The strengths perspective

The Strengths Model of Social Work is not accredited to one researcher, but to many contributors. They include but are not limited to Saleebey, Rapp, Weick, Kisthardt, Sullivan, Hepworth and Larsen. It was in 1989 that Weick, Rapp, Sullivan, and Kisthardt first wrote about the model. This article discussed the prior emphasis of social work's focus on client problems rather than on client strengths. In 1992 Saleeby published articles detailing alternative conditions- constructed between client and worker, whereby empowerment is the focus-rather than problems and deficits (Pease and Fook, 1999).

Several major texts explain this model- they include:

* The strengths perspective in social work practice. (1992) Saleebey, D

* The strengths perspective in social work practice (1997) (2nd ed) Saleebey,D

* The strengths model: Case management with people suffering from severe

and persistent mental illness. (1998) Rapp, C

The purpose of the model & the authors understanding of social work practice

The models purpose is to empower clients to discover their own strengths and resources from within their own environments.

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: Psychology

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

The 'strengths perspective' offers a different practice model- one that discards the 'deficit/disease/pathology model' in favour of empowerment, social well-being and collaborative dialogue.

The underlying assumptions & values

Saleebey (1992) argued that there are five basic assumptions within the strengths perspective.

* All people and environments, possess strengths

* Client defined strengths are fostered and emphasised by workers.

* A strengths analysis and co-operative exploration will assist clients

to become empowered.

* 'Blaming the victim' is not useful, rather- a focus on the clients' positives.

* Resources exist even in the most wretched and miserable surroundings.

The Strengths Model values clients and their 'stories' - and the meanings they make of their stories. Specific values include:

* Ecological values- interconnectedness with client and environment (respect

the clients capacity to discover strengths within their own environment).

* Recognition of the uniqueness and resourcefulness of clients- to develop,

improve and maximise their environments.

* The notion that clients are their own survival experts.

What is the language and typical phrases of the model

The language is positive and speaks of empowerment, membership, regeneration, synergy, dialogue and suspension of disbelief. The language used is not the "scientific" language of persons who classify other persons- but the language of people yarning with one another. The typical phrases are 'clients and workers collaborating together', 'consultation in partnership with the client' and 'client as the expert'.

What is the knowledge base and major sociological and psychological theories used by the author

This model is centrally an empowerment approach to practice, rooted in constructivist ideas and critical theory. It has also been described as both constructivist and humanist - as it focuses on individual client abilities, to define their interaction within their environment (Saleeby, 1992). The model is grounded in poststructural notions that speak of client 'meanings' as being central in the helping process, and scientific labels and theories- as being not so important (De jong and Miller, 1995). Payne (1997) states that the Strengths perspective is located within the broader political spectrum of 'humanist and existential theory'. Maluccio (1981b) regards the strengths perspective as being related to ecological systems theory, as clients are seeking to identify resources within their own environment.

The components, processes and specific skills and techniques inherent with this model

A strengths perspective is solution focused and requires a degree of consciousness raising, between both worker and client. Information about the clients desires, aspirations, skills and talents are gathered via conversation- with an emphasis on the person's view of 'how things are'. The client is focused in a cognitive process of determining what 'they can do' and 'what they have done'. It is desirable that workers have a commitment to counter-oppressive practice and solution focused ways of working. The relationship between the key worker and client are on equal footing- promoting cooperative and meaningful discoveries. Established strengths are then built on- informed by new and different understandings of themselves and their environment.

The role of the worker and the client

The workers role does not include being the 'expert' within this model- the client is the 'expert' of their own situation. The worker can be best defined as a 'collaborator' (Weick, Rapp, sullivan, and Kisthardt,1989) equipped with some specialised knowledge, who can model strengths-utilization and support client efforts to identify their own resources (Wolin and Wolin, 1994).

The strengths and limitations

The strengths of this model include:

* This model is distinctly and uniquely suited to social work practice

* Clients are empowered as they identify the existing strengths in their

ecological environment.

* A strengths perspective means a discontinuation of the pathologing of

clients.

* This model assists the worker and client to collaborate in all phases of the

therapeutic alliance.

* The strengths model respects and celebrates prior successes, and

recognises the capabilities of the service user- to be their own expert.

The limitations:

* Social action is not an active ingredient within the strengths perspective.

* Structural factor appear to be separated from this perspective as

clients focus on their interaction with their environment- rather than

recognising opposing aspects of an oppressive society.

* Is may be shifting client focus from the perceived problem to the clients

strengths- real or imagined.

* There would be some possible implementation difficulties with this model,

especially, in agencies that work within a pathologising medical model.

Applicability and suitability of this model

Saleebey (1997) argues that a strengths perspective is suitable to use with individuals, families, groups and communities.

This model is considered suitable when working with the chronic mentally ill, persons with addictions, elderly persons in care, at risk youth, people with disabilities and children and families (Earley and GlenMaye, 2000).

Statement of specific critique of the 'Strengths perspective' in relation to enpowerment principles and counter-oppressive practice.

It is apparent that the strengths perspective is an empowerment model, that sits comfortably under the 'umbrella' of critical theory. This model is at war with problem solving approaches that pathologise clients.

Since empowerment is both a goal and a process, social workers assist in- 'creating a context in which service users, can discover the power within themselves' (Saleeby, 1992). The strengths model creates a stage for which social work processes, can be orchestrated through the clients eyes.

Any discussion about empowerment would be incomplete without mentioning counter-oppressive practice. Since the pathologising clients problems could only be considered oppressive, it would appear that many theories are in fact oppressive in themselves. Counter- oppressive practice aims to prevent, reduce and eradicate oppression- the strengths model aims to empower, improve social well-being and partake in collaborative dialogue.

Someone (probably quite notable) once said : ' From small acorns grow large oak trees'. This is how I am able to look at the 'strengths model' in relation to 'counter-oppressive practice'. The 'strengths model ' allows clients to harness all available resources and develop their strengths. In theory, resources equals strengths and strength equals power. Therefore, clients equipped with such power are free to challenge and question social divisions, ideologies and power inequities. Consequently, the tainted oppressive face of powerlessness - is able to germinate the fruit of the strengths perspective.

As I digest this model (piece by piece) my acceptance of it develops- however, I am still gagging on one question. To what degree are marginalised and oppressed people free to develop power- when they are trapped under existing powerful and oppressive social structures?