This article was downloaded by: [Monash University Library]On: 01 October 2013, At: 12:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social Work With GroupsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20

Exploring Autonomy in Group WorkPractice with Persons with IntellectualDisabilitiesIrene Carter a , Sharon Munro b & Sumaiya Matin aa School of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario,Canadab Leddy Library, Social Work and Human Kinetics, University ofWindsor, Windsor, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 28 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Irene Carter , Sharon Munro & Sumaiya Matin (2013) Exploring Autonomy in GroupWork Practice with Persons with Intellectual Disabilities, Social Work With Groups, 36:2-3, 236-248,DOI: 10.1080/01609513.2012.762618

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2012.762618

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social Work with Groups, 36:236–248, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0160-9513 print/1540-9481 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01609513.2012.762618

Exploring Autonomy in GroupWork Practice with Personswith Intellectual Disabilities

IRENE CARTERSchool of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

SHARON MUNROLeddy Library, Social Work and Human Kinetics, University of Windsor,

Windsor, Ontario, Canada

SUMAIYA MATINSchool of Social Work, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Preserving the autonomy of individuals with intellectual disabili-ties in group work is challenging. Group workers often experienceinadequate guidance about autonomy—an individual’s capabilityto act independently without influence by others. Group work-ers can enhance autonomy through group activities that promoteself-efficacy, empowerment, and the ability to make decisions.Fostering autonomy requires that the group workers be knowledge-able and aware of personal biases, analyzing their expectationsand actions. To promote the autonomy of persons with intellectualdisabilities in group work practice, the authors make recommenda-tions to strengthen the IASWG Standards for Social Work Practicewith Groups in this area.

KEYWORDS intellectual disability, autonomy, group work,IASWG and AASWG, standards

This article explores the topic of autonomy and persons with intellectualdisabilities (ID) in social work with groups. Intellectual disability, oftenreferred to as cognitive disability, is a term applied to persons with certainlimitations in mental functioning that affects skills such as communicating,

Received: February 5, 2012; Revised May 7, 2012; Accepted: July 8, 2012.Address correspondence to Irene Carter, Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Univ-

ersity of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4. E-mail: icarter@uwindsor.ca

236

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 237

providing personal care, and social skills. Individuals with ID often requiremore time to learn, and there may be some things that they are notable to learn (National Dissemination Centre for Children with Disabilities,2012). The distinction between ID and developmental disabilities is thatID refers to life-long impairments attributable to mental and/or physicaldisabilities, such as autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, or Down’s syn-drome (Developmental Disabilities Association, 2012). Seven to eight millionAmericans have an ID, a diagnosis that involves significant limitations withregard to intellectual functioning and that originates before age 18 (AmericanAssociation on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDS; 2011).AAIDS expects professionals to tailor a support plan for an individual withID that takes into account factors such as the environment, diversity, culturaldifferences, and client strengths. AAIDS also advises that, with appropriatesupports, overall functioning of persons with ID should improve, includingtheir autonomy.

Social work views autonomy as “an individual’s sense of being capa-ble of independent action,” and “independence from the control of others”(Barker, 2003, p. 34). The term autonomy is often used interchangeablywith self-determination, which is “the ability of people to determine theirown fate or course of action, as well as the freedom of a group to deter-mine their own political status and independence” (Kelm, 2009, p. 15). Theautonomous/self-determined individual is a causal agent who makes choicesand is an actor in shaping his or her life. Making choices involves beingable to decide actively between alternatives without force or passive com-pliance. Persons with ID often have the opportunity to express preferences.However, the amount of influence they have in choosing options is limited,as external service providers and societal attitudes play a significant role inthe availability of options (Kelm, 2009). There is growing evidence that envi-ronmental factors have an impact on self-determination, and that personswith ID may become more self-determined if they are provided with ade-quate supports (Nota, Ferrari, Soresi, & Wehmeyer, 2007). This suggests thatgroup workers may play an invaluable role in influencing the developmentof autonomy in persons with ID. For example, group dynamics demonstratecurrent sociocultural norms by which assertion of an individual’s distinctidentity may be suppressed or supported. An experienced group workercan make group members aware of such situations and encourage them toengage in reflective thinking.

