Strengths-Based Foundations of Hope

David Osher

"You see me as you want to.  If all you see is a stereotype then you shall never know me, but you will forever know who I am not." (Langston, an African-American high school senior from New England)

"I am the one people expect less of, the under-achiever, the drop-out.  No, I think not.  But I am the one who had to go against all stereotypes, mean and dirty looks, and much worse."   (Jose, a Mexican-American youth advocate who dropped out of a California high school)

The problems that Langston and Jose speak of are neither new nor unexamined. When we view and treat youth as "predators", their families as "dysfunctional," their communities as "blighted", we should not be surprised that "our interventions" often fail. If, on the other hand, we view and treat young people and their families as human beings who have strengths and goals as well as needs, and if we look at their communities as more than a nest of problems, then they may help us design and implement interventions that work.

Back to Journal Articles

A growing body of research confirms that the way we view and treat children and their families affects our ability to work with them. Erving Goffman’s Stigma (1963) examined how labeling can reduce "life chances." Robert Edgerton’s The Cloak of Competence (1967) showed how an individual’s attempts to manage his or her stigmas affected the ability to receive support. Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson’s Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968) explored self-fulfilling prophecies; and Nicholas Hobbs’s The Futures of Children (1975) examined how the "metaphorical requirements of institutions," which build upon historically created labels and categories, shape their missions and, through them, institutions.

Unfortunately, both the labeling process and institutional self-preservation still sustain deficit-oriented approaches and programs. In the words of Herbert Kohl, young people are "burdened with almost as many categories of stigmatization and labels as they have years" (1994, p. 66). Their families are frequently viewed negatively, blamed for resisting services, and, if they are members of low-income communities, written-off as a "behavioral underclass" (Gans, 1995, p.2). Not surprisingly, many young people and adults join with Melissa, a 17-year-old Caucasian high school student, and say, "You don’t know me, you just see me. You don’t even give me a chance."

Deficit-oriented approaches and programs embody what Bill Ryan termed "victim blaming" (Ryan, 1971)—when research, policy, and ultimately practice implement exceptionalist solutions that ignore the impact of context (e.g., "change the child, not the school"). These victim-blaming approaches are often "disabling" (McKnight, 1995): they translate needs into deficiencies; place the perceived deficiency in the client; and, frequently, isolate the client and the problem from the context in which the problem developed. Many disabling interventions are "flaw-fixing" ones (Brendtro & Ness, 1995, p. 19) that are legitimated by research that strips context away (Mishler, 1979); they "fix" the young person (Goffman, 1961), family, or community while ignoring their environment. Others (including some flaw-fixing ones) primarily serve a segregating function: they remove troubling young people from mainstream environments.

Disabling interventions are marked by low expectations and staff morale. (Oaks, 1985; Page, 1991) They contribute to (or reinforce) negative self-identities (Willis, 1977; Fordham & Ogabu, 1986), legitimize a young person’s decision to resist learning or services (Kohl, 1995), and push many students out (Fine, 1991; Larson, 1995). Deficit-oriented programs contribute to the poor educational and social outcomes "achieved" by many young people with emotional and behavioral problems (Osher & Hanley, 1995). For example, over 56 percent of students identified as having serious emotional disturbances drop out (or are pushed out) of school, and of those who drop out, 73 percent are arrested within five years of leaving school (U.S. Department of Education, 1994).

Back to Journal Articles

Fortunately, alternative approaches exist to what Michael Katz conceptualized as "the interchangeability of defects" (1983), where people labeled with one term (e.g., substance abuser) are provided with other labels (e.g., unemployed), which set the stage for an umbrella label (e.g., underclass). These alternative approaches seed hope and counter what Kohl calls the "cynicism of reality mongers" (1994, p. 43). Viewing young people and their families as more than their disabilities (Ferguson & Asch, 1989), they implement what Paulo Freire (1996) terms a "pedagogy of hope." By raising issues of prejudice and social welfare (Katz), race and general education (Kohl), the social construction of disability (Ferguson & Asch), and social justice and change (Freire), these authors raise issues that transcend traditional paradigms regarding troubled children. They raise issues that must be addressed if we are to reach out to today’s youth (Albee, 1986; Clark, 1988).

Strengths-based approaches have an impressive pedigree in children’s mental health. Two examples of strengths-based approaches are Re-ED and Kaleidoscope. Nicholas Hobbs developed the Re-ED model in the 1960s as an alternative to hospitalization. While Hobbs acknowledged the needs of the youth, he focused his interventions on developing competence and enabling self-fulfillment—not on treating illness or pathology. In addition, he sought to "remove the child, in space, time, and meaning, the least possible distance from the people with whom he must learn to live, and who, in turn, must learn how to increase their contribution to his full development." (Hobbs, 1975, p. 218-219). Chicago’s Kaleidoscope developed and implemented unconditional, strengths-based, consumer-driven, wraparound planning in the 1970s to return children from out-of-state child welfare placements (VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996; Chesapeake Institute, 1996).

Although distinctive, both models share important elements. Each one:

• identifies strengths
• focuses on building trust
• targets the development of competence
• addresses ecological factors, and
• reaches out to youth and families.

