What is a strengths-based approach?

Definitions of a strengths-based approach are many; they also vary over time. The approach was originally popularised by American academic Dennis Saleebey’s edited collection of readings in The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (2009). It is an approach that stresses the importance of people’s own characteristics, the type of environment they live in, and the multiple contexts that influence their lives. It postulates that interventions must be focussed on clients’ competencies and the resources at their disposal or accessible to them. Clients are considered to be the ‘experts’ in their situation, and practitioners as partners whose theoretical and technical knowledge must be used to help them, particularly by empowering clients rather than labelling them (Foot, 2012).

One of the most frequently quoted definitions of strengths-based practice is provided by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) (2015, 2):

A collaborative process between the person supported by services and those supporting them, allowing them to work together to determine an outcome that draws on the person’s strengths and assets. As such, it concerns itself principally with the quality of the relationship that develops between those providing support and those being supported, as well as the elements that the person seeking support brings to the process.

Authors who have discussed the format, content, and implementation of strengths-based interventions have proposed a number of stages. While the number of stages can vary from one author to another, they can be summarised as three key stages: a) evaluation of the client’s situation; b) development of intervention objectives; and c) direct action (Blood & Guthrie, 2018; Saint-Jacques, Turcotte, & Pouliot 2009; Saleebey, 2009).

Instead of starting with problems, a strengths-based approach starts with what is working, what makes people feel well and what people care about. The more familiar deficit approach starts with needs and deficits and secures the input of services to ameliorate the problem and fill the gaps. Dennis Saleebey shows us how this ‘salutogenic’ model works in comparison to a pathogenic one (Saleebey, 2002). His model illustrates the shift of approach to focusing on the positive attributes of individual lives, neighbourhoods, and communities and recognition of the capacities, skills, knowledge, and potential that individuals, families, and communities possess.

While we can – to a degree – articulate what a strengths-based approach is in terms of how it differs from a deficit approach, defining it with any degree of specificity is more challenging. In good part this is because of the myriad ways that the approach can be operationalised. A primary issue relates to ‘where’ the approach is located and what form it takes. It is not necessarily confined to service delivery, although there are some examples of initiatives that could be regarded as strengths-based in nature, such as local area co-ordination (Department of Health and Social Care, 2017) and family group conferencing for adults (Metze, Kwekkeboom & Abma, 2015). However, strengths-based approaches can also encompass a range of structural, organisational, and philosophical dimensions: some strengths-based approaches demand changes that are systemwide whilst others are situated inside a single service or set of services; others still demand a shift of practitioner and managers’ thinking and a reconfiguration of the nature of the professional/user relationship. Figure 2 shows a (non-exhaustive) list of practises that would all constitute ‘taking a strengths-based approach’.

The terms strengths-based and asset-based appear to be used interchangeably, but without any discernible or significant difference between the two. In her report ‘What makes us healthy?’ (2012), Jane Foot describes assets as ‘any resource, skill or knowledge which enhances the ability of individuals, families and neighbourhoods to sustain their health and wellbeing’. She cites Hills et al. (2010), who define assets thus:

Assets can include such things as supportive family and friendship networks; intergenerational solidarity; community cohesion; environmental resources for promoting ‘physical, social and mental health’; employment security and opportunities for voluntary service; affinity groups; religious toleration; life-long learning; safe and pleasant housing; political democracy and participation opportunities; and, social justice and equity.

As such, an assets-based approach values the skills and knowledge of individuals, networks, personal resources, community resources and community cohesion. These dimensions appear to be very similar, if not the same, as those of a ‘strengths’-based approach. Utilising these attributes, the aim of both approaches is to address ‘needs’ – in the language of the deficit model – by nurturing the strengths and resources of people, their families and communities. The two models share aims and territory albeit with some suggestion that ‘assets-based’ potentially refers more to community-related development.