One of the core values for the Standards for Social Work Practice withGroups of the International Association for Social Work with Groups (IASWG;formerly known as the Association for the Advancement of Social Work withGroups [AASWG], 2010) is “respect for persons and their autonomy” (p. 4).A high value is given to diversity, including disability. In this article, theauthors will explore the IASWG Standards that relate to autonomy and howthey help to maintain and promote autonomy for group work with persons

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

238 I. Carter et al.

with ID. The authors present a literature overview of autonomy issues withpersons with ID, followed by a discussion on the challenges that group workpractitioners face when working with persons with ID. Additional linkagesare made to parts of the Standards that relate to working with personswith ID. Finally, recommendations are offered for strengthening the IASWGStandards to promote autonomy in group work practice and research.

AUTONOMY, THE SOCIAL MODEL OF DISABILITY,AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

The IASWG Standards note the need for the “creation of a socially justsociety” (AASWG, 2010, p. 3). Group workers should further “democraticprinciples of equality and autonomy” (AASWG, 2010, p. 3) through groupwork. Steinberg (2008) stated that ethical group work practice involves “thebelief in people’s right to decide things for themselves, to be informedconsumers of what our particular service industry offers and the transla-tion at every opportunity of that belief into action” (p. 41). Reiter (2001)defines autonomy as “personal independence based on self-awareness andexpressed in the ability to make choices based on one’s values and priorities”(p. 1). Helping group members with ID to develop and maintain autonomycan be related to models of practice used in group work. Dejong, as quotedin Beaulaurier and Taylor (2001), describes the philosophical differences ofapproaches used by traditional medical and rehabilitation institutions andthose used by disability rights groups. The former “tend to define disabil-ity as the inability of a person to perform certain activities of daily living(ADLs) as the working problem” (p. 73), whereas the latter “tend to defineand perceive the ‘disabler’ as outside the person” (p. 73) such as in theform of “inflexible and insensitive health organisations” (p. 73). The tradi-tional approach views disability as an individual problem requiring internalchange. Consequently, this leaves the majority of decisions about how tohandle and live with the disability in the hands of the medical or paramedicalprofessionals. As most disabilities are relatively permanent and adaptationsto same tend to occur outside medical purview and facilities, this model ofunderstanding and working with persons with disabilities has proven itselfto be inadequate.

The social model of understanding disabilities allows for effectiveservice delivery and the empowerment of and respect for persons with dis-abilities. It was created by “a small but influential group of disabled activists”(Shakespeare, 1998, p. 72) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The model viewspeople with disabilities as an oppressed, marginalized, non-ethnic minority.This model has shown that existing negative social factors and not disabili-ties restrict participation by disabled individuals, and that progressive socialpolicy can lessen and address oppression (Goodley, 2000). Morris (2001)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 239

notes that personal experiences of denied opportunities are not explainedby bodily limitations, but by disabling social, environmental, and attitudinalbarriers. Recent legislation reflects the social model of disability by not onlypromoting the rights of individuals with disabilities, but also their accessi-bility to the services and benefits that society has to offer (Americans withDisabilities Act, 1990; Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005;Ontario Persons with Disabilities Act, 2001).

Society’s history of exclusionary practices toward persons with disabil-ities has contributed to a lack of direction about managing ethical issuespertaining to autonomy. Although group workers need to be concernedabout protecting persons with disabilities, they also need to allow such indi-viduals to benefit from participation in research and practice (Lai, Elliott, &Ouellette-Kuntz, 2006, p. 115). For example, Abu-Samah (2009) promotes theuse of interviews in group work research that allow clients to narrate theirexperiences and to become engaged in an interactive manner that enhancesgroup members’ self-confidence.

