Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

Volume 17, Number 6, December 2000

Effects of a Solution-Focused
Mutual Aid Group for Hispanic
Children of Incarcerated Parents

David W. Springer, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP,

Courtney Lynch, LMSW, and
Allen Rubin, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP
ABSTRACT: Children of incarcerated parents are five to six times more
likely to go to prison than their peers (Johnston, 1995). Yet, there is a lacuna
in the literature that examines the effectiveness of interventions for children
with an incarcerated family member. The purpose of the present study is to
describe a solution-focused, mutual aid group intervention and to examine the
effects of the group on the self-esteem of elementary-age Hispanic children
of incarcerated parents when compared to a no-treatment comparison group.
Implications for social work practice and research with this vulnerable population are addressed.
KEY WORDS: Groups; Solution-Focused; Mutual Aid; Children; Incarcerated.

Introduction
The number of incarcerated persons in Americas jails and prisons has
increased dramatically over the past two decades. According to the
1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were approximately five million adults in the United States criminal justice system in 1996 (cited
in DiMascio, 1997). Unfortunately, these numbers continue to rise
steadily. The Department of Justice projects that the federal inmate
David W. Springer, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work,
The University of Texas at Austin. Ms. Lynch, LMSW, is a social work practitioner at
the Caring Family Network in Austin, Texas. Allen Rubin, Ph.D., LMSW-ACP is Bert
Kruger Smith Centennial Professor, School of Social Work, The University of Texas at
Austin. Address correspondence to Dr. David W. Springer, The University of Texas at
Austin, School of Social Work, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd., Austin, TX 78712.
431

2000 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

432

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

population will reach 130,000 by the year 2000, up from 100,000 in

1995 (Department of Justice, 1994; cited in DiMascio, 1997).
While increased attention has been given to adults in the criminal
justice system, the forgotten victims are the children left behind when
parents go to jail. It is estimated that there are roughly 2.5 million
children in the U.S. who have one or both parents incarcerated
(Bjaanes, 1995). Even as we face the reality that children of incarcerated parents are five to six times more likely to go to prison than their
peers (Johnston, 1995), there continues to be a dearth of information
on effective services available to help this vulnerable population.
The purpose of the present study is three-fold. The first purpose is
to describe a group intervention that can be used to help children of
incarcerated parents. The closed-ended 6-week group can best be described as an integration of solution-focused (de Shazer, 1985; Selekman, 1997), interactional (Shulman, 1992; Yalom, 1995) and mutual
aid (Gitterman & Shulman, 1994; Schwartz, 1961) approaches. The
second purpose is to determine the effects that a group intervention
had on the self-esteem of elementary-age Hispanic children of incarcerated parents when compared to a no-treatment comparison group.
The third purpose is to directly examine factors that practitionerresearchers may want to consider in future attempts to demonstrate
practice effectiveness of a group intervention with this population.

Literature Review
The literature indicates that the impact of a mother or father being
incarcerated can be traumatic for the child of the offender. It has been
reported that children may experience profound sadness, a sense of
loss similar to a death in the family, a drop in school performance, and
stigma associated with the imprisonment of a family member (Sack,
Seidler, & Thomas, 1976). In addition, some children can become defiant or aggressive and display antisocial behaviors as a result of having a parent incarcerated (Gabel, 1992). A loss of self-esteem, eating
problems, difficulty sleeping, and attachment disorders have also been
mentioned in the literature (Johnston, 1995).
Groups are a recommended intervention strategy for children who
have experienced parental incarceration (Gamer & Schrader, 1985;
Johnston, 1995). To every child, belonging to some group and having
status with his contemporaries is essential (Konopka, 1949, p. 1). According to its proponents, group treatment can address the need for

