1

Strengths-BasedPractice in UnitingCare

Burnside.

This literature review is the basis for a discussion within UnitingCare Burnside on the incorporation ofstrengths-based approaches into all aspects of Burnside’s work. The material is partly based on work donefor a Commonwealth PADV project on strengths-based approaches in Domestic Violence situations, alsoprepared by Dianne Nixon, SJ&R, 2001.

2

STRENGTHS-BASED PRACTICE IN UNITINGCARE BURNSIDE. ................................... 1

STRENGTHS-BASED PRACTICE IN UNITINGCARE BURNSIDE (BURNSIDE)................................. 3DIFFERENT APPROACHES THAT USE A STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACH...................................... 6SOLUTION-FOCUSED BRIEF THERAPY (SFBT)................................................................................ 6NARRATIVE THERAPY ..................................................................................................................... 7APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY .................................................................................................................. 8THE NON-DEFICIT APPROACH TO WORKING WITH MEN IN FAMILIES. .............................................. 9THOUGHTS FROM BURNSIDE WORKERS .................................................................................... 11EVALUATING STRENGTHS-BASED APPROACHES....................................................................... 14WORKING WITH DISADVANTAGED AND CHAOTIC FAMILIES IN A STRENGTHS-BASED MODEL....................................................................................................................................................... 16WORKING WITH CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN A STRENGTHS-BASED MODEL................. 16THE PROS AND CONS FOR WORKING IN A STRENGTHS-BASED FRAMEWORK.......................... 20REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 21

3

Strengths-Based Practice in UnitingCare Burnside (Burnside).

Burnside programs display their dedication to innovative service delivery in theirwillingness to trial / adopt new approaches. One such innovation is the recent interest inand training on the use of strengths-based approaches and tools, such as the ServiceFolders.

Another initiative, arising from the 2001 Burnside strategic Plan, is an agency-widediscussion of using a strengths-based approach in all our work. Burnside aims to build onour existing core values of respect, integrity, innovation, care and equity to explore how astrengths-based approach can be used to practically translate these values across all ourwork.

The strategy for evaluating and implementing this approach will involve team-baseddiscussion on the principles and practicalities of strengths-based approaches and howthey can be applied to all agency work, from policy development to administrationpractice, as well as within programs themselves.

The working group implementing this strategy, led by Linda Mondy, will include peoplefrom across the agency with interest and experience in strengths-based work, and willreport back by the end of 2002.

Due to the different types of work carried out within the agency, varied strategies inimplementing this approach are appropriate, and teams are encouraged to address thesecreatively. Discussions from each team will be shared to inform agency-wide practiceand to create further discussion.

This paper has been developed to inform staff of the basic principles and practices usedin a strengths-based approach. It has been informed by discussions across the agency, andthanks are extended to the Burnside workers who have contributed their time andreflections.

Jane Woodruff

Chief Executive Officer

UnitingCare Burnside

September, 2002

4

Assumptions within the ApproachThe use of strengths-based approaches such as Solution Focused, narrative andappreciative inquiry, seek to work within a ‘solution building’ rather than the traditional‘problem solving’ paradigm. They have arisen in response to a growing commitment tohuman rights and empowerment in social welfare, disability, and mental health work.

In strengths-based approaches it is argued that traditional problem solving approaches arebased upon the medical model, involving an initial diagnosis or assessment, followed byprofessional treatment, of an illness (De Jong and Berg, 1998). Therapists following astrengths-based model believe it is more appropriate to actively focus on identifying andbuilding upon client strengths. The focus in counselling or groups is therefore on theidentification of these strengths, in collaboration with the client, rather than an extensivefocus on the problem / abuse, or illness.

Saleebey (1992) identifies the following assumptions as underlying strengths-basedwork:

Respecting client strengths

Clients have many strengths

Client motivation is based on fostering client strengths

The worker is collaborator with the client

Avoiding the victim mindset, and

Any environment is full of resources.

Saleebey argues that the use of strength-based approaches 'requires a deep belief in thenecessity of democracy and the contingent capacity of people to participate in thedecisions and actions that define their world' (p.8). A strength-based approach thereforesupports social action and the addressing of inequalities in society, reflecting a belief inthe client’s strengths and contributions to society, rather than a focus on their problems.Saleebey firmly places strengths-based work as a political statement as much as atherapeutic approach.