The focus of group work tends to be on fostering autonomy in waysthat will increase opportunities for self-determination for persons with intel-lectual disabilities. Trying to ensure that autonomy and self-determinationare included as primary goals of group work regardless of the character-istics of the group members can be challenging. Beaulaurier and Taylor(2001) discussed the view of client self-determination as seen by the dis-ability rights movement and noted that it is characterized by “active andinformed involvement with the key decision making processes that are cen-tral to the medical and rehabilitative treatment of the person being treated”(p. 74). They encouraged social workers to be educators and advocates onbehalf of their clients and to help “patients to advocate on their own behalfin order to realize their wishes and goals” (p. 74). This is echoed in theIASWG Standards where it is noted that “the worker demonstrates respectfor socio-cultural differences, promotes autonomy and self-determination,and encourages member empowerment” (AASWG, 2010, p. 11).

The literature provides examples of work done and challenges encoun-tered in maintaining autonomy and self-determination in group practice withdisabled persons. Ippoliti, Peppey, and Depoy (1994) look at the promo-tion of self-determination for people with developmental disabilities throughcommunity programs. They discuss a needs assessment that was conductedthrough a focus group of persons with disabilities. The purpose of thefocus group was to get input from the group members about the structureand activities for a new community center. The authors noted that several“important principles of practice” (p. 459) came out of this study:

First, (persons with learning difficulties) can and have a right to exer-cise self-determination. In this study, participants illustrated that theywere capable of stating their needs, and working within their requested

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

240 I. Carter et al.

structure to maintain group norms. Moreover, they were productive andgoal oriented in the work within their group. The focus group memberswere able to develop thoughtful plans for their own integration into thecommunity, acting as representatives of their constituency. (p. 459)

Burke (2005) looks at group activities for young people with specialneeds and notes that research has indicated that “within a children’s rightsframework, children need to be listened to and treated as independent indi-viduals with rights of their own, not subsumed by those of their parents”(p. 362). Children need to have opportunities to experiment, make choices,and express themselves (p. 360). For group leaders, Burke notes that “theneed is for facilitation with gentle direction, encouragement and respect forthe views of the young people involved” (p. 374). Carter and Wilson (2011)note that preserving the autonomy of persons with disabilities is challeng-ing when others are designated to speak on behalf of that person. Lookingat adults with autism, they identified two types of participants: adults withautism who spoke on their own behalf and adults with autism whose parentsspoke for them. The above studies illustrate some of the ethical challengesin group work that require further guidelines regarding consent for groupparticipation and managing autonomy and self-determination when workingin groups with persons with ID.

Singh and Salazar (2010) suggest that the promotion of autonomy ingroups for persons with ID is rooted in the values of access and socialjustice. The authors challenge us to move beyond “recognizing inequitiesin social systems to a more active stance of opposing discrimination andoppression and promoting access and equity” (p. 101) through group work.Autonomy in group work with persons with ID can be enhanced whengroup members have opportunities to explore the impact of social, political,and economic barriers. It is noted in the IASWG Standards that the “forcesimpacting the person and the group are important factors in group workassessment and intervention” (AASWG, 2010, p. 3), and that this involves“utilizing a bio-psychosocial perspective and a ‘person-in-environment’ view”(p. 3). A social justice approach allows group members to move away fromblaming themselves and to focus on how social and political institutionshave shaped their circumstances. Hays, Arredondo, Gladding, and Toporek(2010) highlight the importance of social justice strategies in group work,noting that more needs to be done to connect such work with the needs ofmarginalized populations.

