Milford Redefined: A Model of Initial and Advanced Generalist Social Work
Author(s): Mona S. Schatz, Lowell E. Jenkins and Bradford W. Sheafor
Source: Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Fall 1990), pp. 217-231
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behlaf of Council on Social Work Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23043060 .
Accessed: 12/11/2013 15:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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 [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Council on Social Work Education are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Journal of Social Work Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
of Social
Journal
Work
• 217 •
Education
Fall
1990,
3
No.
MONA
S. SCHATZ
is Associate Professor,
Colorado State University.
LOWELL
E. JENKINS is Associate Professor,
Colorado
State University.
W. SHEAFOR
BRADFORD
is Professor,
Colorado
State University.
Milford Redefined: A Model of Initial and
Advanced Generalist Social Work
by Mona
S.
Schatz,
Social work has long sought a concep
tual framework to describe its most basic
to service delivery: generalist
approach
social work practice. A milestone in that
process was the series of Milford confer
ences
in the 1920s
during which the
elements
of
"generic
casework"
were
first
identified. This article presents a model
that advances and clarifies the concepts of
generalist social work as viewed at the
beginning of the 1990s. Generalist social
work at both the initial and advanced
levels involves a way of viewing practice.
that focuses
on the
It is a perspective
interface between systems, on a client
centered and problem-focused
philosophy,
and on an openness to multiple theories
and approaches
for improving people's
The
authors express their sincere appreciation to the
of the Group for the Study of Generalist and
members
Generalist Practice: Irv Berkowitz, Grand Valley
State College; Frank Baskind, Southern Connecticut State
University; Pamela S. Landon, Colorado State University;
Maria Joan (O'Neil)
McMahon, East Carolina University;
Advanced
and John F. O'Neill,
Eastern Washington
University.
Lowell
E.
and
Jenkins,
Bradford
W.
Sheafor
Practice
at the initial level
well-being.
a
set
requires
of competencies necessary to
services
consistent with the under
provide
derived
from the perspective.
standing
Advanced
social
work repre
generalist
sents increased complexity in the learning
process
and
greater
in
breadth
and
depth
of
a
generalist
perspective
exploration
rather than a uniquely different perspective
from the generalist approach.
Generalist social work might accurately
be described as a practice perspective in
search of a conceptual
framework. That
search has alternately heated up and cooled
down during the history of the social work
work educators
cur
Social
profession.
in
an
are
effort
to
under
rently
engaged
stand generalist social work practice and to
level of social
work
a unique
as
"advanced
referred
to
generalist
practice
define
social work."
The most recent flurry of activity to gen
erate a generalist social work model has
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
218 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
JSWE-26:3
been
stimulated
by recognition
by the
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE)
of generalist
and advanced
generalist
educational
models in its Handbook of Ac
creditation
Standards
and Procedures
and
the
associated
curricu
(CSWE,
1988)
lum policy
statement
(CSWE,
1982).
Despite attention to this matter, there has
been little clarity within social work about
either generalist
or advanced
generalist
social work practice, or the related concept
of a generic foundation. One result of this
lack of clarity has been an "anything goes"
attitude
social
work education
pro
grams, resulting in both an inconsistent
educational experience for students prepar
ing to enter the social work profession and
confusion on the part of employing agen
cies regarding the competencies
they can
by
expect from the graduates of these pro
grams. If social work education programs
are to provide
curricula to
appropriate
prepare graduates for such practice, it is
essential that the professional community
generate relevant debate on this matter,
arrive at some
common
understanding
about these phenomena,
and agree on a
taxonomy within which to communicate
these concepts.
This article examines the emergence of
the social work profession's understanding
of generalist practice and presents a model
of generalist social work that has been
formulated in part from a Delphi study on
this topic. In addition, it provides subse
quent refinement of the central concepts
through various national forums. More
over, in this article, the "common base" is
referred to as the "generic foundation" of
social work. Because there was a
growing
recognition that social workers should be
prepared with a broad practice approach, it
was implied that this type of practice began
with assessing
client needs
and then
selecting from a wide repertoire of inter
vention methods and theoretical perspec
tives that respond to those needs.
The
"generalist"
described
as
foundation.
practice
in
building
upon
this
is
paper
this generic
EMERGENCE
GENERALIST
Generic
Base:
1960
Before
OF THE
PERSPECTIVE
Historical
Review
Social
work began with a broad ap
to
proach
meeting obvious need and, in its
had
little to offer in the way of
infancy,
identified
methods or approaches to
clearly
practice. As services evolved,
however,
the commonalities
in the various practice
settings became evident. In the preface to
Social Diagnosis
as the
(now recognized
first formulation of a social work practice
theory in the United States), Mary Rich
mond (1917) reported that around the turn
of the twentieth century, she began collect
ing data for a book on social work with
families only to find "that, in essentials,
the methods and aims of social work were
the same in every type of service" (p. 5).
Richmond also recognized that some pro
cedures (that is, intervention approaches)
were unique to some practice situations.
Thus, the effort to distinguish the specialist
and generalist elements of social
work
began.
By the 1920s, the problem of discerning
the generic (generalist) and specific (spe
be
cialist) elements of social casework
came
a significant concern
within the
of social
work. A
emerging
discipline
group of social agency administrators met
on several occasions throughout the decade
to address this issue. The resulting report
of the Milford conference (National Asso
ciation of Social Workers [NASW],
1974)
concluded
casework
that a common
or generic
practice existed that superseded
based
on a
any of the specializations
particular problem or practice. The report
initiated the process
of elaborating
the
common elements in social work practice
by identifying
ments:
the
following
eight
ele
1. Knowledge of typical deviations from
accepted standards of social life.
2. The use of norms of human life and
human relationships.
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall
MILFORD
1990
3. The significance of social history as
the basis of particularizing the human
in need.
