(c) 2025 Columbia University Press. All Rights reserved.
Generalist Practice: A Task-Centered Approach, Second Edition Page 19 (33 of 532)
Powered by Tizra® |
Generalist Practice: A Task-Centered Approach, Second Edition resources
Extracted Text (may have errors)
task-centered and generalist practice 19
building on existing strengths”; (3) “engaging in a power analysis of
the client’s situation”; (4) “teaching specific skills”; and (5) “mobiliz-
ing resources and advocating for clients” (151–52). The first technique,
accepting the client’s definition of the problem, is clearly consistent
with TC. The second, fourth, and fifth techniques—identifying and
building on strengths, teaching specific skills, and mobilizing resources
and advocating—are often incorporated in TC through the develop-
ment of client tasks, practitioner tasks, and work with collaterals. The
one aspect of empowerment practice not systematically included in TC
is a power analysis. However, there is nothing about the structure or
philosophy of TC that would preclude incorporating a power analysis.
The strengths perspective has become popular within social work
education during the past decade. The basic principles in this approach
are as follows:
1. Every human system has strengths;
2. Traumas and struggles may be injurious but they may also be sources
of challenge and opportunity;
3. The upper limits of the capacity to grow and change are unknown
and client aspirations should be taken seriously;
4. Client systems are best served by collaborating with them;
5. Every environment has resources.
(Saleebey 1997:12–15)
The focus in the strengths perspective is the client’s vision for the fu-
ture, and assessment emphasizes the identification and articulation of
strengths in the client system and the environment. Intervention con-
sists of implementing collaboratively developed strategies that build on
strengths and resources (Early and Glenmaye 2000).
A considerable amount of overlap exists between the strengths per-
spective and TC. Both stress collaboration. Both focus on what clients
want to achieve. Both are eclectic in that they use other interventions
as appropriate (see the case example in Early and Glenmaye 2000).
Both also build on client strengths and resources, albeit in different
ways. The strengths perspective emphasizes the articulation of these
strengths and resources, whereas, in TC, they are assumed in the de-
velopment of tasks (tasks based on client weaknesses would be futile).