AUTONOMY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FORSOCIAL WORK WITH GROUPS

The Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups (AASWG, 2010) con-sist of six sections: Section I: Core Values and Knowledge; Section II: Pre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 241

Group Phase: Planning, Recruitment, and New Group Formation; Section III:Group Work in the Beginning Phase; Section IV: Group Work in the MiddlePhase; Section V: Group Work in the Ending Phase; and Section VI: EthicalConsiderations. As core values, Section I promotes “respect for persons andtheir autonomy” (p. 2) and “the creation of a socially just society” (p. 3).The Standards emphasize that high regard be given to diversity, incorporat-ing dimensions such as culture, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, physicaland mental abilities, and age. As core knowledge in Section I, group workersare asked to focus on members’ strengths with an understanding of “protec-tive and risk factors that affect individuals’ need for services and their abilityto act” (p. 4). The group worker is designated as someone who “promotesindividual and group autonomy” (p. 5) using a strengths-based perspective,but the IASWG Standards need to provide more guidance to the groupworker about how to create self-determining individuals and groups.

In Sections II through V, there are recommended tasks and skills and alist of knowledge requirements for the group worker in the respective cate-gories of pregroup, beginning, middle, and end stages of group work. Suchinformation sometimes fails to include persons with disabilities. For exam-ple, under required knowledge in Section II (pregroup stage), the statement“issues associated with group composition” (p. 8) does not mention disabil-ity, although examples of other marginalized groups are given. In Section III(the beginning phase), it is noted that “The worker demonstrates respect forsocio-cultural differences, promotes autonomy and self-determination, andencourages member empowerment” (p. 11). Nothing is said about how togo about doing this when working with persons with disabilities. UnderGroup Tasks in Section IV (the middle phase), it is suggested that work-ers “assist members to engage in problem solving, in making choices anddecisions, and in evaluating potential outcomes” (p. 12) without any indi-cation of how this could be done with persons with disabilities. In SectionV (the end stage) no mention is made of the difficulty some people mayhave in continuing to function without the group. In some cases, effortsmay need to be made to help persons with ID to move into another group.In Section VI (ethical considerations), group workers are expected to followrelevant professional codes of ethics (e.g., the Canadian Association of SocialWorkers and the National Association of Social Workers). There should alsobe a recommendation that group workers consult appropriate literature forgroup work practice and research with specific populations, such as personswith ID.

The IASWG Standards should be highlighted more by professionalsocial work associations and be available to all social workers as part oftheir professional registration and ongoing requirements. Professional asso-ciations should also be better prepared to address questions from socialworkers about ethical challenges in group work. The IASWG Standardsshould be supported in social work classrooms by accrediting social work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

242 I. Carter et al.

educational bodies, such as the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE)and the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE).

Cohen and Olshever (2010) conducted a survey of the IASWG Standardsto get feedback about the content of the Standards and to find out if anychanges or additions were needed. Respondents discuss a variety of chal-lenges including varying levels of agency support for group work, timeconstraints, and inexperienced facilitators. They also note the need to getthe IASWG Standards included more in academic curricula, a process thatrequires additional support about group work practice from social workaccreditation bodies such as the CSWE and CASWE.

PRACTICE WITH GROUPS FOR PERSONSWITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES

Essential to group work with persons with ID are the pre group tasks, suchas choosing a suitable location and having access to appropriate facilitiesfor group work activities (Woodring, Foley, Rado, Brown, & Hamner, 2006).Such facilities might include, “adjustments in physical space, use of AmericanSign Language (ASL) interpreters, extra time to answer questions (becauseof speech impairments), the presence of personal assistants, and increasedattention to social interactions among participants” (p. 251). The onus ison the worker to take into consideration that people with ID face manybarriers in their day-to-day lives and not to exacerbate the situation by havingobstacles connected with group work. The IASWG Standards also note theimportance of having “an appropriate meeting place and meeting time thatwill be conducive to members’ comfort, safety and access to the group”(AASWG, 2010, p. 7).

Group facilitators must also decide whether to have one or two facilita-tors. Corrigan, Jones, and McWhirter (2001) described an access employmentgroup for college students with disabilities that had two facilitators. Oneof the facilitators had a disability that the authors noted as being helpful(p. 341). Group facilitators must also be fully aware of what they are bringingto the group. Workers should “explore their own cultural identities and howthese affect their values and beliefs about group work” (Thomas & Pender,2008, p. 115) and should seek further training when needed. Self-awarenesson the part of group workers is also emphasized in the IASWG Standards(AASWG, 2010, p. 14).