4. Established methods of study and
treatment
5. The
use
of humans
in social
resources
in need.
of established
community
treatment.
6. The adaptation of scientific and formu
lations of experience to the require
ments
of social
case
work.
7. The consciousness of a philosophy that
determines
the
purposes,
ethics,
and
obligations of social case work.
8. The blending of the foregoing into
social treatment, (p. 15)
social
During the next two decades,
to include
work successfully
expanded
practice activities beyond those viewed as
and the problems of
"social
casework"
identifying a generalist practice approach
Be
became substantially more complex.
cause the effort had been to bring case
work, group work, and community organi
zation practice into the fold of social work,
it is not surprising that in their analysis of
practice that was to serve as a guide for
social work education, Ernest Hollis and
Alice Taylor (1951) concluded that gradu
ates should be prepared in the multimethod
practice approach.
The merger of the several specialized
into one associa
professional associations
1958 further encouraged
tion—NASW—in
the emphasis on discovering the common
ality within social work. Although NASW
a
was supporting
attempts to develop
common conception of practice, that is, the
working definition of social work practice
(Bartlett, 1958), CSWE was engaged in an
ambitious
curriculum development project.
The curriculum study (Boehm,
1959) was
based on Werner Bohem's
representation
that
the
of
goal
enhancement
whether the need
"the
social
work
involves
of social functioning,
or
is either socially
which
(p. 46),
perceived"
individually
again reflected a broadening view of social
work practice. That study, and the percep
tion of social work it represented, had a
REDEFINED
•
219
profound effect on social work education
and the view of social work reflected by
new entrants to the profession.
Generalist
1960-1987
Perspective
Evolves:
role in
off her leadership
Capping
of
a
NASW's
development
working defini
tion of social work practice, Harriet Bartlett
(1970) published her classic book, The Com
mon Base of Social Work Practice that sum
marized the development to that date of a
generally accepted conception of social work
practice. Bartlett surfaced the perspective
that practice knowledge
had been sub
merged in the dominant practice methods
of the day—casework,
group work, and
community organization. She noted that "all
social workers need knowledge about indi
viduals, groups and the community that is
related to their social functioning but not
limited to particular interventive measures"
and called for social work to lift out this
knowledge from the specialized methods and
reorganize it to make it "visible and avail
able within the profession's overall body of
knowledge"
(p. 115).
The late 1960s and the 1970s stimulated
high levels of activity that furthered the
quest for the essential elements that would
compose
a
"common
base"
or
"founda
for all social workers. During this
of a
conception
period, a multimethod
generalist gave way to the view of the
generalist social worker who had the tools
to work in various settings with a variety of
a range
of
client
addressing
groups,
personal and social problems and using
tion"
skills to intervene at practice levels ranging
to the community.
the individual
the generalist
to this view,
According
from
worker performed as the all-purpose
1974, p. 28)
(Ripple,
"utility worker"
level of compe
who, at an unspecified
tence, could provide an initial response to
social
virtually any client problem. Subsequent
projects more clearly isolated elements of
the generalist approach and continued the
effort to define the generic foundation (for
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
see Baer & Federico,
1978—
example,
McPheeters
Barker
&
1979;
Briggs, 1971;
& Ryan, 1971).
in the
A host of textbooks emerged
1970s and 1980s that reflected various
authors' perceptions of both the essential
generic foundation of social work and the
elements of a generalist practice approach.
A partial list of these texts includes Pincus
and Minahan
Goldstein
(1973),
(1973),
Klenk
and Ryan (1974),
Siporin (1975),
and Sheafor
Anderson
Morales
(1977),
For the reader
(1981), and O'Neil (1984).
it
of this generalist literature, however,
was evident that there was little agreement
about what differentiates a generalist social
worker from other social
In
workers.
addition, there was little agreement about
differences between a generic foundation
and generalist practice (the terms often are
used interchangeably)
and between gener
alist and advanced
levels of
generalist
practice.
Educational
Standards
Practice: 1974-1990
for Generalist
Although the efforts to clarify these prac
tice concepts were still "in process,"
the
baccalaureate
education accreditation stan
dards (CSWE,
1974) stipulated that educa
tion programs were to prepare graduates for
generalist practice.
Many master's
pro
a generalist track
also
elected
to
build
grams
into their curricula. In addition, the revised
curriculum policy statement (CSWE,
1988)
permitted master's level programs to pre
pare students for "advanced
generalist"
practice, although that concept lacked ade
quate definition to guide either practice or
education.1
For social work educators, the question
was how to design
and implement
a
curriculum
that prepared
students
for
"what" brand of generalist practice. For
the generalist educational
many schools,
model was preparation
for multimethod
practice. For others it was multisetting or
multiproblem exploration or training to be
able to serve as the all-purpose
utility
JSWE-26:3
worker. However, given the lack of clarity
on accreditation,
reviews were especially
because
for schools
anxiety producing
social work educators could not assume
that the site visit team
or CSWE's
on Accreditation would share
Commission
a school's
of generalist
understanding
social work, and even more life-threat
ening was the task of substantiating an
advanced
generalist curriculum. In addi
human
services agencies
had diffi
tion,
what
the field
culty anticipating
just
student or new "generalist"
social work
employee would know, or could perform,
because
each school appeared to have a
unique brand of generalist.
The frenzied activity aimed at explicat
ing a perception of beginning generalist
social work slowed in the late 1980s. It
was time to take stock. For the first time in
the history of the publication of the NASW
Work, the 1987
Encyclopedia
of Social
edition contained a section on the "Gener
alist Perspective."
That article (Sheafor &
summed up the current
Landon,
1987)
perception of generalist social work and
a new
provided the base for launching
drive to further deepen the understanding
of a generalist perspective for practice.
