Strengths-based approaches

1. Introduction

Version followed: the Kansas Strengths Model of Rapp & Goscha (book 3rd ed., 2012), as operationalised in the University of Kansas Strengths Model Fidelity Scale (KU Center for Mental Health Research and Innovation, Feb 2015 version), combined with Dennis Saleebey's general strengths perspective (Saleebey 2000 paper; question types from Saleebey 1997 as adapted by PreventConnect). The Rapp & Goscha book itself is not drawn on here; its content is taken from the fidelity scale, agency practice guidelines and trial descriptions that cite it [uncertain where noted].

Strengths-based approaches are a practice perspective and family of methods, not a single therapy. The most proceduralised member is the Strengths Model of case management, developed at the University of Kansas School of Social Welfare for adults with serious mental illness; Saleebey's strengths perspective is the broader social-work stance behind it. Other methods often grouped under the label (solution-focused brief therapy, narrative externalising, asset-based community development, strengths-based family support) are separate modalities [source: IRISS Insight 16].

Core idea of change: people already hold capacities, aspirations and environmental resources; when a hope-inducing, collaborative relationship helps them name those strengths, set goals in their own words, and reach naturally occurring community resources, they recover and transform their lives. Client resources and circumstances are treated as the largest contributor to change, the relationship second, and expectancy and technique after that [source: Saleebey 2000; Rapp, Saleebey & Sullivan via IRISS Insight 16; Napa County Practice Guidelines]. The practitioner works as a co-facilitator of solutions, not a fixer of problems, and moves the focus from past to future, weakness to strength, problem to solution, without ignoring problems [source: IRISS Insight 16].

For a psychotherapist: the procedures below were built for case management in community settings. Using them inside office-based psychotherapy is an adaptation [synthesis].

2. Framework

No fixed session-numbered protocol exists. The work is an ongoing process with recognisable functions. Hui et al. (2015), following Rapp & Goscha, list five: engagement, strengths assessment, case (personal recovery) planning, resource acquisition, and tracking/evaluation. Rapp & Goscha's book is widely reported to end with "graduated disengagement"; that phase was not described in any source opened [uncertain].

Phase	Goal	What is done	Move on when
1. Engagement and relationship	Build a hope-inducing, trusting partnership in which the person directs the work	Meet mostly in the community; reflective listening; no unsolicited advice; person chooses next steps [source: Napa Practice Guidelines; KU Fidelity Scale]	The person is willing to talk about what they want and what is going well [synthesis: no formal criterion found]
2. Strengths Assessment (SA)	A detailed, current picture of aspirations, talents, skills and environmental strengths, in the person's words	Conversational completion of the SA form (two pages, seven life domains per Tse et al. 2021), current and past strengths	At least 3 aspirations, 6 talents/skills, 6 environmental strengths recorded in detail (fidelity benchmarks) and the person has chosen a goal area [source: KU Fidelity Scale; criterion for moving on is synthesis]
3. Personal Recovery Plan (PRP)	Turn a chosen aspiration into a working to-do list	Goal in person's language plus why it matters; small, measurable steps with specific, varied target dates [source: KU Fidelity Scale; Tse et al. 2021]	Steps are concrete enough to start before the next contact [synthesis]
4. Resource acquisition	Obtain the environmental resources the goal needs, preferring natural ones	Link to community, family, peer resources before formal services [source: KU Fidelity Scale; Rapp 2006 via MN DHS]	Ongoing alongside phase 5
5. Tracking, review, celebration	Keep momentum, update plan, credit progress	PRP used at nearly every contact; SA updated at least monthly; plans reviewed every 4 to 6 weeks in Hui et al.; achievements celebrated [source: KU Fidelity Scale; Hui et al. 2015]	New goals cycle back to phase 3; ending when the person's goals are mainly sustained by natural supports [synthesis; uncertain]

Format and dose (examples, not standards). Tse et al. (2021, Hong Kong trial): individual sessions of about 30 minutes once a fortnight, guided by the SA and PRP. Hui et al. (2015): an average of 5.4 face-to-face contacts of at least 60 minutes over six months. Training in both was about two days of KU-delivered Strengths Model training plus supervision; Hui reports over 30 hours of training [source: Tse et al. 2021; Hui et al. 2015; Napa Practice Guidelines].

