Social upheaval and new found demands as a result of post Civil War industrialization, migration and immigration created many individual and societal needs (Brown, 1991; Kaiser, 1958; Middleman, 1968; Reid, 1991; Schwartz, 1977; Wilson, 1976).
Some of these needs were met through group work endeavors found in settlement houses as well as religious and charity organizations (Middleman, 1968; Wilson, 1976).
Early theoretical, research and practice efforts of Grace Coyle (1930, 1935, 1937, 1947, 1948), Wilber Newstetter (1935), and Neva Boyd (1935) paved the way for the advancement and development of social group work.
In the summer of 1934 Grace Coyle organized a two-week group work institute for forty YWCA and settlement house workers at Fletcher Farm, Vermont (Alissi, 1980, p. 16).
In 1956 the NASW formed a group work section which issued a new definition that contrasted in focus with that proposed by the AAGW.
With such a wide range of social and therapeutic needs there seemed to be an even greater appreciation of group work (Balgopal & Vassil, 1983; Hartford, 1964; Somers, 1976).
Having expanded into differing practice settings, the purposes and goals of group work had been more broadly described at this juncture than in previous decades.
In Vinter's approach (1967) the treatment group is thought of as a small social system "whose influences can be planfully guided to modify client behavior" (p. 4).
In this approach the worker takes a central position in providing treatment, interventions are planned, group process is highly structured, and great emphasis is given to outcome evaluation and research (Vinter, 1967; Garvin, 1987; Galinsky & Schopler, 1974).
In 1968 Middleman (1968) made a seminal contribution in articulating an approach to group work practice that utilized non-verbal activities.
As theory building proliferated there was a simultaneous effort to distill the essential elements of social group work.
In 1980 Papell and Rothman wrote, "The process of distilling and identifying the central identity of group work in the contemporary period has already begun" (p. 7).
Papell and Rothman suggested the essential characteristics of the mainstream model were "common goals, mutual aid, and non-synthetic experiences" (1980, p. 7).
Additionally, in 1978 social group workers formed a committee to host a symposium in honor of Grace Coyle which paved the way for an annual conference in subsequent years (Northen & Kurland, 2001).
Schwartz (1961) envisioned the group as an "enterprise in mutual aid, an alliance of individuals who need each other in varying degrees, to work on certain common problems" (p. 266).
Schwartz (1976) regarded this approach as resonant with the demands of a variety of group types including, natural and formed; therapeutic and task; open and closed; and voluntary and mandatory.
The involuntary client can be understood as someone who is pressured by some external source to seek social services (Rooney and Chovanec, 2004).
Rooney and Chovanec (2004) suggest an approach that draws upon the Transtheoretical (Stages of Change) Model and Motivational Interviewing in identifying strategies for engaging involuntary clients in the group process.
Behroozi (1992) has noted tensions between the concept of working with mandated clients and professional ethics, such as the belief in fostering self-determination.
In social work practice, the primary task given this issue is to help the applicant "transform to clienthood" (Behroozi, 1992, p. 224).
In the absence of this transformation, the mandated "client" is likely to be superficially compliant and deny they have any problems warranting social work attention (Behroozi, 1992; Breton, 1993; Milgram & Rubin, 1992).
When this occurs the core group assumes responsibilities for indoctrinating new members (Gitterman, 1989; Schopler & Galinsky, 1995a; Shulman, 1999).