Narrative, solution-focused, and appreciative inquiry approaches seek to enhance thecompetence of the client. A wide range of therapeutic techniques may be used whichendeavour to rewrite the victim’s ‘life script’, for example, from that of victim, to that ofcourageous survivor who is working to overcome the effects of child sexual abuse (Whiteand Epston, 1989).

In these approaches, the worker encourages the service user to see that they are not theproblem. Notions of pathology, dysfunction, purposiveness, functionality or diagnosticlabels suggest that problems are part of people. This leaves them unable to experiencethemselves as having any personal agency in finding the solution (De Jong & Berg,1998). Therapists utilizing strengths-based approaches tend to advocate practices that areactively respectful of the wishes, feelings and identified needs of children. Butler &Williamson (1994, p.119) argue that, 'children should always be consulted, as part of thenegotiation and review of work, to identify any preference they may have regarding thegender, race and culture of their worker' and. 'working agreements with young people

5

should ensure that they retain a maximum possible choice / autonomy within the workingrelationship, while having easy access to advice and support outside of it' (p122).

Parton & O'Byrne (2000) have described a strengths-based approach in social workthrough examining the post-modern themes of constructivism. The Constructivistmovement developed in the last part of the 20th Century, with the basic belief thatchildren and adults construct their versions of reality from their own unique experiences(Nixon & Gould, 1999). Constructivism flows from social science theory through thesociology of knowledge and cognitive psychology (Weik, in Saleebey, 1992). It assumesthat how we perceive things is mediated by culture, language, and subjective meaning,and that human experience reflects a dynamic interplay between events and the meaningswe attach to them. We constantly shape our reality and negotiate its meaning as a socialprocess. What is 'real' is what we believe to be so and what others may choose to agreewith (Gergen, 1981, in Saleebey p.21). It is opposed to the scientific model ofknowledge, whereby reality can be measured, tested, and objectively verified. Problemstherefore reflect not what we are looking at, but who is doing the looking.

Parton & Byrne (p.24) summarize the underlying assumptions of this approach as:

practitioners must develop a critical stance towards assumed ways ofunderstanding the world, including their own assumptions;

Categories and concepts commonly used to understand the world are seen asculturally and historically specific, and therefore meaning varies over time andplace. Practitioners should not assume that their ways of understanding arenecessarily the same as others' and are any nearer the truth;

Knowledge of the world is developed between people in their daily interactionssuch that practitioners should be centrally concerned with the social processescarrying these changes, and how the knowledge can be changed, and

The social world is the product of social processes. There cannot be any given,determined nature of the world 'out there' and no hidden essences inside peoplethat make them what they are. No-one is intrinsically ‘evil’ and no situation lacksstrengths.

Chris Sinclair (NEWPIN): You can’t question the reality of others, as they will getdefensive. You need to help them reconstruct or redefine their reality. For example,some mothers will define the child as evil when projecting his father’s characteristicsonto him. You must then work from the service-user’s reality to help them re-writethat definition.

6

Different approaches that use a strengths-based approachAny way of working with others can use a strengths-based approach.

There are a few approaches, outlined below, which have been specifically developed on astrengths-based philosophy, and are commonly associated with this approach. However,using a strengths-based approach should not be seen as limited to these therapeutic andgroup approaches.

Andrew King (Group work, Western Sydney): Strengths-based work is not just theasking of certain questions at certain times – it is relationship-rich.

Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT)Workers such as de Shazer and Berg developed solution-focused brief therapy in the USin the mid-1970s. Miller, Hubble & Duncan (1996), in their Handbook of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy, identify a lack of coherent theory or validated research into theapproach as two issues practitioners needed to engage with. In the intervening years,work has proceeded on this approach to make it more research-based and accessible forpractitioners.

Solution Focused Brief therapy has a central philosophy that clients bring with themstrengths and capacities they can access and develop to make their lives more satisfactory(Corcoran 2000 p. 468). The client is the expert and the therapist is responsible fordeveloping a collaborative context and helping the client articulate desired changes.

The working principles of Solution Focused Intervention include the following:

People are in a constant process of making sense of their experience. Beliefsabout self and others, values, expectations, societal prescriptions serve to keepfrom people from noticing information about themselves, others or relationshipsthat would allow them to move forward.

People experience problems as problems and generally want things to be better,and the persistence of difficulties does not imply addiction. It is unhelpful to thinkin terms of resistance or denial. People’s potential for change is limited by theirawareness of other possibilities, and this awareness needs to be developed by theworker.

Problems do not indicate pathology. Problems are seen as occurring within thecontext of human interaction. Problem patterns include both behaviour andperceptions.

