|
|
|
|
1.
Context This
is the final compilation of Ecomap work. It includes the work of the Ecomap
team, combined with some additions made by the same team as it worked on Family
Assessment. It also contains the changes made by the ILF. Taken as a whole, it
represents the body of work from which the models and the quality tool have been
taken. 2.
Definition and Purpose The
following represents consensus reached in the April ILF:
An Ecomap is a pictorial representation of a family’s connections to
persons and/or systems in their environment. It can illustrate 3 separate
dimensions for each connection: 1.
The STRENGTH
of the connection (Weak; tenuous/uncertain; Strong) 2.
The IMPACT of the connection (none; draining resources or
energy; providing resources or energy) 3.
The QUALITY of the connection (Stressful; Not stressful) There was strong support for the addition of the quality
dimension because it clarifies the expectations and removes prior confusion
about what should be illustrated on which dimension. There was a concern,
however, that adding this dimension is unnecessary and might not be in keeping
with the ultimate intent of ecomap. It was agreed to try it with staff and see
what the reactions are. Ecomap
Purpose The purpose of an ecomap is to support classification of family needs and
decision making about potential interventions.
Further, it is to create shared awareness (between a family and their
social workers) of the family’s significant connections, and the constructive
or destructive influences those connections may be having. 3.
Value of Ecomaps The
following list should help address question about why Ecomaps are necessary and
valuable as part of Family Assessment: ECOMAPS: A.
Enable a structured, consistent process for gathering
specific, valuable information related to the current state of a family
or individual being assessed. B.
Support the engagement of the family in a dialogue that can build
rapport and buy-in, while heightening awareness of caseworker and family. C.
Identify and illustrate strengths that can built upon and weaknesses that
can be addressed D.
Summarize complex data and information into a visual, easy to see and understand format to
support understanding and planning. E.
Illustrate the nature of connectedness and the impact of interactions
in pre-defined “domain” areas, - whether those connections and interactions
are helping or hurting the family. Part of this value is in supporting the
concept of observing “resource and energy flow” to and from a family as a
result of its connections and interactions with its environment. F.
Provide a consistent base of information to inform
and support intervention decisions G.
Allow objective evaluation of progress – workers can observe impact of interventions,
both on the family and on other elements of their environment H.
Support discussion of spiritual and value related issues
in a constructive way. I.
Support continuity as case workers and supervisors chance J.
Help support integration of the concept of family assessment as an ongoing
process. K.
Reduce narrative in other parts of the family assessment process. L.
Integrate the values and concepts – and the real power of System
Theory in a practical way. You don’t have to have a master’s degree
in Systems Theory to fill out an ecomap, but doing so enables you to understand
the dynamics between a family and its environment. M.
Force the building of interviewing and other
skills for staff. N.
Support effective presentation of families issues for court O.
Help reduce liability by standardizing
thorough, objective documentation of important information. 4.
Understanding the Resistance As a test for the new model, how well does it address the
following reasons for previous resistance? A.
First and foremost, we
believe there is a general lack of understanding
about the real value of and purpose of ecomaps – and their role in the family
assessment and intervention process. We believe this is not only true for staff,
but for many administrative level people as well. We think the staff issues are addressable through the work done here and
from developing a training program that really emphasizes the why, the value
before it starts on the “How to”. People must understand the big picture,
and the interdependency between genograms and risk assessment. As for the administrative level, we think there are ways to help
enlighten those who don’t “get it”. One tactic might be helping them make
a connection to the idea of the interconnectedness of the agency to its
environment. Establishing how difficult it would be to manage an agency without
managing the connection with its environment, and the flow of resources from and
to it, might help them see the same concept applied at the family level. Does it
really take a community to raise a child? We further agreed that, if the administrative level in an agency either
doesn’t get it, or gets it and doesn’t believe it, then we would be wasting
our time in trying to implement and integrate it at the staff level. B.
Second, there is not
time for “another piece of paper”, especially
given the duplication of information that some counties are required to do. We think this is addressable in the following ways: ·
Clarify and define the
linkage between ecomaps, genograms and risk assessments so that information is
captured in the best place, and redundancy is eliminated. Make it clear what
info should be captured where. ·
If people understood the
real value of ecomaps there would be more energy around them ·
Use
of Workload management tools can help ·
Improve the tool and
process to make it easier to use C.
The old tool was not
user friendly We think the tool we have developed is much more clear and user
friendly. D.
Some workers perhaps
fear that this requires a level of skill they don’t have We recognize that one of the values of ecomaps is that it forces skill
building. While there will be a learning curve for some, they will be stronger
caseworkers as a result. E.
Some workers are afraid
doing this will make families mad This should be addressed in a training program that emphasizes the
opportunity to use this as a collaborative tool. 5.
Developing a Model A.
Criteria for a useful model – The tool must be: a)
Easy to fill out and Easy to read b)
Able to be filled out collaboratively with the family c)
Easy to understand for family and staff d)
Standardized for Domains, Colors, symbols, etc e)
Capable of begin used at the individual and/or family level. f)
Flexible to accommodate counties’ individual choices about whether every
domain must be charted or only those where a connection is present. g)
Include a key with whatever symbols, flags, colors, etc. h)
Be accompanied by a guide explaining each domain and some typical
questions to help elicit that info. B.
The tool must be able to clearly illustrate the following dimensions for
each domain that is selected to be included on the tool. 1)
The STRENGTH
of the connection (Weak; tenuous/uncertain; Strong) 2)
The IMPACT of the connection (none; draining
resources or energy; providing resources or energy) 3)
The QUALITY
of the connection (Stressful; Not stressful)
6.