DAVID W. SPRINGER, COURTNEY LYNCH, AND ALLEN RUBIN

433

social support and provide a structured setting for expression of members concerns. Furthermore, such groups can create a mechanism for
diffusing the sense of shame that often accompanies parental incarceration. Children learning that other group members have similar experiences offers confirmation, affirmation, and acceptance to the child
(Kahn, 1994, p. 49).
Even though there is support in general for group work with children, including children who have experienced parental incarceration,
there is no available outcome literature on the effectiveness of group
intervention with this population. There is a major lacuna in the available literature to provide guidance (theoretical- and/or outcome-based)
regarding what group modality one should use when conducting
groups with children of incarcerated parents. In fact, the development of the child and adolescent group literature remains considerably delayed (Dagley, Gazda, Eppinger, & Stewart, 1994; cited in
Hoag & Burlingame, 1997), especially when compared to the adult
group literature. Thus, the group leaders in this study had to rely
on their practice experience and on the existing body of literature on
intervention with children in general to guide their decision on what
modalities to use.

Group Approaches
The group leaders integrated techniques and interventions primarily
from three modalities: solution-focused therapy, an interactional approach, and a mutual aid approach. Each is briefly described below.
Solution-focused therapy (SFT) (Berg & de Shazer, 1991; de Shazer,
1985; Selekman, 1997) underscores the positive attributes that clients
bring with them to treatment. It is a strengths-based approach. Using
SFT, clients are encouraged to develop future-oriented, positively
worded goals. Practitioners are encouraged to work in partnership
with the client, and to foster collaborative relationships with resources
(e.g., schools) that may benefit the client.
The interactional (Shulman, 1992; Yalom, 1995) and mutual aid
(Gitterman & Shulman, 1994; Schwartz, 1961) nature of the group
implemented in this project potentially offers several additional benefits to the participants. As the group members interact with one another in the group setting, it does not take long for them to show their
true colors, a phenomenon that Yalom (1995) refers to as the group
as a social microcosm. By focusing on the interactions between mem-

434

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

bers that take place in the here-and-now of the group experience, children are allowed to learn how they impact or are perceived by their
peers, to get feedback about their behavior, and to practice new skills.
This is achieved in the context of the group members providing support to one another in the form of a helping system.
The rationale behind choosing these particular modalities is rather
straightforward. The mutual aid and interactional approaches together provided the context for how the leaders viewed group process
and development. Viewing the group through a mutual aid and interactional lens, the leaders focus was on encouraging here-and-now
member-to-member interaction so members could use each other as
a source of mutual support. Yaloms (1995) therapeutic factors (e.g.,
universality, instillation of hope) were also used to amplify positive
member-to-member interaction. The mutual aid approach allowed the
leaders to also consider such factors as the childrens culture and any
oppressive forces. Within this context, the solution-focused approach
provided the group leaders with clear, direct intervention techniques
(for example, the scaling question, the miracle question) that are easy
for children to grasp. This approach also focuses on the clients
strengths. This is illustrated below when the group intervention is
described in further detail. (A description of this group intervention
also appears elsewhere [see Springer, Pomeroy, & Johnson, 1999]).
Finally, our rationale for choosing these approaches was based on existing literature that supports the use of these modalities with youth
(Corder, Whiteside, & Haizlip, 1981; Selekman, 1997; Vastola, Nierenberg, & Graham, 1994).

Methodology
Clients
Ten subjects participated in the study: 5 subjects in the experimental
group and 5 subjects in the comparison group. It is recommended that
no more than six members be allowed in a childrens group in order
to meet all of the needs of each member (Tutty & Wagar, 1994). The
research design was quasi-experimental. More specifically, a pretestposttest non-equivalent comparison group design with one dependent
variable was used. Other designs were considered (e.g., pretest-post-