Programme structure (fidelity benchmarks for teams) [source: KU Fidelity Scale 2015; Rapp & Goscha 2014 scale via Psychiatric Services supplement]:

Caseload: top rating at under about 19 people per worker; lowest above 32.
Community contact: top rating when more than 85% of contact happens outside the office. Napa's guidance says office-based interventions are contraindicated.
Group supervision: weekly, 90 minutes to 2 hours, mostly client-focused, with several people formally presented.
Supervisor: about 2 hours a week each on reviewing SA/PRP quality, structured skills feedback, and field mentoring; ideally 5 or fewer workers per supervisor.
Fidelity is scored on eight domains (8 to 40); 32 or more counts as high fidelity. Tse et al. report reviews every six months.

3. Guiding principles

Rapp & Goscha's six principles of the Strengths Model [source: Napa Practice Guidelines; St Vincent's Mental Health; Hui et al. 2015, all citing Rapp & Goscha 2012]:

People can recover, reclaim and transform their lives. Practical meaning: plan as if growth is possible for this person now; the capacity already exists in them or their family.
Focus on strengths, not deficits. Lead every assessment and review with what works, while still addressing problems in the context of the goal.
The community is an oasis of resources. Look first for people, places and opportunities in the person's own environment.
The person directs the helping process. They pick goals and next steps; you contribute knowledge of options and resources.
The relationship is primary and essential. Treat the relationship as the vehicle that mobilises dormant strengths; protect it before pursuing tasks.
The community is the primary setting. Meet where life happens; Napa's guidance calls office-based work contraindicated.

Rapp's earlier case-management principles (Rapp 2006 as summarised by Minnesota DHS) add:

Interventions rest on self-determination. Do not set goals for the person.
Assertive outreach is the preferred mode. Go to the person rather than waiting for attendance.
Resource acquisition obtains environmental resources. Your job includes getting things (housing, work, contacts), not only talking.
Group supervision monitors progress and sparks creativity. Colleagues act as resources to each other.

Six standards of strengths-based practice (Rapp, Saleebey & Sullivan, via IRISS Insight 16):

Goal orientation. The person sets their own goals.
Systematic strengths assessment. Inventory inherent resources, not problems.
Environmental resources. Link people with helpful individuals, groups and institutions.
Explicit methods. Use a defined method for identifying strengths, not good intentions.
Hope-inducing relationship. Every contact should leave the person more hopeful, including through ties to people, community and culture.
Meaningful choice. People are experts on their own lives; widen and explain options.

Strengths-based case management additions (IRISS Insight 16): promote informal support networks; assertive community involvement by the worker; emphasise the worker-client relationship.

Saleebey's strengths perspective [source: Saleebey 2000]:

Every person, group and community has strengths. Assume assets exist even when hidden or unused.
You cannot know the upper limits of anyone's capacity. Do not cap goals by diagnosis or history.
Trauma and struggle can also be sources of challenge and capacity. Ask what the person learned and built by surviving.
Hope and aspiration persist. Look for damaged dreams and revive them.
Empowerment is the work. Help people see capacities, recognise options, name hopes and reach resources.
Healing happens in caring, dialogical relationships. Collaborate; do not prescribe.
Future orientation. Saleebey's phrase: "Look around, look ahead, but try not to look back."
Problems can hold seeds of change. Read maladaptive patterns as possible efforts toward health.
Acknowledge pain without being defined by it. Validate suffering; avoid pathology-first and victim identities.
Believe the client and believe in the client. Do not reflexively doubt their account or their potential.
CPR: competence, promise, resilience/reserves. Assess what the person can do, what they could become, and what they can draw on.

Engagement stance [source: Saleebey 2000; Napa Practice Guidelines]: take a positive, collaborative stance; rely on local knowledge and natural assets; communicate positive expectations; be credible and responsive, working side by side; stay flexible across roles; listen reflectively; give advice only when asked.

Recovery-oriented service features [source: St Vincent's Mental Health]: the person is the expert on their own care; risk is balanced against choice; use recovery-oriented language; recognise and celebrate every achievement.

Do not polarise strengths and risk. IRISS warns against "risk assessment" versus "strengths" camps: strengths work does not mean dismissing problems [source: IRISS Insight 16]. Practical meaning: run standard risk assessment alongside, and plan risk management in the person's own goal language [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

Part A covers the Strengths Model's named tools (Rapp & Goscha; KU). Part B covers Saleebey's strengths-perspective methods and the assessment frame named in IRISS. Part C lists related methods IRISS groups under the strengths label; they have their own guides. All example wording is illustrative unless quoted with a source.

