DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES
OF UNSTRUCTURED
COUNSELING GROUPS
WITH PRISONERS
RICHARD C. PAGE
University of Georgia
Very few prisons offer unstructured
group counseling to inmates.
Unstructured counseling groups can be defined as groups in which
the participants discuss their feelings, assume the primary responsibility for the direction of their group, and are responsible for helping
themselves and one another. The leader of these groups is present to
facilitate the group process. McCorkle (1970) surveyed 109 prisons
and found only 39 which permitted inmates to participate in group
therapy. Most of these groups were either lecture groups or inspirational groups, although a few prisons offered inmates psychoanalytic
group therapy. Agler (1966) and Corsini (1951) reported the use of
psychodrama groups with prisoners. Unfortunately, however, unstructured group counseling with inmates is still the exception rather
than the rule.
The use of psychodrama groups, psychoanalytic groups, and other
approaches in which members discuss their feelings has been criticized
by many of the current advocates of group counseling in prisons.
Both Ruitenbeek (1970) and Yablonsky (1965) indicated that psychoanalytic therapy groups are unworkable with prisoners. Prisoners
were depicted as incapable of profiting from participation in nondirective groups in which feelings or problems are discussed. Both
Ruitenbeek and Yablonsky advocated that Synanon-type groups be
conducted with inmates because such groups use attack therapy,
ridicule, and exaggeration to resocialize their participants.
Most of the advocates of group counseling with delinquents or
prisoners recommend that these groups should be highly structured
and directive. Wicks (1974) advocated the use of transactional analytic
SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR, Vol. 10 No. 2,
@ 1979 Sage Publications, Inc
May
1979 271-278
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
271
272
groups and guided group interaction with prisoners because the agenda
of these groups keeps them from degenerating into gripe sessions.
Ruitenbeek (1970) asserted that Synanon House has been effective
with prisoners and drug addicts because it controls the total life of
addicts and uses brainwashing techniques to change the behavior of
residents. Others have suggested the use of reality therapy groups with
prisoners and juvenile delinquents because this approach prevents
group participants from discussing their feelings and instead focuses
on the behavior of members (Glasser, 1965; Wicks, 1974).
Many of the modern advocates of group counseling with prisoners
have indicated they believe inmates need to be directed toward responsible behavior (Glasser, 1965; Wicks, 1974). The group leader
generally defines what responsible behavior means and uses the group
to resocialize members. Very few of these theorists have confidence
in the ability of prisoners to help either themselves or one another.
It is possible that current theorists are mistaken when they hold that
inmates are incapable of benefiting from participation in groups in
which feelings are discussed. Perhaps unstructured group therapy can
work with prisoners when a group facilitator encourages inmates to
help themselves.
This article will describe a feeling-oriented, unstructured group
approach which has been used successfully with prisoners. Because
these groups were unstructured, they promoted social learning among
the participants. As these groups evolved through a series of developmental stages, the members were able to assume more responsibility
for themselves and others and to work through problems of living.
DESCRIPTION OF GROUPS
August 1974 and August 1976 the writer conducted three
group counseling sessions per week with female inmates with histories
of drug abuse at the Florida Correctional Institution (FCI), Woman’s
Between
Section. The writer was the Substance Abuse Counselor at this institution when these groups were conducted. Of the 186 inmates who
requested to participate in group counseling between March 1975 and
June 1976, 69% were black and 31% were white. More than half of
these inmates were serving sentences over five years long. Of these
women, 64% had used heroin and 36% had used other types of drugs
(amphetamines, barbiturates, psychedelics, or marijuana). Most of
these women were imprisoned for either sales of drugs, grand larceny,
or violation of probation or parole.
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
273
counselor conducted personal interviews with anyone
be in group counseling and selected members on the basis
of their motivation and need for drug counseling. The persons selected
for groups were assured the drug counselor would keep the group
proceedings strictly confidential. Over 70 of the 168 inmates who were
interviewed participated in these groups. Members were accepted for
group counseling only if they had six months or more to serve at FCI.
Membership in these groups was voluntary. Each of the groups had
six to 13 participants and the average inmate participated in group
counseling for 5.7 months.
Each of these groups was conducted in a similar manner. The facilitator attempted to provide a safe group environment in which the
members were totally free to express their feelings and to explore
whatever topics or issues they wished. The facilitator placed the responsibility for the success of the group upon the members, rather
than placing himself in the role of expert helper in the group. The
facilitator encouraged the members to be responsible for the development of their groups to enable the members to learn that they were
capable of helping themselves and others.
One of the major factors which enabled the group members to be
helped in these groups was the progression of these groups through a
series of developmental stages. The facilitator might enhance or retard
the progress of these groups, but the members provided the primary
energy and motivation for the development process.
