question

Chapter 8

Ecological Systems Theory

Barbra Teater

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

•define systems theory, ecological perspective, and bioecological systems theory, and explain how they have each contributed to the development of ecological systems theory;

•identify the aim of ecological systems theory;

•list and explain the five assumptions of ecological systems theory;

•describe ecomaps and explain their role in social work practice; and

•explain the role of ecological systems theory in the assessment and intervention stages of social work practice.

INTRODUCTION

Ecological systems theory is concerned with the interaction and interdependence of individuals with their surrounding systems and encourages social workers to take a holistic view by assessing how individuals affect and are affected by such physical, social, political, and cultural systems. Likewise, the profession of social work has been fundamentally concerned with how individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations interact with their environments and are shaped by them. The global definition of social work states that social work is “underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities, and indigenous knowledges, [and] engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance well-being” (International Federation of Social Workers, 2014). Ecological systems theory is fundamental to social work as it serves as a theoretical basis for facilitating social evolution and individual growth and development by providing a framework to assess individuals in their environment and determine the most appropriate system in which to intervene. This chapter explores the ecological systems theory by describing its origins, through systems theory, ecological theory, and bioecological systems theory; its basic assumptions; and how the theory can be applied in social work practice.

THE ORIGINS OF THE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

Ecological systems theory was developed from systems theory, ecological theory, and bioecological systems theory, which examine how individuals affect and are affected by the physical, interpersonal, social, political, and cultural systems in their lives (Langer & Lietz, 2015). Systems theory, derived from Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s general systems theory, focuses on the complex parts of a system and how they interact to create a functional whole. A system is defined as “a complex of elements or components directly or indirectly related in a causal network, such that each component is related to at least some others in a more or less stable way within a particular period of time” (Buckley, 1967, p. 41). Systems theory holds that the whole of a system is greater than the sum of its parts where the elements of the system do not function in isolation but, rather, interact and depend on each other to form a functional whole. The whole system is not complete without the presence and participation of each of the elements. According to von Bertalanffy, the human being is the most complex system, composed of biological, physiological, and psychological elements. Systems theory was integrated into social work practice in the 1970s, particularly through casework (Goldstein, 1973, 1977; Pincus & Minahan, 1973, 1977), where social workers could assess an individual by looking at the other systems in the client’s life, and through the holistic assessment of how the systems interacted, the social worker could determine various targets of intervention and determine the most appropriate system in which to intervene. Systems theory is widely used in social work today as an assessment framework and has been instrumental in underpinning the practice of family therapy.

Ecological theory, or the ecological perspective, derives from the field of ecology that aims to explore the interactions and interdependence of organisms with their environment. Ecological theory is a form of general systems theory, yet adds a more humanistic dimension by examining how people interact in real-life time and space and the adaptive fit of the person in the environment. An ecosystem is defined as people and their life situations, which includes the extent to which they are able to function from their interactions with other systems (Siporin, 1980). As Siporin (1980) described, “ecological theory thus deals with the web of life, at the interfaces between systems and subsystems, so that it relates to open, self-organizing, self regulating, and adaptive complexes of interacting and interdependent subsystems” (p. 509). In the 1980s, two social work academics, Alex Gitterman and Carel Germain, emphasized the ecological perspective in social work practice over general systems theory, particularly to address the “non-human” language of general systems theory and to provide additional direction to social work practice beyond the use of the theory as an assessment tool. They developed the Life Model to social work practice, which aimed to assess the person:environment fit of the client and work to enhance the quality of interactions and transactions between people and their environment. The ecological perspective is used in social work to assess individuals in the context of ecological systems with which they interact, such as their family, peer group, neighborhood, community, and institutions (e.g., school and workplace), and the extent to which the transactions within their environment are helpful or unhelpful (Ohmer, 2010). Table 3.1 provides the concepts and definitions of terms used in both systems and ecological theory.