Part A. Strengths Model tools

A1. Engagement and hope-inducing relationship

Purpose / when: The first task and a continuing one. The model treats the relationship as primary: it is what mobilises dormant strengths [source: Napa Practice Guidelines; Rapp & Goscha principles].
Steps:
1. Meet where the person is comfortable, ideally in the community (home, café, a place they use) [source: KU Fidelity Scale community-contact item].
2. Spend early contacts getting to know the person, not the file: interests, what a good day looks like, what they want more of [synthesis].
3. Use high-quality reflective listening; offer advice only when asked [source: Napa Practice Guidelines].
4. End each contact by asking the person what happens next, not telling them [source: Napa Practice Guidelines].
5. Communicate positive expectations and act on small requests promptly to build credibility [source: Saleebey 2000].
6. Check each interaction against two fidelity tests: did it move the person toward a goal they care about, and did it widen their autonomy and choice? [source: KU Fidelity Scale items 9a–9b].
Example language (illustrative): "I'm not here to go through your problems first. I'd like to hear what matters to you and what you'd like your life to have more of." / "What would you like us to do before we meet next time? It's your call."
Watch for: sliding into an assessment interview or advice-giving; meeting only in the office; the person agreeing passively. Working signs: the person sets the agenda, shares hopes, keeps or reschedules contacts themselves [synthesis].

A2. Strengths Assessment (SA)

Purpose / when: To build a detailed inventory of the person's aspirations, personal and environmental strengths, current and past, to feed goal setting. Start once engagement allows; keep it alive throughout [source: KU Fidelity Scale; Tse et al. 2021; Napa Practice Guidelines].
Structure: A form of about two pages covering seven life domains [source: Tse et al. 2021]. Rapp & Goscha group strengths into personal attributes, talents and skills, environmental strengths, interests and aspirations [source: Oklahoma ODMHSAS extract of Rapp & Goscha]. The domain names commonly given (daily living situation; financial/insurance; vocational/educational; social supports; health; leisure/recreation; spirituality/culture) and the three columns (current status; desires and aspirations; past personal and social resources) come from Rapp & Goscha's form, which is not drawn on here [uncertain]. Hui et al. (2015) confirm the form records strengths the person has now, has built up, or used in the past, plus goals and aspirations, on the same sheet.
Steps:
1. Explain the purpose: a record of what the person has going for them and wants, written with them [synthesis].
2. Complete it as a conversation over several contacts, not an interview; follow the person's energy between domains [source: IRISS Insight 16 on assessment as dialogue; pacing is synthesis].
3. For each domain ask what is in place now, what they want, and what has helped before [uncertain: column structure].
4. Record in the person's own words, ideally with them writing or reviewing it [source: KU Fidelity Scale 5c].
5. Make entries specific and detailed (not "good with people" but who, where, doing what) [source: KU Fidelity Scale 5b–5e require detail].
6. Aim for at least three detailed interests or aspirations, six talents or skills, and six environmental strengths (people, places, groups, resources) [source: KU Fidelity Scale 5b, 5d, 5e].
7. Update it at least monthly and use it in practice, not only file it [source: KU Fidelity Scale 5a].
8. Link treatment or care-plan goals directly to it [source: KU Fidelity Scale item 6].
Example language (illustrative): "When you say you like cooking, tell me more. What do you cook, who taught you, who do you cook for?" / "Before things got hard, who were the people you could call?" / "If this part of your life went the way you want, what would be different?"
Watch for: a list of vague virtues; your wording replacing theirs; problems crowding the sheet; modest clients who dismiss small strengths (Hui et al. found patience and persistence were needed). Working signs: specific entries, the person adds items unprompted, and aspirations emerge that point to a goal [source: Hui et al. 2015; remainder synthesis].