DAVID W. SPRINGER, COURTNEY LYNCH, AND ALLEN RUBIN

435

test control group design) but were discarded due to the constraints of
conducting the research in a school setting, as described below.
The school counselor at the elementary school had become alarmed
at the growing number of children who were experiencing the impact
of familial incarceration and were exhibiting trauma-reactive behaviors such as depression, aggressive behavior (verbal and physical), lying, stealing, and withdrawal. Thus, the counselor requested that the
schools teachers refer to her any child that would benefit from a group
that addressed having a family member incarcerated. The counselor
took the first five children referred and placed them into the group.
Any subsequent referrals composed the comparison group. It was not
feasible to utilize random assignment in this particular scenario. The
school counselor and teachers were not comfortable randomly withholding services from certain children. Rather, they viewed it as more
fair to provide services on a first-come, first-serve basis and to create
a wait-list comparison group for the remaining children. School administrators also supported this view.
The comparison group was composed of three girls and two boys.
All children in the comparison group were Hispanic American, were
in 4th or 5th grade, and knew a family member in prison. On these
particular characteristics, the comparison and experimental groups
were very similar.
The experimental group was composed of three girls and two boys.
All members shared the following characteristics: they were Hispanic
American, they were in 4th or 5th grade, and they knew a family
member in prison.
The fact that all children in the group were of Hispanic American
ethnicity was extremely important to consider in determining how to
practice in a culturally competent manner. Cartledge, Lee and Feng
(1995) point out several factors to consider when teaching social skills
to Hispanic children. They emphasize that family unity is a sacred
value. This holds special importance for our particular group of children, as they all knew a family member who was incarcerated. Additionally, Cartledge et al. highlight the notion that Hispanic children
may be protective of their Hispanic culture, and that this population is
often expressive and animated in their interpersonal communications.
Such factors were strongly considered throughout the duration of the
group. It is critical that social work practitioners learn to provide culturally competent services to Latino youth at-risk of involvement, or
currently involved in, the juvenile justice system (Pablon, 1998).

436

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

The Group Intervention

The school allowed the use of vacant classrooms in which to hold the
group. Two of the authors served as the group facilitators. Once group
members were selected, one of the group facilitators carefully screened
each member for appropriateness for the group. Exclusion criteria included psychosis, mental retardation, and any pervasive developmental disorder. No group member was screened out. Additionally,
prior to the first group meeting, one of the facilitators met with each
child individually to discuss the purpose of the group, what they could
expect during the group experience, and to help the child choose at
least one target goal to begin working on in the group. We also obtained additional information on the group members prior to beginning group, such as which family member was incarcerated and the
extent to which the child had contact with him or her, and how each
member performed in the classroom (academically and behaviorally).
During group sessions the leaders conducted therapeutic activities,
processed thoughts and feelings, and implemented SFT interventions
such as the scaling and miracle questions.
Scaling questions (Berg & de Shazer, 1993; de Shazer, 1991, 1994)
are very useful for securing a quantitative measurement of the [clients] presenting problem prior to treatment and presently . . . (Selekman, 1997, p. 63). Thus, this technique provided a direct and nonthreatening way to get a general sense of the childrens feelings, and/
or to measure progress on their target goal. For example, one child in
the group had as his primary target goal to behave well in class.
Thus, at the beginning of each group, the leaders asked him, On a
scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not behaving well at all in class this
week, and 10 being behaving great in class this week, what number
would you give yourself? Suppose the child gave himself a 6. The
leaders would then follow up with, What will you have to do this
week to make it from a 6 to a 7?, or How will you know when youve
made it from a 6 to a 7?
The miracle question also provided a means to goal-set with the
group members. For this same child, we may have asked, Pretend
like you were to go home tonight and go to bed, and while you were
sleeping a miracle happened and this problem was solved so that you
always behaved well in class. When you woke up tomorrow, how
would you know that this miracle happened? Thus, in each group,
the leaders utilized techniques such as the scaling and miracle questions to learn how members felt that day (e.g., On a scale of 1 to 10,