TABLE 3.1 Key terms in Systems Theory and Ecological Theory

Term Definition

System A set of elements that are orderly and interrelated to make a functional whole1

Subsystem A subsystem is one part or element of a larger system, but the subsystem can act as a smaller system on its own (i.e., an individual is a subsystem of their family, yet the individual is a system on their own)

Open system Open systems interact with their environment and are affected and influenced by these interactions. The open system is continually reacting and adapting to the influences from the environment. There are two dimensions to a open system: (a) open to the environment (allowing new information to enter the system) and (b) open to itself (allowing new information to circulate within the system).2 Different systems vary in the degree to which they are open, some being more open than others

Closed system Closed systems do not interact with their environment and are unaffected and uninfluenced by the environment. Different systems vary in the degree to which they are closed, some being more closed than others (i.e., a family may be influenced and affected by their environment, but they are resistant to change and prefer to remain stuck in their static processes)3

Boundaries Each system has a boundary that distinguishes it from other systems. Boundaries may be physical or psychological.3 The extent to which the boundaries are permeable differs by system as some systems allow information to freely enter or cross their boundary and others do not

Ecological Theory

Person: environment fit The actual fit between an individual’s or a collective group’s needs, rights, goals, and capacities and the qualities and operations of their physical and social environments within particular cultural and historical contexts. This fit could be classified as favorable, minimally adequate, or unfavorable4

Adaptations Are continuous, change-oriented, cognitive, sensory-perceptual, and behavioral processes people use to sustain or raise the level of fit between themselves and their environment4

Life stressors Are generated by critical life issues that people perceive as exceeding their personal and environmental resources for managing them. A stressor represents serious harm or loss and is associated with a sense of being in jeopardy4

Stress Is the internal response to a life stressor and is characterized by troubled emotional or physiological states, or both4

Coping measures Are special behaviors, often novel, that are devised to handle the demands posed by the life stressor. Successful coping depends on various environmental and personal resources4

Notes: 1Kirst-Ashman, K. K., & Hull, G. H. (2002). Understanding generalist practice (3rd ed.). Brooks Cole; 2Alexander, P. (1985). A systems theory conceptualization of incest. Family Process, 24 (1), 79–88; 3Preston-Shoot, M., & Agass, D. (1990). Making sense of social work: Psychodynamics, systems and practice. Macmillan Education; 4Germain, C. B., & Gitterman, A. (1995). Ecological perspective. In R. L. Edward & J. G. Hopps (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed.). NASW Press.

Source: Adapted from Teater, B. (2014b). An introduction to applying social work theories and methods (2nd ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory

The work of Bronfenbrenner (1974, 1977, 1979, 1986a, 1986b, 2006) involves the application of the ecological theory to child development, which has greatly influenced social work practice. Bronfenbrenner developed an ecological framework composed of five systems or layers of the environment (microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem) that affect a child’s development. The child is viewed as an active, growing human being, and the five systems are viewed as directly and indirectly affecting the child’s behavior and development. Equally, the child is able to affect the systems with which they interact; thus, the influence is bidirectional; the interaction within and between the layers are important to explore. Bronfenbrenner (1992) defined the ecology of human development as:

the scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation throughout the life course between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by the relations between these settings, and the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded. (p. 188)

Thus, in order to understand human development, Bronfenbrenner believed one must have an understanding of the full environment in which the individual’s growth takes place. According to Langer and Lietz (2015), “[U]nderstanding these various systems helps social workers take a holistic view of a client, offering full consideration of how people, places, and physical environment can affect a child’s development” (p. 30). In 2006, Bronfenbrenner revised his theory to acknowledge and emphasize the child’s own biology as a factor in influencing their environment and renamed the theory “bioecological systems theory.” The five systems are described below.

