Back to "Articles"

Finding Families Strengths: A Multiple-Choice Test
John VanDenBerg
E. Mary Grealish

From Reaching Today's Youth The Community Circle of Caring Journal
Spring 1997 issue (Volume 1, Issue 3) Working with Today's Families
Published by the National Education Service

The success of our efforts to help families in crisis depends on our ability to match intervention plans with families' strengths and preferences. Using a case study and multiple-choice test, the authors provide a framework for discovering families' strengths and selecting treatment options that are cost-effective, suited to individual needs, and most likely to succeed in the long term.  

We have spent the last few years traveling around the United States and Canada, teaching the wraparound process and how to use family strengths, preferences, and cultures to develop truly individualized plans of care. The good news is that virtually every institution with which we work—juvenile justice, education, child welfare, mental health, and public health—has a section of their plan of care that acknowledges child and family strengths. The bad news is that it appears the plans are still based largely on the child's and family's deficits and that the attempts to discover their strengths are separate from the plan, rather than forming the framework of the intervention (Duchnowski & Kutash, 1996).

This article includes instructional materials and a self-paced test to expose the reader to discovering strengths and to teach strengths-based planning. The case study used as a basis for the test is a composite built from our experiences with individual families who received the best practice available from the wraparound process.
 

Performing Strengths Discoveries

The wraparound process is based on a philosophy in which services are highly individualized to meet the needs of children and families (Burchard & Clarke, 1990; VanDenBerg & Grealish, 1996). In the wraparound process, a "facilitator" (a case manager, lead teacher, etc.) works with the family to discover their strengths, set goals, determine major needs, and develop strengths-based options.

Any assessment based solely on deficits and problems lacks balance (Kutash & Rivera, 1996). Although a family may seem to an outsider to be in complete chaos, there almost always is good news as well. It is important to remember that people live in the context of their own histories, which contain both positive and negative information. One member of a family does not determine the character of the rest of the family. One period of time in a person's life does not necessarily predict that person's entire future. A diagnosis of mental illness, a negative social history, a relapse, or an incident of criminal behavior cannot possibly describe a person fully enough to know what might be helpful in remediating the situation.

The primary skill for the wraparound facilitator in a strengths discovery is the ability to have a conversation with another person. A strengths discovery is not done as a formal assessment. It is an interactive "chat" between a facilitator and a family or family member. In this chat, as in any conversation between two people, both parties share stories, laugh, and generally begin developing a relationship of trust and respect. The strengths discovery chat begins to break down the traditional "one up, one down" status of professional to client. The chat should be natural, informal, and reciprocal.

It often is difficult to get children and parents to talk about their strengths. Some people are raised to view talking about strengths as bragging. In addition, some family members may be so focused on the negative information that they find it difficult to address strengths. Thus it may be necessary to let a person talk about their concerns and fears before they will talk about their strengths. However, it is important to be persistent and thorough about moving as quickly as possible into a discussion of the good news.

It makes sense to start a strengths discovery by letting people know that you are trying something different and that it may feel a bit uncomfortable at first. It may be helpful to model the sharing of this type of information by discussing some similar details from your own experience.

Select a location to do the strengths discovery that is comfortable and reasonably private. Sometimes the family home is a good place, but some families may feel uncomfortable having you in their home.

The following questions are ones we commonly use when discovering family strengths, preferences, and cultures. They should be modified to fit the experiences and cultures of the family members with whom the facilitator is working.

With Children:
1. If you could say one good thing about yourself, what would it be?
2. I like your (hair, make-up, clothes, etc.). Did you come up with that yourself?
3. What is your favorite color? Musician? Sport? Person? Friend? Subject in school?
4. Who is the coolest person you know? What is cool about this person?
5. Who do hang around with? Who would you like to hang around with?
6. What do you value most in a friendship? (Loyalty? Fun? What?)
7. What about your personality? Are you (quiet, boisterous, private, outgoing, loyal)?

With Parents:
1. What do you do for fun? When is the last time you did that?
2. Who are your close friends and why are they special to you?
3. What is your neighborhood like?
4. What were you like as a kid?
5. Who has been the biggest influence on your life?
6. What do you do to "blow off steam"?
7. What are the best things about yourself? Your family? Your community?
 

