Assignment.1
LDots01
ImplementationofaStrengths-BasedApproachtoChildandYouthCare..pdf
6 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
peer reviewed
Implementation of a
Strengths-Based Approach
in the Practice of Child
and Youth Care Julia MacArthur, Edward P. Rawana, and Keith Brownlee
Abstract: The strengths perspective is an
orientation to intervention that promotes values
and attitudes that are consistent with the practice
of Child and Youth Care. The application of the
strengths perspective in working with children and
families has been operationalized recently in the
form of an assessment and treatment model that
builds upon a child’s strengths in different
domains of functioning, such as peer relationships,
school, and family. It is a model that cultivates
relationship qualities that can augment the holistic
approach to children and youth practiced by Child
and Youth Care workers. This paper discusses the application of this strengths model and presents brief
case studies to illustrate the benefits of using the model with children and youth.
The strengths perspective is a way of working towards youth development that has a long history within
the Child and Youth Care (CYC) profession (Beker, 1972), social work (Glicken, 2004; Saleebey, 1997,
2006), and the YMCA (Lerner & Benson, 2003). Until recently, the strengths perspective has remained
as a perspective rather than an explicit treatment model; however, a new model has provided specific
guidelines for working with children and families from a strengths perspective (Rawana & Brownlee,
2009) that can be integrated into Child and Youth Care work. This paper will discuss the application of
the “Rawana and Brownlee model” of strengths assessment and treatment for working with children and
youth; it will show how the model is aligned with Child and Youth Care and is ideal for achieving
enhanced relationship qualities in CYC contexts. After briefly outlining the main constructs of the
strengths perspective, the application of the perspective in CYC will be discussed, followed by a
description of the Rawana and Brownlee model. Case studies will then illustrate some of the benefits of
using the model with children and their families.
Child and Youth Care and
the Strengths Perspective
Child and Youth Care (CYC)
has worked towards defining
itself and distinguishing itself
from other helping profes-
sions (Anglin, 1999; Ferguson
& Anglin, 1985). CYC is set
apart from many other
helping professions by the
specific concern with children
and youth and their individual
social circumstances (Anglin,
1999), which also takes into
account each person’s devel-
opment and needs (White,
2007), as well as by the
emphasis on the relationship
when working with youth
(Gompf, 2003; Cottrell,
2008). CYC workers are
frequently the primary thera-
peutic agents in many of the
contexts in which they prac-
tice, and as such, are in an
optimal position with youth to
develop and facilitate change
(Tally, 2000). Anglin’s (1999)
definition of the CYC profes-
sion, and the five character-
istics of Child and Youth Care,
outlines the similarities
between the strengths
perspective philosophy and
CYC work. The five character-
istics of CYC are that the
profession:
1. focuses on the develop-
ment of children and
youth,
2. taking into account the
totality of their functioning
from
3. a social competence
perspective, in
4. the daily lives and
contexts of child and
youth, that is
5. based on the development
of a therapeutic relationship
with clients and the signifi-
cant people in their lives
(Anglin, 1999).
Although the strengths
perspective has long been iden-
tified with social work practice
(Glicken, 2004), it also has a
history in CYC work (Beker,
1972); it provides a helpful,
holistic method of working with
children and youth that recog-
nizes and takes advantage of
strengths that are both broad in
their scope, and drawn from
clients’ everyday functioning.
Strengths are often thought of
as interconnected in the same
way a holistic approach takes
into account the ecology of rela-
tionships that interconnect to
support the healthy develop-
ment of the child. The potential
for the CYC profession to incor-
porate and use the strengths
perspective in new ways is an
exciting prospect. The profes-
sion’s unique child-develop-
ment orientation (Garfat, 2003)
puts CYC workers in the position
of being able to represent
youth’s strengths, both within
their practice and inter-profes-
sionally, in ways that are
potentially unique.
The Conceptualization of
the Strengths Perspective
The strengths perspective
falls into a group of approaches
that may be found in many
professions which all seek to
shift the focus of work with
clients from being based on
their deficits to being based on
their assets (Lerner & Benson,
2003). In the past, the strengths
perspective has been consid-
ered to be more of a
values-driven approach to inter-
action with clients than a model
on which to base interventions
(Van Wormer & Rae Davis,
2003). As a result,
strengths-based interventions
have not been significantly
developed or operationalized,
and are often conceptualized
using a resiliency paradigm.