Something else to consider in the pregroup phase is the membershipof the group. The Standards note that “the worker should select the grouptype, structure, processes and size that will be appropriate for attaining thepurposes of the group” (AASWG, 2010, p. 6). There are many factors to con-sider in the case of group work practice with individuals with ID. Shouldgroup members have similar disabilities or should there be groups of people

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 243

with a range of disabilities or a variety of individuals with and without dis-abilities? Corrigan et al. (2001) believe that “ideally it would be appropriate tohave individualized groups for specific disabilities” (p. 342). However, theyalso noted that combining disability groups provides opportunities for groupmembers to “increase their knowledge and awareness of their uniquenessand commonalities with others” (p. 342). When discussing the organiza-tion and functioning of focus groups consisting of persons with disabilities,Woodring et al. (2006) note that research indicates that groups should besmaller in size because “disclosure of highly sensitive and potentially stig-matizing information is a concern for people with psychiatric disabilities,cognitive disabilities, and auto-immune disorders” (p. 251). They also rec-ommend that attention be paid to the constitution of the group to avoidsituations where certain members dominate all of the discussions. They notethat when organizing focus groups for people with disabilities “substantialthought should go into the benefits and drawbacks of placing advocates,who tend to be informed and outspoken and non-advocates in the samefocus groups” (p. 255).

Brown (1995) advocates that individuals should be considered for par-ticipation in group work based on their abilities, merits, and potential forcontributing to the group and “not on assumptions about a classification oflimitations that may or may not exist” (p. 73). Lang (2010) cautions that,although small groups can be a means for personal growth and for easingfeelings of isolation, some people may lack the ability to participate. Langsuggests pre-group strategies to assist group practitioners in helping prospec-tive members to attain the skills that they require. Lang notes that “the goal ofthe practice is to enable social competence” (p. 138). Distinct from a contentfocus, Lang promotes a process model of practice that, though providingsocial activities, may have an unstated deeper purpose of improving thesocial functioning of members through structured program activities. Thisis a process that requires the intervention of a knowledgeable and caringpractitioner.

Corrigan et al. (2001) identified another challenging group dynamic, cre-ated by having a combination of group members who had visible and hiddendisabilities in an access employment group for college students. Studentswith hidden disabilities could choose not to disclose the nature of their dis-ability in group interactions, whereas those with visible disabilities did nothave this choice. As a result, some group members with visible disabilities“questioned the legitimacy of including others whose disabilities were hiddenand who were unable or reluctant to disclose the nature of their disability”(Corrigan et al., p. 346). The result was an “in-group/out-group dynamic”that may have had an effect on who would or would not be welcome to jointhe group (p. 346).

The IASWG Standards encourage group workers to “highlight mem-ber commonalities, link members to one another and encourage direct

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

244 I. Carter et al.

member-to-member communication” (AASWG, 2010, p. 11). Stoddart (1998)describes the benefits of group work with children and teenagers who havehigh-functioning pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and Asperger’sdisorder (AD). He notes that whether the emphasis is on social skill devel-opment, problem solving, or mutual support, group participation can reducethe isolation that persons with ID often endure. It can also provide opportu-nities for success in social situations for group participants because they caninteract with a small group of peers. Stoddart also looks at the advantages ofhaving groups of longer duration for people with high-functioning PDD orAD in order to provide ongoing support (p. 50).

Corrigan et al. (2001) note, that as members of a minority group, peo-ple with disabilities struggle to compete with nondisabled individuals whomay often be quite patronizing to them. Holzbauer and Berven as quoted inCorrigan et al. (2001) note that such conditions make persons with disabil-ities vulnerable to “constructs of self-doubt, self-blame, humiliation, angerand depression” (p. 340). It is therefore essential that, from the beginningstage, group work start with activities that promote self-efficacy, empower-ment, and a positive self-image (Burke, 2005; Corrigan et al., 2001). Groupworkers should be aware of how group members are affected by their rela-tionships and environments outside the group (Shapiro, 2003). This is echoedin the IASWG Standards where it is noted that group workers should beaware of the “familial, social, political and cultural contexts that influencemembers’ social identities, interactional styles, concerns, opportunities, andthe attainment of their potentials” (AASWG, 2010, p. 3).