People have tried to solve their problems, but the attempts have failed to bringabout the desired relief. These attempted solutions frequently lead people to focusmore on the problem, and how they feel stuck, than to focus on alternatesolutions.

People have within them a wealth of resources both known and unknown to them.One of the main effects of problems, and peoples’ experience of them is to blindthem from noticing their strengths and capabilities, or the solution-orientatedbehaviour that already exists.

7

The problem is the problem. The person is not the problem. Notions of pathology,dysfunction, purposiveness, functionality or diagnostic labels suggest thatproblems are part of people, which leaves them unable to experience themselvesas having any personal agency in finding the solution.

Change is constant and, in fact, inevitable. Snowball effect...small change canlead to bigger and bigger change. The best changes are those identified by theclient rather than the therapist, and they can be framed as part of a process ofsmall steps.

Every problem-dominated pattern includes examples of exceptions that serve ashints towards solutions.

New and beneficial meanings can be constructed for at least some aspects of theclient's complaint. The problem can be redefined in a way that promotes theidentification of existing solution-behaviour.

“If it works, don’t fix it”. In fact, encourage the client to do more of it. If it’s notworking do something else.

Effective therapy can be done even when the therapist cannot describe exactlywhat the problem is, or when clients don’t agree on the definition of the problem.It is more important to know what will be different when the problem is solved.

Solution focused approaches emphasize the importance of ‘well formed goals’, thecharacteristics of which include:

Stated in positive terms

In a process form

In the here and now

As specific as possible

Within the client’s control

In plain language (De Jong, P. & Berg, I.S., 1998)

Narrative TherapyNarrative therapy believes that problems arise because people are induced by our cultureinto subscribing to narrow and self-defeating views of themselves and the world.Narrative therapies complete the process of widening the circle of culpability forproblems (Schwarz, 1999, p. 263).

Narrative therapy refers to a range of social constructionist approaches to the process oftherapeutic change. Change occurs by exploring how language is used to construct andmaintain problems (Cowley & Springen, 1995, in Etchison, 2000, p.61). Experiences arecollapsed into narrative structures or stories to give a frame of reference forunderstanding and making experiences understandable. White and Epson 1990 (inEtchison p. 61) state that narrative therapy is based on the idea that problems aremanufactured in social, cultural and political contexts.

8

Omer (1993,1994, in Parton & O'Byrne, 2000, p.161) identified 4 elements in narrativetherapy that are particularly valuable, though not of universal effectiveness. They are:

Use of client's narratives,

Validating the seriousness of problems,

Externalizing the problem to make the client a hero/heroine, and

Developing options for a new character.

The worker and the client therefore re-construct the client's story together. As Parton &O'Byrne state (p.162) 'No two solutions will ever be the same and we cannot tell whatany particular solution will look like until it is built, though they may be built in a similarmanner.' The basic assumption of narrative therapy, and other strength-based approaches,is that service users have the resources that are needed and also know how to get whatthey want, but it is only by talking it do they get to know what they know (Parton &O'Byrne p.162).

Appreciative InquiryAppreciative Inquiry is an approach that extends strengths-based concepts intoorganizational group learning. The approach can be used to plan for and create change bylooking for what works within a group, and build on these to create new ways of workingtogether (Bowling, 2001). The approach is built on the following principles:

Inquiry into what is possible should begin with appreciation. The primary taskis to describe and explain those exceptional moments, which give energy to thegroup and activate member's competencies and energies.

Inquiry into what's possible should be applicable. Study should lead to thecreation of knowledge that can be used, applied, and validated in action.

Inquiry into what is possible should be provocative. A group is capable ofbecoming more than it is at any given moment, and learning how to determine itsown future.

Inquiry into the human potential in the group should be collaborative. Thisassumes an inseparable relationship between the process of inquiry and itscontent.

The Appreciative Inquiry strengths-based approach to organisational learning, contributesthe following assumptions:

• In every society, organisation or group, something works.

• What we focus on becomes our reality

• Reality is created in the moment, and there are multiple realities

• The act of asking questions of an organisation or group influences the group insome way

• People have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown)when they carry forward parts of the past (the known)

9

• If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past

• It is important to value differences

• The language we use creates our reality.

Hammond (1996) argues strongly that in order to adopt a strength-based approach ingroups, the 'language of deficit' must be actively replaced, in order to addressunconscious sets of assumptions that create individual frames of reference. In order toapply Appreciative Inquiry to organisational group learning, Hammond suggested thefollowing process: clearly identify the topic, generate the questions from within thegroup, explore and gather existing information from within the group and present andcombine this information to create new a new information base for future action.