Saleebey (1997), who draws
heavily from resiliency,
describes the strengths
perspective in this way:
The strengths perspective
obligates workers to under-
stand that, however
downtrodden or sick, indi-
viduals have survived (and
in some cases even
thrived). They have taken
steps, summoned up
resources, and coped. We
need to know what they
have done, how they have
done it, what they have
learned from doing it, and
what resources (inner and
outer) were available in
their struggle to surmount
their troubles. People are
always working on their
situations, even if just
deciding to be resigned to
them; as helpers we must
tap into that work, eluci-
date it, find and build on its
possibilities (p. 171–172).
A further example is the defi-
nition of strength as “the
capacity to cope with difficulties,
to maintain functioning in the
face of stress, to bounce back in
the face of significant trauma, to
use external challenges as stim-
Relational
Child Care
Youth&
Practice
ISSN 1705625X Volume 24 Number 3 / 7
The potential for the
CYC profession to
incorporate and use
the strengths
perspective in new
ways is an exciting
prospect.
ulus for growth, and to use
social supports as a source of
resilience” (McQuaide &
Ehrenreich, 1997, p. 203).
When strength is defined in this
way, based on a particular expe-
rience rather than the full scope
of a person’s life, what can be
considered a strength may
become limited by these param-
eters (Rawana & Brownlee,
2009). This connection between
strength and adversity is evident
in a significant number of the
definitions of strengths (e.g.,
Rutter, 1979; Richardson,
Neiger, Jensen, & Kumpfer,
1990; Allison et al., 2003;
Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005),
but strengths may be found in
“mundane, everyday environ-
ments,” (Rawana & Brownlee,
2009, p. 256) just as readily as
they may be found in situations
in which someone has over-
come adversities. Therefore,
creating these limitations is not
necessary, because the devel-
opment of strengths is a
fundamental human character-
istic. Associating strengths only
with difficult situations tends to
limit the resources on which a
professional can potentially
draw to help the client. It also
limits the client, because he or
she is already benefitting from
the excluded strengths in a
particular context. These
strengths could potentially be
expanded to be applied across
contexts, to areas in which the
client may be experiencing
challenges.
When the method of seeking
strengths in the context of
adversities occurs in CYC prac-
tice, there is the possibility that
the negative effects of the
adversity that the client has
overcome will be minimized in
the course of discovering
“survival stories”. By focusing on
resilience and survival, the client
may not have the therapeutic
experience of reflecting on the
reality of the damage that has
been suffered. Neither do the
clients have the opportunity to
process the negative experi-
ences to learn from them or to
make sense of them in the
context of a safe and thera-
peutic relationship when that
relationship is based on discus-
sions about resiliency. To
ensure that CYC use of personal
strengths is positively oriented,
the strengths perspective would
benefit from a broader consider-
ation of strengths that accounts
for positive youth development,
rather than being limited to the
survival of adversity.
CYC workers may find a
broader application of strengths
within their practice by working
from a strengths-based model
such as that offered by Rawana
and Brownlee (2009). The
Rawana and Brownlee strengths
assessment and treatment
model draws on a wide spec-
trum of strengths that are not
limited to those linked to adver-
sity. The model has been
developed with children and
youth ages 10-18 and enables
them to fully explore their lives
to find the positive characteris-
tics, knowledge, and assets that
they can then enhance and
apply throughout their daily
experiences. The strengths.
assessment, and treatment
model includes a strengths-
focused assessment stage
that evaluates both the
youth’s personal agency, and
the strengths that exist in the
youth’s environment. This
method of evaluation and
intervention incorporates the
five characteristics of CYC
that differentiate the profes-
sion from other professions
that may work with children
and youth. The strengths
assessment and treatment
model provides a
strengths-based framework
(Rawana & Brownlee, 2009)
which follows Anglin’s (1999)
five characteristics of CYC by
focusing on the development
of children and youth, taking
into account the totality of
their functioning from a
perspective that recognizes
the strengths in their daily
lives and contexts, and it is
based on the development of
a therapeutic relationship
with clients and their support
network. The purpose of
taking this approach is to
allow for a more complete
conceptualization of
strengths that can be used to
overcome the issues in their
lives that are recognized by
the youth to require positive
change.
The Rawana and
Brownlee Strengths
Assessment, and
Treatment Model
The way strength is
defined by the strengths
assessment and treatment
model takes into account the
need to broaden the scope of
the strengths perspective in
8 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
order to provide a more
complete set of evaluated
strengths on which to base
the process of change. The
rationale of this approach is
that with more strengths
acknowledged and
enhanced, children and youth
have greater
resources on which
they may consciously
draw. Strengths, as
defined by Rawana
and Brownlee, are “a
set of developed
competencies and
characteristics that is
valued both by the
individual and society
and is embedded in
culture” (2009, p.