Ippoliti et al. (1994) believe that group facilitators should also find outfrom group members what their expectations are for the facilitator’s role.When feedback was sought from group members with developmental dis-abilities in a focus group, participants indicated that the facilitator’s roleshould consist of “establishing and maintaining a structure in which col-laborative planning efforts and action between disabled and non-disabledpersons can be promoted” (p. 459). In a similar vein, Glassman and Kates’s(1990, as cited by Steinberg, 2008) view involves a “‘democratic-humanistic’group climate, in which many voices can be heard and where decisionscome from those who will be most touched by them” (p. 39).

From the beginning, group work with specific populations can haveunique requirements and challenges. Futeral (2005) discusses group workwith people who have suffered head injuries and notes that such injuriescan impair decision-making abilities. It is therefore important to have a solidstructure for group work. The group worker needs to set limits for the group,such as when the group meetings start and end. There should be a regularroutine with a beginning warm-up, a middle period of work, and a finalperiod of sharing and “the phases of the group . . . must be communicatedto the group members so that they, too, can follow and track their progress”(p. 65). Futeral emphasizes the need for guidance with head trauma group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 245

participants, especially during periods of sharing, so that group members donot, intentionally or otherwise, react in a way that might adversely affectthe member who has shared information. Futeral believes that homogeneityis an important feature of any group and can help to reduce participants’feelings of isolation. She notes that it may also be helpful to run a multifamilygroup for spouses and family members because they “can help enhance thepatient’s functioning and quality of life” (p. 65).

Reiter (2001) provides an example of a group-based educational pro-gram that aimed to increase autonomy by using group cohesion and teachingsocial skills. There were 11 participants in this program age 17 to 18 whohad moderate learning difficulties. For 9 months the students met the projectleader twice a week in a rented apartment and spent 6-hour days involved inactivities such as group discussions, preparation of lunch, shopping, makinguse of public services such as the post office, entertaining guests, and goingout to a show. From the start of the program, the students were requiredto plan, define objectives, organize activities, and evaluate the outcomes oftasks. Misbehavior was not punished, and instead positive alternatives wereconsidered. Reiter states that at the start of the program, group memberswere solitary and lacked meaningful personal relationships. She notes thatafter 3 months, group members expressed care for one another. As the groupprogressed, Reiter found that participants experienced increased ability toconcentrate and to listen.

Group monitoring and evaluation procedures are a vital part of groupwork. In preparing members with disabilities for the ending phase of thegroup, the group worker must assess the outcome of group work. It is notedin the IASWG Standards that the group worker should “systematically eval-uate the achievement of individual and group goals” and that “routine andsystematic evaluation of the group experience could/should occur over timerather than in the ending stage alone” (AASWG, 2010, p. 15). The groupworker should also “encourage members to give feedback to the worker onthe worker’s role and actions in the group” (p. 15). This view is echoed byFuteral (2005) who states that “the worker must evaluate both the group as awhole and the changes that occur within each group member” (p. 72). Burke(2005) emphasizes the importance of having group members involved in theevaluation of group activities. He notes that at the end of an activity weekendfor young people with special needs, the participants and their families wereinvited to a special group meeting so that they could evaluate the weekend:

At the meeting, the children and young people evaluated the weekendthrough group discussion, by drawings and in the use of symbolic figures.. . . Thus, these young people had the chance to practise skills of evalu-ating, making choices and expressing their opinions. . . . To be asked foran opinion had the potential to raise self-esteem, as the question focuseson the individual’s view. (p. 370)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