The non-deficit approach to working with men in families. (from Andrew King, Men in Families, Western Sydney)Strengths based work is often tested when community welfare agencies work specificallywith men. The media and much social analysis is critical of the role that men play infamilies When a professional deals with a father and they respond from a non-strengthsperspective (with deficit assumptions). This includes focusing on the man’s isolation, theinability of men to express emotions, the way they spend long hours at work and his lackof communication skills.

Non-deficit assumptions (strengths based approach; Hawkins and Dollahite, 1997)recognises that fathers have the desire and the ability:

1. To commit - The physical and ongoing support that a father provides and his mentalawareness and involvement with the child throughout their lifetime.

2. To choose - The capacity to make day to day decisions for the children that meet thechild’s needs.

3. To care - the ability to attend to the important transitions in a child’s life and workingto provide the optimal conditions that maximise their growth.

4. To change - The ability to adapt as children grow older and the father matures in hisrelationship to the children.

5. To create - The creation of resources for material well being and the resolution ofproblems that allow opportunities for emotional well being to develop.

6. To connect - The ability to form lasting and healthy attachments with the children/partner. These attachments will change over time to meet the child’s evolving needs.

7. To communicate- The capacity to relate with children by sharing meaningfully withthem, both verbally and non-verbally.

However suggestions are more likely to be considered, when professionals work in waysthat create different responses within men. This is done though engaging men through theuse of non-deficit assumptions. Recognise that ‘families/ children are a central motivationin most father’s lives’. Instead of men resisting the feeling that ‘they need to be fixed orchanged’, a practitioner can work beside the father, thereby creating a mutual changeprocess.

10

The non-deficit perspective recognises that most men take an active interest in the livesof their children (King, 2000). For many fathers, their concern and commitment to thelifelong development of their children can become a primary motivation for makingsignificant changes in their family relationships.

Men are more available to overcome suspicion and access support services duringtransitional periods. These transitional periods include the following:

1. when the family is experiencing relationship difficulties;

2. when the father desires to be the primary carer of a child who is currently in care;

3. when the father has experienced family separation;

4. when the father wishes to father differently to how they were fathered.

Articles written by the workers in these programs in Western Sydney & Cabramattafurther outline the theoretical basis and challenges of using this approach.

11

Thoughts from Burnside WorkersFraser Forsyth (Youth Services, Western Sydney): Systems need the opportunity to bemore democratic. For example, out monthly report cards on young people are designed asletters to young people, not reports about them, and are primarily for them to look at.Where systems are more open and democratic, there is less chance of one viewpointdominating.

Annette Osbourne (Administration, Macarthur): Whilst I have been very aware of thisway of working, through lack of understanding and confidence in my skills I had notapplied this to my way of working - that was up until recently.

I attended an in-house training course facilitated by Anne Heath and Anthea Jacksonaround Strength Based Work and our Service Folders. Through this training I began tothink about the way that supervision happens for the administration team, and howproblem-saturated that can become. I had some ideas. However, before making anychanges I wanted to get a feel of how staff who I supervised felt. Then I took a risk.

I met with them all individually and proposed my idea:

• New name for supervision

• Notes from meeting with be in the form of a letter (strengths based)

• Folder made up for each employee noting:

- achievements

- goals

- work plan

- notes - decorative paper

- future dates

We also agreed that there did not have to be a particular issue for discussion it could be atime when we just reflected on the past few weeks, and maybe something in thatconversation would surface. And the opportunity then happens !!!!

This folder would be a tool that would be used in the annual appraisal For example wetend to forget all the achievements that have happened through the year and can onlyfocus on the more recent ones. The work plan is the same as our appraisal however its acommon occurrence that plans change throughout the year and in using this folder wewould be better able to track why those changes came about etc. Goals, too, could changeand that would be another good topic of conversation and to reflect the reasons forchange.

The discussions that took place were very successful and all staff members whereenthused by the suggestion. We have now changed the name of supervision to 'TimeOut', I have started with the letter writing. The response has been very positive forexample seems to have 'more meaning', 'it has become a record of my work' etc. Its veryearly days and I'm sure that we might make minor changes but I'm feeling very confidentas to how it seems to be panning out.