256). The four
phases of the model,
engagement, exploration,
expansion, and evolution, are
emphasized at specific points
during the therapeutic rela-
tionship and change process,
yet are so closely intercon-
nected as to be mutually
reliant. The phases are
neither strictly sequential nor
are they undertaken entirely
independent of each other.
For example, the engagement
process is on- going
throughout the entire inter-
vention, but is also focused,
to a greater extent, at the
beginning of the therapeutic
relationship. The next section
will describe in detail each of
the four phases of the
strengths assessment, and
treatment model, as it can be
applied in a CYC context.
Engagement
Engagement is the strengths
assessment and treatment
phase that begins to form the
therapeutic relationship that is
one of the five characteristics of
CYC (Anglin, 1999). CYC workers
have a unique method of inter-
acting with children, youth, their
families, and their support
systems (Garfat, 2003) that is
compatible with the strengths
assessment, and treatment
model. When children and youth
are beginning to receive
services from CYC workers, they
may not be voluntary clients, so
the engagement phase is a
particularly important process in
CYC. The model’s immediate
focus on strengths is congruent
with the social competence
perspective that is an essential
element of CYC (Anglin, 1999),
as well as increasing the
success of rapport-building,
communication, cooperation,
motivation, and treatment
compliance (Buckley & Epstein,
2004; LeBuffe & Shapiro, 2004;
Tedeschi & Kilmer, 2005).
Engagement is often thought
of as the beginning of services
to the client, but is more impor-
tantly the starting place of the
therapeutic relationship with the
youth and his or her family. The
strengths assessment and treat-
ment model engages the youth
and the youth’s family via a ther-
apeutic relationship that is
oriented towards
strengths and assets,
rather than immedi-
ately seeking out
deficits or problems.
Garfat (2003)
emphasizes the
importance of not
only gaining, but also
maintaining, the trust
of youth, being
constantly aware of
the impacts that the
worker’s actions have
on the relationship,
as well as the power dynamics
within the relationship. Demon-
strating the strengths-
orientation to the youth and
family, and communicating that
the strengths- orientation will
continue throughout the thera-
peutic relationship, can help to
gain and maintain that essential
mutuality and trust between the
worker and the family (Phelan,
2005). An explanation of the
strengths perspective and how it
identifies and develops the
strengths that exist in all areas
of everyday functioning, even in
the face of adversity, is a simple
and effective method of making
the client aware of the
strengths- based treatment with
which the CYC worker will
proceed.
Engagement is an ongoing
process that maintains the ther-
apeutic relationship with youth
Relational
Child Care
Youth&
Practice
ISSN 1705625X Volume 24 Number 3 / 9
and families. It occurs
throughout the assessment and
intervention process, in order to
prevent therapeutic ruptures,
conflicts, and disengagement.
The initial engagement phase in
the strengths assessment and
treatment framework builds the
foundation of a solid relation-
ship; however, continual work at
relationship- and trust-building,
both with youth and eventually
other significant people in their
lives, is essential to CYC. CYC
workers’ awareness of the
possibility of conflict within the
relationship can increase the
likelihood of treatment success
(Safran & Muran, 2005), and
this has also been shown with
the involvement of the signifi-
cant people in youths’ lives
(Sharry, 2004). Practicing within
the strengths assessment and
treatment frame- work, the CYC
worker can involve the youth
and the significant people in his
or her life in frequent conversa-
tions about the youth’s
strengths and abilities; this has
the effect of motivating the
youth, as well as helping to shift
the perception of the people
around him or her, if they
happen to be focused on the
problems. This approach in and
of itself can often help to relieve
some of the stress occurring in
the youth’s family, school,
corrections, or residential
contexts, and can contribute to
a successful intervention.
The engagement process in
the strengths assessment and
treatment model works towards
creating the expectation and
understanding in youth and
their families that strengths,
assets, and abilities will be the
focus of the CYC intervention.