Microsystem. The microsystem is the layer closest to the child and consists of relationships and interactions that the child has with their immediate surroundings, such as parents, siblings, family, peers, teachers, school, neighborhoods, or childcare environments. The interaction and influence between the child and the other elements (or systems) within this system is bidirectional and has the greatest impact on the child. For example, the child affects the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of the parent and the parent affects the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of the child. Social work practice would aim to consider the systems at this level that have the most influence on the client (Langer & Lietz, 2015) and may seek to ask such questions as: “Who (or what) are the systems in the child’s life?”; “What is the quality of the relationship between the child and these systems [parents; siblings; teachers; peers; school; neighborhood; childcare]?”; and/or “To what extent do such relationships help or hinder the child’s development?”

Mesosystem. The mesosystem is the layer that provides the linkage between the systems in the microsystem, which can consist of relationships and/or direct interactions that have a bidirectional influence. For example, the connection between the parents and the school, between the school and the neighborhood, or between the childcare facility and the parents’ workplace. Social work practice would aim to assess the quality of relationships among the systems and the extent to which the relationships are promoting the child’s growth and development, and may seek to ask such questions as: “To what extent does the interaction between two or more systems [parents; school; childcare; neighborhood; parent’s workplace; church] help or hinder the child’s growth and development?”; and/or “To what extent are the child’s needs supported by the other systems in the child’s life?”

Exosystem. The exosystem layer consists of the interaction between two or more systems that cause an indirect influence on another system. This layer consists of the larger social system that can comprise decisions, events, and contingencies in which the child has no influence (Johnson, 2008). For example, the school could receive a funding cut that causes the school to eliminate after-school programs and in turn causes the parent to be under increased financial pressure due to paying for after-school childcare. Such pressure causes the parent to feel stressed, which influences the parent’s interaction with the child. Here the child is affected despite having no formal relationship with the funding agency creating the cut to after-school programs. The child’s growth and development is affected by the interaction of an external system with a system in the child’s microsystem. Social work practice would aim to assess the larger structures that are indirectly influencing the quality of relationships among the systems within the child’s microsystem and the extent to which these interactions and influences are promoting the child’s growth and development. Social workers may seek to ask such questions as: “To what extent are external structures [policies; rules; regulations] influencing the ability of systems within the child’s microsystem to meet the child’s needs and promote growth and development?” and/or “What needs to happen in order to overcome barriers to the systems in the child’s microsystem meeting the needs of the child and promoting growth and development?”

Macrosystem. The macrosystem layer consists of the larger systems that influence a child’s life, such as policies and legislation, cultural values, customs, and beliefs, entitlement services and programs, and resources. The systems within the macrosystem influence the child by infiltrating all the layers (exosystem, mesosystem, and microsystem). For example, societal views about access to healthcare will influence the ability of a parent to access affordable healthcare when their employer does not provide health insurance, and the ability of the parent to address their health concerns and needs will influence their ability to effectively function as a parent, thus influencing the extent to which the child’s need are being met. Social work practice would aim to assess the societal policies, legislation, programs, resources, and cultural values, customs, and beliefs that are influencing the exo, meso, and microsystems and helping or hindering in meeting the child’s needs and in promoting growth and development. Social workers may ask such questions as: “To what extent do policies, programs, and resources limit or fail to meet the needs of targeted populations?” and/or “How does the dominant cultural norms, values, and beliefs include or exclude certain populations in their quest for growth and development?”

Chronosystem. The chronosystem layer includes the dimensions of time or the events that have occurred in the child’s life. Events can encompass external events, such as natural disasters, terrorist attacks, or a parent’s death; and internal events, such as biological, physiological, or psychological changes within the child. The events experienced by the child will influence the way in which they respond to changes and developments in their future. For example, a child whose parents divorced when the child was 8 years old and felt a sense of abandonment when one of the parents left may have difficulties securing attachments with significant others in the future. Social work practice would aim to assess the significant external and internal events that occurred in the child’s life that could influence their ability to experience positive growth and development or influence the ways in which the child responds to events in the future. Social workers may ask such questions as: “What significant external and internal events occurred in the child’s life?” and “To what extent have such events influenced the ways in which the child responds to changes and development as they grow and develop?”