12

Andrew King (Groupwork, Western Sydney):

Last year, when I was running an 8-week parenting group, there was a lady who had amild/ moderate intellectual disability. She was usually very quiet in the group and mymain interaction with her was when I provided transport to get to and from the group.About the 5th week of the group, everyone was giving different people feedback.

The thing that struck me about this lady was not her quietness, but the image of a ‘cheekymonkey’ came to mind. I gave her this feedback with which she was slightly embarrassedand delighted. From then on, she was transformed. She started interacting in the groupand began to be overtly cheeky. This crossed over to her the rest of her life, as shebecame more confident in dealing with her child and in reassessing the decisions she hadmade in her life.

For me strengths based work has three major ingredients.

Specific feedback - Your professional practice is more strengths based when workers aremore confident about expressing their observations to relevant service users. Manypeople hold back a tremendous amount of things that they notice about others. While thisis often good regarding negative criticisms, it reduces the amount of positive commentsthat we give other people. Strengths based work takes the risk of expressing theseobservations.

Focus on what is emerging rather than using static descriptions - As observations aremade of how people manage situations in their life, feedback is given. A strengths-basedpractitioner focuses on what is emerging rather than describing the problematic ornegative issues alone. The strength that keeps people trying another time when faced witha difficult circumstance has been identified in research as a major force of change.

Choices/ Decision-Making - A key part of change is empowerment. Allowing people tomake decisions in their life and experiencing the consequences of those decisions. Often,due to a lack of reflection, many people don’t realise the choices that are possible.

Sue Jennings (Central coast parenting group program)

The parenting group program is based on building on the strengths and capabilities ofparents attending the group. These strengths are built on in a number of ways:

• Through the parent group process, parents are given information about the social,emotional, cognitive and physical development of children. This information formsthe building blocks of the curriculum and forms the basis of understanding of goodparenting practice.

• Parents are connected for mutual support with other parents

• Parents are connected for support to other services in their area.

• Parents who are experiencing difficulties are appropriately referred to family supportservices.

13

• The capacity of parents to effectively parent their children will be strengthened due toan increased understanding of the developmental stages and needs of their children

• Through the group process, parents are able to learn alternative ways of interactingwith and parenting their children. These new ideas may serve to replace new andunhelpful ways.

Throughout the group process, the parents are viewed as experts on their own childrenand as having a range of good ideas, which are worth sharing with other parents. TheGroup Worker is seen more as a facilitator of this sharing of ideas and knowledge but ofcourse also contributes to this and provides information on a range of topics. The basicassumption is that all parents are doing their best in their role as parents but variousblocks or obstacles often get in the way. The focus on strength building means thatparents are actively encouraged to look at their own resources and build on these withvarious strategies discussed such as using support networks, giving time to theirrelationships and self care.

This approach also encourages parents to look at the strengths of their children and aimsto move away from a forum where children are seen as the problem to a forum wherechildren’s behaviours are normalised and understood.

Doug Cantril (Father’s Group, Port Macquarie): The strengths-based procedure that Ihave employed quite effectively is to encourage service users to explore the strengthsthey offer others (through an exercise with the St Luke’s ‘Strength in Teams’ Cards) inthe group environment. The effect of this flows on in learning to find encouraging wordsto offer significant people in their lives. Often, it seems that service users come to groupuncomfortable with the idea that they may have something to offer other members. Thisexercise allows all members to participate at a level that is comfortable for them andother group members.

14

Evaluating Strengths-Based Approaches.Evaluations and studies of outcomes of strengths-based approaches in therapeutic settingsare limited in their validity by their general lack of control groups, which means there isno real comparison point to measure results from. The few studies that exist (Koss &Shiang, 1994) which compare brief therapies with longer-term therapies show nodifference in success between the two approaches. Evaluations, in general, suggest thatthis way of working is at least as effective as others, even though it tends to have shorterinvolvement in people's lives (Parton & O'Byrne, 2000). The authors cite ongoingresearch by de Shazer's team (p.153) to argue that the studies suggest that not only is theeffect maintained over time, but it actually tends to increase its impact rather than washout.

Sundman’s research in SFBT therapy in Finland showed that there were no significantchanges in goal achievement, but in line with solution focused orientation there wereincreases in positive statements, goal focusing, and shared views between therapists andtheir clients. (Sundman, 1997, p.159). Clients and therapists ‘felt better’ even though theproblem remained the same as the control group, but solutions focused clients were morefocused towards their goals and more engaged in problem solving with the therapist. Theprocess, but not necessarily the outcomes, was successful.