Equally important, each rejects the mantra of "D-words"— disordered behavior, disturbed emotions, deviant thinking, dysfunctional families, and deprived environments—that derogate children, families, and their communities (Brendtro & Ness, 1995, p. 19).

These generative models have inspired other hopeful models, programs, and initiatives. Examples include Cleveland’s Positive Education Program (PEP) and the Alaska Youth Initiative (Burchard, Burchard, Sewell, & VanDenBerg, 1993). At a policy level, The National Agenda for Achieving Better Results for Children and Youth with Serious Emotional Disturbance (U.S. Department of Education, 1994) has also built on these models to commit to seven targets:

• provide positive learning opportunities and results,
• improve school and community capacity,
• value and address diversity,
• collaborate with families,
• promote appropriate assessment,
• provide ongoing skill development and support, and
• create comprehensive and collaborative systems.

You see me as you want to.
You may follow me,
You may cross the street.
You may harass me,
dismiss me,
or even turn a blind eye.

I see you too.
You clutch your purse tighter, closer,
slide your wallet into your front pocket,
lock your doors while I am crossing the street.

These things do not bother me.
For if you knew me, you would know that
I am kind, intelligent, outgoing, and understanding.
I am a human being, just like you.

My feelings have no color,
nor are they disabled.
Rejection is universal.

I find comfort in those who accept and
those who don't just hear, but listen.
And all I will ever need is a chance.
A chance to show that I too am beautiful.
I too can shine.  You see me as you want to.
If all you see is a stereotype then
you shall never know me,
but you will forever know who I am not.

-by Langston Craig, age 18  

I am the one people expect the less of, the under-achiever, the drop-out.

No, I think not.
But I am the one who had to go against stereotypes, mean and dirty looks, and much worse.

But, you know what?  I'm Strong and Proud.
Proud of my Culture and people, my hente, my raza
A leader and a caretaker.
A youth once lost who is now in control.

I wish I had the resources to reach all of the kids.
I wish I had all the answers to the questions
and the needs in their minds.  But, with your
resources and your help, we could do it.

I dream for myself and the rest that could be.

-by Jose Flores,
age 20, Hayward, CA

Back to Journal Articles

Last spring, five federal agencies co-sponsored an invitational conference that focused on creating and sustaining the type of successful collaboration on behalf of youth espoused by the "hopeful models" mentioned above. In addition to public officials from these five agencies—the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the Department of Education, the Center for Mental Health Services, the Children’s Bureau and the Head Start Bureau, all of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention—over 300 diverse families, staff, administrators, researchers, technical assistance providers, and youth (including Langston, Jose, and Melissa) participated in workshops that highlighted programs and approaches that implement the National Agenda. (Youth, families, and staff from Kaleidoscope and PEP also participated.)

Participants worked in 25 collaborative teams that addressed three basic questions: (1) What are effective practices for enabling children and youth to succeed at home, at school, and in the community? (2) What must be done to develop and sustain effective consumer-driven, culturally competent, community-based collaborations that improve school and community outcomes? and (3) What do we know about the strengths of children, youth, and their families?

These were no ordinary groups: they were tough-minded, experienced, and culturally diverse. Their responses were consistent, and they provided a unique opportunity to learn about how diverse stakeholders—including youth—viewed the strengths of children, youth, families, and programs. Their responses remind us of much that we already know, while providing nuance and texture to our understanding of what a strengths-based orientation means.

What are effective practices for enabling children and youth to succeed at home, at school, and in the community? Participants noted that effective schools and programs have much in common. They provide a supportive, caring atmosphere that employs multiple learning strategies, integrates mental health concerns into the curriculum, and fosters one-on-one relationships between students and teachers. They embrace parental and community involvement in curriculum design and allow students to plan and set their own goals. In addition, these schools and programs focus on strengths, recognize progress, and reward effort.

Effective programs also involve young people as stakeholders in decision making. They reinforce positive behavior and focus on increasing positive skills, not on eliminating negative behavior. They are family-focused and value family strengths; they support family participation in policy, planning, and evaluations. Perhaps most important, these programs express and embody love, acceptance, and respect.

What must be done to develop and sustain effective consumer-driven, culturally competent, community-based collaborations that improve school and community outcomes? Effective collaboration builds on strengths-based and culturally-competent approaches that bring families, agencies, and communities together at all levels. They value the contributions of families and care providers, and involve families in all aspects of the process as equal partners. These efforts view collaboration as a means to an end—not as a goal. Communication is important to success, at the heart of a strengths-based system. Effective collaborations maintain honesty, prioritize positive outcomes, and create opportunities for mutual awareness.

What do we know about the strengths of children, youth, and their families? All children and families have individual strengths that can be identified, built on, and employed to ground effective interventions. Appropriate planning, which engages youth and families, can serve to draw out these family and youth strengths.