Each layer in Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework is viewed as critical in the development of a child and any changes or conflicts within one layer will influence and affect the other layers. Thus, applying bioecological systems theory to social work practice involves not only assessing the child (or client system) within the client’s immediate environment but also an assessment of how the other layers of the environment interact and affect each other. Although this section has discussed bioecological systems theory in relation to a child, the theory can be applied to a client system of any age. Figure 3.1 depicts how the four systems, or layers, are nested within each other and how, along with the chronosystem (or dimension of time), they influence each other.

FIGURE 3.1  Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory: Individual nested within systems.

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY EXPLAINED

Ecological systems theory has integrated the basic premises and frameworks from general systems theory, ecological theory, and bioecological systems theory. The aim in applying ecological systems theory is to assess all the systems in a client’s life that can influence the extent to which the client can grow and develop. Based on this assessment, the social worker will determine the most appropriate system in which to intervene in order to alleviate distress and/or dysfunction in the client’s life and provide avenues and opportunities for positive growth and development. In achieving this aim, clients will experience a “goodness-of-fit” between themselves and their environment, which involves an “exchange balance, or positive reciprocal complementarity, in mutual need-meeting relationships, between sub-systems, and between the ecosystem and its environment” (Siporin, 1980, p. 510). According to Ohmer (2010), goodness-of-fit or a strong person-in-environment configuration “suggests that nutritive environments provide the necessary resources, security, and support at the appropriate times in the appropriate ways, but hostile environments inhibit development and the ability to cope owing to a lack of distortion of environmental supports” (p. 3).

Applying ecological systems theory to social work practice involves examining the exchanges of individuals within their social, physical, and cultural environments (Gitterman, 2009). Social environments include exchanges and interactions with friends, family, social and community networks, and the political, legal, and economic structures that shape the way in which the environment operates and orders itself. The physical environment includes the built world, such as buildings and structures, as well as the natural world, and the cultural environment includes the values, beliefs, norms, and customs that shape individuals’ values, perspectives, and expectations (Teater, 2014a). Assessing the relationships, interactions, and interdependencies between the individual (family, group, and/or community) and the social, physical, and cultural environments, and intervening in one or more systems to enhance the goodness-of-fit between the client and their environment is the crux of ecological systems theory.

The relationships and interactions between the individuals and their environments are not viewed as static, but, rather, evolve over time and are influenced by historical and cultural influences. Ecological systems theory does not take a simple cause-and-effect linear approach when examining the relationship between two or more systems where A causes B; thus, the focus of intervention is on A. Rather, ecological systems theory assesses the interactions between A and B and the ways in which A’s response to B influences B’s response to A, as well as assesses how other environmental factors are influencing A and B’s interaction and response to one another (Gitterman & Germain, 2008). In completing this type of assessment, the social worker may discover that the most appropriate system in which to intervene is neither A nor B but rather the social, physical, and/or cultural environment in which they live, which is the source of stress and strain (Teater, 2014a).

Ecological systems theory assumes individuals try to maintain a good level of fit between themselves and their environment where the environment is providing the necessary resources to meet their needs and the individuals have the necessary strengths, resources, and capacity to grow and develop (Teater, 2014a). Individuals may experience stress when the environment fails to provide the necessary resources, and there is a poor level of adaptive fit between the individual and their environment. It is often at this time that individuals voluntarily or involuntarily seek the assistance of a social worker. The social worker aims to work with the individual to assess the goodness-of-fit between the client and their environment and seeks to improve the quality of exchange between the client and their environment by either changing the client’s perceptions and behaviors, or changing the response or influence from the environment on the client (Gitterman, 2009; Teater, 2014a).

Basic Assumptions of Ecological Systems Theory

There are five basic assumptions that underpin ecological systems theory (Gitterman, 2011; Gitterman & Germain, 2008; Teater, 2014b). The assumptions are listed in Table 3.2 and are described in detail in the following.

