Case Management (CM) within the Human Services context involves assessing vulnerable individuals’ total situations and identifying and implementing solutions that address any needs and problems found in the assessment (Steggall, 2020a). CM styles differ and relate to each other as each model has different ways of working, organizing, and coordinating between services because they have different ideologies and theoretical perspectives embedded in their context. For this assessment, this essay will begin by providing a detailed description of case management within the human service context. Strength-based and Crisis response models of CM will then be described, followed by their differences and similarities. The essay will then look at two ideologies and theoretical perspectives, Resilience theory, and how it can be applied in strength-based CM. A task-centered approach and how it can be applied within crisis response case management will be explored next. It will then examine the Child Protection Service (CPS) context and will illustrate how strength-based and crisis response CM can both be suitable within the CPS context.
Case Management:
The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW, p.2 2015) describes CM as, a method of providing services whereby a professional social worker collaboratively assesses the needs of the client and the clients family, when appropriate, and advocates for a package of multiple services to meet the specific client’s complex needs. These solutions can include facilitating access to care, which can include a combination of compassion, support, counseling, advocacy, and referrals to appropriate resources and services including, educational, housing, and medical organizations. CM also involves the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of all service plans put in place (AASW, 2015).
There are multiple ways of working, organizing, and coordinating services. As a result, there are different models of CM with their specific strengths and weaknesses, which require relevant personal to perform distinct roles and responsibilities.
In the Human services context, the Strength-based model of CM looks to reinforce the client’s self-determination and build on characteristics that are already present in a said individual (Steggall, 2020b).
Individuals are viewed as already having value, mental resilience, and the ability for healing and wellness. Strength-based models are committed to helping individuals achieve a sense of personal power and competence over their life. Brun & Rapp (2003) believe that by focusing on a client’s short-comings and deficits, they cripple the individual’s ability to transcend life challenges. While they believe that by prompting the client to identify their capabilities, assets, and strengths, while encouraging positive thinking, it enables the client to respond confidently to daily life challenges.
Strength-based models are based on the belief that individuals possess the abilities and inner resources that allow them to cope with the challenges of living (Brun & Rapp, 2003).
The Crisis response model of CM is aimed at providing immediate attention and alleviating short-term stress by identifying immediate coping strategies and establishing action plans (Steggall, 2020b).
The U.S Department of health and human services (n.d) defines a ‘crisis’ as constituting circumstances or situations which cannot be resolved by one’s customary problem-solving resources because of disequilibrium or breakdown in the person’s usual pattern of functioning.
Hale (1997) describes crises as situations characterized by high consequence, low probability, and short decision time, which create a unique and threatening decision-making environment.
Crisis Response model’s task is to help families stabilize and learn to focus and find solutions to a limited number of problems, usually one to four goals (U.S department of health and human services, n.d). Crisis response models are brief usually four to twelve weeks, with professional contact available twenty-four hours a day. The focus of attention is on identifying what specific situations are causing the Crisis and what difficulties in coping are evident in the individual (U.S department of health and human services, n.d).
As explained above, while Crisis Response models in CM try to alleviate immediate stressors, Strength-based models look to reinforce client’s self-determination by identifying and drawing upon individual strengths, which creates a shift from emphasizing problems and pathology (Crisis response) to a positive partnership with the individual or family to promotes thriving not just surviving. It also involves creating services plans based on their specific needs and strengths, rather than fitting families into pre-existing service plans (National technical assistance and evaluation center for systems of care, 2008).
Strength-based CM and Crisis response CM are both an active role-based experience for the case manager (Steggall, 2020b).
The following part of this essay will explore the ideology and theoretical perspectives of Resilience theory and its application in Strength-based models of CM.
Ideologies and theoretical perspectives:
Bryce (2019) described resilience as referring to one’s capacity to adapt to change positively and stressful events in healthy, productive ways that allow the individual to bounce back in the face of adversity. Resilience is typically categorized by personal characteristics, like having a sense of spirituality, personal efficiency, and positive social skills. Resilience can also be seen through family and social connectedness, involvement in one’s community, and the presence of caring adults (Bryce, 2019).
The invigorating work in areas such as developmental resilience and healing and wellness perspectives and ideologies has paved a theoretical foundation that is continually encouraging the evolvement of Strength-based models of CM (Brun & Rapp, 2001).
Strength-based CM is reliant on the concept of Resilience theory, as it is based on the belief that all individuals possess the abilities and inner resources that allow them to effectively manage the challenges of daily living (Brun & Rapp, 2001). The case manager assumes all responsibility of the client, including, but not limited to, linking to any vital services, performing assessment and goal setting plans, providing therapeutic care, and follow up.
The case manager will assess the client as they work collaboratively to identify capabilities and assets that the client can activate when responding to any challenges they are facing. From there, the client identifies and develops goals that form a treatment plan, all the while keeping the client in control of the process and tailoring it to their strength, which reinforces self-expression, confidence, and resilience (Brun & Rapp, 2001).
Rawana and Brownles (2009) describe the following step, Evolution. This step involves reviewing with the client the various strengths noted by themselves and others concerning the treatment plan. They then start applying those strengths as a solution to issues, believing that by focusing on the possibilities, the framework addresses more than just solutions to a problem, it instead makes the client draw on all of their strengths are a source to be used in multiple ways (Rawana & Brownlee, 2009).
Reid (1997), describes the task-centered approach of CM as a short-term, problem-solving approach. The focus of this approach is on the clients already having an acknowledgment of a problem or concern. Then the case manager works collaboratively with the client to clarify the problem, identify external tasks that need to be done to resolve them, and then implement the tasks in their life situations (Reid, 1997).
