Woodward The Strengths ModelHELP For Course Work

 

“The ability to resist, withstand, cope with or rebound from stressful life events and find or maintain the ability to function relatively well despite exposure to risks that tend to reduce the likelihood of social, physical, or emotional well-being or increase susceptibility to physical and mental distress”

Rapp and Goscha, 2006

 



Insight

Independence  Relationships 



Seven attributes that develop from adversity that allow and explain a person’s person’s ability to overcome

Initiative

Creativity  Humour 



Morality

Wolin, S.J., & Wolin, S. ( 1993). The resilient resili ent self. New York: Vilard Books

 



“The literature suggests that most , if not all humans have a capacity for overcoming the harshest of experiences and most actually

do.  For recovery oriented work we must replace the imagery of deficits and pathology with the imagery of strengths and resilience.  Assessment must include the uncovering and description of these for each individual.” Rapp and Goscha (2006)

 









 

Goldstein, 1992 – children raised in harsh and punitive institutions Wolin and Wolin, 1993 - children of parents with substance abuse problems Kaufman and Zigler, 1987 - children who were abused Werner and Smith, 1982, 1992 – children in poverty defined as ‘at risk’ Bleuler, 1978 – children with parents with psychiatric disabilities Harding, Brooks et al, 1987 – the Vermont longitudinal research – most people became ‘woven into the fabric o off com community munity life’ – i.e. people who who worked well, played well, and loved well

 

Charles A. Rapp Richard J. Goscha Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2006

 

The strengths model argues that “all people have goals, talents, and confidence.  All environments contain resources, people, and opportunities. 

The Strengths model is about providing a new way of looking at the person and their environment (not focusing on deficits, pathologies)

 



The SM seeks to define those factors affecting a person’s life and the methods for how these can be altered. altered. Beginning with what the person wants from life – “desired outcomes”

Based on the goals people Desired Outcome set for themselves Decent Quality of life place to live Achievement Employment Sense of  Or competency opportunity Life satisfaction to Empowerment contribute •

•

•

•

•

Education Friends Recreation

 



= the environment al habitat of a person.  People live in a variety of ‘habitats’ – home, work, education, spiritual etc 

They include – kinds of communities, settings, in which a person is usually found, sources of  income, social resources and supports typically used



Two types of ‘niche’ at the extremes: Entrapping and Enabling Niches Living arrangement Recreation Work Education Social relationships

 

Niches Living arrangement Recreation Work Education Social relationships

Desired Outcome Quality of life Achievement Sense of  competency Life satisfaction Empowerment

 



Are highly stigmatised – people caught in them often treated as outcasts – ostracised



People caught in them tend to “turn to their own

kind” – world becomes restricted and limited  People totally defined by their category aspirations, attributes not considered Few incentives to set realistic longer term goals or to work towards such goal  Little reality feedback – few processes that help people to recognise and correct their own unrealistic perceptions or interpretations interpretations 

 

Aspirations   

 







The strengths model places a premium on people as being “purposeful” People have desires, goals, ambitions, hopes, and dreams For many with psychiatric difficulties – lives marked by pain, distress, disappointment and failure their aspirations often are few and nonspecific Lost or diminished dreams Professional interventions may further restrain goal setting and achievement – beginning with exploring and defining the ‘client’s problem’ The SM focuses on the outcomes of – quality of life, life satisfaction, achievement etc Solving problems is part of intervention but isn’t sufficient (not an end in itself) SM is concerned with “achievement” (not just problem solving) – with “thriving” (not just surviving), with dreaming and hoping (not  just coping), with triumph (instead of trauma)

 



skills, abilities, aptitudes, proficiencies, proficiencies, knowledge, faculties, talents



One strength of all people is their capacity to determine what is best for them (Weick & Pope, 1998) – people have an inner wisdom about what they need – and make decisions based on their own best sense of what will meet their need – the SM assumes that this ‘inner wisdom’ can be brought into more conscious use by helping people to recognise this capacity

 



Aspirations



Competencies



Confidence

Interaction of Individual Strengths Aspiration Aspirati on x Competency x Confidence

 

Individual Strengths Niches Aspirations Competencies Confidence

Living arrangement Recreation Work Education Social relationships

Desired Outcome Quality of life Achievement Sense of  competency Life satisfaction Empowerment

 

Environmental Strengths

Individual Strengths Aspirations Competencies Confidence

Niches

Resources: services, tangibles

Living arrangement Recreation Work Education Social relationships

Desired Outcome Quality of life Achievement Sense of  competency Life satisfaction Empowerment

Social relations Opportunities

 

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9.