The choices that are made by
the CYC worker, including who is
involved in the intervention and
how that interaction is under-
taken, should involve the
strengths of the youth, both indi-
vidually and contextually, and
reflect the quality of the thera-
peutic relationship. As the CYC
worker engages youth and fami-
lies from a strengths framework,
youth will be engaged with the
worker through the things that
they have communicated that
are important to them. As the
worker is engaging with positive
attributes that already exist,
external demands regarding
how the counsellor thinks the
youth should react in specific
situations or the behaviours he
or she should develop are less
likely to dominate the thera-
peutic relationship. The
engagement phase sets up the
relationship to continually
emphasize positively oriented
exploration and discovery.
One case example is of a
youth we will call Alice 1 , who had
a history of highly reactive
behaviours so that staff had to
tread very cautiously in
discussing issues that needed
to be addressed. A big issue for
this youth was her significant
difficulties at school, and past
discussions of her school diffi-
culties had simply resulted in
explosive, non-productive
conversations. Alice was
invited to complete a
strengths inventory that
measured strengths in many
areas including school and
peer functioning. The
responses provided by Alice
showed that Alice had many
areas of strength in school
functioning. In reviewing
these responses, Alice talked
about how she could do
better than most of her peers
at reading and understanding
concepts. Alice had already
been identified by staff as
having an excellent vocabu-
lary that appeared to be
advanced for her age. This
led to a discussion about how
she found many
school-related topics to be
easy and how she could pick
up information and integrate
it very easily. Through this
conversation, Alice gained the
insight that she should be
spending more time in school
since she had many
strengths in this area, and
that if other kids could do this
work, she should be able to
do it very well if not even
better. At this point, Alice was
fully engaged in developing a
solution to her school prob-
lems that she was willing to
try out. This solution became
integrated into the case
management plan and
resulted in a longer stay in
school; it was an important
10 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
A big issue for
this youth was her
significant
difficulties at
school, and past
discussions of her
school difficulties
had simply resulted
in explosive,
non-productive
conversations.
1 All names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
goal that was successfully
achieved while Alice was in
residential treatment.
Exploration
Exploration within the
strengths assessment and
treatment model is the
process of exploring with
youth what their strengths are
in various contexts, as they
are observed by themselves
and by the significant people
in their lives. The exploration
phase is the assessment
portion of the intervention,
and is emphasized in Rawana
and Brownlee’s model (2009).
This is the point at which the
model’s argument for broad-
ening the scope of
assessment is enacted; the
enactment is done in two
ways: by broadening the
domains that are assessed,
and by broadening the
number of people that are
interviewed. A thorough
assessment of youths’
strengths is congruent with
the CYC profession’s concern
with the “totality of a child’s
functioning” (Anglin, 1999, p.
145), as well as with the
strengths perspective concern
with comprehensive assess-
ment in clinical intervention
(Cowger, 1994; De Jong &
Miller, 1995; Glicken, 2003).
The conventional
strengths assessment,
consisting of an interview
with many questions to
uncover strengths, has been
enhanced in the Rawana and
Brownlee model with the
addition of structured ques-
tionnaires to increase the
information gathered from the
client and their support network
(Rawana & Brownlee, 2009).
The CYC worker can ask youth
about the people with whom
they have significant relation-
ships, such as parents,
caregivers, other family
members, teachers, mentors,
clinicians, CYC workers, elders,
or spiritual leaders. These
people can be included in the
assessment process, providing
strengths-based observations
about the client. They may be
asked about the various envi-
ronments that the youth
encounters on a daily basis,
such as home, school, commu-
nity, and peers, to get a more
complete picture of the contexts
in which the youth uses his or
her strengths. The acknowledge-
ment and enhancement of the
youth’s self-reported strengths
by the significant people in his
or her life leads to reinforce-
ment. There are various
strengths- based questionnaires
available to assess children and
youth, such as the Behavioral
and Emotional Rating Scale
(Epstein & Sharma, 1998), the
Clinical Assessment Package for
Risks (Gilgun, 1999), and the
Strengths and Difficulties Ques-
tionnaire (McQuaide &
Ehrenreich, 1997). However,
the focus of these devices has
tended to be partly on difficul-
ties or normative behaviour,
which can lead to a discussion
of what the child does poorly
rather than exclusively
addressing strengths. Further,
these tools do not easily trans-
late into language that is
conversational with either the
child or their caregivers.