A Multiple-Choice Test on Strengths-Based Planning

Instructions: Go through each step of the test. Ideally, this test should be taken by a class, group of co-workers, parents, or colleagues who can follow the test with a discussion about why each person made the choices he or she made.

STEP ONE:
Meet the Lyndon family and read about their strengths.

The Family:
Deborah, age 32, works at a discount store, retail clerk
James, age 32, carpenter, unemployed, doing odd jobs
Jerry, age 15, currently in a group home
Sally and Mary (twins), age 12
Jessica, age 9

The following is a good example of the written result of a strengths discovery. Notice that the strengths are described in detail.

Strengths of the Lyndon family:
  The family's best moments are when watching action videos and eating popcorn. The children's best time to listen to parental instructions is early in the day. Both James and Deborah have a family history of extended family get-togethers for holidays. They describe these events as loud, with verbal fighting and personality conflicts, but as full of love as great food, except for Aunt Marge's Jell-O salad with beef. Deborah has a close friend, Terri, who works at the store with her. Her best time with Terri is when they are on breaks and can talk about their kids and husbands. Terri and her husband have a good relationship and have "endured." James likes time alone with just his family, rather than being around other men. He is proudest of the fact that he can repair any mechanical problem with cars or machines. He thinks he can get a job in his line of work because he is a survivor, but he does not want just any job due to his pride in his area of training. He currently is getting home repair jobs by word of mouth. He prefers to have just family and extended family around the home. Jerry is very independent and has excellent survival skills. He is very physically fit and likes to be with his buddies. He prefers not to be the one in charge, but he likes to be respected by his peers. He values loyalty in his friends and likes people who stick up for themselves. Sally and Mary are high-energy, fast-moving, and very creative girls; and they enjoy looking good and talking on the phone with their friends. They want to marry twin brothers and all live in the same house. Jessica is very quiet and contemplative. She likes time alone and prefers to play games with her parents, rather than be around other children. She is good at "thinking" games and is interested in math and computers. In times of stress, Deborah first calls Terri and then her grandmother (age 85). James prefers not to talk to or call anyone when stressed, but when he was asked, he remembered that he used to talk with his shop teacher when he was in high school. James and Deborah think that they get along best when they are not worried about money or their kids. They used to enjoy attending church together, but they have not gone in more than 10 years.
 
 

STEP TWO:
Review the goals and needs of the family.

Goals (by each family member):

1. Parents: To have their family all living together again.
2. Jerry: To be at home, but with more freedom from rules.
3. Sally: To get to do more fun stuff with her and Mary's friends.
4. Mary: To get to do more fun stuff with her and Sally's friends.
5. Jessica: To be a family again.

Major Needs (prioritized by the family):

1. Family Reunification. Jerry currently is living in a group home. He had been caught doing drugs about the same time as James was reported for substantiated child abuse. James repeatedly beat Jerry for noncompliance. He does not hit the other children, and he does not present as a "classic" abuser. He felt that he was doing what fathers should do with pot-smoking, rebellious sons who challenge authority. This is what his father did to help him, and "he turned out okay." Sally and Mary have been in and out of the home due to running away, getting caught, and being placed in shelter care funded by child welfare.

2. Employment. James needs to find work, as they are falling further and further behind financially. In an effort to get ahead financially, they fell for a televised "get-rich-quick" plan that convinced them to apply for dozens of credit cards and take the cash advances. The plan called for using the money to buy and sell rental property, but when James lost his job, they used the $15,000 to live on. They now are in danger of being evicted from the duplex in which they live. James is discouraged and has stopped looking for work.

3. Marriage. Deborah and James are in danger of splitting up due to stress and disagreement over what to do with the children. Earlier in the year James did leave for a month, but he returned. Deborah has said that she wants a divorce if he does not stop hitting the children. They both express a desire to stay together, and both want to work on their problems.
 

STEP THREE:
While referring to the written Lyndon family strengths discovery, look at each potential option to meet the designated need of the family. Choose the option that is based on the strengths of the family members. (Only one option per need is strengths-based.)