The
drug
requesting to
GROUP STAGES
following stages occurred in the groups facilitated at FCI:
(1) support of current lifestyles, (2) anger at authority, (3) self-revelation, (4) working through problems, (5) new ways of relating, and
(6) the ending stages. The order and time of these stages sometimes
varied but most of the groups progressed through these stages in somewhat regular sequence.
The
SUPPORT OF CURRENT LIFESTYLES
When the members entered their groups,
about prison, reminisced about drugs, or
they generally complained
glorified the lifestyles of
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
274
junkies. Discussing these topics allowed the members to avoid discussing their current problems and their feelings about the other
participants. The group members also were able to gauge how the
facilitator would respond when the group challenged authority or
supported antisocial lifestyles.
The facilitator was generally unable to steer the group members in
the direction of discussing their personal feelings until they trusted
both him and one another. During this stage, the facilitator attempted
to avoid the pitfalls of either siding with inmates against institutional
policy or staff or giving the appearance of siding with the institution
against the inmates. It was observed that the participants were less apt
to react negatively against the system when the facilitator avoided
telling them to think more positively about the establishment.
The facilitator sought to handle discussions about drugs in a way
which neither reinforced drug-taking behaviors nor provided the
members with the opportunity to react against authority. Generally,
he attempted to direct these discussions to other topics or help members
gain insight into their motivations for using drugs or the effects of
drugs on their lives. The members discussed drugs primarily to avoid
the discussion of personal feelings.
ANGER AT AUTHORITY
The group members became increasingly frustrated with their
group because their trust of the group increased yet members continued
to avoid revealing their personal feelings in the group. The members
expected the group facilitator to assume the primary responsibility of
developing their group into a cohesive and constructive whole. The
members were accustomed to being told how to think and act by authority figures, so they became angry when the leader failed to reduce
their frustration by telling them what to discuss in the group. They
also expressed anger toward the facilitator because he represented
authority and provided them with an outlet for their frustrations
with authority.
Whenever a member became angry with him, the facilitator encouraged the participant to openly express her anger directly to him.
He also encouraged members to express anger originating from other
sources even though members might incorrectly blame him for their
problems. Several positive things happened by encouraging the members to express their anger. The members learned that someone with
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
275
was willing to listen and to understand their anger. The
members also learned to trust the facilitator because they observed he
avoided using his authority in a repressive manner when personally
attacked. The members learned that the facilitator was able to respond
positively and constructively to the expression of strong feelings. The
members also were able to be more objective about perceived injustices
authority
by openly expressing repressed hostilities.
SELF-REVELATION
As the participants observed that they were free to express their
feelings, they began to reveal many of their problems, personal fears,
and inadequacies. Many of these women revealed intense feelings of
guilt about the way they abused either their parents or children. Some
discussed the ways their parents beat them or their fathers’
incestuous relations with them. Many members expressed guilt about
crimes they had committed or people they had hurt. Additionally, the
members began to express both positive and negative feedback to
other group members and to honestly reveal their feelings about other
members. The group members began to work together during this stage
in a way which showed that they had concern for the welfare of the
women
other participants.
The facilitator generally encouraged the members to discuss their
feelings and sought to help members provide reasonable and supportive
feedback to one another. Generally, the members were very sensitive
to the feelings of other members and intuitively realized when to provide
support and when to offer constructive feedback.
WORKING THROUGH PROBLEMS
Once a member revealed her feelings in the group, the other members
actively helped this participant explore her feelings and to examine
realistic
of action. For instance, more than once group parindicated that living with their parents was depressing and
contributed to their abuse of drugs. Such members often were encouraged to stay away from their parents. The members also gave
feedback when they felt another was handling her problems in a manner
which was likely to contribute to her future unhappiness. On several
occasions members who had been addicted to heroin were told by the
group that they were being unrealistic when they said they could use
courses
ticipants
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
276
heroin again without again becoming addicted (namely, regularly
using heroin intravenously).
The members probably spent more time during this stage discussing
their perceptions of one another and the group leader than discussing
their problems. They provided a member with feedback when it was
felt she was either deluding herself or the other group members. For
instance, a member who acted in an overly confident, abrasive way in
the group to conceal her lack of confidence might be so told by the
others. The members were honest with each other and often the feedback expressed was emotional and intense. As the members expressed
their honest feelings, the concern for other members and the trust
of members for the group continued to increase.
NEW WAYS OF RELATING
The members began to relate to each other differently as they learned
that the other group members and the facilitator cared about them.