DAVID W. SPRINGER, COURTNEY LYNCH, AND ALLEN RUBIN

437

with 1 being really sad and 10 being really happy, what number would
you give yourself?) and to assist with individualized goal-setting.
The majority of time in the first group session was spent getting to
know each other and establishing group rules and expectations. The
group rules included general school rules (e.g., respect property and
others, keep hands and feet to self, one person talking at a time, no
cursing, and follow directions the first time), as well as the rule of
confidentiality. Group members knew prior to the first meeting that
the group was formed for children who had an incarcerated parent.
The group leaders also reminded members that this was a group in
which they could learn about and work toward achieving their target
goal, which they had already identified in the individual screening
meetings with one of the group leaders. With help from the group
leaders, each child stated his or her target goal. Three of the children
seemed relieved to learn that they shared the same goal. Four out of
five group members disclosed fairly superficial information yet were
able to offer support to a member who cried and told of her wish to
spend more time with her father before he was sent back to prison.
One member, who quickly emerged as a natural leader in the group,
sympathized with her by telling the group that he too felt sad that his
father was in prison. The group then played a ball-toss game designed
to facilitate group-building (cohesiveness), in which players told the
group something about themselves each time they caught the ball.
In session two, the leaders continued to focus on group building and
establishing trust with and among group members, who were still hesitant to disclose personal information and feelings. Members cut and
pasted pictures and phrases out of magazines onto a large poster
board that represented them as individuals. For example, one group
member pasted pictures of athletic events on his part of the poster
board. Group members then shared why they pasted what they did on
the collage. There was some reluctance with a couple of the group
members initially to participate in this exercise, but once underway
things went very smoothly. Members learned quite a bit about each
other as a result of this exercise.
By the third group session, members seemed to feel safer within the
group setting and were testing limits a little more. Group members
self-disclosed with low to moderate levels of intensity. However, there
was a discussion around disappointments in group members lives.
Sessions four and five were marked by a high amount of self-disclosure with emotional subject matter. Group members quickly engaged
in a lengthy, in-depth discussion about prison life, visiting family

438

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

members in prison, crime, drugs, and sexual conduct in prisons. Each

member recounted personal stories on all of these topics and the group
needed very little direction or guidance from the facilitators. For example, one group member talked about both of his parents being in
prison and his father being homosexual. Group members supported
and listened to each other and did not seem to mind that group time
was spent in discussion rather than in activity.
The final group session was marked by less self-disclosure and less
intensity. Group members seemed embarrassed, but listened intently,
as facilitators recognized each childs progress over the course of the
group. Some group members were able to state what they liked about
the group and that they would like to be in the group again. A celebratory pizza party filled the remainder of group time, and group members were given graduation certificates for successfully completing
the group.
Outcome Measure
The Hare Self-Esteem Scale (HSS) (Hare, 1980) was administered to
each child in both the experimental and comparison groups prior to
any contact with the group facilitators, and immediately following the
last group meeting. The HSS is a 30-item pencil-and-paper rapid assessment instrument developed to measure self-esteem in school-age
children. The HSS consists of three 10-item subscales that measure
home, peer and school related self-esteem respectively. Items are
scored on a 4-point Likert scale. The purpose of having three subscales
is driven by the belief that home, peer and school are the major areas
of interaction for children in which they develop a sense of self-worth.
Thus, they represent something close to the childs universe for selfevaluation. Higher scores indicate higher self-esteem.
Test-retest correlations range from .56 to .65 for the three subscales
and .74 for the general scale. This indicates fair stability. The HSS
general scale correlates .83 with both the Coopersmith Self-Esteem
Inventory and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. This indicates good
concurrent known-instruments validity.
There are not many rapid assessment instruments readily available
for measuring self-esteem in children. The HSS was chosen over other
child self-esteem measures for various reasons. Its psychometric properties are as good as, or better than, other available measures. The
HSS covers different areas of functioning (home, peer, and school),

DAVID W. SPRINGER, COURTNEY LYNCH, AND ALLEN RUBIN

439

whereas many of the comparable measures are strictly uni-dimensional. For example, the Behavioral Self-Concept Scale (BSCS) measures childrens self-concept, but only as it relates to school. Focusing
only on school-related self-concept was thought to be too narrow for
purposes of this study. Two other measures that were considered were
the Rosenberg (1965) and Coopersmith (1967) self-esteem scales.
However, the HSS combines ideas from the Rosenberg and Coopersmith scales, and the Rosenberg does not measure the specific areas
of self-esteem that the HSS does.

