Research and Evaluation Services Article Archives
How to Integrate Counseling into a Community-Centered
Orientation
Published in FSA/NAHSC News, June 1998, p. 9
A question, which is often asked by senior staff of FSA member organizations, is this: How can I integrate my counseling program into a community-centered approach? The answer lies not so much in the mechanics of the program (e.g., where it is located) as in the values which drive it (i.e., counseling to what end).
Conventional counseling programs are considered treatment programs, and, as such, usually rely on a diagnosis or assessment that a problem resides in the individual or family. Community-centered practice focuses on building resources — social networks, group norms, and associational linkages — in a neighborhood or community. The goal is to enhance the group abilities of a community so that the community can solve its problems collectively. The way to integrate counseling into a community-centered approach is to explore how counseling activities contribute to building the social capital of the individuals, families and neighborhoods who are served.
If you choose to go down this road, you need to ask of each and every phase of counseling: How does this activity contribute to the identification, activation and augmentation of the assets and capacities of the participant?
For the assessment phase, this implies that the assessment process should call attention to and document the ecological context of resources in which the person or family is embedded. Do you use strengths-based assessment tools, such as FSA's Assets Inventory or FSA's Capacities Inventory? Do your counselors come to have accurate knowledge of the social strengths of those they serve, for example, as documented in last year's National Survey?
For the treatment/facilitation process, it implies a central concern with activating or applying existing resources, and building new relationships. Do your counselors apply a methodology friendly to this, such as solution focused therapy? Does the participant's "homework" involve getting connected or invoking resources?
At case closure, this mind set suggests that the counseling should provide concrete new tools for the participant to carry away with them. Do your counselors help participants record their resources by giving them copies of their own resource maps to refer to in the future? Does evaluation of treatment efficacy address whether social capital has grown?
For the program as a whole, a community-centered orientation implies that rewards occur in response to achieving the above aims. Do employee evaluations discuss whether the employee's practice has enhanced social capital for the individual participant as well as for the community? Do promotions and raises follow suit? Is staff training offered or organized around this theme?
This is certainly not to suggest that shifting gears from deficits-based treatment to strengths-based facilitation is pat or without obstacles. As one example, a member CEO pointed out to me that managed care organizations (MCO) may be unwilling to pay for counseling without a DSM IV diagnosis. Perhaps strengths-based counseling at your organization will need to proceed under the umbrella of deficits-based treatment, by providing DSM labels in tandem with your social capital strategies. Conventional-minded payers may be concerned with counseling outcomes in addition to process. But many MCOs accept outcomes measured with customer satisfaction surveys, in which case you may do just as well or even better with a strengths approach. Such obstacles are cause for deliberation, but not detour.