246 I. Carter et al.

Throughout the phases of group work, facilitators should “monitor theirstrengths and weaknesses and the effects these have on group members”(Thomas & Pender, 2008, p. 115). Social workers need to be aware of theissues that particularly challenge persons with disabilities. Wilson, Clegg,and Hardy (2008) believe that promotion of autonomy depends on “beingattuned to the person with ID in a way that is only possible by the existenceof a close and enduring relationship” (p. 609) and that involves the clientand the client’s caregiver when clients depend on them for guidance. Groupworkers also need to share their knowledge about research and teachingin group work with persons with ID (Preston-Shoot, 2009) and contributeto best practices by promoting strengthened IASWG Standards (Cohen &Olshever, 2010).

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTION

To develop and maintain autonomy in group work with persons with ID,group workers should be aware of how diversity affects persons with IDthrough the critical perspective of the social model of disability. Such asocial justice approach moves clients away from self-blame and isolation andfocuses on systemic conditions that have shaped clients’ lives. Group leadersneed to be knowledgeable about the history of disability and accessibilitylegislation and be able to help persons with disabilities to become self-advocates. In the pregroup stage, the group worker should take time to getto know the prospective group participants and their significant caregivers toassess and promote autonomy. Group leaders need to provide an accessibleenvironment for persons with disabilities and should use instructional tech-niques that are easily understood by group participants with varying degreesof ID. Facilitators should use a strengths-based perspective with activitiesdesigned to increase self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Experienced practitioners and researchers need to continue to share thewealth of their knowledge with colleagues so that the benefits of such canbe widely shared and used. Social workers should have increased supportfrom their professional bodies in addressing questions that arise in groupwork with persons with ID. The IASWG Standards should also be sup-ported in social work classrooms by accrediting social work educationalbodies, such as the Council of Social Work Education and the CanadianAssociation of Social Work Education. More guidance and examples areneeded in the IAASWG Standards for group work with persons with ID,perhaps in the form of supplementary guidelines for particular populations.These guidelines could incorporate the authors’ recommendations, providegroup workers with additional information and insights needed to work withpersons with ID, and provide opportunities for individuals with disabilitiesto have access to and benefit from group work and research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

Exploring Autonomy in Groups 247

REFERENCES

Abu-Samah, A. (2009). Empowering research process: Using groups in research toempower the people. In O. Manor (Ed.), Groupwork research (pp. 97–128).London, UK: Whiting & Birch Ltd.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11.American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2011)

Intellectual disability. Retrieved from http://www.aaidd.org/content_96.cfm?navID=20

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq (2008).Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. (2010). Standards for

social work practice with groups (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.Barker, R. L. (2003). The social work dictionary (5th ed.). Washington, DC: National

Association of Social Workers.Beaulaurier, R. L., & Taylor, S. H. (2001). Social work practice with people with

disabilities in the era of disability rights. Social Work in Health Care, 32(4),57–91.

Brown, B. M. (1995). A Bill of Rights for people with disabilities in group work.Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 20(2), 71–75.

Burke, P. (2005). Listening to young people with special needs: The influence ofgroup activities. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9(4), 359–376.

Carter, I., & Wilson, R. (2011) Reflections on face-to-face and online self-help groupparticipation: Comparing the views of persons with autism with those of parentsspeaking for their autistic children. International Journal of Self-Help and Self-Care, 5(4), 353–369.

Cohen, A., & Olshever, A. (2010). Survey on the AASWG standards for socialwork practice. Report distributed at the International symposium of theAdvancement of Social Work with Groups, Montreal, Canada, June 2010.Retrieved from: http://www.iaswg.org/docs/June%202010%20Full%20Revised%20ReportStandards.pdf

Corrigan, M. J., Jones, C. A., & McWhirter, J. J. (2001). College students with dis-abilities: An access employment group. Journal for Specialists in Group Work,26(4), 339–349.

Developmental Disabilities Association. (2012). What is a developmental disability?Retrieved from http://www.develop.bc.ca/about/development-disabilities.html

Futeral, S. T. (2005). Group work with head-injured people. In G. L. Greif & P. H.Ephross (Eds.), Group work with populations at risk (2nded., pp. 62–74). Toronto,Canada: Oxford University Press.