First priority need: Family Reunification
(Choose the one that is strengths-based.)

1. Before Jerry is allowed to come home, James will be required to attend a men's violence class through a local domestic violence organization. The course has a countywide reputation for excellence. The judge of the local family services court is on the board of the program and is enthusiastic about this type of effort. The program claims a 75% success rate with men who have abused their children.

2. Before Jerry is allowed to come home, James and Deborah will have to complete a 10-session parent-training course that is offered by a child welfare contract agency. The course offers practical instruction in building family rules and helping control violence in the home through nonviolent discipline alternatives. The course is taught by a team of professionals and parents who are graduates of the course.

3. When Jerry comes home, a family mentor (a family preservation worker, behavior aide, family companion, etc.) will spend 25 hours a week, for eight weeks, in the home during evening hours. The mentor will be selected from a pool of specially trained mentors who work well with families who are to be reunified. The family will be asked to help interview and select the mentor with whom they will work.

4. Before Jerry is allowed to come home, both parents will agree on a relative who knows them and who they and the family services worker both agree is a good parent. The relative will come to their home and serve as an unpaid family consultant to help James and Deborah develop some house rules for the behavior of the children and the parents. The relative will work as a partner with the family services worker to monitor how things are going with the younger children, and Jerry will come home when the family is stable. When Jerry comes home, he will get to choose which of his teenage cousins has the best relationship with his parents. This teen cousin will join the team and help negotiate some special rules to be written into a contract between Jerry and his parents.
 
Second priority need: Employment
(Choose the one option that is strengths-based.)

1. The wraparound facilitator will refer James to a local job-placement agency that offers a broad spectrum of services, including debt counseling, resume writing, and job skills training. The program is not cheap, but the child welfare agency is willing to pay the cost. The agency head is on the local inter-agency team.

2. The wraparound facilitator helps locate James' old shop teacher, who is in retirement and doing occasional odd jobs for extra money. The facilitator, James, and the shop teacher will meet to brainstorm an employment plan, using a local vocation counselor as a consultant to review the plan. The shop teacher agrees to be paid $15 an hour to help mentor James into a job. The shop teacher knows many of the work sites in the county and has extensive contacts in each site.

3. James will be referred by the wraparound facilitator to a local carpenter's union local office, which is offering a job retraining program to help carpenters gain new skills. (The market for carpenters is depressed.) The 10-week program is 35 hours a week and is located at a local community college.

Third priority need: Marriage
(Choose the option that is strengths-based.)

1. Deborah and James will be referred to marital counseling at a local counseling center that specializes in working with family violence. They will be able to interview therapists and choose the one most likely to help the marriage stay intact. The counseling can be done in the office, in the home, or in other settings as the family desires. The counseling center has participated in past wraparound referrals.

2. Deborah and James will be referred to a "Christian Couples Weekend." The wraparound project office has a flexible fund to cover the cost ($300 for the weekend and for follow-up support-group meetings). The wraparound facilitator knows a couple who went through the weekend and the optional follow-up counseling sessions, and that couple is still together.

3. Deborah and James told the wraparound facilitator that they felt if their first two priority needs were helped, then they could keep their marriage together. They agreed to a back-up option of meeting with Terri and her husband to discuss how they have stayed together. Terri and her husband agree to be on call if this option is needed.
 

The Strengths-Based Answers

This multiple-choice test was developed as a teaching tool for implementing the wraparound process and strengths-based planning. We have asked several dozen diverse groups of families and community service providers to take the test. The majority of those asked quickly chose the correct answer. However, when we asked colleagues, consumers, and family members which option would have been most likely to be implemented if the family were served in their system, less than 5% selected the strengths-based answer. The incorrect options look good and sound good, but they are likely to fail quickly because the family's strengths, preferences, and culture do not fit the interventions.

For the first need (reunification), the correct answer is number 4. Although James did not want any interference in his home, he would be willing to accept a relative over any professional. The intervention is based on discovered strengths around extended family and the family desire to be reunified. The other interventions would violate the unique culture of this family and would likely result in James' refusal to participate, which would lead to permanent disruption of the home.