McKeel (1996, in Miller, Hubble & Duncan) in an overview of evaluations and researchon SFBT argues that evidence is building that this approach can be effective for a widerange of clinical presentations, including severe and chronic problems. However, theauthor admits that knowledge on which interventions and approaches currently usedunder the umbrella of SFBT are most effective is poorly researched, and urgespractitioners to use a research-and development strategy when exploring new or untestedinterventions. The author outlines this strategy as similar to a small research study, wherenew approaches are tested over a number of interventions and then evaluated andassessed using standard questions which include client input.

McKeel argues that the client's perspective has often been overlooked in psychotherapyresearch, with practitioners tending to rely on more 'objective' measures and ratings bythe therapists themselves. The author cites a BSFT study by Metcalf & Thomas (1994),where staff and client perceptions of therapy were compared, to argue that often the twogroups see the process quite differently, having sometimes strikingly differentperceptions of the therapist's role or even the goals of the therapy.

The following general points can be made from existing research and evaluations ofstrengths-based therapeutic programs, mainly solution-focused brief therapy:

• At a one-year follow-up, 64% of clients were shown to have improved in theirproblem-solving approaches. However those with longstanding problems do lesswell. Equal outcomes found for all social classes (Macdonald, 1997)

• For solution-focused parenting groups, improvement was shown on the ParentingSkills Inventory, no change on Family Strengths assessment (Zimmerman et al,1996)

15

• Research suggests that brief therapy is an effective treatment for a broad range ofclient problems such as depression, suicide, sleep problems, eating disorders,parent-child conflict, marital/ relationship/ sexual problems, sexual abuse, familyviolence and self-esteem problems (De Jong & Berg, 1998).

• The number of sessions a client attends and whether they accomplish theirtreatment goals seem related. The highest success rate is where clients attend fouror more sessions, the lowest when they attend below three sessions (Macdonald,1997)

• In their evaluations of brief therapy counselling, clients nominate theirrelationship with their therapist as more influential to treatment success than anyspecific technique their therapist uses (Shilts, Rambo & Hernandez, 1997; Metcalfet al, 1996). Qualities included respectfulness, time to listen, and the care andconcern the therapist showed.

Corcoran & Stephenson, (2000.p. 474) also argue that therapist 'fit' with the model beingused is likely to be critical in optimising outcomes for clients. If the client likes thetherapist and the therapist is comfortable and motivated in the therapy approach, you arelikely to get a good outcome.

In one study (Sunderman 1997, in Parton & O'Byrne p.155) of a social work team inHelinski using solution-focused work, a comparison group was used. While nosignificant differences were found with the comparison group in terms of goalachievement, the service users were more satisfied, more goal focused and more engagedwith workers in joint problem-solving ie the work was more collaborative.

Besa (1994, in Parton & O'Bryne p.157) evaluated narrative-based family work with 6families. In 5 of the families the approach was found to produce reductions in parent-child conflict of 88-98%. The report states that the approach was 'based on the notion thathealthy exceptions can be found within a problem-saturated story.'

In summary:

Research into strengths-based therapies is generally unclear due to poormethodology and lack of comparison groups, however,

Outcomes appear to be as good as traditional forms of therapies, and there aresome indicators that the effects strengthen with time

Strength-based approaches can be demonstrated to be more collaborative inaddressing issues, thus more respectful of the client's abilities and strengths

The 'fit of the therapist with the approach is important to positive outcomes

Clients indicate that, for them, relationship with the therapist is an important key,whatever the approach used.

16

Working with Disadvantaged and chaotic families in a strengths-basedmodelIn a study of parenting stress, socio-economic disadvantage and attendance atcounselling, Andra and Thomas (1995) found that a greater degree of parenting stresswas significantly associated with less attendance to group therapy for children, whilegreater socio economic disadvantage was significantly associated with less attendance atcounselling for parents.

Interventions which decrease the parent’s depression, increase their parentingcompetence, and support the development of attachment so that the child can reinforcethe parent, may also increase therapy attendance and subsequently improve chances for asuccessful therapy outcome. In her overview of theoretical orientations of familyprograms, Corcoran (2000) found that although there was insufficient evidence for anyone approach, behavioural and cognitive-behavioural approaches show promise ineffecting family change in chaotic or abusive families.

High levels of parenting stress and socio economic disadvantage should signalpractitioners that child and parents, may exhibit low attendance rates (Burnside issuespaper, 2000).