A3. Personal Recovery Plan (PRP)

Purpose / when: To turn one chosen aspiration into a live, step-by-step plan. Begin once the person has picked a goal from the SA; use it at nearly every contact [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7a–7e; Napa Practice Guidelines].
Steps:
1. Write the long-term goal in the person's language [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7b].
2. Add a "passion statement": why this goal matters to them, in their words [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7b].
3. Break the goal into small, measurable steps the person can see themselves doing [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7c; Tse et al. 2021].
4. Give each step a specific target date, varying dates to fit the step rather than setting uniform deadlines [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7d].
5. Note who does each step (person, worker, supporter) [uncertain: column not confirmed; common practice].
6. Draw the steps from SA strengths, personal "medicines" (things the person does to stay well) and environmental resources [source: Hui et al. 2015].
7. Bring the plan to every contact: review what got done, mark it, set the next step [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7e; Tse et al. 2021].
8. Keep the primary goal visible even during a crisis or short-term concern [source: Napa Practice Guidelines].
Example language (illustrative): "You said getting back to the allotment matters because it's where you feel like yourself. Shall we write that down as the reason?" / "What's the smallest step toward that you could do this week?" / "When would be realistic for that one?"
Watch for: goals in clinical language ("improve compliance"); steps too big; all steps assigned to the worker; plan left in a drawer. Working signs: steps get completed, the person refers to the plan themselves, new steps follow from completed ones [synthesis, informed by fidelity items].

A4. Resource acquisition with naturally occurring resources

Purpose / when: To obtain the people, places and opportunities a goal needs. Use whenever a PRP step depends on something outside the person [source: Rapp 2006 via MN DHS; KU Fidelity Scale 8a–8b].
Steps:
1. For each goal, list what is needed (a place, a skill, a person, money, transport) [synthesis].
2. Search the SA's environmental strengths and the community first: family, friends, peers, clubs, faith groups, employers, colleges, libraries [source: KU Fidelity Scale 8a; IRISS Insight 16].
3. Help the person access at least one naturally occurring resource per goal [source: KU Fidelity Scale 8a].
4. Prefer natural resources over formal mental health services, and over time shift the balance toward them [source: KU Fidelity Scale 8b].
5. Go with the person where useful (assertive outreach) and step back as they gain confidence [source: Rapp 2006 via MN DHS; stepping back is synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Who do you know who already does something like this?" / "Would it help if I came along the first time, and you lead the conversation?"
Watch for: reflex referrals to specialist services; you doing tasks the person could do with support. Working signs: more of the plan relies on people and places in ordinary community life [synthesis].

A5. Hope-inducing practice and celebrating achievement

Purpose / when: In every contact; hope is treated as a mechanism of change [source: Saleebey 2000; Rapp, Saleebey & Sullivan via IRISS].
Steps:
1. Notice and name progress on PRP steps, however small [source: St Vincent's Mental Health: recognise and celebrate every achievement].
2. Mark milestones concretely; Hui et al. used a shared lunch or a certificate, delivered modestly for clients uncomfortable with praise [source: Hui et al. 2015].
3. Attribute progress to the person's strengths and choices, not to you [synthesis].
4. After setbacks, review what was learned and what strengths showed up; Tse et al. report clients stayed hopeful even when goals were not fully met [source: Tse et al. 2021; framing is synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "You made that phone call even though you were dreading it. What helped you do it?"
Watch for: hollow praise; celebrating your plan rather than theirs. Working signs: the person starts naming their own progress.

A6. Review and tracking

Purpose / when: To keep the SA and PRP current and credit progress. At each contact (PRP), at least monthly (SA), and a fuller review every 4 to 6 weeks as in Hui et al. [source: KU Fidelity Scale; Hui et al. 2015].
Steps: review completed and missed steps; update the SA with newly discovered strengths; ask whether the goal still matters; set new steps or a new goal [synthesis built on the cited intervals].
Example language (illustrative): "Looking at your plan, what's moved since we last met? Does this goal still feel like yours?"
Watch for: reviews turning into problem audits.

A7. Strengths-based group supervision (for teams)

Purpose / when: Weekly, 90 to 120 minutes, mostly on clients; colleagues generate ideas for helping a person reach goals or for engaging them [source: KU Fidelity Scale 3a–3i; Tse et al. 2021].
Steps [source: KU Fidelity Scale 3d–3i; Psychiatric Services supplement]:
1. Presenter gives every team member a copy of the person's SA.
2. Presenter states the person's goals.
3. Presenter states clearly what help they want from the group.
4. Team asks questions grounded in the SA.
5. Team brainstorms many constructive suggestions tied to the SA (top fidelity rating: more than 20 ideas per presentation).
6. Presenter closes by saying when they will next see the person and which idea or engagement strategy they will try.
Example language (illustrative): "Jo wants to get back into swimming. Her SA says she used to coach kids and her brother lives near the leisure centre. I'd like ideas on how to start when she's anxious about crowds."
Watch for: drift into administration or risk-only discussion; questions not linked to the SA. Solo therapists can adapt this as peer consultation [synthesis].