Rawana and Brownlee
(2010) have developed an
instrument that identifies
strengths in the day-to-day activ-
ities of the child, framed within
the context, such as at home, at
school or with peers, that the
child encounters during those
activities. The Strength Assess-
ment Inventory (SAI) was
designed to be used with chil-
dren ages 10-18, and includes
an “observer” module that can
be completed by parents/care-
givers, teachers, or workers who
are familiar with the child in his
or her various contexts, as well
as a “self-reporting” component
that covers the same areas. The
SAI organizes the assessment
information into naturally occur-
ring domains, defined as “areas
of functioning that the youth
engages in on a regular basis
and have been found to make
intuitive and practical sense
from both a developmental and
a contextual perspective”
(Rawana & Brownlee, 2009, p.
257). Contextual domains focus
on the interactions of the youth
with other people in various
environments, while develop-
mental domains focus on the
personal individual functioning
of the youth. By organizing the
information into domains of
functioning, the youth and
family can visualize in which
domains the youth has many
strengths, in which ones the
youth is choosing not to develop
or express strengths, and in
which the youth may be facing
substantial challenges or adver-
sities. The domains of
functioning take into account
Relational
Child Care
Youth&
Practice
ISSN 1705625X Volume 24 Number 3 / 11
the CYC profession’s concern
with the “direct day-to-day work
with children and youth in their
environment” (Anglin, 1999, p.
145).
The organization of assessed
information enables the CYC
worker to have a conversation
about strengths, and how they
are utilized by the youth and by
the people in the youth’s life.
The insight of the youth’s
support network, and the
ensuing conversations about
the youth’s strengths, builds the
awareness of the positivity of
the youth, not only for the youth
himself or herself, but also for
the people who interact with
and are invested in the youth.
The multi-sourced assessment
is then used by the CYC worker
to determine how to utilize the
available strengths and assets
of the youth to accomplish goals
in the expansion phase.
An example of Exploration is
found in a case of a youth in
residence — we will call him
Brian — who was already
engaged in treatment and
making good progress, but
seemed to be struggling with his
understanding of his sexual
identity. As it was causing some
anxieties for him, staff realized
that, to be helpful to this client,
this was an area that should be
explored. However, staff were
reluctant to address the issue
directly due to his apparent
anxiety. Personal strengths were
explored with Brian using the
SAI, and a conversation took
place with him about his
strengths in different areas. One
of the areas covered by the SAI
is dating and a person’s rela-
tionship with a partner. As part
of a general conversation about
strengths, the SAI made it easy
to explore with Brian, from a
strengths orientation, how he
felt about intimate relationships
and his sexuality. The strengths
in such relationships were given
major consideration and set the
context for a fuller discussion
about sexuality that did not
produce any undue anxiety.
Through this process, Brian was
able to open up to staff and
explore how his sexuality
affected his relationships with
peers, as well as his overall
sense of well-being.
Expansion
Once the relevant informa-
tion has been gathered, the CYC
worker is in a position to use it
to reflect on the abilities and
difficulties with youth. In the
expansion phase of the
strengths assessment and treat-
ment model, strengths are
discussed in relation to youths’
development and in terms of
their origins and interrelation-
ships. This phase is congruent
with two key characteristics of
the CYC profession: the CYC
concern with the growth and
development of youth and the
social competence perspective
adopted by CYC workers (Anglin,
1999).
As the goals of this phase of
the strengths assessment and
treatment model are to gain a
deeper understand of how
youths’ strengths function and
to raise their awareness of how
they may be used intentionally
to achieve goals in their lives,
Rawana and Brownlee (2009)
suggest a number of ques-
tions to begin these
discussions:
1. Let’s talk about the kinds
of things that you do well
and how you can use
those talents to improve
your situation. What are
your top ten strengths?
Would you be interested
in listing these strengths
and putting the list in a
prominent place to
remind you that you have
these strengths?
2. Do most people who know
you know that you have
these strengths? If they
did know that you have
these strengths, how do
you think it would change
the way that they see you?
3. Which strengths do you
tend to use the most
when you are dealing with
day-to-day issues?
4. Do any of these strengths
that others have noticed
about you surprise you?
5. Some strengths come
more naturally to people
and some strengths you
have to work harder to
develop. Can you think of
ones that have come
naturally to you and ones
that you had to work hard
at developing? (p.
257-258)
These discussions can
occur one-on-one with the
youth; importantly, they can
also occur with significant
people in the youth’s life who
can contribute to the youth’s
shift in awareness and also
12 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
experience a shift in aware-
ness themselves. As the
assessment and the discus-
sions can take place across
many contexts of the youth’s
life, so the expansion phase
can be applied across these
contexts, in many of the
various situations where CYC
workers are providing
services, and in group or indi-
vidual work with youth.