Results
The experimental group had the following mean pretest and posttest
scores on the HSS: pretest = 91; posttest = 95.6. The comparison group
had the following mean pretest and posttest scores on the HSS: pretest = 91.4; posttest = 90.4. Thus, there was an increase of 4.6 points
from pretest to posttest for the treatment group, and a decrease of 1
point for the comparison group.
The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test revealed significant differences
(alpha = .05; p = .005) in pre- and posttest HSS scores for the experimental group, and revealed no significant differences (alpha = .05; p =
.08) in pre- and posttest HSS scores for the comparison group. The
Wilcoxon is the nonparametric equivalent to the paired-samples t test,
and in this case, tests the hypothesis that the pre- and posttest have
the same distribution. Even when all of the assumptions of the t test
are met, the Wilcoxon has a relative power-efficiency of 95% (Siegel &
Castellan, 1988).
Experimental group subjects were compared to comparison group
subjects on HSS posttest scores using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with the pretest as the covariate. No significant differences
were found (F = 1.074, df = 1) between the two groups on posttest
scores at the .05 level.
An effect size (ES) of .57 was computed. According to Cohen (1977),
this is a moderate effect size. The effect size indicates the effect that
the group intervention had on the outcome variable (Rubin & Babbie,
1997), which in this study is self-esteem as measured by the HSS.
The non-significant findings in the analysis of covariance noted above
confound the ES finding, as there is a possibility (p = .335) of Type I
error.

440

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

Discussion and Conclusion

Hoag and Burlingame (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of group
treatment with children and adolescents. They utilized 56 outcome
studies that were published between 1974 and 1997. Results indicate
that group treatment was significantly more effective for children
than wait-list and placebo control groups (effect size = .61) (p. 234).
Thus, compared to the available outcome group literature with children and adolescents, the ES computed in this study is roughly equivalent. They also found that studies performed in clinical settings demonstrated significantly more improvement when compared to studies
that were conducted in school settings.
There are some limitations to the present study. First, the small
sample size (N = 10) is the most obvious limitation. Generalizing these
findings to the larger population should be done with extreme caution,
as how a similar group intervention would impact other Hispanic children with an incarcerated parent is unknown. While having a comparison group is beneficial, the absence of random assignment raises concern about the various threats to internal validity. Second, the
outcome variable (self-esteem) is one in which it is difficult to measure
change in a short time period. Even though the HSS is considered one
of the more sensitive self-esteem measures for children, it is difficult
to impact self-esteem in six weeks and to subsequently capture such
change. However, the program under which the group was conducted
couched the group as one that would help children feel better about
themselves. Thus, there was a sense of obligation to attempt to measure this construct.
While this study attempted to measure the effectiveness of a group
intervention with this population, the probability of Type I error (.335)
confounds the ES of .57. Future researchers may want to consider
measuring multiple outcome variables, particularly those that are
more observable (e.g., peer interactions, social skills, etc.), and to use
multiple raters (e.g., teachers, parents). To enhance the impact that
the group intervention has on the participants, and to subsequently
capture change on different outcome variables, conducting a group intervention for an entire semester (approximately 12 weeks) may be
more beneficial than conducting it for 6 weeks.
Nevertheless, due to the lack of available literature that examines
the impact of a group intervention with children of incarcerated parents, this study contributes to the field in three distinct ways. First,
the article provides a description of a time-limited group intervention