Members began to listen carefully when others spoke. The participants
became more assertive and gave feedback when it was appropriate and
helpful. When a member provided feedback in a hostile or defensive
manner, the participants helped the hostile member to examine her
style of relating to others. During this stage they also openly expressed
high regard for the others in the group and for the facilitator. The
members began to change manipulative behavior into behavior which
showed that they were concerned with the welfare of other participants.
The members also began to change their attitudes about drugs and
the value of criminal lifestyles. These attitudes changed slowly, but
increasingly the members supported a member who stopped glamorizing junkie lifestyles or the drug culture. Members were often asked
to examine the reasons they needed drugs. Members also encouraged
one another to stop acting in self-destructive ways in the prison. For
instance, a member who confronted prison guards with the risk of
being locked in solitary confinement was supported by the group when
she became less combative. Members were encouraged by others to
make realistic plans to avoid legal difficulties once they left prison.
ENDING STAGE
The groups were open-ended; thus members left the group about
month. Members were added to the group about every two
months. When participants left the group they were generally ready
once a
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
277
leave prison, so the group helped these members to explore their
future plans. The remaining participants were encouraged to express
any unresolved feelings they might have for the departing member,
including feelings of bereavement.
When the groups were terminated, many of the members as well
as the leader felt a sense of loss. Some members indicated that they were
losing some of the only people who cared for them and understood
them. The members were encouraged by each other and by the facilitator to express their feelings of grief and to examine how they handled
loss. When members became hostile or silent, they were encouraged
to openly explore their feelings about the termination of the group.
The facilitator expressed his feelings of loss concerning the ending of
the group. He told the group members that he cared about them and
hoped that they would seek out meaningful personal encounters with
others in the future. Most of the group members were able to express
how they felt about the end of the group and to voice their unresolved
feelings for the other members and facilitator.
to
APPLICATION OF EXPERIENCE
The members of these groups appeared to benefit from their group
participation in several ways. Many made progress toward working
through their confused feelings and personal problems. The feedback
they received seemed to help them to be more realistic and honest
with themselves. Members also benefited by receiving feedback about
the types of &dquo;games&dquo; they played with other members. This helped
them learn how they manipulated others and to value honest and caring
interpersonal involvements.
This writer has also conducted a few counseling groups with male
inmates at the Florida Correctional Institution. This type of group
was more difficult to initiate with males than females because male
prisoners at first seemed to respond less positively to the idea of discussing their feelings with their peers. Once these male inmates gained
trust for the facilitator and other group members, they appeared to
benefit from their participation in their groups generally in the same
manner as female participants.
Certain preconditions probably should exist in a prison before this
type of counseling can be conducted successfully. One important
factor is the freedom the group facilitator must have to conduct groups
without being impeded by custody or other institutional personnel.
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016
278
These groups need to be facilitated in private, and the confidentiality
of the group proceedings needs to be endorsed by key institutional
personnel, especially the superintendent of the prison. Further, the
facilitator and inmates must be given enough time to devote to the
groups. Based on experiences reported, at least 10 sessions are required
for the inmates to develop sufficient trust for other members and for
the facilitator to allow open discussion of feelings.
The group facilitator also needs to realize that the group is likely
to progress through certain stages. Many group leaders in prison
settings experience frustration because group members express hostile
feelings toward either the facilitator or institution. The anger in the
authority stage, however, represents only one of the stages of unstructured groups which are facilitated in the manner described. The facilitator should be sufficiently knowledgeable regarding the development
of the group process to avoid discouragement during this stage. The
facilitator also must avoid trying to rush the members through a particular stage. When the members exhaust their interest in a particular
stage, they gain the impetus to move into another stage. It is through
this process that social learning appears to occur in these truly confined
group
settings.
REFERENCES
F. (1966) "Psychodrama with the criminally insane." Group Psychotherapy
19: 176-182.
CORSINI, R. J. (1951) "The method of psychodrama in prison." Group Psychotherapy 4:
321-326.
GLASSER, W. (1965) Reality Therapy: A New Approach to Psychiatry. New York:
Harper and Row.
McCORKLE, L. W. (1970) "Group therapy with offenders." In N. Johnston, L. Savitz,
and M. E. Wolfgang (eds.) The Sociology of Pumshment and Corrections. New York:
AGLER, C.
Wiley.
RUITENBEEK, H. M. (1970) The New Group Therapies. New York: Avon Books.
WICKS, R. J. (1974) Correctional Psychology. San Francisco: Canfield Press.
YABLONSKY, L. (1965) Synanon: The Tunnel Back. Baltimore Penguin Books.
is an Assistant Professor In the Department of Counsehng and
Development Services at the University of Georgia. He is also working
Counseling Psychologist at Andromeda House, a residential drug treatment
Richard C. Page
Human
as a
center In
Atlanta.
Downloaded from sgr.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 17, 2016