A8. Field mentoring and supervisor review

Purpose / when: Supervisors go out with workers to coach Strengths Model skills in real contacts, and review SA/PRP quality and use, about 2 hours a week each [source: KU Fidelity Scale 4a–4c; Tse et al. 2021].
Steps: observe a contact; give specific, structured feedback on the tools (e.g. whether the SA is in the person's words, whether the PRP was used) [source: KU Fidelity Scale 4b]; agree one skill to practise [synthesis].
Watch for: feedback about paperwork compliance only.

A9. Ending (graduated disengagement)

Purpose / when: Rapp & Goscha are widely reported to describe a gradual reduction of contact as natural supports take over; this is [uncertain].
Steps [synthesis]: discuss ending early as a sign of success; reduce frequency step by step as goals rely on natural resources; review the SA to show growth; agree how the person can re-engage.
Example language (illustrative): "A lot of what keeps this going now is your friend at the garden and the class. How would you feel about meeting monthly instead?"
Watch for: abrupt discharge; ending while the person depends on you for core supports.

Part B. Strengths-perspective methods (Saleebey and colleagues)

B1. Strengths-eliciting questions (survival, support, exception, possibility, esteem)

Purpose / when: To uncover hidden strengths during assessment and at any point the conversation is stuck in deficit. Saleebey (1997) proposed five question types; PreventConnect adapted them for work with parents. Later editions are often cited as adding "perspective" and "change" questions; not confirmed [uncertain].
Steps: choose the type that fits the moment, ask one question, then follow up for detail and record answers in the person's words [synthesis on sequencing].
1. Survival: how the person has coped with or come through hardship, what they learned, which personal qualities they can rely on. Verbatim example: "How have you managed to survive (or thrive) thus far?" [source: PreventConnect, after Saleebey 1997].
2. Support: people, groups and organisations that have helped, and what made the help meaningful. Verbatim: "Who are the special people on whom you can depend?" [source: PreventConnect].
3. Exception: what was different when life was going better or more stably. Verbatim: "When things were going well in life, what was different?" [source: PreventConnect].
4. Possibility: hopes, goals, talents, and steps already being taken toward them. Verbatim: "What are your special talents and abilities?" [source: PreventConnect].
5. Esteem: what gives pride and pleasure, and when the person began to believe goals were possible. Verbatim: "What gives you genuine pleasure in life?" [source: PreventConnect].
Example follow-ups (illustrative): "What did you do to get through that winter?" / "Who noticed you were coping?" / "What would it say about you that you managed that?"
Watch for: firing questions as a checklist; asking survival questions too soon after disclosure of fresh pain. Working signs: the person's posture or tone shifts, they produce specifics, and strengths appear you can transfer to the current goal [synthesis].

B2. Eliciting "survivor's pride" and lessons from adversity

Purpose / when: To turn a history of hardship into evidence of capacity, when the person sees their past only as damage [source: Saleebey 2000].
Steps: acknowledge the pain first; ask about specific times they overcame adversity or bad luck; draw out what they did and what it shows about them; link one lesson to the present goal [source: Saleebey 2000 for the aim; steps synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "That sounds like it was brutal, and you're still here. What did you draw on?"
Watch for: sounding as if you minimise trauma, or implying suffering was "good for" them. Working signs: the person names a quality they own.

B3. Envisioning a different future (dream and possibility talk)

Purpose / when: To revive aspiration when the person has stopped hoping or cannot name a goal [source: Saleebey 2000].
Steps: invite the person to imagine how things could be otherwise; ask what a fulfilled dream would look and feel like day to day; collect concrete details; record them as SA aspirations; pick one element to plan toward [source: Saleebey 2000 for imagining; steps synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "Forget for a moment what seems realistic. If the next year went really well for you, what would you be doing?"
Watch for: you vetoing "unrealistic" dreams (contradicts the "upper limits" principle). Break big dreams into small pieces rather than shrinking them [synthesis].

B4. Eliciting the client's own theory of change

Purpose / when: To build plans on the person's ideas of how things get better, increasing ownership [source: Saleebey 2000].
Steps: ask how they think change happens for them, what has worked before, what they would try; use their answer to shape PRP steps; credit them as the author [steps synthesis].
Example language (illustrative): "In your experience, what actually makes things shift for you?"
Watch for: quietly replacing their theory with yours.

