STRENGTHS-BASED GENERAL PRACTICES

According to Saleebey (2004), the Strengths-Based General Practice consists of a set of guiding principles based on the fundamental premise that individuals will do better in the long run when they are helped to identify, recognize, and use the strengths and resources available in themselves and their environment. The foremost principles on which the model rests are:

(1) Provide clients support for asserting direct control over their search for resources, such as housing and employment, and

(2) Examining clients' own strengths and assets as the vehicle for resource acquisition.

The Strengths Model's core functions involve operationalizing this generalist approach into specific actions that generalist practice may take. These include interventions, processes for defining issues, engaging with systems, collecting and assessing data, identifying a focus for work, contracting within a planned change process, evaluating any interventions (e.g., counseling) and termination and follow-up.

The purpose of this paper is to delineate and discuss the core functions of the Strengths-Based Approach. To best illustrate the functions, the paper provides examples of each that I personally engaged in during my practicum at the Imani House Rehabilitation facility located in Kansas City, Missouri.

The Imani House is a facility of the Kansas City, Missouri's Swope Parkw

. . .
he client. Planning The next core function associated with the Strengths-Based Approach is the planning phase. Poulin (2004) informs that this is the stage where the clients' needs are tied to the goals that were formulated in earlier stages. In many instances, such as at Imani House, the planning phase resulted in the formulation and development of a formal contract in which the client works with clinicians and service providers to set forth the basic or essential steps needed to meet goals and objectives (De Leon, Sacks, Staines & McKendrick, 2000). At Imani House, I participated in working with clients to draw up a treatment plan specifying the steps that given clients would each take to accomplish the goals that had been formulated. However, I found this to be one of the most difficult functions to adequately fulfill because so many of the clients were homeless and had, as a result, been exposed to various experiences that actively worked against the fulfillment of this core function. For example, many homeless clients had previous interactions with services/service providers from which they came away feeling frustrated and disappointed. Their prior experience often lacked treatment planning as well as any consistent r
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Imani House, Graduated Engagement, Worner Davis, Imani House's, Strengths-Based Practice, Strengths Model's, Wagner Cole, Strengths-Based Approach, imani house, Alcohol Abuse, Publishing Rapp, treatment plan, strengths perspective, poulin 2004, substance abuse, service providers, supportive counseling, graduated engagement, engagement phase, services provided, strengths perspective social, graduated engagement phase, substance abuse treatment, perspective social practice, wagner cole 1995,
Approximate Word count = 2502
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)