The expansion of
strengths from assessment to
an understanding of how
strengths function has the
potential to increase the
sense of personal agency,
that is the ability to initiate
and control their actions
towards specific goals, of the
youth (Rawana & Brownlee,
2009). By using their existing
internal resources to respond
to issues, youth are more
likely to believe that they both
have the resources to initiate
change and can have control
over the outcomes in their
lives. The development of
achievable goals is a major
aspect of this phase of the
intervention, and represents
the formation of a
strengths-oriented treatment
plan. Because the develop-
ment of strengths in certain
areas can signify that more
time and energy are being
spent there, expansion identi-
fies what is important to the
youth, what he or she values,.
The effort of examining how
those strengths are interre-
lated with the other
processes going on in youths’
lives, whether positive or
negative, reflects the youths’
potential not only to themselves
but to the people who interact
with them (Rawana & Brownlee,
2009).
An example from a residen-
tial program for adolescents
with substance abuse issues
offers a good illustration of the
expansion process. Part of the
regular treatment procedure
with the adolescents includes
an initial assessment of
strengths. This is followed by a
conversation with them about
the top ten strengths that they
value the most. The next conver-
sation is whether they are
interested in sharing this infor-
mation about their strengths
with others, and whether they
would be comfortable putting a
list of these strengths up on the
door to their room. Most youth
are very pleased to do this and
take some pride in this recogni-
tion. It is an open expression of
what the youth values and what
he or she has invested in up to
the present time. The continued
visibility of this list allows for
easy conversations with the
youth as to how these strengths
can translate into their
day-to-day behaviours and
become integrated into their
treatment plan.
Evolution
The evolution phase of the
strengths assessment and treat-
ment model is the point at
which the planning done during
the expansion phase is imple-
mented and evaluated. The
therapeutic relationship that
has been present throughout
the various processes continues
to be of importance; the collabo-
ration that occurs during the
implementation and evaluation
should be reinforced by a
supportive and challenging
person with whom the youth has
an ongoing, trusting relation-
ship. Using the possibilities that
emerge from the exploration
and expansion of strengths, the
evolution phase focuses on
achieving the goals that are
important to the youth, as well
as addressing the concerns that
have been raised during the
treatment process. It may be
beneficial to discuss the change
process with the significant
people in the youth’s life, to
elicit their support, and to recog-
nize the changes as they occur
in various contexts.
Rawana and Brownlee state,
“Evolution is viewed as a
process of using the identified
strengths of the individual and
accessing relevant outside
opportunities of support to
increase the bidirectional
synergy of the person in his or
her context” (2009, p. 258).
In their supportive role, CYC
workers may help the youth
with their decisions about
which strengths will be the
best and most effective for
resolving specific problems.
As change achieved through
the client’s own self-directed
choices is a more effective
method of intervention than
the client being required to
follow the therapist’s agenda
(DuBois & Miley, 2007;
Legowski & Brownlee, 2001),
the strengths assessment and
treatment model supports the
empowerment of youth, as well
as promoting responsibility.
Relational
Child Care
Youth&
Practice
ISSN 1705625X Volume 24 Number 3 / 13
In their supportive
role, CYC workers
may help the youth
with their decisions
about which
strengths will be the
best and most
effective for resolving
specific problems.
Uniting internal resources and
external resources in a way that
can demonstrate the effects of
personal agency to youth is an
important part of the CYC
profession’s awareness of the
development of children and
youth (Anglin, 1999).
In the evolution process, the
most logical approach in the
application of strengths to
problem areas is to first use
strengths from the same
domain to deal with problems,
before turning to strengths from
a different domain. Therefore, if
a youth is struggling with behav-
ioural issues with teachers but
has the strength of being an
excellent peer support, a
conversation to reveal whether
the youth is willing to try to
transfer the strength with peers
into the classroom interaction
with teachers may be beneficial.
However, if the youth is experi-
encing difficulties in a domain in
which there are few strengths,
the potential to transfer the
strengths from other domains
exists. It is likely that the youth
will come to a better under-
standing of his or her
functioning in problem areas
during the strengths interven-
tion, and may be able to reflect
on why certain domains remain
a struggle. When the youth has
the opportunity to explore what
solutions may work for him or
her, and to reflect on which
strengths may be the most
effective in his or her particular
situation, the investment in
change can grow. As these
conversations continue, that
which the youth values and that
which they are ambivalent
towards will likely become more
clear to both the youth and the
CYC worker. Reflecting these
values back to the youth, and
engaging in discussions about
their causes and effects, is an
effective method of discovering
not only which solutions might
work for the individual, but also
which are more likely to work. If
youth are being resistant to
using strengths in various
contexts, further discussion
about the reasons for this may
reveal deeper feelings, values,
or attitudes towards those
domains. When the resistance
is continually met with a focus
on strengths, the youth is left
with a feeling of affirmation
rather than of failure. If prob-
lems are challenged creatively
with strengths, such as using
strengths in one domain as a
metaphor to deal with problems
in another, seemingly unrelated
domain, the CYC worker is likely
to have more success in over-
coming treatment roadblocks.