Crisis response CM relies heavily on task-centered theory, as they are both focused on immediately getting to the source of the problem and working collaboratively in a short time frame to identify practical solutions.
The following is a nine-step crisis intervention model starting with, rapidly establishing a constructive relationship to involved individuals. Followed by eliciting and encouraging expression of painful feelings and emotions, discussing the precipitating event, and assessing strengths and needs. Next, the client formulates a dynamic explanation of not what happened, but why it happed, then the crisis worker helps restore cognitive functioning and plans and implements treatment. Once the individual is in a level of stability, termination occurs, but a follow-up is always necessary (U.S department of health and human services, n.d). The prior description of a crisis intervention resonates within a task-centered approach; both are structured, efficient, ask for realistic expectations, active involvement, and involve long-term capacity building.
Child Protection Services:
CPS works within each community and assesses the risks to and safety of children and provides or arranges for services to achieve safe, permanent families for vulnerable children (DePanfilis, 2018). CPS agencies are accountable for achieving the outcomes set for child protection in The Adoption and Safe Families Act 1997. The Three national outcomes covered in the Act were safety and the right for all children to live in environments safe from abuse and neglect. Permanency, where children need a sense of continuity and connection which is central to a child’s healthy development. Lastly, Child well-being, as all children deserve nurturing environments that promote their cognitive, psychological, and behavioral development (DePanfilis, 2018). CPS case managers perform the difficult task of conducting investigations on families to ensure Children’s safety.
Published in the CPS: A guide for caseworkers, Depanfilis (2018) explores frameworks for child protection practices that promote the best outcomes for children. Believing that it must be child-centered, family-focused, and culturally responsive, she writes of an integrated framework that encompasses six perspectives, one of which is Strength-based. Depanfilis (2018) elaborates by stating that, with a clearer understanding of the multiple factors leading to child maltreatment, rather than a problem-focused approach, caseworkers also foster support and build resilience and potential for growth inherent in each family. The caseworker begins by conducting an initial individual assessment, followed by a family assessment, which will result in a planning phase. Throughout the planning phase, the caseworker and family work collaboratively to make sure that the child’s immediate safety has been secured, and that is when the strength-based strategies and interventions are developed and implemented.
CPS workers are forced to see and deal with traumatic and unthinkable cases in their field regularly. Pulido & Lacina (2010) understood that everyone experiences crises differently, and each situation calls for individual responses, so they designed a multi-component crisis intervention system. The crisis response was designed to mitigate and prevent the development of stress disorders and disabling posttraumatic syndromes while trying to achieve psychological closure after the event (Pulido & Lacina, 2010). Crisis-response CM is warranted in CPS cases that involve child fatality, child sexual abuse, and severe physical abuse cases and if any violence or danger occurred during a follow-up visit (Pulido & Lacina, 2010). Risks assessments are based on direct observations of the front-line case manager.
Shlonsky & Wagner (2004) write of a CM approach that tries to integrate predictive and contextual assessment strategies, which means case managers complete both an actual risk assessment (Crisis response, task-centered approach) and an objective assessment of individual and family strength and needs (strength-based; resilience theory), believing that this may be the next step in the Evolution of CPS.
In conclusion, this essay has exhaustively explored human services CM styles, ideologies, theoretical perspectives, and practice. It explored how resilience theory is essential to strength-based models but also used in crisis response models. How task centered-approach resonates perfectly within crisis response models, and how either model can be operationalized within the CPS context.
References
Australian Association of Social workers. (2015). Scope of Social Work in Practice: Case Management & Care Coordination. Retrieved from https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/8310
Brun, C., & Rapp, C, R. (2001). Strengths-based case management: Individuals’ perspectives on strengths and the case manager relationship. Social Work, 46(3), 278-288. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=6 3a26406-85b3-47b3-aa3f-7a9b7eb95cb3%40sessionmgr101
Bryce, I., Robinson, Y., & Petherick, W. (2019). Child Abuse and Neglect: Forensic Issues in Evidence, Impact, and Management. London, UK: Academic Press.
DePanfilis, D. (2018). Child protection services: A guide for caseworkers. Child abuse and neglect user manual series: Children’s bureau.
Hale, J. (1997). A layered communication architecture for the support of crisis response. Journal of management information systems.14(1). 235-255. Do: 10.1080/07421222.1997.11518160
Moynihan, P, D. (2009). The network governance of crisis response: Case studies of incident command systems. Journal of Public Administration research and theory 19(4), 895-915. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun033
National technical assistance and evaluation center for systems of care. (2008). An individualized, strengths-based approach in public child welfare driven systems of care. Child welfare information gateway. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/acloserlook/strengthsbased/strengthsbased1/
Pulido, L, M., & Lacina, M, J. (2010). Supporting child protective services (CPS) staff following a child fatality and other critical incidents. Retrieved from http://www.nyspcc.org/wp- content/uploads/APSAC_Advisor_Fall.pdf
Rawana, E., & Brownlee, K. (2009). Making the possible probable: A strength-based assessment and intervention framework for clinical work with parents, children and adolescents. Families in society: Journal of contemporary social services 9(3), 255-260. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1606/1044-3894.3900
Reid, J, W. (1997). Research on task-centered practice. Social work Research 21(3). 132-137. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/10.1093/swr/21.3.132
Shlonsky, A., & Wagner, D. (2004). The next step: Integrating actual risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth service review 27(2005), 409-427. Doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007
Steggall, D. (2020a). HSW2120 Introduction to case management: Course Notes. Ipswich, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.
Steggall, D. (2020b). HSW2120 Models of case management: Course Notes. Ipswich, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.
U.S Department of Health and Human services. (n.d). Crisis Intervention in Child Abuse and neglect. Administration on children, youth and families, National center on child abuse and neglect. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/crisis.pdf
Comments