To once again place this debate before
the social work community, the authors
present their model. The model continues
the process of redefining the common core
or generic foundation, suggests character
istics of a generalist practice perspective,
and identifies broad competencies
required
of the generalist social worker at initial and
advanced
A MODEL
In
an
levels.
OF
GENERALIST
effort to
SOCIAL
WORK
attain
greater clarity
of consensus
about
social
Schatz
and
Jenkins
work,
generalist
(1987) conducted a study that involved key
informants from throughout the United
States in an effort to surface the essential
elements
of the generalist
social
work
regarding
the areas
The national Delphi study in
approach.
volved 42 panel members who had either
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall
MILFORD
1990
about
written
generalist
concepts
or
were
in generalist programs in
three
work. Through
of social
schools
refined concept
rounds of increasingly
statements, expert panelists participated in
that resulted in
a "structured discussion"
of
levels
agreement regard
relatively high
of a generic
central
the
components
ing
and
as well
as generalist
foundation,
The
social
work.
advanced
generalist
Schatz and Jenkins study initially began as
of
an effort to identify characteristics
social
advanced
work,
yet
generalist
shifted its focus as it became
quickly
evident that advanced generalist could not
first identifying
be addressed
without
generalist social work and differentiating
that from a generic foundation.
Drawing on concepts about which at least
70 percent of the "experts" agreed, the au
thors constructed a model that reflects a view
of the linkage between the generic founda
tion, the initial generalist, and the advanced
generalist practice levels. The model incor
porates an essential, but not an exhaustive,
list of elements that constitute each of these
curriculum areas. With consultation from
members of the Group for the Study of Gen
Generalist Practice
eralist and Advanced
of
the
three areas were
definitions
(1988),
further refined to more clearly differentiate
advanced
generalist and generalist social
work. The term "initial generalist" was in
troduced to designate generalist social work.
lead
teachers
Generic Foundation
of Social
Education and Practice
of
Work
A generic foundation for the education
work students is critical
all social
REDEFINED
• 221
it provides the building blocks of
and skills that are
values,
knowledge,
social work learn
for
further
prerequisites
are
essential in the
Eleven
elements
ing.
because
offered in any social
work curriculum (Figure 1).
Consistent with the requirements of the
foundation
materials
curriculum policy statement (CSWE,
1988,
p. 123), a liberal arts base is considered a
fundamental part of the foundation from
which social work education builds. Edu
cational areas that provide this base include
history, economics,
philosophy, sociology,
psychology, anthropology, and biology. A
about
person simply must be knowledgeable
the human and social condition to be an
effective social worker.
The social work knowledge base builds
from this liberal arts requirement. NASW's
effort to develop a classification system for
social work knowledge clearly revealed that
there is not a precise body of information
that constitutes social work knowledge (Gor
don, 1981; Reid, 1981). Reid (1981), how
base
ever, suggested that the knowledge
should include the "extensive body of lit
erature relating
to target systems
and
conditions, planned change, the profession
itself, and methods of generating and orga
(p. 131). More specif
nizing knowledge"
education
social
work
ically,
programs
include
content in primary
consistently
knowledge areas such as the biological, so
human de
ciocultural, and psychological
velopment material as it applies to social
work; basic systems theory and an ecolog
ical perspective; and social welfare and so
cial work history.
It also
is essential
to provide
the
FIGURE 1
Generic Foundation
r
(10)
work
(1) liberal arts base;
(2) social
base (biological/sociocultural/psychological/
knowledge
and ecological
and
human development
material, systems
perspective,
work/social
welfare history); (3) social
work purpose;
social
(4) focus on
for practice;
work
>
(5) professionalism;
(6) sanction
(7) social
person-in-environment;
communication
values
and philosophy;
skills; (9) ethnic/diversity
(8) basic
sensitivity;
directed
at problem
and (11) understanding
human relationships.
resolution;
change
process
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
•
SCHATZ,
JENKINS,
AND
SHEAFOR
beginning student with an understanding of
the social work purpose
and the unique
mission of social work as opposed to other
professions. Minahan (1981) perhaps best
captured that purpose by noting that social
workers seek "to promote or restore a
interaction between
mutually beneficial
individuals and society in order to improve
the quality of life for everyone" (p. 6).
The focus
on person-in-environment
transactions be
configuration emphasizes
tween people and their environment and
as a key element
generally is accepted
of the social
work profession's
unique
& Gitterman, 1987).
purview (Germain
Anderson (1981),
for example,
indicated
that "this transaction
is the point of
where the social worker
interdependence
directs activities in specific situations" (p.
13).
The professionalism
of the social work
is embedded
both in beginning
practice education and the practicum expe
rience
wherein
the student learns the
for
expectations
professional behavior, the
student
requirements of the code of ethics, the
roles and responsibilities of the social work
practitioner, and otherwise begins to be
socialized
to
the
profession.
The
importance of having sanction for
was explicated
in the working
practice
definition of social work practice (Bartlett,
and generally
is accepted
as a
1958)
element
for
the
necessary
understanding
of
social
work
in
Sources
of
place
society.
sanction for social work activities come
from local and federal governments, legally
the clients
incorporated private agencies,
or consumers of social work services, and
the social work profession itself (Sheafor,
1988, pp. 14-15).
Horejsi & Horejsi,
Social
work values
and philosophy
express the important recognition within
the profession
with ultimate
that practice be carried out
respect for the worth and
dignity of the person or system and the
expectation that each client will achieve his
or her destiny within a process
that
maximizes
self-determination
and self
actualization.
Although no one social work
JSWE-26:3
has been promulgated,
the
philosophy
intent of a social work philosophy is to
offer various principles for social work
practice that stipulate general beliefs about
how the profession generally views the
world
(Hepworth
&
19-20).
Larsen,
1986,
pp.