In the process of evolution,
the youth should become more
aware of how his or her poten-
tial can be realized using both
active and dormant strengths.
By tapping into these strengths
in ways that are not conven-
tional in the life of the youth,
new knowledge, skills, and
resources can be developed.
This teaches the youth not only
about their potential, but also
about their capabilities and
choices in achieving their goals.
The case of Alice also illus-
trates the process of evolution
in treatment. When Alice
returned to school, she
transitioned from elementary to
secondary school. This
resulted in the school staff
viewing Alice from a fresh
perspective, without a
previous history or view of
Alice as someone with signifi-
cant behavioural difficulties.
The new staff responded to
the behaviours that Alice
presented, including a clear
expression of strengths, such
as Alice wanting to succeed
at school, which had been
identified in her strengths
assessment. This led to the
school encouraging Alice to
do more work and to extend
her time at school to build on
her success. With this school
success, there was an oppor-
tunity for Alice’s counsellor to
make use of this develop-
ment, working concurrently
on issues and discussing
strengths related to peer rela-
tionships and family
functioning. Alice was able to
capitalize on strengths that
already existed to develop
achievable goals for herself
and her family and to explore
what solutions might work for
her in these domains. She
was able to reflect on which
strengths she could use that
might be the most effective in
peer and family situations.
Conclusion
The strengths assessment
and treatment model is a
method of intervening with
children and youth on their
own terms, by assessing and
utilizing what is working for
them rather than what is
working against them. By
following a formal operational
14 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
if the youth is
experiencing
difficulties in a
domain in which
there are few
strengths, the
potential to
transfer the
strengths from
other domains
exists.
framework, the model offers
CYC workers structure for
their interactions with chil-
dren and youth, as well as
their families and the signifi-
cant people in their lives,
while remaining flexible
enough to be utilized in the
multiple contexts in which
CYC workers practice.
Because the framework uses
strengths that the youth
already possess in new and
creative ways, and also raises
their awareness of their
potential to achieve goals, the
strengths assessment and
treatment model is suitable
for both long term and short
term interventions, and can
work alongside other
programming. Youth will take
away a greater understanding
of their strengths, skills, and
resources, all of which exist
outside of the therapeutic
relationship; hence, the youth
has the potential to continue
using these strengths even
after the relationship with the
CYC worker is terminated.
References
Allison, S., Stacey, K., Dadds, V.,
Roeger, L., Wood, A., &
Martin, G. (2003). What the
family brings: Gathering
evidence for strengths-based
work. Journal of Family
Therapy, 25, 263–284.
Anglin, J. (1999). The uniqueness
of child and youth care: A
personal perspective. Child &
Youth Care Forum: Journal of
Research and Practice in Chil-
dren’s Services, 28, 143–150.
Beker, J. (1972). Critical inci-
dents in child care. NY:
Behavioral Publications.
Buckley, J. A., & Epstein, M. H.
(2004). The Behavioural and
Emotional Rating Scale-2
(BERS-2): Providing a compre-
hensive approach to
strength-based assessment.
California School Psychologist,
9, 21–27.
Cottrell, A. (2008). The importance
of theoretical perspective, role
and beliefs in child and youth
care: A personal reflection. Rela-
tional, Child and Youth Care
Practice, 21, 36-40.
Cowger, C. D. (1994). Assessing
client strengths: Clinical assess-
ment for client empowerment.
Social Work, 39, 262–268.
De Jong, P., & Miller, S. D. (1995).
How to interview for client
strengths. Social Work, 40,
729–736.
DuBois, B. & Miley, K. (2007).
Social work: An empowering
profession (6th edition). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Epstein, M. H. & Sharma, J. M.
(1998). Behavioral and
Emotional Rating Scale: A
Strength-Based Approach to
Assessment. Austin, Texas:
PRO-ED Inc.
Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A.