Quality of niches people inhabit determines their achievement, quality of life, and success in living People who are successful in living have goals and dreams People who are successful in living use their strengths to attain their aspirations People who are successful in living have the confidence to take the next step toward their goal At any given time, people who are successful in living have at least one goal, one relevant talent, and confidence to take the next step. People who are successful in living have access to the resources needed to achieve their goals People who are successful in living have a meaningful relationship with at least one other person People who are successful in living have access to opportunities relevant to their goals People who are successful in living have access to resources and opportunities and meaningful relationship

 



Engagement and relationship



Strengths assessment



Personal planning



Resource acquisition



Collective continuous collaboration and graduated graduat ed disengagement

 

Is key in virtually vi rtually all approaches, psychotherapies, and counselling  Key factors: 

Purposeful  Reciprocal (an experience in mutual learning  Friendly (warmth, acceptance, caring, respect, fun)



 

Trusting Empowering

 



Spirit - breaking = that diminishes or extinguishes hope that he /she can move forward



Hope- inducing = enhance and strengthen the hope that individuals have



Spirit breaking examples: 

Treating adults as children

 

Being rude to people Attributing everything to the psychiatric disability



Making decisions for the person



Telling people they aren’t yet ready for work



Insisting they take medication medicationss

 

Hope-Inducing examples Communicating ‘I believe in you’  Supporting a person’s decisions - by accepting them and helping to achieve them – not putting



down or minimising them  Pointing out achievements  Make sure you are working on clients’ goals  Promote integration by using community resources

 

What are strengths? Personal attributes Talents and skills Environmental strengths Interests and aspirations

 

Seven life domains: 

Daily living situation



Financial / insurance Vocational / educational Social supports Health

    

 

Leisure / recreational spirituality

Three temporal orderings: past, present and future

 

Current Status: What’s going on today? What’s available now?

Individual’s Desires, Aspirations:

Resources , Personal, Social:

What do I want?

What have I used in the past?

Daily living situation Financial Vocational / Educational Social Supports Health Leisure / recreational Spirituality / Culture

 







Goldstein, H. (1992). Victors or victims: Contrasting views of clients in social work practice. In D. Saleebey (Ed), The Strengths perspective in social work practice practice (pp 27 – 38. New York: Longman Wolin, S.J., & Wolin, S. ( 1 1993). 993). The resilient self. New York: Vilard Books Kaufman, American J., & Zigler, E. (1987). (19of 87). Do Abused Chi Children ldren Become Abusive e Parents? Jo Journal urnal Orthopsyc Orthopsychiatry, hiatry, 57, 186 - 192 Abusiv



Werner, E. & Smith, S mith, R. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible. New York: Adams, Bannister, Cox



Werner, E. & Smith, Smith, R. (1992 (1992). ). Overcomin Overcoming g the odds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.



Bleuler, M.(1978). The schizophrenic disorders (p409). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Harding, C., C., Brooks, G G., ., Ashikag Ashikage, e, T., Strauss, J. J.S., S., & B Brier, rier, A. (19 (1987b) 87b) The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness ill ness I: Methodology, study sample an and d over all status 32 years later. American Journal of Psychiatr Psychiatry, y, 144 (6), 718 – 26





Lambert, M. (1992). (1992). Psycho Psychotherapy therapy outcom outcome e research. In J.C. Norcross and R. Goldfried (Eds), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94 – M. 129). 129). New York: Columbia Un University iversity Press.