Basic communication
and helping skills
form a frame for social work skill develop
ment. These basic skills include listening
and interviewing, as well as enhancing and
strengthening he beginning social worker's
natural abilities to communicate
empathy,
genuineness, warmth, trust, and support in
helping relationships.
The profession is also committed to teach
ing all students ethnic/diversity sensitivity.
As Devore and Schlesinger (1987) stated,
this commitment is reinforced in the curric
ulum policy statement (CSWE,
1988) that
"mandates
that all social work education
programs pay explicit attention to the life
styles, needs, and problems of those groups
that are especially oppressed in American
1987, p.
society" (Devore & Schlesinger,
v.). To fulfill this commitment, the social
worker must first understand the unique life
experiences of women, people of color, dis
advantaged people, handicapped people, gay
and lesbian people,
and other devalued
groups.
Also essential for all social workers is
the ability to direct the change process
directed at problem resolution. Recently,
Sheafor et al. compared components of the
identified in the social
change process
work literature ranging from practice to
research texts. They noted that, although
the labels are varied, the following phases
are common to all practice approaches that
the social worker should master: intake and
data collection
and assess
engagement,
ment, planning and contracting, interven
tion and monitoring, and evaluation
and
termination (pp. 74-75).
All of the generic components of social
work must be underpinned by a beginning
understanding
of human
relationships.
This
moves
the
understanding
beyond
theoretical contributions of psychology and
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILFORD
to the identification
of the
elements
in the environment
transacting with social systems and charac
teristics of helping relationships that are
central to social work practice (Fischer,
sociology
interactive
1978; Perlman, 1979; Shulman, 1981).
These generic elements, then, become
the foundation from which both generalist,
4.
5.
attempt to describe
specialized
practice.
Generalist Perspective and Competencies
Required for Initial Generalist Social
Work Practice
work is one way of
that
is, a perspective
viewing practice,
between systems
on
the
interface
focusing
with equal emphasis on the goals of social
justice, humanizing systems, and improv
ing the well-being of people. It is impor
tant to understand,
too, that generalist
Generalist
practice
advanced
can
social
be
levels,
addressed
yet
the
at initial
perspective
and
of
generalist social work is not materially
different at either level. The educational
preparation and the way the social worker
practices is what is advanced.
The initial level of generalist practice
consists of five elements:
1. Incorporation of the Generic founda
tion for social work and use of a
multilevel
ology.
2. A multiple,
problem-solving
theoretical
method
orientation,
an
ecological
systems
including
model that recognizes an interrelated
ness of human problems, life situa
tions, and social conditions.
3. A knowledge,
value, and skill base
and
between
that is transferable
locations,
An open assessment unconstricted by
any particular theoretical or interven
tive approach.
Selection
of strategies or roles
intervention that are made on
for
the
of the problem,
and
goals,
situation of attention and the size of
generalist, and specialist practice
and education are built. Specializations,
as
defined in the CSWE
curriculum policy
tive modes. This article, however, focuses
on initial and advanced levels of generalist
and education
and does
not
practice
contexts,
• 223
basis
advanced
statement (1988), can be organized around
fields of service, population groups, prob
lem areas, or practice roles and interven
among diverse
and problems.
REDEFINED
the systems involved
Study of Generalist
Generalist
Practice,
(Group for the
and Advanced
1988).
The
use of "initial" to specify the early
training and practice of the generalist is
noteworthy. Initial-level generalist practice
should not be confused
with the terms
or "entry level"
used to
"beginning"
describe the new baccalaureate
and mas
ter's
level
graduate
entering practice.
"Initial generalist practice" is intended to
identify the perspective and competencies
attained by a generalist social worker new
to this perspective. It is differentiated from
"advanced
which
generalist
practice,"
builds on a generalist base and is extended
through advanced generalist graduate edu
cation (Figure 2).
Generalist
All generalist
perspective.
practice is informed by sociobehavioral
and ecosystems systems knowledge and is
influenced
that
by powerful
ideologies
include democracy,
and em
humanism,
powerment, for example. These and other
sources, as well as the beliefs
knowledge
that drive generalist practice,
must be
explicated clearly in the educational
pro
cess if generalist social work is to become
more clearly understood
and effectively
practiced.
Generalist
social work practice is not in
itself a methodology—a
way of engaging
in practice. Although there is controversy
on this point, with some (for example,
&
Hernandez,
Jorgensen, Judd, Gould,
Parsons, 1985; Johnson, 1989) suggesting
that there is an integrated methods ap
proach that supports generalist practice,
the national
&
Delphi
study (Schatz
Jenkins, 1987) found low levels of agree
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
JSWE-26:3
FIGURE 2
Initial Generalist
In addition
to generic
foundation:
PERSPECTIVE:
and
(1) informed by sociobehavioral
that include democracy,
(2) ideologies
ecosystems
knowledge;
and empowerment;
humanism,
(3) theoretically and methodologically
open; (4) direct and indirect intervention; (5) client centered and
and (6) research
based.
problem focused;
INITIAL
change
in interpersonal
(1) engage
helping; (2) manage
processes;
(3) use multilevel intervention modes;
(4) intervene
in multisized systems;
(5) perform varied practice roles;
his or her own practice; and
(6) able to assess/examine
(7) function within a social agency.
COMPETENCIES:
ment
among the experts that a unique
exists. That study
generalist methodology
that
helped to clarify the understanding
initial level generalist practice must be
theoretically and methodologically
open,
implying that the practitioner must become
proficient in varying methods of social
work intervention. Perhaps the generalist
perspective is best described as "unencum
bered by any particular practice approach
into which the client(s) might be expected
to fit" (Sheafor & Landon, 1987, p. 666).
This methodological
openness
separates
work from most other
generalist social
most notable excep
practice models—the
tions being the "life model" of social work
practice (Germain & Gitterman, 1980) and
the "general
method"
of social
work
(O'Neil,
1984).