In outlining strengths-based approaches, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) (2019) tends to rely on definitions of what they are not rather than what they are. This is partly for clarity, and also to respond to some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the approach (which we explore later). It is important to recognise this presentation by the DHSC as it helps us to appreciate the conceptual and policy position it has adopted; it is signalling a shift away from deficit oriented procedural models of social care and placing ‘new’ emphasis on strengths, resources, and partnerships between professionals and agencies and those with care and support needs. The DHSC specifies that strengths-based approaches and/or practice is not:

• an outcome on its own;
• about reducing care packages;
• about signposting people onwards and providing less support;
• about not helping people;
• a focus on ‘what is the matter with you’ and ‘what is wrong’;
• about shifting responsibilities to carers and family or friends;
• a one size fits all approach (there are no scripts);
• about avoiding talking about the problem or issues.

These statements are in part a response to fears that a strengths-based approach would lead to – or worse was a euphemism for – retrenchment of the state with regards to welfare services and a reduction in accountability for care provision. In her (2017) report, Lyn Romeo (Chief Social Worker for Adults for England) asserts that a strengths-based approach is not driven by a need to save money (although cost savings may occur), reduce funding, or to shift responsibility for managing care and support services onto people and communities.

Supporting strengths-based approaches

The strengths-based approach to social work practice values the empowerment of individuals seeking support from services and advocates a relationship of collaboration as opposed to one of authority (Itzhaky & Bustin, 2002; Saleebey, 2009). Blood and Guthrie (2018) propose a number of principles underpinning support for older people using a strengths-based approach to help achieve both empowerment and increased resilience. These include: (a) collaboration and self-determination – bringing together personal and professional knowledge to find solutions; (b) relationships – core to a strengths-based approach and central to wellbeing; (c) personal strengths and contributions – understanding that everyone has something they can do, as well as things they need help with; (d) being curious about individuals – looking at interests or other characteristics that can be utilised to help them; (e) hope – the belief in the capacity of people to change and also the role this plays in sustaining emotional resilience; (f) positive risk taking – promoting positive risk taking or ‘risk enablement’; (g) building resilience – enabling people to build their own capacity to deal with challenges now and in the future.

All of these principles can arguably help people to lead independent lives and maximise their freedom, and it is well evidenced that the vast majority of people want to have a say in decisions that (may) enable to them to do this (Hoole & Morgan, 2011). Among proponents of strengths-based approaches, relationships are consistently identified as key to achieving outcomes, namely maximising user quality of life and facilitating their ability to participate in activities they enjoy and are good at (Blood, 2013; O’Rourke, Duggleby, Fraser, & Jerke, 2015). The Mental Health Foundation (2016) also identifies relationships as being the foundation of mental wellbeing at all stages of the life course.

To support social care professionals to operationalise these principles, a number of authors identify the role of positive risk taking (Blood & Wardle, 2018; Guthrie, 2018; Morgan & Andrews, 2016). This requires people – service users and professionals alike – to explore and weigh up together the ‘risks’ of different options, including the risks associated with doing nothing and those associated with doing something that is inherently ‘risky’. For example, there may be a number of risks associated with leaving a person living with (moderate) dementia in their own home (leaving the gas on, falling, not eating), but there may be greater risks associated with admitting them to a care home (decreased freedom, reduced quality of life, less independence, fewer rights, less access to friends & community activities). When people who use services are asked about ‘risk’ they tend to highlight the risk of losing their independence (Faulkner, 2012) as opposed to the risk of a harmful outcome such as a fall. This ‘optimism’ related to retaining independence is important in its own right, and according to Crittenden (2014) has a key role to play in promoting or maintaining positive mental wellbeing (Milne, 2020).

Proponents of a strengths-based approach may well agree that robust evidence in support of it is limited, in good part because it is difficult to define as a distinctive ‘intervention’ and/or capture its effectiveness either as a standalone model or compared to other approaches. This was highlighted by Tse et al. (2016) in their critical review of existing research regarding the use and effectiveness of strengths-based approaches in mental health service settings. The authors did, however, acknowledge that there is some emerging evidence that use of a strengths-based approach can improve outcomes for people with serious mental illness, including hospitalisation rates, employment, educational attainment and intrapersonal outcomes, such as self-efficacy and a sense of hope.