DAVID W. SPRINGER, COURTNEY LYNCH, AND ALLEN RUBIN

441

with a clear theoretical foundation that can be implemented in schools

or other settings with this population. Second, it examines the impact
of this intervention. While the findings are equivocal, the data does
lend some support to the positive effects of the intervention. This leads
to the third contribution that this study makes to the field. Social
work practitioners and researchers can consider the limitations outlined in this study as they undertake future efforts to examine the
impact of their group work with this population.
Children with incarcerated parents are vulnerable. According to
CWLA (1996), there are several reasons for intervening with this population. The number of children impacted increases daily and it is
expected that these numbers will continue to increase. If social workers do not begin to meet the needs of these families, the number of
children ending up in the child welfare system will only continue to
rise.

References
Berg, I. K., & de Shazer, S. (1991). Solution talk. In D. Sollee (Ed.), Constructing the
future (pp. 1529). Washington, DC: American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
Bjannes, A. (1995). Children and families of prison inmates: A challenge to the research
and service communities. Paper presented at the 42nd Semi-annual Conference of
the Association for Criminal Justice Research, California.
Cartledge, G., Lee, J. W., & Feng, H. (1995). Cultural diversity: Multicultural factors
in teaching social skills. In G. Cartledge & J. F. Milburn (Eds.), Teaching social
skills to children and youth: Innovative approaches (3rd ed.) (pp. 328355). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Child Welfare League of America [CWLA] (1996). Parents in prison: Children in crisis.
Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Corder, B., Whiteside, L., & Haizlip, T. (1981). A study of curative factors in group
psychotherapy with adolescents. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31,
345354.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
DiMascio, W. M. (1997). Seeking justice: Crime and punishment in America. New York,
NY: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent fathers: The issue of separation. Family Process, 31, 303314.
Gamer, T., & Schrader, A. (1985). Children of incarcerated parents. In I. Stuart & I. At
(Eds.), Problems and interventions. Children of separation and divorce: Management and treatment. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhild.
Gitterman, A., & Shulman, L. (Eds.) (1994). Mutual aid groups, vulnerable populations,
and the life cycle (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

442

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL

Hare, G. R. (1980). Self-perception and academic achievement: Variations in a desegregated setting. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 683689.
Hoag, M. J., & Burlingame, G. M. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of child and
adolescent group treatment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26(3), 234246.
Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.),
Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 5988). New York: Lexington Books.
Kahn, S. R. (1994). Childrens therapy groups: Case studies of prevention, reparation,
and protection through childrens play. Journal of Child and Adolescent Group
Therapy, 4(1), 4760.
Konopka, G. (1949). Therapeutic group work with children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
McWhirter, A., McWhirter, B., McWhirter, E., & McWhirter, J. (1998). At risk youth: A
comprehensive response. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole.
Pablon, E. (1998). Providing culturally competent juvenile justice services to the Latino
community. Professional development: The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 1(1), 3846.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997). Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Sack, W. H., Seidler, T., & Thomas, S. (1976). Children of imprisoned parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(4), 618628.
Schwartz, W. (1961). The social worker in the group. In New perspectives on services to
groups: Theory, organization, and practice (pp. 734). New York: National Association of Social Workers.
Selekman, M. D. (1997). Solution-focused therapy with children: Harnessing family
strengths for systemic change. New York: The Guilford Press.
Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping: Individuals, families, and groups (3rd ed.).
Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Springer, D. W., Pomeroy, E. C., & Johnson, T. (1999). A group intervention for children
of incarcerated parents: Initial blunders and subsequent solutions. Groupwork,
11(1), 5470.
Tutty, L. M., & Wagar, J. (1994). The evolution of a group for young children who have
witnessed family violence. Social Work with Groups, 17(1/2), 89104.
Vastola, J., Nierenberg, A., & Graham, E. H. (1994). The lost and found group: Group
work with bereaved children. In A. Gitterman & L. Shulman (Eds.), Mutual aid
groups, vulnerable populations, and the life cycle (2nd ed.) (pp. 8196). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York:
Basic Books.