To practice from the generalist perspec
worker must be
tive, then, the social
prepared to engage in direct and indirect
intervention based on multilevel
assess
ment. Rather than beginning with method
commitments
or preconceived
ological
notions of the interventions that will be
used, the generalist approaches the assess
ment process with attention to the social
and cultural
context
of each
practice
situation; determines if intervention is most
at the individual,
appropriate
family,
or community level;
group, organization,
and selects and applies skills from a range
of social work methods (Schatz & Jenkins,
1987, p. 17).
Generalist social work also requires an
approach to practice that is client-centered
and problem-focused.
When viewed
in
their extreme
the
client
applications,
centered and problem-focused
approach
When used in bal
appears antithetical.
the
social
ance,
however,
generalist
worker helps clients experience
personal
awareness in the process of identifying and
prioritizing areas for change and intervenes
both client
and community
by using
resources that move the client to improved
social functioning.
In addition, the generalist social work
er's
must be research-based.
practice
Through careful review and selection of
the best available research information and
through his or her own practice research
(for example,
single subject design and
the generalist can
program evaluation),
enhance the quality of services offered. A
strong commitment to research-based prac
tice is especially important for the general
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILFORD
ist social
worker because of the difficulty
of staying current with the literature when
adopting such a broad approach to social
work practice.
for initial generalist so
Competencies
cial work. Perhaps the most fundamental
competence for the initial generalist social
work practitioner is his or her ability to
engage in interpersonal helping. Although
many of these processes and skills should
as part of the generic
introduced
foundation, they become areas for in-depth
learning and case application in generalist
education programs. Included in the areas
be
should be practice
of specific emphasis
with women, people of color, and other
devalued and disenfranchised people
The generalist practitioner also must be
to effectively manage
change pro
cesses when intervening in a client system.
able
the concept
of a change
at
is
introduced
the
generic level,
process
to manage
that process
the competence
Thus,
where
at the generalist practice
level.
In addition, the initial generalist social
worker must be able to skillfully select and
use multilevel intervention modes. Gener
alist social work practice is operationalized
in the practitioner's
ability to conduct
must be achieved
assessments
and intervene at
multilevel
one or more levels as dictated by each
client situation. Preparation in these inter
vention modes goes beyond simply prepar
ing a multimethod social worker, that is,
educating the student in individual, group,
family, community, and institutional inter
vention approaches. It requires the capabil
or
ity for the practitioner to sequentially
simultaneously intervene in multisized sys
or
client remediation
tems to achieve
restoration and social change.
The ability to perform varied practice
roles is another competence area required
of the generalist social worker. Connaway
a
have formulated
and Gentry (1988)
helpful framework of generalist role sets
within a generalist model. These six role
those of (1)
sets include
broker, (2)
REDEFINED
• 225
advocate,
(3) mediator, (4) educator, (5)
social actionist, and (6) clinician.
Further, the generalist must be able to
assess/examine
his or her own practice,
either within the supervisory relationship,
with consultation,
or independently,
de
pending on the employing organization's
resources and the availability of competent
The generalist must develop
supervision.
the capacity to design survey instruments,
to engage in content analysis of recording,
and use other existing tools for self
assessment.
The initial generalist must have compe
tence to function within a social agency.
To function within a social agency envi
ronment, the social worker, for example,
must understand
in
variations
possible
agency structure based on the nature of
funding, the legitimate requirements agen
cies can be expected
to place on their
and methods
of generating
employees,
organizational change that can enhance the
quality of client services within the agency
context.
Advanced
Social
Generalist
Work in the
Perspective
As differentiated
generalist, advanced
from the initial level
generalist social
work
practice
builds
by
on
the
the
elements
of
provision
of
greater
initial
practice
specification,
sophistication and integration through in
creased
breadth
values
edge,
and
and
practice.
Elements
advanced
level
and
problem
areas
that
include
situation,
the
knowl
of generalist
differentiate
the
the
complexity
increased
of
technical
sophisticated role
assumption. The practitioner at this level
also demonstrates the ability to engage in
theory building, practice based research
abilities,
and
and
in
depth
skill
program
more
evaluation.
At
the
advanced
level, the practitioner attains greater depth
in direct service and greater breadth in the
ability to provide indirect service. (Group
for the
Study
of Generalist
Generalist Practice, 1988).
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and
Advanced
226 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
JSWE-26:3
worker
social
advanced
generalist
a uniquely
different
not require
from the initial generalist.
perspective
refers to the increased com
"Advanced"
in
the
learning process and greater
plexity
in a
breadth and depth of exploration
The
does
generalist perspective (Schatz & Jenkins,
that terms such
1987, p. 44). Recognizing
stand as
and "greater"
as "increased"
which
to
terms
from
gauge
imprecise
point to a
they nonetheless
practice,
direction for further refinement.
Where the initial generalist must have
to provide direct and indirect
competence
services within the agency setting, it is rec
generalist will
ognized that the advanced
prac
generally move toward autonomous
tice, supervisory levels, and administrative
To support this ex
roles in organizations.
pected change in function, advanced knowl
edge or skills in at least five areas (Schatz
and Jenkins, 1987, p. 32, Figure 3).
for
Increased
knowledge
requirements
students in advanced
generalist programs
in and current
must include knowledge
about
theories
and mod
the
understanding
that
els
organize practice, including knowl
of
self. In this category are theories of
edge
social systems and
human development;
social
(both
organizations
ecosystems;
and
small
groups); individual and
family
and other
collective
social
functioning;
the systematic
theories that complement
nature of the generalist perspective. Mod
the organization
of
els
that increase
as
client
must
be
such
included,
practice
system frameworks, social policy models,
and prevention-focused
models.
skills to address
Advanced
practice
direct
complex
practice situations include
such competencies
as treatment skills for
chronic
client systems.
multiple problem,
intervention
with
chaotic,
Family
actively
for example,
violent families,
requires
and other system (for
family, individual,
or
social
welfare) treatment
example, legal
skills to intervene most effectively. The
of advanced
skills
application
practice
implies the social worker is concerned with
more complex activities than only referral
or case management experience. He or she
is engaging in the full spectrum of direct
services.