Critical perspectives of strengths-based approaches

A number of criticisms have been made of strengths-based approaches. First, there is a debate about the status of the approach, which can be summarised by the following question: is it an intervention model comprising values and a specific method, or is it an ideological position on social practices? In response to this question, Saleebey (2002) stated that the strengths-based approach is based on an ‘ideological position’ but that it also constitutes ‘a practice model’. Saint-Jacques et al. (2009) argue that it can be difficult to discern which methods are unique to strengths-based practices and that very little information currently exists about the extent to which services are actually delivered in ways consistent with the strengths-based model. In their study of social work practice in Canada, with families in difficulty, they state that it was impossible to establish whether the services offered to the families conformed to the principles of a strengths-based approach or not. This was due to the diversity of services and to the fact that the principles were extremely difficult to operationalise or capture.

Some authors, like Slasberg and Beresford (2017) have stated that there is a risk of the approach not accounting for the clients’ reality, which in adults’ social work is often characterised by few resources and embedded and multiple chronic problems. Similarly, Gray (2011) argues that while stemming from sound philosophical foundations, it is in danger of running too close to contemporary neo-liberal notions of self-help and self-responsibility and ignoring structural inequalities that undermine personal and social development, damage health and wellbeing, and create hardship and distress. Furthermore, she states there is a lack of empirical evidence for the ‘successes’ of strengths-based approaches; proponents tend to rely on descriptive case studies. The author advises against ‘overly optimistic claims about the influence of social capital, community, and community development’ and calls for more robust evaluation of the effectiveness of strengths-based approaches. Bransford (2009) questions the over-reliance or focus of one approach over another, be it one of empowerment or paternalism. She argues that social work is more amenable to an integrated holistic approach to practice than to either a diagnostic or strengths-based approach alone.

Daly and Westwood (2018) suggest that the objectives of strengths-based approaches are not necessarily applicable to social care, and that adopting the approach carries a number of risks. They argue that the default focus of much of the literature in this field is ‘functioning younger older people’ and not the groups of people who tend to rely on publicly funded social care in the UK: these groups tend to be characterised by complexity, multi-morbidity, being ‘necessarily dependent’ on others for their everyday survival, and/or facing a crisis which requires a speedy response (Lloyd, 2010; Saint-Jacques et al., 2009). The claim that strengths-based approaches are ‘empowering’ for individuals with this profile is questioned by the authors, hence their limited purchase for social care. Daly and Westwood also assert that strengths-based approaches are imbued with a number of underlying assumptions. The first assumption is that people need empowering and by implication that existing service models are disempowering. The second assumption is that informal (family/support networks/community) resources are empowering and, by implication, that to be in receipt of formal state support is to be ‘disempowered’. They argue that evidence does not support either of these assumptions (de São José, Barros, Samitca, & Teixeira, 2016; Westwood & Daly, 2016), and that the types – and critically the source – of support that is empowering (either for those needing care or those giving it) is not clear in strengths-based literature.