B5. Small achievable goals and celebration

Purpose / when: To create early, visible success that sustains hope [source: Saleebey 2000].
Steps: same as A3 and A5; Saleebey lists "celebrate successes and set small, achievable goals" as part of discovering strengths.

B6. Acknowledging pain while reframing problems as efforts toward health

Purpose / when: When problems dominate, to validate suffering and find the strength inside a pattern, without adopting a pathology-first or victim identity [source: Saleebey 2000].
Steps [synthesis]: reflect the pain in the person's words; ask what the pattern does for them or protects; name the capacity it shows (e.g. self-protection, loyalty); ask how that capacity could serve their goal in a less costly way.
Example language (illustrative): "Keeping people at a distance has cost you. It's also kept you safe. Where else could that carefulness be useful?"
Watch for: reframing that feels like spin; justifying harmful behaviour. Do not use this to downplay risk.

B7. ROPES strengths assessment frame (Graybeal 2001)

Purpose / when: A short structure for a strengths-oriented assessment conversation: Resources, Opportunities, Possibilities, Exceptions, Solutions [source: IRISS Insight 16, citing Graybeal 2001]. Graybeal's paper is not drawn on, so the steps below are a reading of the acronym [uncertain; synthesis].
Steps [synthesis]:
1. Resources: personal, family, social, community and spiritual resources.
2. Opportunities: openings now available (people, programmes, timing).
3. Possibilities: future-focused hopes and what could be.
4. Exceptions: times the problem was absent or smaller, and what was different.
5. Solutions: what has worked, what the person is already doing that helps.
Example language (illustrative): "What's already out there that could help, even a little?"
Watch for: using the acronym as a form rather than a conversation.

B8. Strengths-based assessment instruments

Purpose / when: IRISS notes most assessment tools focus on deficits and names strengths-based alternatives (Cowger & Snively 2002; Early 2001 family measures). No procedure is given for these [uncertain]. Agencies may also use instruments with strengths domains (e.g. the ANSA has an 11-item strengths domain) [source: Contra Costa ANSA form]; these rate strengths but are not a substitute for the conversational SA [synthesis].

Part C. Related methods grouped under strengths-based practice

IRISS Insight 16 lists these as strengths-based approaches. They are distinct modalities with their own guides; only the strengths-relevant element is noted here.

Solution-focused questions: focus on what the person wants and on life without the problem rather than the problem itself [source: IRISS Insight 16]. Use the exception and possibility questions above in this spirit; see the SFBT guide for the full method.
Narrative externalising: reframe problems as stories of strength and resilience and separate the problem from the person (Epston & White 1992) [source: IRISS Insight 16]. See the narrative therapy guide.
Strengths-based family support: reduce risk while building parents' existing strengths, family efficacy and social support [source: IRISS Insight 16].
Asset-based community development: map community assets (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993) [source: IRISS Insight 16]; a community-level counterpart to A4.
WRAP and family recovery plans: St Vincent's Mental Health pairs the Strengths Model with WRAP (Wellness Recovery Action Plan) and a family/carer recovery plan (FRAP) [source: St Vincent's Mental Health]. These are separate tools; their procedures were not reviewed [uncertain].

5. Handling problems

The sources give little explicit troubleshooting. Items marked [source] draw on them; everything else is [synthesis].

Risk being underweighted (the main known risk of this approach).

Run standard risk assessment (suicide, self-harm, harm to others, safeguarding, self-neglect) alongside the SA, not instead of it. IRISS warns against splitting into "risk" and "strengths" camps; St Vincent's describes balancing risk with choice [source: IRISS Insight 16; St Vincent's Mental Health].
Where children may be at significant risk of harm, IRISS cites evidence that solution-focused work alone is insufficient to mandate; follow your safeguarding procedures first [source: IRISS Insight 16 citing Woods et al. 2011].
Write safety planning in the person's goal language ("staying well enough to keep the allotment"), and record risk in the clinical record even if it is not on the SA [synthesis].
Trials excluded people at immediate risk of suicide or violence (Hui et al. 2015); in acute risk, stabilise first and return to strengths work after [source: Hui et al. 2015; response synthesis].