The advanced generalist student also must
gain techniques and increased skills to ad
dress more complex indirect practice situ
ations at the bureaucratic,
organizational,
and community levels. This includes com
petence in administration and management
principles and techniques, personnel man
agement, finances and fund development,
policy and program development,
organi
zational and community development.
Thus, advanced
generalist social work
ers function autonomously
in practice
in which there is extensive
situations
system dysfunction or sustained complex
ity, being able to use with proficiency a
wide repertoire of change-oriented
tech
their
repertoire of
niques.
They apply
the strengths and
skills, understanding
and know
limitations of their knowledge
FIGURE 3
Generalist
Advanced
In
addition
to
the
generalist
perspective
and
initial
competencies:
(1) increased knowledge of theories, concepts, and models to understand practice
with individuals/groups/organizations/communities;
(2) advanced practice skills to address
complex direct practice situations including individual/family/group techniques;
(3) increased skills to address more complex indirect practice situations including
evaluation techniques;
(4) ability to
supervision/administration/policy/program
conduct disciplined and systematic eclectic practice through extrapolation,
and (5) ability
synthesis, and refinement of generic and generalist competencies;
to engage in theoretical and practice research and evaluation.
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fall
1990
MILFORD
ing how their skills can affect a practice
situation. The advanced generalist applies
both direct and indirect practice skills with
less effort than the initial generalist and,
of more immediate
therefore, is capable
practice reflection, intervention "course"
modification, and ultimately greater effec
tiveness in practice situations.
To help students acquire the expected
level of competence,
educa
professional
tion must strive to surface in students the
ability to conduct disciplined and system
atic eclectic practice
through extrapola
tion, synthesis, and refinement of generic
and generalist
This also
competencies.
affects the process
for actualizing
the
in the student and
generalist perspective
a personal
helps the student to develop
practice stance sufficient to work at the
advanced level.
The advanced
student also
generalist
must be prepared and have the ability to
in theoretical
and practice
re
engage
search
and evaluation as appropriate to the
setting where the practitioner finds himself
or herself,
to the community
where
and
to
the
working,
advancing
knowledge
and practice base of the profession. The
advanced
is competent
and
generalist
comfortable in using evaluation
and re
search
tools to understand
the transactive
of
the
environment
within
which he
aspects
or she works.
CONTINUING
GENERALIST
ISSUES
AND
RELATED
ADVANCED
TO THE
GENERALIST
If the discussion
and model presented
represents a beginning consensus in social
work concerning the specific elements of
and initial and
the generic foundation
advanced generalist social work and social
it is evident that issues
work education,
that have perplexed social work for many
years again will arise. In both the Delphi
of this model at
study and discussions
meetings, three issues have
professional
surfaced consistently.
First, some have argued that a generalist
social worker with many years practice
REDEFINED
•
227
experience becomes, through accumulated
an advanced
practice wisdom,
generalist
social
worker. Although
added practice
experience and increased wisdom enhance
abilities—whether
every social worker's
of the
generalist or specialist—examination
five advanced generalist components sug
gests that to master these skills at an
level
of sophistication
the
appropriate
social worker must add considerably more
directed conceptual material
educationally
and practice skill to the generalist base. To
this, he or she must complete
accomplish
both advanced
classroom
instruction and
advanced
field experience.
some social
work educators
Second,
have questioned
the wisdom of applying
the generalist conceptualization
to graduate
level
education
because
of its historical
with baccalaureate
level social
work, which, they contend, confuses the
educational continuum. The authors submit
that social work, a profession that has
and master's
adopted both baccalaureate
social work education
as entry-level de
connection
the generalist
grees, must not concede
to
either
level and
practice perspective
should adopt a model that maintains a
place for generalist social work at both
levels and then promotes greater levels of
competence from each.
Third, the issue of a continuum in social
work education
and practice is partially
addressed in this model (Figure 4). Ander
son (1985) identified the following princi
as necessary
for an educational
ples
continuum: Each level has integrity of its
own; without repetition, it builds on the
segments preceding it; it prepares gradu
ates for entry into the next higher level;
and it includes content at the advanced
levels
that is different from or more
complex than that taught at lower levels of
the curriculum. This model suggests that
social
work education
programs should be
to
the
student with a
designed
prepare
foundation
and
generic
subsequently pro
vide the options of proceeding to an initial
and
generalist curriculum (baccalaureate)
at
that
terminating
point; immediately
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
A Conceptual
Model
JSWE-26:3
FIGURE 4
of Initial and Advanced
GENERIC
Generalist
Social
Work
FOUNDATION
i
SPECIALIST
Field of service
Population
Problem
group
area
ADVANCED
Practice role
Interventive
mode
(master's);
entering a specialization
pro
from the generic to the initial
ceeding
generalist level and using that background
as a basis
for specialized
preparation
or supplementing
the initial
(master's)
generalist preparation with the additional
and skills required
for ad
knowledge
vanced
It
generalist practice (master's).
meets Anderson's requirements and has the
potential to serve as a basis for social
work's continued exploration of the impor
tant issue of continuum.
These three issues are by no means
and profes
exhaustive of the educational
sional concerns that accrue from consider
ation of this model. There also are other
issues that will arise as social workers
address the implications
of this or other
models that may lead the profession to
understand
social
work more
generalist
fully.