What Domains Should be Included in
the Tool A.
Neighborhood – The
physical area in which your home exists (not a house or apartment, but the area
in which the house or apartment exists. B.
Community Services –
Includes Medical, Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Domestic Violence, Child
Welfare, Political, Legal, Court, etc. C.
Social Groups –
Church, Civic, YMCA, Faith/Culture, Bowling League, Spirituality, etc. D.
Education E.
Significant Personal
Relationships (can include friends, family, etc F.
Employment – G.
Other 7.
Guiding
Questions for Ecomap by Domain (Draft 1) I.
Neighborhood (See Element Z from Risk Assessment) 1.
How well do you know your
neighbors? 2.
What neighborhood activities do
you attend? 3.
Do your children play with
other neighborhood children? 4.
How long have you lived there? 5.
What do you get from your
neighborhood? II.
Community Services 1.
What which community
organizations or agencies are you involved? Examples include Medical, Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Domestic
Violence, Child Welfare, Political, Legal, Court, etc. 2.
How long have you been
involved? What frequency? 3.
With whom do you have a
relationship? Who gives you support? 4.
What services work best for
you? 5.
How do you feel about your
involvement? III.
Social Groups 1.
With which social groups are
you involved? Examples include Church,
Civic, YMCA, Bowling League, etc. 2.
How long have you been
involved? What frequency? 3.
With whom do you have a
relationship? Who gives you support? 4.
What services work best for
you? 5.
How do you feel about your
involvement? IV.
Education 1.
Who in your family goes to
school? 2.
How long? What is their status?
What is their goal? 3.
How do they feel about it? 4.
With whom do you have a
relationship? Who gives you support? V.
Significant Personal Relationships 1.
With whom do you have
significant personal relationship? Includes Extended family members, friends,
etc.? 2.
How long has your relationship
lasted? 3.
What do you do together? 4.
How do you feel about this
relationship? 5.
What do you get from it? VI.
Employment 1.
Who in your family works? 2.
How long? What is their status?
3.
How do they feel about it? 4.
With whom do they have a
relationship? Who gives them support? VII.
Other 8.
How
must these Domains be handled? For Clarity, here are 2 relevant terms and what they mean
to us: Addressed This means that a domain is considered. Questions
must be asked of the family to determine what their situation is. Charted This means that the domain is actually drawn on the
Ecomap. A.
All Domains must be addressed when doing an Ecomap. B.
All domains where a connection is present that is impacting a family’s
ability to function must be charted - documented on the ecomap. C.
For domains where no connection is present, there will be a county
decision on whether these domains need to be actually charted, with no lines to
indicate no connection, or whether there is an implied message that if a domain
is not charted, it indicates no connection is present.
Those who argue for the later do so in the interest of readability. Those
who argue for charting all domains do so in the interest of being explicitly
clear. This team supports both approaches, as we don’t believe it impacts the
overall results. D. Some counties have a desire for positive indication that a worker has “addressed” each domain if they are not actually charted. Others want to trust the workers to address each domain and manage it at supervision. We agree to make a check box on the form where, if desired, counties can have workers initial each domain that is not charted to indicate that they considered it and found no connection.
9.
Rules
for Use (First Draft) This is a very rough first attempt to capture the key
points you made. I am not a rule writer so once we agree on the key points, you
may want to have someone else rewrite these as rules or instructions. Please
refer to the attached Sample Ecomap as you read these. A.
At the center of the Ecomap, a simplified view of the Target family
members in the household should be depicted, using genogram symbols and
conventions. B.
The intent is for each individual in the household to be addressed. C.
There are some domains that will, for some families, apply at the
household level, or for all individuals in the family. These can be charted at
the household level and do not need to be charted for each individual. D.
Each individual can be “brought out of the center” into its own circle
and then domains that need to be addressed for that individual can be. The
“Household” can be brought out of the center into its own circle for clarity
if needed. E.
If a family or an individual is so complex that the ecomap becomes messy,
you can illustrate any individual or the household on its own, separate page. On
the front page simply note, “Refer to Page X” for the individual in
question. F.
To illustrate the existence of a connection, and the strength of it, use
one of the following 3 types of lines. No line indicates no connection.
If no connection exists for an individual or a
household, you may omit the domain altogether, indicating no connection exists,
or you may draw in the domain and not connect it to indicate no connection. G.
To Illustrate the Impact of a connection, place an arrow on the end of the
line indicating whether resources and energy are flowing to a person or away
from a person. No arrow indicates no impact, no flow of energy or resources
either way.
H. If a connection is stressful, illustrate with a jagged line superimposed on
the connection line. No jagged line = not stressful
I. Brief summary comments may be written inside the domain circles – but
they should not be very detailed. The details should be in the risk assessment. J. Domains should be identified on the ecomap. If you are using color, you may not feel the need to also write the name of the domain. If you are using black and white, the domain should be labeled. 10.
Ecomap Quality For rating quality
of Ecomap, we will use the same rating scale as for risk assessment quality
(0,1,2): Ø
“0” = Not in
accordance with agency standards and expectations Ø
“1” = Not to agency
standards but will not seriously impact effectiveness – learning opportunity Ø
“2” = Fully in
accordance with agency standards and expectations We have agreed on
specific questions, as with the risk assessment quality instrument:
Optional
Revision 4: June, 2002
|