Crisis or short-term problems derail the plan. Address the crisis, but keep the PRP's primary goal visible and link the crisis response to it [source: Napa Practice Guidelines]. Afterwards, ask which strengths showed up during the crisis and add them to the SA [synthesis].

Person says they have no strengths or downplays them. Hui et al. found clients often modest and needed patience and persistence to value small strengths [source: Hui et al. 2015]. Respond by: asking about specific days rather than general qualities; using survival and support questions (B1); noting strengths you observe and asking whether they agree; accepting very small items [synthesis]. Expect cultural norms about modesty and adjust celebration (Hui used low-key recognition).

Person has no goals or cannot name an aspiration. Spend longer in engagement and SA; use possibility and esteem questions and B3 envisioning; start with an interest rather than a goal (something they enjoy) and build a first PRP around doing more of it [synthesis]. Do not supply a goal for them; that breaches self-determination [source: Rapp 2006 via MN DHS].

Goals the worker considers unrealistic or unsafe. Hold the principle that capacity limits are unknown [source: Saleebey 2000]. Explore what the goal means, then break it into the first achievable step; if a step creates real risk, say so openly, give information and options, and agree a safer step toward the same aim [synthesis].

Non-completion of PRP steps. Treat it as information about step size or fit, not resistance: check the goal still matters, shrink the step, identify what got in the way, look for a natural support to help, and vary target dates [source: KU Fidelity Scale 7c–7d for small steps and varied dates; rest synthesis].

Stuck: no movement for several reviews. Present the person in group supervision or peer consultation using the SA and ask for many ideas (A7) [source: KU Fidelity Scale]. Revisit the SA for unused strengths; check whether goals have quietly become yours; consider whether an unaddressed problem (substance use, depression, housing) needs targeted treatment alongside [synthesis].

Overwhelm. If the person is flooded by problems, acknowledge pain first [source: Saleebey 2000], narrow to one domain and one tiny step, and pause SA completion [synthesis]. If distress is clinical (e.g. trauma symptoms, severe depression), add the relevant evidence-based treatment; strengths work is a stance, not a replacement [synthesis].

"Forced positivity" and ruptures. A person may feel unheard if you pivot to strengths too fast. Repair by naming it ("I think I jumped to the positives before really hearing how hard this is"), returning to their concern, and asking how they want to use the time (illustrative) [synthesis]. Saleebey's stance is to acknowledge pain without being defined by it [source: Saleebey 2000].

Disengagement or missed appointments. The model favours assertive outreach and community-based contact [source: Rapp 2006 via MN DHS; KU Fidelity Scale]. Contact the person in their setting, offer a different time or place, and bring a team idea for re-engagement from supervision (the fidelity scale explicitly allows ideas for engaging the person) [source: KU Fidelity Scale 3h; rest synthesis].

Dependence on the worker. Fidelity rewards a shift toward naturally occurring resources [source: KU Fidelity Scale 8b]. Review what the person now does alone, transfer tasks to natural supports, and plan gradual reduction of contact [synthesis; graduated disengagement uncertain].

Office-based psychotherapists adapting the model [synthesis]. You may not meet in the community or carry a caseload. Keep the core: conversational SA in the person's words, a PRP reviewed each session, between-session steps using natural resources, and peer consultation in the group supervision format. State openly that this is an adaptation, not the fidelity model.

Organisational barriers. IRISS notes the shift is hard for staff, requires training and resilience, and that terminology varies (recovery, asset-based, resilience) [source: IRISS Insight 16]. Use the fidelity scale as a concrete checklist for supervision [synthesis].

Sources

Sources:

Further reading (not drawn on) [uncertain where relied on]:

Rapp, C. A. & Goscha, R. J. (2012). The Strengths Model: A Recovery-Oriented Approach to Mental Health Services (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Rapp, C. A. (2006). The Strengths Model: Case Management with People with Psychiatric Disabilities (2nd ed., with Goscha). Oxford University Press.
Saleebey, D. (Ed.) (1997; 2006). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (2nd; 4th eds). Longman / Allyn & Bacon.
Rapp, C. A., Saleebey, D. & Sullivan, W. P. (2005/2008). The future of strengths-based social work. Advances in Social Work.
Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: transforming the dominant paradigm. Families in Society.
Cowger, C. D. & Snively, C. A. (2002). Assessing client strengths. In Saleebey (Ed.), The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (3rd ed.).

← Previous · II-186Hope therapy Next · III-001 →Maslow's being-psychology