Another criticism arising from Daly and Westwood’s analysis is an assumption that resources (or ‘strengths’) exist in the user’s situation, which are as yet untapped. They argue that this is something that needs to be tested rather than assumed; it may well not be the case. Furthermore, they identify a hierarchy of ‘resources’ which privileges particular resources over others. Those that are privileged include: communities, social networks, connectedness, resilience, and psychosocial health (Hopkins & Rippon, 2015). Daly and Westwood suggest that these are largely relational, deriving from individuals’ social capabilities and personal connectedness to networks. While this is – of itself – not problematic, they note an absence of focus on material or monetary resources, and importantly an absence of recognition of the health inequalities that arise from social and structural inequalities. In broad terms this critique posits that the strengths-based approach insufficiently engages with the important role played by inequalities, including those relating to resources and power, that are significant drivers of ill health, need, and dependency in UK society (Friedli, 2013). Daly and Westood (2018) argue that an emphasis on the social and relational attributes could potentially exacerbate inequality, in that affluent people are more likely to have more of all the resources that are ‘privileged’ and less likely to be vulnerable to shortages and inadequacies in public services. Prowell (2019) agrees and argues that a new construct of resilience (in the context of strengths-based approaches) carries with it potentially dangerous underlying assumptions, particularly for those in marginalised groups. This links to another criticism; that despite its apparent focus on communities and social connectedness, strengths-based approaches are rooted in individualism; they place primary emphasis on recognising and enhancing personal attributes such as coping abilities, resilience, and positive adaptation rather than on the development of social or community resources (Foot & Hopkins, 2010).

One final criticism articulated by Daly and Westwood’s work can be summarised in the following question: is a strengths-based approach really any different from current approaches? The argument is that community-based assessments of need, particularly in social care, have always been based initially on identifying what informal support is already available (i.e., existing strengths), then identifying any gaps in that informal support, and in turn identifying when and where the state may need to step in. This, they argue, is not a deficit approach. Rather, it is a strengths-based approach that recognises, first, that people’s strengths and resources need to be taken into account for the purposes of entitlement and access to services and other public resources; secondly, that the nature and level of people’s resources vary, and thirdly that there is a ‘strengths sufficiency threshold’ that determines well being beyond public services. This sufficiency threshold is executed by the longstanding practice of means testing, widely employed by local authorities in the UK.

Daly and Westwood (2018) suggest that a strengths-based approach is overpromised, insufficiently theorised and lacking empirical evidence of positive impact on social care services users. They raise concern that this approach is emerging as a ‘false panacea’ presented as solving the complex multi-dimensional challenges facing an under-funded social care sector by offering ‘more for less’. Slasberg and Beresford (2017) concur and argue that policy makers continue to search for a ‘miracle cure’ that will transform social care into a system that is both personalised and less costly. The latest of these is strengths-based practice. They cite examples which show how cost-saving claims for the strengths-based approach have not been borne out by financial returns data from local authorities.

Strengths-based practice and the 2014 Care Act

A number of key responsibilities and principles are embedded in the 2014 Care Act. As set out by the Act, Local authorities in England are responsible for: promoting individual wellbeing; preventing needs for care and support; integrating social care with health services; providing people with information and advice; promoting diversity and quality in service provision; and working co-operatively with both people and partners in meeting care needs. The Care Act 2014 guidance explicitly refers to strengths-based approaches, by requiring local authorities to:

Consider the person’s own strengths and capabilities, and what support might be available from their wider support network or within the community to help (Department for Health and Social Care, 2018a).

However, the Care Act 2014 does not require local authority staff to adopt a strengths-based approach in their practice. Rather, it states that they must, or should, perform their care and support functions – assessment, providing services, commissioning – in a way that is consistent with the core elements of a strengths-based approach.

Whilst Slasberg and Beresford (2014) consider the Care Act to be a largely positive piece of legislation they are critical about the fact that the power related to decision making regarding resources (continues to) rest with local authorities. They argue that this positions the service user – who should be at the centre of decision making about their care and support – subject to the resource constraints of councils. Guthrie and Blood (2019) support this view when they state:

Despite the rhetoric of strengths-based practice within the Care Act 2014, eligibility for adult social care support is still largely determined by level of need (and by financial circumstances). This is also true of disability benefits and Continuing Health Care funding, where there is an even greater focus on people’s deficits.

Stanley (2016) suggests that in order to create practice systems that encourage holistic and person-centred assessments to inform support planning, agencies need to move from a service driven model to one that is needs led. He acknowledges that this is not straightforward because service-led practice has dominated adult social care for a long time. The reality, and the challenge, is that social care needs to be both cognisant of resource issues while adopting a needs-led approach.