(2005). Adolescent resilience: A
framework for understanding
healthy development in the face
of risk. Annual Review of Public
Health, 26, 399–419.
Ferguson, R. V., & Anglin, J. P.
(1985). The child care profes-
sion: A vision for the future. Child
Care Quarterly, 14, 85-102.
Garfat, T. (2003). Working with
families: Developing a child and
youth care approach. Child and
Youth Services, 25, 7-37.
Gilgun, J. F. (1999). CASPARS: New
tools for assessing client risks
and strengths. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contem-
porary Human Services, 80(5),
450-459.
Glicken, M. D. (2004). Using the
strengths perspective in social
work practice. New York:
Pearson.
Gompf, K. (2003). Connecting while
connecting the dots. Relational
Child and Youth Care Practice,
16, 74-75.
LeBuffe, P. A., & Shapiro, V. B.
(2004). Lending “strength” to
the assessment of preschool
social-emotional health. Cali-
fornia School Psychologist, 9,
51–61.
Legowski, T., & Brownlee, K. (2001).
Working with metaphor in narra-
tive therapy. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy, 12, 19-28.
Lerner, R. M., & Benson, P. L.
(2003). Developmental assets
and asset-building communities:
Implications for research, policy,
and practice. New York: Kluwer
Academic.
McQuaide, S., & Ehrenreich, J. H.
(1997). Assessing client
strengths. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary
Human Services, 78, 201–212.
Phelan, J. (2005). Child and youth
care education: The creation of
articulate practitioners. Child &
Youth Care Forum: Journal of
Research and Practice in Chil-
dren’s Services, 34, 347–355.
Rawana, E., & Brownlee, K. (2010).
Strengths Assessment Inventory:
Manual. Thunder Bay, ON:
Centre of Excellence for Children
and Adolescents with Special
Needs, Lakehead University.
Available from:
http://strengthsassessment.co
m/
Rawana, E., & Brownlee, K. (2009).
Making the possible probable: A
strength-based assessment and
intervention framework for clin-
ical work with parents, children
and adolescents. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contem-
porary Social Services, 90,
255-260.
Relational
Child Care
Youth&
Practice
ISSN 1705625X Volume 24 Number 3 / 15
Richardson, G. E., Neiger, B. L.,
Jensen, S., & Kumpfer, K. L.
(1990). The resiliency model.
Health Education, 21, 33–39.
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors
in children’s responses to stress
and disadvantage. In M. W. Kent
& J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary
prevention of psychopathology,
Vol. 3. Social competence in chil-
dren (pp. 49–74). Hanover, NH:
University Press of New England.
Safran, J. D., & Muran, J. C. (2005).
Brief relational therapy and the
resolution of ruptures in the ther-
apeutic alliance. Psychotherapy
Bulletin, 40, 13–17.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2006). The
strengths perspective in social
work practice (4th ed.). New
York: Allyn and Bacon.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (1997). The
strengths perspective in social
work practice (2nd ed.). Boston:
Longman.
Sharry, J. (2004). Counseling chil-
dren, adolescents and families:
A strength-based approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tally, M. (2000).Why people choose
to be residential child care
workers. Child and Youth Care
Forum, 29, 113-126.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Kilmer, R. P.
(2005). Assessing strengths,
resilience and growth to guide
clinical interventions. Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 36, 230–237.
Van Wormer, K., & Rae Davis, D.
(2003). Addiction treatment: A
strengths perspective. Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
White, J. (2007). Knowing, doing,
and being in context: A
praxis-oriented approach to child
and youth care. Child and Youth
Care Forum, 36, 225-244.
Correspondence concerning this
article should be addressed to:
Dr. Keith Brownlee, School of
Social Work, Lakehead Univer-
sity, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder
Bay, ON, P7B 5E1. Email:
Julia MacArthur is an MSW
graduate of the
School of Social
Work, Lakehead
University, Thunder
Bay, and works for
the Children’s Centre
Thunder Bay, a
children’s mental
health facility.
Dr. Edward Rawana is the
Director of the
Centre of Excellence
for Children and
Adolescents with
Special Needs, and
is an Associate
Professor in the
Department of
Psychology, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
ON.
Dr. Keith Brownlee is the
Director of Research
for the Centre of
Excellence for
Children and
Adolescents with
Special Needs and
is a Professor in the
School of Social
Work, Lakehead
University, Thunder Bay,
ON.
16 / ISSN 1705625X Relational Child and Youth Care Practice Volume 24 Number 3
