William J. Reid

Knowledge for Direct Social Work Practice: An Analysis of Trends

This article reviews selected trends in the knowledge base of direct social work practice over the past quarter century: burgeoning diversity in practice approaches; new views of the client‐practitioner relationship; the development of multilevel intervention models; the emergence of family therapy approaches; increasing focus on action, meaning, and information in client helping services; and growing attention to scientifically based practice. These trends are analyzed as products of practice movements, which experience cycles of growth, change, and decline, leaving legacies in the form of additions to the core knowledge of the profession.

Generalist practice : a task centered approach

This is a basic textbook for social work practice courses at the undergraduate and postgraduate level. The approach presented provides a generalist and problem-solving orientation. It comes at an opportune time when both orientations are rapidly gaining adherents in universities. The guide seeks to establish a task-centred methodology - a structured, short-term, problem-solving approach - applicable across various systems. The authors outline five levels of practice: the individual, the family, the group, organizations and communities. Each section contains chapters that discuss pretreatment considerations from the initial and middle phases of treatment to termination. A special numbering system helps the reader to follow particular topics throughout the book. Important pedagogical features include checklists, questions for consideration, and practice exercises to help students monitor their understanding and skill development.

Choosing Effective Interventions

Recent evaluations of social work have provided evidence for the effectiveness of a variety of treatment methods. This development has greatly aided in the establishment of a scientific basis for the profession but has not significantly influenced the decision making of practitioners. One reason for this is the difficulty of rendering such information into a form that is useful to practitioners. This article suggests guidelines that practitioners can follow in assessing and utilizing research findings.

Long-Term Trends in Clinical Social Work

In this article, I examine four interrelated trends that have emerged in clinical social work over the past half-century: the increasing variety of interventions used by clinical social workers; the emergence and solidification of short-term modalities; the development of action-oriented methods; and the growing importance of research as a basis for practice. I consider selected developments, issues, and implications relating to these trends, including the emergence of posteclectic, problem-specific intervention models concomitant with the fading importance of the schools approach to practice; applications of brief treatment methods in the context of a managed care environment; the struggle to achieve an appropriate balance between actionoriented and reflective-expressive approaches; and the growing evidence for differential intervention effects as part of the increasing role of research as a guide to practice.

Some Reflections on the Practice Doctorate

A doctorate is proposed that would prepare graduates for roles as practitioners and administrators in clinical social work and the social services. Emphasis would be placed on mastery of knowledge of service approaches and on learning methods of clinical research and program management rather than on the acquisition of ad- vanced treatment skills. A practicum in which students would develop and test models of intervention would be a central feature of the educational experience. The empirical and management orientations of the proposed doctorate would, it is hoped, enable graduates to provide leadership in the development of scientifically grounded practice in large-scale social service programs.

Dissatisfaction with Brief Treatment

Literature regarding reactions to brief treatment suggests that many clients, often women more than men, report significant dissatisfaction, despite what appears to be positive outcome. The authors research suggests two factors in interaction: lack of meaningful goal attainment and reaction to dependency induced by treatment. Differences between sexes seem to be primarily a result of differences in expectations.

WIN, Work, and Welfare

A follow-up study found that the majority of former WIN participants were still on welfare after being out of the program an average of eighteen months. Many held low-wage jobs and were receiving supplementary assistance. Ninety percent of the sample had employment histories prior to their WIN experience. Women, who were more likely than men to have received education and job training while in WIN, were also more likely to obtain jobs at higher skill levels than they had before WIN, to utilize WIN-acquired skills on theirjobs, and to credit WIN with changes in their circumstances and outlooks. The men in the sample typically went into early job placement, which became the emphasis of WIN II, the current program. For these men, WIN seemed to function as an employment service, facilitating their return to the unskilled labor market.

Super Problem Solvers: A Systematic Case Study

In this single-case study, the practitioner and clients are construed as coparticipants in a problem-solving system. An inductively derived, case-specific coding scheme augmented by qualitative analysis is used to examine problem-solving and change processes. The study offers a perspective on the range, variety, and interaction of change events that occur when family members are active problem solvers. It suggests how leadership may be shared between practitioner and clients and how the process may transcend the structure of a practice model.

The Empirical Practice Movement Revisited: Reflections on the Comments of Brown and Epstein

combination of practitioner and researcher was a formidable one. Together they influenced many students to be practitioners who believed in the usefulness of research. Some actually became practitioner-researchers; a few became research practitioners. Even though the task-centered sequence died a slow and painful death in Chicago, where it was probably least appreciated, it is ironic that now the primary form of mental health treatment funded by insurers is brief treatment. I remember a job interview at a university. I was forewarned that few faculty bothered to attend applicant presentations, so I should not think their absence was a comment on me or my job prospects. The colloquium was held in the deans office, which had about 12 chairs. More than 20 people showed up, assuming I would be talking about task-centered treatment. One legendary figure in social work came late and sat on the floor to listen. She would not take any chair offered her. I had not planned on talking about the taskcentered model, but I did. A few were interested in the research, but most wanted to hear about the practice model and how one implemented it. The period of time Reid writes about opened up new practice arenas. An almost endless variety of ways were being promulgated to help people, from task-centered to avocado therapy. The effectiveness of some was obviously better established than others, but many were being developed, partly because so many students at the time were disenchanted with the seemingly narrow scope of previously taught practice methods. New and different and, one hoped, better practice methods were being demanded, and Reid and the men he mentions helped promote that brief moment in time when researching what you do was as important as anything except helping a client. Early research seems to have been forced onto practice and, possibly as a consequence, did not find much of value. When Reid and his cadre said to practitioners, We need your expertise to design better models, people like Epstein and others stepped up and said, Lets go to work. I am sure that other early collaborators in the task-centered program such as Eleanor Tolson, Ronald Rooney, Anne Fortune, Tina Rzepnicki, John Levitt, and others have memories that can help flesh out this period of history at the School of Social Service Administration and the University of Chicago. Reid has started the storytelling, perhaps the rest of us can help finish it.

Eclecticism, Empiricism, Minimalism, and Task-centered Practice: A Response to Gambrill

ample resources, and strong administrative support. But whether such models develop in academia or agencies, one element is absolutely crucial-the opportunity to try out and develop theories and methods in the crucible of actual practice. As I argued in my article, empirical practice needs to become more a part of the social agency world, if the movement is to make a substantial difference in social work practice. Epstein doubts that this will happen, and she may be right. However, some long-term trends are at work. One of these is a gradual shift toward greater use of empirical methods and greater use of research generally in social work practice. This trend emerged with the early professionalization of social work and is still inching along. Although its effects may appear to be imperceptible in many areas, one can point today to the use of a wide range of research-based methods and other research applications, only glimmerings of which were in evidence in earlier years. This is so, one hopes, because research does in fact contribute to better practice. Another trend, related to the first, is the growing influence in agencies of recent generations of social workers better trained in research-based practice than their predecessors. A third trend is continuing pressure on social work for accountability to funding sources and other constituencies, a pressure causing some agencies to become more receptive to research and its products. As these trends continue, one can expect a more research-oriented social work, even though research-and here I concur with Epstein-will be only one of a number of influences on what practitioners do with clients.