Chris Sinclair (NEWPIN): When we talk with the women we take away the ‘problempathology’ and put the issue in a social context. We help them to see the issue as a socialconstruct, and that together we can ‘unconstruct’ it. Nothing is permanent and all can bechanged – in fact, change is desirable and risk can be good! If the women can have avision for the future, then they can take control, and there is movement. It’s good tocelebrate survival, then ask ‘where to now’?

*****

Lisa’s story, Hastings Court Support: ‘Bev went to the meetings at DOCs with me andstood up for me and told them my side of the story, not what other people had told them.One weekend my husband hit and abused me for the last time. I rang the police and heleft, I wouldn’t have done that before because I was too scared. It was easier at times toput up with the abuse rather than leave. First thing on the Monday after I went to theoffice and told Bev what I had done. She introduced me to Sandra who then helped me togo to the police and solicitors and take out an AVO on him. There were a lot of trips tocourt and police stations but they were there for me every time. It wasn’t easy becausemy husband and his family still put me through a lot. But this time I started to believethat it wasn’t my fault and that I didn’t have to put up with it’.

Working with children and young people in a strengths-based model.'They come in and out of your life, but they can go home at the end of the day - you've gotto deal with things all of the time' (boy 14 years, Butler & Williamson, 1994)

In their 1994 study on hearing the voice of children in therapeutic situations, Butler andWilliamson argue that situations requiring interventions, according to adults, such aschild abuse and neglect or domestic violence, are social constructions arising from the

17

concerns and perceptions of adults, rather than those of the children. In her critique ofchild welfare policy in NSW, Wilkinson (1999 p.137) supports this view, arguing thatchild welfare decisions are not decisions about the welfare of children, but are 'decisionsabout the adequacy of parenting, about the conduct of the child, about the child'senvironment and about intra-family relationships.' She cites Yeatman (1990) to argue that'core concepts such as "needs'', "children's best interests", "children's rights" and even thevery foundational claims of "neglect" and "children in need of care" (have become)authorised as ritual litanies which are not only invoked and reified through social policypronouncements, but undergo constant legitimation through the state's self-referral.'

Wilkinson argues that unless the stories of the children are incorporated into thediscussion of their needs, the discussion supports children as a 'virtual reality' in socialwelfare work. Through the workers' engagement of children in a strengths-based model,with the aim of putting aside suppositions and professional knowledge as to what theythink the children 'need', children may begin to be heard within social welfare work.

Frey (1998 p.233) in his paper on children's rights in domestic violence identifiesdevelopmental psychology as one potential barrier to hearing children. He argues thateach developmental stage becomes a rung in the climb towards adulthood, withadulthood being taken as the viewpoint for the entire life. Frey argues for treatingwhatever part of their lives they are in as inherently valuable instead of some greaterscheme of development. He examines, as an example, children's moral development,where most research studies examine children's reactions to adult moral dilemmas, ratherthan asking what might constitute a moral issue for a child.

Garbarino et al (1992) states in his preface to What Children Can Tell Us, that 'childdevelopment knowledge (especially when combined with experience) can greatlyfacilitate success in adult-child communications. What it cannot do is specify the exactform that communication will take. The child, the adult, the child's relationship to theadult, the child's previous experience in communicating (or not communicating) withadults, the specific meaning attributed to the setting in which the adult-child encountertakes place - all these factors influence outcomes. Therefore, each has a bearing on whattechnique to use, which approach to adopt.'

Butler & Williamson (1994) discuss strategies to support the child in defining the issuesfor themselves eg. identifying the worst experiences in their lives, rather than defining thereferral problem for them, encouraging them to describe situations likely to make themanxious or concerned when they thought about the future. In their documentation of thisstyle of intervention, the authors found that it was not always the referral problem whichin fact caused the 'worst experience' but the sequel of events associated with it.

Most children and young people in the Butler & Williamson study related feelings ofdistrust to interactions with adults, particularly professionals, assigned to their 'cases'.Over 25% of the children and young people held strong beliefs that they would talk to no-one about their issues, while many others said that they would only reluctantly discusstheir personal circumstances with others.

Frey (1998) argues that children are often not used to being heard, and where their voiceis sought it is often in the context of adult processes which they do not understand andwhich are often alienating. Therefore, where their views are sought there is a tendency

18

towards tokenism rather than true participation. Power within adult-child relationships israrely truly shared.