Goodley, D. (2000). Self-advocacy in the lives of people with learning difficulties: Thepolitics of resiliency. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Hays, D. G., Arredondo, P., Gladding, S. T., & Toporek, R. L. (2010). Integratingsocial justice in group work: The next decade. Journal for Specialists in GroupWork, 35(2), 177–206. doi:10.1080/01933921003706022

Ippoliti, C., Peppey, B., & Depoy, E. (1994). Promoting self-determination forpersons with developmental disabilities. Disability & Society, 9(4), 453–460.

Kelm, J. F. (2009). Intellectual disability and the interdependent expression of self-determination (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses(PQDT) database. (UMI No. MR63898).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3

248 I. Carter et al.

Lai, R., Elliott, D., & Quellette-Kuntz, H. (2006). Attitudes of research ethics com-mittee members toward individuals with intellectual disabilities: The need formore research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 3(2),114–118.

Lang, N. C. (2010). Group work practice to advance social competence: A specializedmethodology for social work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Morris, J. (2001). Impairment and disability: Constructing an ethics of care thatpromotes human rights. Hypatia, 16(4), 1–16.

National Dissemination Centre for Children with Disabilities. (2012). Intellectualdisability. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/intellectual#def

Nota, L., Ferrari, L., Soresi, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2007). Self-determination,social abilities and the quality of life of people with intellectual disability.Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 51(11), 850–865. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00939.x

Ontario Persons with Disabilities Act, S. O. 2001, Chapter 32. amended by: c. 17,2002, Sched. C; s. 18, 2005; c. 11, s. 42. Repealed by the Statutes of Ontario,2005, c.11, section 42.

Preston-Shoot, M. (2009). Introduction: Back to the future in groupwork research. InO. Manor (Ed.), Groupwork research (pp. 1–14). London, UK: Whiting & BirchLtd.

Reiter, S. (2001). Autonomy and social skills: A group-based programme with ado-lescents with learning difficulties. Journal of Research in Special EducationalNeeds, 1(2). doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2001.00143.x

Shakespeare, T. (Ed.). (1998). The disability reader: Social science perspectives.London, UK: York House Typographic Ltd.

Shapiro, B. Z. (2003). Social justice and social work with groups: Fragile – handlewith care. In N. E. Sullivan, E. S. Mesbur, N. C. Lang, D. Goodman, & L. Mitchell(Eds.), Social work with groups: Social justice through personal, community andsocietal change (pp. 7–24). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Singh, A. A., & Salazar, C. F. (2010). The roots of social justice in group work. Journalfor Specialists in Group Work, 35(2), 97–104. doi:10.1080/01933921003706048

Steinberg, D. M. (2008). The art, science, heart and ethics of social group work:Lessons from a great teacher. Social Work with Groups, 29(2/3), 33–45.

Stoddart, K. P. (1998). The treatment of high-functioning pervasive developmentaldisorder and Asperger’s disorder: Defining the social work role. Focus on Autismand Other Developmental Disabilities, 13(1), 45–62.

Thomas, R. V., & Pender, D. A. (2008). Association for Specialists in Group Work:Best practice guidelines 2007 revisions. Journal for Specialists in Group Work,33(2), 111–117. doi:10.1080/01933920801971184 Retrieved from http://www.asgw.org/PDF/Best_Practices.pdf

Wilson, N., Clegg, J., & Hardy, G. (2008). What informs and shapes ethical prac-tice in intellectual disability services? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,52(Pt.7), 608–617.

Woodring J. C., Foley, S. M., Rado, G. S., Brown, K. R., & Hamner, D. M. (2006).Focus groups and methodological reflections: Conscientious flexibility in thefield. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 16(4), 248–258. doi:10.1177/10442073060160040601

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mon

ash

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 1

2:35

01

Oct

ober

201

3