TABLE 3.2 Assumptions of Ecological Systems Theory

Assumption 1 The whole system is greater than the sum of its parts

Assumption 2 The parts of a system are interconnected and interdependent

Assumption 3 A system is either directly or indirectly affected by other systems

Assumption 4 All systems have boundaries and rules

Assumption 5 Systems strive for a goodness-of-fit with their environment

Sources: Gitterman, A., & Germain, C. B. (2008). The life model of social work practice: Advances in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press; Teater, B. (2014a). Social work practice from an ecological perspective. In C. W. LeCroy (Ed.), Case studies in social work practice (3rd ed., pp. 35–44). Brooks/Cole; Teater, B. (2014). An introduction to applying social work theories and methods (3rd ed.). Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.

1.The whole system is greater than the sum of its parts. A system is composed of elements or subsystems that interact and depend on each other in order to create a functional whole. Although it may seem that the parts of the system add up to create the whole system, this is not the case as the relationships and interactions between the elements of the system increase the complexity of the system (Langer & Lietz, 2015). For example, an individual, as a system, is composed of biological, physiological, and psychological elements that interact and influence each other to create the whole individual system. A client presenting with psychological difficulties may actually be experiencing a biological problem that is influencing their psychological state. Failing to assess the source of the presenting problem could further perpetuate the problem. Another example includes a family system composed of two parents and two children. The system is not merely four people, but the system also includes the relationship between the two parents, the relationship between the siblings, and the relationship between each of the parents and each of the children. The relationship between the two parents not only feed into how the parents are as individual systems, but equally the relationship influences the way in which the parents function with their children. As Langer and Lietz (2015) state, “these dynamics are elements of the system, showing this family system is not the sum of its parts, […] but is also defined by the patterns of behavior, rules, beliefs, and values that make them a family” (p. 38). In viewing a system, social workers should identify the different elements that comprise the system and examine the extent to which they are working together to make the functional whole. Intervening into one element of the system without fully assessing the whole system could contribute to the continuation of the presenting problem and further reduce the goodness-of-fit of the client.

2.The parts of a system are interconnected and interdependent. As indicated in Assumption 1, each system is composed of elements that work together to create a functional whole. Therefore, a change or movement in one element (or subsystem) will cause a change or movement in another element; thus, all the elements of the system are interconnected and interdependent. Langer and Lietz (2015) state, “the interactions among entities are not linear, where one entity affects the others. Instead, exchanges among systems bring about changes to one another over time” (p. 38). For example, the way in which person A approaches person B will influence how person B responds to person A. The relationship between A and B may also be influenced by the environmental factors that could influence A and B’s interaction and the way in which they are responding. After identifying the elements that comprise a system, social workers should assess the ways in which the parts of the system interact and interconnect to make the whole as well as the environmental factors that could be influencing the interaction; the intervention may actually be in the external environment versus the couple, as the environmental factors are the source of stress and strain between A and B.

3.A system is either directly or indirectly affected by other systems. While the elements of the system create a functional whole, the functioning of a system is also influenced directly or indirectly by other systems; an individual will respond to the environment and the environment will respond to the individual. For example, a family system is directly or indirectly affected by other systems, such as the school, childcare facility, workplace, extended family, community, and society. Some of the influences can be direct, such as a workplace specifying the work hours of a parent, which impacts the amount of time the parent is able to spend with a child. Other influences can be indirect, such as a closing of a school in the community that forces another school to have over enrollment, which affects the quality of education a child receives. Social workers are tasked with assessing the client system and the elements that comprise the system as well as exploring the other systems in the client’s life and the extent to which they are directly or indirectly affecting the client.