For the second need (employment), the correct answer is number 2. The first intervention would insult James; he does not feel he needs debt counseling. His self-perception is that he is responsible but made a one-time mistake. After all, the family had good enough credit to obtain dozens of credit cards. The third intervention violates his preference to work as a carpenter. In the second intervention, the shop teacher recommended that James get business cards, get help with structuring a business plan, and start his own contracting business. This strategy fit his strength of being independent, and it allowed him to stay in his chosen profession.

For the third need (marriage), the correct answer is number 3. This family does not desire excess services, as their primary strengths involve independence and autonomy. The first and second interventions are not strengths-based. James would be unlikely to attend the marital counseling, and his refusal would bring a label of "doesn't care about his wife." The couples weekend would not fit them because they have chosen not to attend church for more than 10 years. It is important to note that the third intervention does have a strengths-based back-up plan, in case the marriage gets in trouble.

Note that the correct options involve extensive use of informal resources: the relative, the shop teacher, friends. This represents best practice and allows the inclusion of people who will provide durable support to the family over time. An important side-effect is that it allows better local use of limited funding.
 

Conclusion

We asked many of our colleagues and families what happens in their communities when the typical, categorical, nonstrengths-based options prove ineffective. For the Lyndon family, the answer is clear: The parents would be labeled dysfunctional, Jerry would not come home, the girls would enter the system, and their county would spend a great deal of money. Our experience is that long-term state care and custody of four children may easily consume at least $250,000 over 10 years.

The design of strengths-based plans may be challenging to professionals who were trained to identify deficits and then create interventions (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989). In the Lyndon family example, some professionals may quickly label the father an abuser and then assume that all adult relatives are likely to have parenting deficits and therefore not be potential resources. However, the thorough strengths discovery revealed that the extended family was a resource.

Focusing on strengths does not mean that issues experienced by the child and family will be ignored or that some categorical service options may not be effective in certain situations. Instead, this approach recognizes that if complex needs are to be addressed effectively, interventions must be based on preferences, strengths, and what works for the family. In times of need, it is people's friendships, family ties, faith, hope, and interests that help them survive and go on with their lives.
 

Do an exercise to see how it feels to be described by your deficits and by your strengths. This exercise can be done with a friend or alone.

1. Using pathology or deficit-based descriptive terms or words, describe yourself in 75 words or less: (example) I am a procrastinator. I don't clean up after myself. I am mean to my dog when no one is around. I miss meetings on purpose and make up excuses. I cheated on my taxes last year. The inside of my car is a mess. I eat too much junk food.

2. Using strengths-based descriptive terms or words, describe yourself in 75 words or less: (example) I have kept the same job for 15 years. I take really good care of my children. I wrote the agency newsletter for two years. I am a caring person, especially when my friends are in a crisis. I am good in an emergency because I am level-headed.

Ask yourself: How did each style of introduction feel to you? If you were a client, which would you prefer as a starting point in a relationship to make major changes in your life?

John VanDenBerg and Mary Grealish own the Community Partnerships Group, an international consulting firm that focuses on reforming human services as they are delivered to individuals and families. They work at many levels with the organizations they serve: directly with consumers, children, families, and the elderly; training people to implement the wraparound process; helping governments rethink how services are funded, assessing community progress toward achieving local goals. They can be reached at 204 E. Edgewood Dr., McMurray, PA 15317.

REFERENCES

Burchard, J.D., & Clarke, R.T. (1990). The role of individualized care in a service delivery system for children and adolescents with severely maladjusted behavior. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 17, 48-60.

Duchnowski, A.J., & Kutash, K. (1996). A mental health perspective. In C.M. Nelson, R.B. Rutherford, and B. Wolford, Comprehensive and collaborative systems that work for troubled youth: A national agenda. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association, p. 102.

Kutash, K., & Rivera, V.R. (1996). What works in children's mental health services? Uncovering answers to critical questions. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, p. 153.

McCubbin, H.I., & McCubbin, M.A. (1989). Typologies of resilient families: Emerging roles of social class and ethnicity. Family Relations, 37(3), 247-254.

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 Wraparound Planning Home Page

Questions? Comments? E-mail the CECP.

Back to the CECP Home Page

Last changed: January 03, 2008