ISSUES
RELATED
GENERALIST
TO THE
CLASSIFICATION
SOCIAL
WORK
SYSTEM
An important step was taken when the
social work profession adopted the NASW
standards
for the classification
of
work practice (NASW,
1981). The
fication system was founded on
factors that are present in practice
tions;
(1)
social
classi
seven
situa
required
by the
for
own
responsibility
prac
knowledge
position, (2)
tice, (3) skills, (4) situational complexity,
(5) social consequences,
(6) client vulner
ability, and (7) social function. Based on
the level at which these factors apply to
social work practice activities in any job,
NASW constructed a four-level classifica
tion system that identifies the education
and experience
required to successfully
perform the practice tasks. The classifica
tions include (1) Basic Professional Level
of Social Work [BSW]
(Bachelor
degree
preparation); (2) Specialized
(Expert) Pro
fessional Level
Work
(Master of Social
[MSW]
(3) Indepen
degree preparation);
dent Professional Level (MSW plus 2 years
and (4) the Ad
supervised
experience);
vanced Professional
Level
doc
(usually
toral preparation).
A comparison of the current thinking re
garding initial and advanced generalist so
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MILFORD
cial work, at least as reflected in this model,
with the NASW
classification
system re
veals two problems. First, the classification
advanced
system does not accommodate
generalist social work practice. Although
initial generalist preparation required of all
baccalaureate
social work education pro
grams matches the expectations for the Ba
sic Professional Level of practice, the ad
generalist preparation permitted at
the master's level does not. The following
definition from the NASW (1981) classifi
cation system appears too narrow to include
vanced
of advanced
the emerging understanding
generalist social work:
(Expert)
Specialized
the
represents
mastery
specific
of therapeutic
Level
Professional
and
demonstrated
technique
a general
of human
knowledge
Advanced Professional Level: Requires pro
ficiency in special theoretical, practice, ad
ministration or policy or the ability to con
duct advanced research studies in social
welfare;
a
broad
conceptual
of
research, administration, or planning
methods and social problems, (p. 9)
label apparently does not
The specialized
fit the reality of the advanced
generalist
worker prepared at the master's
social
classification
level. If the NASW
system
intends that the social worker must pass
level by adding
through the specialized
a specialist
to
as
experience
supervised
reach the third level, namely, the Indepen
dent Professional Level, then the advanced
generalist social worker cannot be em
braced at that level either.
Second, social work again appears to be
falling into the trap of using similar lan
guage to reflect different ideas. Just as the
profession has been confused by the inter
changeable use of terms such as generalist,
generic, or foundation, social workers rec
ognize that we are using the word "ad
in two quite different ways.
vanced"
as a profes
NASW's
use of "advanced"
sional practice level does not match with
CSWE's
use of "advanced"
demonstrated
through
a
Thus, the advanced specialist conceptual
ization
of the classification
system is
incongruent with the advanced
generalist
in CSWE's
(1984)
concept incorporated
curriculum policy statement.
CONCLUSION
Since
person
knowledge
usually
doctoral degree in social work or a closely
related discipline, (p. 9)
in at least
ality as influenced by social factors, and
the disciplined use of self in treatment
relationships with individuals or groups,
or
• 229
for a level of generalist practice. The NASW
(1981) classification
system views the ad
vanced professional as even more special
ized than those at the other levels:
one knowledge and skill method, as well
as
REDEFINED
as a descriptor
the descriptions
of generalist
work practice emerged from the
Milford conferences in the 1920s, there has
been an ongoing effort to develop a clear
conception of a competent social worker
social
who is prepared to respond to the varying
demands of clients, social institutions, and
social
Sufficient data recently
policies.
accumulated
that make
it
have
been
a
model
intended
to
to
present
possible
contribute to a process of clarifying the
concepts of generic, generalist, and ad
vanced generalist social work. This model
articulates an educational background that
prepares students for practice, beginning
with the generic foundation and adding a
practice approach that identifies knowledge
at initial and
and practice competencies
advanced generalist practice levels.
It is important, however, to achieve some
agreement with the education and profes
sional communities and to refine these con
cepts further. Such refinement will help to
inform both classroom and field instruction
Explicating the field instruction
components for student learning will achieve
more congruence for students between the
curricula.
two basic learning settings. Some prelimi
nary discussion on generalist field instruc
tion recently has been generated (Schatz,
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 • SCHATZ,
JENKINS, AND SHEAFOR
Jenkins, & Calkin, 1989) that explored ed
ucational outcomes for both the initial and
advanced generalist levels. More attention
to field requirements is clearly needed.
This conceptualization
of generalist so
cial work practice also represents a process
with practition
of extensive collaboration
and
academic
ers
including the
colleagues
in
the national Delphi
many participants
study and those involved in the Group for
and Advanced
the Study of Generalist
Generalist Practice. Further collaboration
is needed to advance the thinking and to
exchange resources that have been devel
oped to educate and train each level of the
Moreover, several directions for
research
can
be
identified,
particularly the need to study the connec
tion between learning areas and compe
in generalist
social
tency development
work practice. The assertions that social
generalist.
additional
work practice indeed, does take the forms
identified
in this article
need
to be
buttressed by additional evidence identify
the types of jobs and
ing, for example,
tasks performed by the BSW
generalist
worker, the MSW generalist and the MSW
advanced generalist.
Finally, this analysis has surfaced prob
lems between
the NASW
classification
system and the emerging concept of an
advanced
social
worker. The
generalist
advanced
MSW-prepared
generalist
ap
pears not to be recognized in the classifica
tion system, suggesting that the differing
of "advanced
and
conceptions
specialist"
"advanced
reflected in the
generalist"
NASW
classification
and
the
system
CSWE
(1988) curriculum policy statement
require reconsideration.
NOTE
1. A review of the available literature yielded not one
article, text, or monograph that explicated a definition of
advanced
generalist practice or described this broader
framework for social work.
REFERENCES
J. (1981). Social work methods and processes.
Belmont: CA: Wadsworth.