4.All systems have boundaries and rules. All systems have boundaries and rules that define and distinguish them from each other and separate them from their environment. The boundaries of systems can be permeable at different points, which depends on the extent to which the system is open or closed. Open systems are receptive to change and development and will allow transactions with the surrounding environment, whereas closed systems are more resistant to outside influences and would prefer to remain static. Although each system has its distinct boundary, some boundaries overlap, such as a family system, which has a parent–parent subsystem and a parent–child subsystem. The rules of the system often define the boundaries of the system and the extent to which they are permeable (open or closed), which typically creates predictability that helps the system to function efficiently. Social workers will assess the boundaries and rules of the client system and the extent to which they are open or closed to influences from their environment. The work with the client may involve strengthening or redefining the boundary of the client, changing the rules of the client system, and/or working with the client to be more or less influenced by the environment.

5.Systems strive for a goodness-of-fit with their environment. Systems strive to maintain an internal balance, to grow and develop in an effort to reach goals, and to have a good fit with their environment despite conflicting influences. Systems have a desire to adapt to their environment and to make the changes needed to protect them and to grow and develop. The extent to which a system can adapt to the environment is key to experiencing goodness-of-fit and in minimizing stress or dysfunction. Teater (2014b) defines good and bad levels of adaptedness:

[A] good level of adaptedness means that individuals view themselves as full of strengths, resources and the capacity to grow and develop while also feeling as if their environment is providing the necessary resources in order to grow and develop. A poor level of adaptedness would involve individuals feeling that the environment does not provide the necessary resources nor do they feel as if they have the strengths, resources, and capacity to grown and develop. (p. 26)

Social workers will assess the level of fit between the client system and the environment and may seek to intervene in the client system or external systems in order to alleviate distress and to promote growth and develop through a stronger goodness-of-fit.

APPLYING ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORY TO PRACTICE

These five assumptions help to guide the use of ecological systems theory in the assessment and intervention stages of social work practice. The following discusses how the ecological systems theory can be used in the assessment and intervention stages of social work practice by applying the theory to a fictitious client, Michael, who was referred to a school social worker due to “disruptive behavior” in the classroom.

Assessment

A social worker using an ecological systems theory would conduct a holistic, multisystem assessment of the client (individual, family, group, community, organization) by examining the elements that comprise the system, the other systems that directly or indirectly affect the client system, the interactions and relationships among these systems (including any boundaries and rules), and the extent to which such interactions and relationships are contributing to the goodness-of-fit between the client system and the environment. This assessment enables the social worker to widen the view of the client’s presenting problem beyond the client and to examine if other systems in the client’s environment are contributing to the presenting problem. Thus, the social worker may determine the best system in which to intervene is not the client but, rather, another system that is directly or indirectly affecting the client and contributing to the presenting problem.

Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework is a useful tool to guide a social worker’s assessment of the client. The social worker can position the individual as a system composed of biological, physiological, and psychological elements, and identify the other systems within the client’s microsystem. The social worker can then assess the relationship and interactions between the systems within the microsystem (the mesosystem layer). The social worker will also assess for any other systems that indirectly affect the individual (those in the exosystem layer) as well as any larger systems, such as policies, legislation, cultural values and beliefs, and programs and resources that infiltrate all the other system layers and affect the individual system (macrosystem). Finally, the social worker will explore the historical influences (time dimension) that may shape the individual in how they respond to future events and situations.

An ecomap serves as a visual tool for assessing a client within the environment. An ecomap is an extension of a genogram, which was originally developed by social worker and social work academic Dr. Ann Hartman (see Hartman, 1978). A genogram is a graphic illustration of a client’s family tree that uses symbols to reflect the gender of systems and subsystems as well as the relationship and connections between them; for example, a circle represents a female and a square represents a male, and a horizontal solid line that connects these two individuals indicates that the male and female are in a partnered relationship. The ecomap extends the genogram by graphically depicting an individual or client system within their environment. When working with an individual or family client system, the ecomap usually begins with a genogram of the client system and then extends into an ecomap that identifies the other external systems that influence the client system, such as social, personal, economic, and/or political systems (e.g., the use of Bronfenbrenner’s five systems to position the client in relation to the other systems in the client’s environment). The relevance of the ecomap to assessment in ecological systems theory is the identification of the quality of connections and influence between the client system and the external systems. The type of line and direction of arrows that connect the systems visually display the relationships and connections. These relationships and connections can be positive, nurturing, and supportive, or they can be negative or stressful, leading to distress, dysfunction, or a source of conflict. Figure 3.2 presents the basic symbols and lines used to create a genogram and ecomap. The ecomap enables the social worker and client to visually see the systems in the client’s life and the extent to which the relationships and interactions with the various systems and the environment is helping or hindering the client’s goodness-of-fit. The ecomap can also help to visually identify systems that provide resources and support as well as systems that are the source of tension and conflict.