Children and young people in the Butler & Williamson study clearly demonstrated theirunderstanding of the different perceptions, priorities and world views of adults, and howthese inhibit the adult's abilities to meet the child's needs. Tendencies by adults totrivialize, under-react or over-react, or just react inappropriately were the main issues forchildren and young people. 'The dilemma for children and young people, as they see it, isthat once they convey something to adults, the power to determine what should then bedone is too often - taken out of their hands' (p.82).

19

In summary:

In order to work within a strengths-based model, practitioners must examine thepreconceptions they hold about children, and those of the wider society

Child development knowledge is useful, but should not define the child'sresponses for the worker

Children and young people are unlikely to talk to adults about their problems,particularly caseworkers they don't trust.

20

The Pros and Cons for working in a strengths-based framework(working party might like to add to this)

It is a good fit with Burnside values and asocial justice / rights-based approach toworking with others

No strong evidence base re outcomes forservice users, though this is building

The majority of staff state they arecomfortable applying a strengths-basedframework to their work

Need to address multiple staff concerns eg.staff accountability within a strengths-based approach

It is not a prescriptive approach, so eachprogram can adapt/ develop their ownapproaches

Will require a lot of work on the part ofsome programs to adapt or change currentmethods of working

Adoption of this approach is congruentwith Federal (FACS) thinking and with thatof some State Department and many non-Government Organisation workers.

Will cost $$ re training and resourcing ofstaff

Other NGOs eg the Benevolent Society, StLuke’s, interested in collaborative learningaround this topic

21

ReferencesAndra, M. & Thomas, A. (1998) The influence of parenting stress and socio-

economic disadvantage on therapy attendanceamong patients and their behaviour disorderedpreschool children. Education & treatment ofchildren, Pressley Ridge Schools, Pittsburg.

Butler, I. & Williamson, H.(1994)

Children Speak: Children, trauma and social work.Longman: UK.

Corcoran, J. & Stephenson, M.(2000)

The Effectiveness of Solution Focused Therapywith Child Behaviour Problems: A PreliminaryReport. Families in Society 2000: 468 –474

Corcoran, J. (2000) Evidence-Based Social Work Practice withFamilies: A Lifespan Approach. SpringerPublishing Co., NY.

De Jong, P. & Berg, I.S., (1998), Interviewing for Solutions, Brooks/Cole: USA.

Etchison, Mary (2000) Review of narrative therapy: Research and utilityJournal of Family Studies; Jan. 2000: 61-66

Frey, R. (1998) Children's rights: What does it really mean? Paperpresented at the 2nd National Conference onChildren, Young People & Domestic Violence'Everybody's Business' Brisbane, Sept-Oct 1998.

Garbarino, J., Stott, F., & theFaculty of the Erikson Institute(1992).

What children can tell us: Eliciting, interpreting,and evaluating critical information from children.Jossey-Bass, California

Hammond, S. (1996) The thin book of appreciative inquiry (2nd edn) Thinbook publishing co. USA.

Miller, S., Hubble, M. &Duncan, B. (eds, 1996)

Handbook of solution-focused brief therapy.Jossey-Bass Inc., Calif.

Nixon, D. & Gould, K. (2nd edn.,1999)

Emerging: Child Development in the first threeyears. Social Science Press, Aust.

Parton, N. & O'Byrne, P. (2000) Constructive Social Work: towards a new practice.MacMillan Press:UK.

Saleebey, D. (Editor, 1992) The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice.Longman: NY & Lond.

Schwartz, R. (1999) ‘Narrative therapy expands and contracts familytherapy’s horizons’ Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy; April 1999 pp263-266

Shilts, L. Rambo, A. &Hernandez, L. (1997)

Clients helping therapists find solutions to theirtherapy. Contemporary Family Therapy, 19: 117-132.

Sundman, Peter (1997) ‘Solution focused ideas in social work’ Assoc. ForFamily Therapy and Systemic Practice’ p. 159.

22

Wilkinson, M. (1999) Virtual Reality: Children as constituents in socialwelfare and social policy constructions. Paperpresented at conference Taking Children Seriously(UWS, Sydney, Childhood & Youth PolicyResearch Unit).

Zimmerman, T. Jacobson, R.MacIntyre, M. & Watson, C.(1996)

Solution-focused parenting groups: An empiricalstudy. Journal of systemic therapies 15: 12-25.

Erikson, E. (1975) Life History and the Historical Moment. Norton: NewYork

Hawkins, A.J. & Dollahite, D.C.(1997).

Generative Fathering: Beyond Deficit Perspectives.Sage: Thousand Oaks

King, A. (2000). Working with fathers: The non-deficit perspective.Children Australia, Vol 25, No.3.