Anderson,
Anderson,
J. (1985).
BSW
programs and the continuum in
JSWE-26:3
social
work.
Journal
of Social
Work Education,
21,
63-72.
Baer, B. L. & Federico,
for
the
R. (Eds).
baccalaureate
MA:
Cambridge,
Education
(1978-1979).
social
worker
(Vols.
1-2,
Ballinger.
Barker, R. L. & Briggs, T. L. (Eds.), (1971). Manpower
on the utilization of baccalaureate
research
social
workers (Vol. 2). Washington DC: Veterans Administra
tion.
Bartlett, H. M. (1958).
Toward clarification and improve
ment of social work practice. Social
Bartlett, H. M.
DC:
practice.
Washington,
Social Workers.
W.
Boehm,
W.
(1959).
National
Objectives
curriculum of the future (Vol.
Social
Work, 3, 3-9.
The common base
(1970).
of social
Association
of the social
work
of
work
1). New York: Council on
Work Education.
R. S., & Gentry, M. E. (1988). Social work
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
CSWE.
Standards
(1974).
for the accreditation
of
baccalaureate
degree programs in social work. New
Connaway,
practice.
York: Author.
CSWE.
and
(1982). Curriculum policy for the master's degree
baccalaureate
work
degree programs in social
education.
Handbook
standards and
of accreditation
procedures (pp. 119-130).
Washington, DC: Author.
Council on Social Work Education. (1988). Handbook of
accreditation
standards
and procedures
(rev. ed.).
Washington, DC: Author.
W. & Schlesinger, E. G. (1987). Ethnic-sensitive
social work practice (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Fischer, J. (1978). Effective casework practice: An eclectic
Devore,
approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1980). The life model
of social work practice. New York: Columbia University
Press.
C. B., & Gitterman, A. 1987. Ecological
perspective. In A. Minahan et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia
Silver Spring,
of Social Work (18th ed., pp. 488-499).
MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Germain,
H.
Goldstein,
W.
Gordon,
(1973).
Columbia,
approach.
Press.
E.
definition. Social
Social
SC:
work practice:
A unitary
University of South Carolina
A critique
Work, 7, 3-13.
of
(1962).
the
W. E. (1981). A natural classification
social work literature and knowledge, Social
Gordon,
working
system for
Work, 26,
138-143.
Group for the Study of Generalist and Advanced Generalist
Practice. (1988, July). [Definitions]. Unpublished docu
ment circulated at a Wyoming retreat.
Hepworth,
D.
&
J. (1986).
Larsen,
Direct
social
work
IL: Dorsey.
(2nd ed.). Homewood,
S. H., Jorgensen, J. D., Judd, P., Gould,
Hernandez,
M. S. & Parsons, R. J. (1985). Integrated practice: An
practice
Advanced
Generalist
Problem Specialists.
21(3) 28-35.
Hollis,
E.
V.
&
Curriculum
to
Journal of Social
Taylor,
A.
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
L.
Prepare Social
Work Education,
(1951).
Social
work
MILFORD
education
in the Untied States.
New
York:
Columbia
University Press.
Johnson, L. C. (1989).
,
Social work practice: A generalist
approach (3rd ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
The practice of
Klenk, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1974).
social
work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
H. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1971).
A core of
social workers. Atlanta:
competence for baccalaureate
Southern Regional Education Board.
McPheeters,
Minahan,
A. N. (1981).
work revisited. Social
Morales,
A.,
&
and objectives
Work, 26, 3-9.
Purposes
Sheafor,
B.
(1977).
Social
of social
work:
A
profession of many faces. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
National Association
of Social Workers. (1974).
Silver
Spring, MD: Author. (Reprinted from American Associ
ation of Social
Workers, Social
case work generic and
specific: A report of the Milford conference,
York: Author.)
National
(1974),
Association
Social
of Social
Workers.
Work, 22 (1977),
1929, New
Social
Work, 19
and Social
Work, 26
(1981). Three issues devoted to conceptual frameworks
for the profession.
NASW. (1981). NASW standards for the classification of
social
work (Policy
Statement 4).
Silver Spring:
MO:
Author.
M. J. (1984). The general method of social work.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Perlman, H. H. (1979). Relationship: The heart of helping
people. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
O'Neil,
Accepted
•
REDEFINED
Pincus, A., and Minahan, A. (1973). Social
Model and method. Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Reid, W. J. (1981). Mapping the knowledge
work. Social Work, 26, 124-132.
231
work practice:
base of social
M. E. (1917).
Social diagnosis.
New York:
Sage Foundation.
Structure and quality of social work
Ripple, L. (1974).
education. New York: Council on Social Work Educa
Richmond,
Russell
tion.
M. S., & Jenkins, L. E. (1987). Differentiating
generic foundation, generalist social work perspective,
and advanced
in the generalist
generalist practice
Schatz,
Final report of a national Delphi study.
perspective:
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO: Colorado
State University, Department of Social Work.
Schatz,
M.
December).
Meeting,
IL.
Jenkins, L. E. & Calkin, C. (1989,
Paper presented at the Annual Program
Council on Social Work Education, Chicago,
S.,
Sheafor, B. W., Horejsi, C. R., & Horejsi, G. A. (1988).
and guidelines for social work practice.
Techniques
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
B. W. & Landon,
P. S. (1987).
Generalist
perspective. In A. Minahan et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia
Silver Spring,
of Social Work (18th ed., pp. 660-669).
MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Sheafor,
Shulman,
L. (1981).
groups (2nd ed.),
Siporin, M. (1975).
The skills of helping individuals
Itasca, IL: Peacock.
Introduction to social
and
work practice.
New York: Macmillan.
5/90.
Address correspondence
to Mona S. Schatz, Department of Social
Work, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO.
This content downloaded from 149.166.57.76 on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:30:32 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
80523.