FIGURE 3.2  Genogram and ecomap symbols and key.

Figure 3.3 illustrates an ecomap for Michael, an 8-year-old male who was referred to a school social worker due to disruptive behaviors in the classroom. In meeting with Michael and conducting a biopsychosocial assessment, the social worker constructs an ecomap to identify the systems in Michael’s life and to explore any sources of tension and conflict and sources of support and resources. Some social workers may simply assess the identified problem as Michael’s inability to behave and respond appropriately in the classroom, and then focus the intervention solely on Michael in an attempt to change his behavior, for example, through behavioral therapy. Yet, a social worker working from an ecological systems perspective would first conduct a holistic assessment to determine the most appropriate system in which to intervene in order to alleviate the presenting problem. An ecomap is a useful tool in conducting a holistic assessment. The social worker would first establish a relationship with Michael enabling him to feel comfortable in talking with the social worker and sharing his story. The social worker will also need to talk to other systems in Michael’s life, for example his teacher and his parents, in order to collect information to complete a holistic assessment.

FIGURE 3.3  Example ecomap for Michael.

Michael’s ecomap indicates he lives with this mother and father, Juan (31 years old) and Leah (30 years old), and his 3-year-old brother, Sam. Juan and Leah are in a stressful relationship where they are in the process of separating and making arrangements about who will leave the house, financial arrangements, and how Juan and Leah will share responsibility of the children. Michael has expressed his parents’ pending separation as a source of stress and concern for him (a present life stressor). Michael indicates he is worried about what will happen to his mother if his father leaves and if he and his brother, Sam, will be able to spend time with both parents if his parents separate. Michael states he lays awake at night unable to sleep and listens to see if he can hear his parents talking to find out if they are going to separate or not. Michael says he is tired when he is in school and is often thinking about his parents and his little brother.

Juan is employed but has a stressful relationship with his employer who does not guarantee a set number of hours for Juan to work a week, thus, limiting the extent to which Juan and Leah can manage the finances; this is often a source of stress and strain between Juan and Leah. Leah is the primary caregiver of Michael and Sam, and cleans houses on the side for three families for which she receives payment “under the table.” Leah’s mother and Juan’s parents live close by and are strong sources of support to the family, both in providing limited financial support when needed and in providing occasional childcare for Michael and Sam. Michael and his family regularly attend a church in their community. Michael is currently experiencing a stressful relationship with his school, particularly in the classroom. Michael currently does not participate in after-school programs nor does the family receive any resources from social services, yet the social worker has assessed these systems as potential sources of support for Michael and the family.

Based on the construction of the ecomap, the social worker has assessed a potential source of the stressful relationship between Michael and his school may be stemming from the stressful relationship between Juan and Leah and how this has impacted the home environment. The social worker also assesses that Juan’s unpredictable employment has potentially contributed to the stressful relationship between Juan and Leah, thus indirectly affecting Michael’s goodness-of-fit. In moving forward, the social worker identifies sources of support to come from the parental grandparents, the maternal grandmother, the church, after-school programs at the school, and social services. The social worker requests to meet with Juan and Leah to discuss her assessment and to provide options for interventions. Juan and Leah were both receptive to meeting with the social worker and indicated that they were open to receiving help, especially to help Michael.

As illustrated, ecomaps serve as a useful assessment tool to visually display the client system and the relationships and connections between the client system and other systems in their environment. The tool enables the social worker to identify problem areas and identify systems in which to intervene to alleviate problems, access supports and resources, and improve the goodness-of-fit between the client system and the environment.