Children and youth search for and desire success. They wish to grow and change, they seek acceptance, and want to be considered normal. They need to be valued and want to participate in decision making. These young people can learn and be taught to express their needs. They have an ability to thrive when they build rapport, and they can respond positively to those who demonstrate concern for them. They have values, are self-aware, and can exhibit self-control. When provided with the right support—which creates what we might call resilient contexts—young people can surpass expectations and overcome barriers. They can be confident, flexible, adaptive, and eager to learn.

Families are critical to children’s success. Families frequently prevail in the most hostile circumstances, demonstrate flexibility when dealing with rigid systems, and sacrifice and struggle for their children. They provide continuity and a needed sense of culture, history, community—a rich identity—for children. They also provide a place where special talents can be nurtured and supported.

Families are the best nurturers of children, and parents’ love for their children is the families’ greatest strength. Families demonstrate an impressive range of other competencies, as well, including the abilities to:

• seek help
• relate and express empathy
• maintain family networks
• identify their own strengths and build upon them
• find success, despite obstacles
• respond to care, love, and understanding
• form relationships through strengths, and
• realize dreams and hopes if given the tools.

Back to Journal Articles

"If you knew me," Langston observed, "you would know that I am kind, intelligent, outgoing, and understanding. I am a human being, just like you." Langston is a success story. Bright, handsome, and athletic, he is on his way to college. This was not the case two years ago when he showed up at an almost all-white high school with an SED label and a great deal of anger. Langston, who exhibited most of the characteristics of high-ability students with behavioral problems (Reid & McGuire, 1995) was on the fast track out. Fortunately, there were some teachers who would not give up on him, and who were willing and able to reach out to Langston and his mother, work with them, and build on their strengths.

Langston’s success is not singular. Although he and his school are in the minority, we can find programs and schools across the country that demonstrate the power of strengths-based approaches to working with young people. Some are in general education, others are in special education, and still others are community-based (Rose, 1995; Osher & Hanley, 1996). These schools and programs provide inspiration, grounded in a small but increasing knowledge base. Our challenge is to expand and to build on these solid, strengths-based foundations of hope.

David Osher is a senior research analyst at American Institutes for Research, where he directs its SED National Agenda efforts, The Center to Promote Collaboration and the Communication of Effective Practice for Children with or at Risk of Developing Serious Emotional Disturbance, and its technical support for the Department of Education’s Technology, Educational Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. He will be a regular contributor to Reaching Today’s Youth.

Back to Journal Articles

Albee, G.W. (1986). Toward a just society: Lessons from observations on the primary prevention of psychopathology. American Psychologist, 41, 891-898.

Brendtro, L.K. & Ness, A.E. (1995). Counterfeit conservatism and the war on crime. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 4:1, 18-24.

Burchard, J.D., Burchard, S.N., Sewell, R., & VanDenBerg, J. (1993). One kid at a time. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.

Chesapeake Institute (1996). Making collaboration work for children, families, schools, and communities [Video]. Washington, DC: Author.

Clark, K.B. (1988). A community action program. In G.W. Albee, J.M. Joffe, & L.A. Dusenbury (Eds.), Prevention, powerlessness, and politics (pp. 461-470). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Edgerton, R.B. (1967). The cloak of competence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ferguson, P.M. & Asch, A. (1989). Lessons from life: Personal and parental perspectives on school, childhood, and disability. In D. Biklen, D. Ferguson, & A. Ford (Eds.) Schooling and Disability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Fordham, S. & Ogabu, J.U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the burden of acting white. The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.

Gans, H. (1995). The war on the poor. New York: Basic Books.

Gibbs, J.C., Potter, G.B, Goldstein, A.P. & Brendtro, L.K. (1996). Frontiers in psychoeducation: The EQUIP model with antisocial youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 4:4, 22-29.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hobbs, N. (1975). The futures of children. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Katz, M. (1983). Poverty and policy in American history. New York: The Academic Press.

Kohl, H. (1994). I won’t learn from you. New York: The New Press.

Larson, K. (1995). Creating an ethic of care and inclusion to improve outcomes for adolescents with disabilities and other highest risk adolescents. OESP Training Presentation, June 7, 1995.

McKnight, J. (1995). The careless society. New York: Basic Books.

Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context: Is there any other kind? Harvard Educational Review, 49:1, 1-19.

Oaks, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Osher, D. & Hanley, T.V. (1996). Aiding our at-risk children. Education Sat-Link, March 1996, 4-8.

Osher, D. & Hanley, T.V. (1995). Implications of the national agenda to improve results for children and youth with or at risk of developing serious emotional disturbance. Special Services in the Schools, 10:2, 7-36.

Page, R. N. (1991). Lower-track classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Redl, F. & Wineman, D. (1957). The aggressive child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Reid, B.D. & McGuire, M.D. (1995). Square pegs in round holes: These kids don’t fit: High ability students with behavioral problems. Storrs, CT: NRCGT, The University of Connecticut.

Rose, M. (1995). Possible lives. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage.

U.S. Department of Education (1994). The national agenda for achieving better results for children and youth with serious emotional disturbance. Washington, DC: Author.

VanDenBerg, J.E. & Grealish, E.M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophy and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5:1, 7-22.

Back to Journal Articles