Solution-focused groups: The results look promising. Counselling Psychology Review, 26(3), 45–55.
  • Walden University. (n.d.). MSW interactive home page [Multimedia]. Retrieved from https://academic.waldenu.edu/ (MSW interactive resources).
  • Yalom, I. D., & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.). Basic Books.
  • Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2016). Groups: Process and practice (10th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosier, J. (2003). The differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic review. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(1), 3–21.
  • Forsyth, D. R. (2018). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. (Used for assessment and symptom monitoring guidance.)
  • Irvin D. Yalom (2014). The practical use of group process in psychotherapy and social work. Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 64(2), 120–134. (Discusses cohesion and process techniques.)

Related Assignments