Intervention

The holistic, multisystem assessment will illuminate to the social worker the most appropriate system in which to intervene in an attempt to enhance the functioning of the system and improve the goodness-of-fit (Langer & Lietz, 2015). The intervention may involve targeting the individual client system or targeting any of the other systems in which the client system interacts to enhance the functioning of the individual or to enhance the transaction between the client system and the environment; the goal is to improve the interaction between the client system and the environment (Langer & Lietz, 2015). As discussed, there are frameworks and tools that can be used to help with the assessment when using ecological systems theory (e.g., Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework; ecomaps), and based on this assessment, the social worker determines which system needs the intervention. This is where the social worker would turn to the selection of a specific intervention method or selection of methods to achieve the aim of the work with the client system. For example, the social worker may use not only motivational interviewing to begin to address a behavioral change with an individual client but also advocacy to help the client access needed resources. The ecological systems theory does not specify one specific intervention that is most appropriate but, rather, encourages the social worker to select the intervention or interventions that will most effectively enhance the goodness-of-fit between the client system and the environment.

The social worker working with Michael has identified a number of interventions to alleviate the presenting problem of Michael’s disruptive behaviors in the classroom and create a better goodness-of-fit for Michael. The social worker has also assessed the family to be open to change and willing to access support and resources to assist Michael as well as alleviate stress and strain between Juan and Leah. The social worker, thus, determines possible interventions to include: (a) enrolling Michael in an after-school program to engage in extracurricular activities that he enjoys, which could help to take his mind off his parents’ pending separation and help to develop positive relationships with others; (b) assisting Juan and Leah in applying for financial assistance, such as Supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP), healthcare, and housing assistance to assist the family financially, which could reduce the stress and strain between Juan and Leah; (c) working with Juan and Leah to explore counseling or supportive services, which could be from their church or other community services, to help them work on their relationship and/or help them navigate their separation to reduce stress and conflict in their family; (d) exploring with Juan and Leah how the grandparents could assist in the transition of the family and support of Michael; (e) meeting one-on-one with Michael on a regular basis to discuss how he is coping with the transition in the family; (f) connecting Juan and/or Leah to the community job center to explore work and job skill opportunities that may lead to more secure sources of employment and income for the family; (g) advocating within the community for the availability of resources and support to low-income families, for example, free or sliding-fee scale counseling services; and/or (h) engaging in political advocacy requiring a fair living wage and access to affordable healthcare for all.

The social worker will work with Michael, and Juan and Leah to establish the goals for the work together, identify the interventions to be the focus of the work together, and continually evaluate and assess the goodness-of-fit for Michael and the family.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has explored ecological systems theory, which aims to assess clients within their environments and explore how the various systems in the environment are interacting to contribute to the presenting problems and goodness-of-fit of the clients. Social workers working from an ecological systems framework will conduct a holistic assessment that positions the client within the various systems or levels that directly or indirectly affect the client and then examine the quality of the relationship between the systems. The assessment points the social worker to the various sources of the presenting problem and highlights the system or systems that need intervention in order to strengthen the client’s goodness-of-fit.

SUMMARY POINTS

•Ecological systems theory is derived from general systems theory, ecology theory, and Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory.

•Ecological systems theory is concerned with the interaction and interdependence of individuals with their surrounding systems and aims for social workers to take a holistic view by assessing how individuals affect and are affected by such physical, social, political, and cultural systems.

•Ecological systems theory is based on five assumptions that examine the interaction and interdependence of systems and how the assessment of one system cannot be done in isolation, but, rather, must take into account how the systems affect and are affected by each other.

•Ecological systems theory is useful in the assessment stage of social work practice where social workers conduct a holistic assessment of the client system and the interactions and connections between the client system and the other systems in the client’s environment.

•Useful assessment tools include the five layers of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological framework and ecomaps.