There is some agreement then (Guthrie & Blood, 2019; Slasberg & Beresford, 2017; Stanley, 2016) that if strengths-based practice is to be truly embedded in local authority adult services, there needs to be a willingness to delegate financial decision making (at least to certain monetary limits) to frontline teams and their managers, and to trust in the skills and judgement of social workers (who do the majority of assessments of need) and the genuine involvement of users.

Cultural implications of strengths-based approaches

A number of authors have expressed the view that adopting a strengths-based approach requires a fundamental shift in values and attitudes amongst both providers of social care and service users (Foot & Hopkins, 2010; Ford, 2019; Guthrie & Blood, 2019; Pattoni, 2012; Tse et al., 2016).

Ford (2019) suggests that a ‘true strengths-based approach’ requires a whole systems change to the way that social care is envisaged and co-produced with individuals, families, groups, and communities. She argues that when care (or case) management became the dominant model in social care (under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990), it imposed bureaucratic procedures that still prevail in practice today. This threatens the flexibility and creativity that are seen as essential for successful implementation of a strengths-based approach.

Proponents of a strengths-based approach often refer to what it is not, or at least how it differs from the more traditional ‘deficit approach’. The deficit approach focuses on the problems and needs of an individual or a community, and so designs services to fill the gaps and address the problems. One of the consequences of this process, it is suggested, is that individuals can feel disempowered and dependent; they can become passive recipients of expensive services rather than active agents in improving their own and their families’ lives (Foot & Hopkins, 2010). Conversely, because a strengths-based approach values the capacity, skills, knowledge, connections, and potential of an individual, their family, and their community, Foot and Hopkins (2010) argue that this requires a shift in attitudes and values (particularly among professionals and councils in relation to the ‘sharing of power’) and an understanding of the limitations of a ‘deficit’ way of seeing the world.

What this means is that professional staff, local authority managers and councillors have to be willing to share power; instead of doing things for people, they have to help a community do things for itself. In this scenario, place-based, partnership working takes on added importance as silos and agency boundaries can get in the way of people-centred outcomes and community building. Here proponents argue that a strengths-based approach does not replace investment in improving services or tackling the structural causes of health inequality. The aim is to achieve a better balance between service delivery and community building (Foot, 2012).

There are potential cultural barriers to being able to practice in a strengths-based way. Social work and social care practitioners are influenced by the cultures of the organisations they work in. Despite an increased focus on strengths-based practice, if services are commissioned, performance managed and inspected in a way that is risk averse, looks for quick fixes, and values outputs over outcomes, it will limit workers’ potential to employ strengths-based approaches (Guthrie & Blood, 2019; Stanley, 2016).

Commenting on mental health services, Tse (2016) states that there is a dearth of evidence-based guidance on the best approaches to training staff in strengths-based approaches, but that this is critically important given that much clinical training continues to focus on ‘deficits’ and ‘symptoms’, fostering a ‘clinician knows best’ attitude towards patients.

Strengths-based approaches and autistic spectrum disorder

Much of the more positive discourse about strengths-based work and autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) exists in literature about children and education. Whilst children’s services were excluded from this literature review, it was felt important to include a section on ASD and education here as strengths-based approaches are embedded in this arena.

While the language of ‘strengths-’ and/or ‘asset-based’ approaches may not be terms that are explicitly used in the field of autism and intellectual disability, there are a number of parallels worth acknowledging. For example, a key part of the SPELL framework (Structure, Positive approaches and expectations, Empathy, Low arousal, Links) developed by the National Autistic Society from the 1960s onwards (https://www.autism.org.uk/), includes starting with people’s skills and interests as a way to help them learn, develop, and have a better quality of life. A key element of person-centred active support – a method of enabling people with learning disabilities to engage more in their daily lives which was first formalised as an approach to support in the 1980s – also begins with people’s skills, knowing what they can do and then providing support to compensate for the things they find more difficult (Mansell & Beadle-Brown, 2012). Both the SPELL Framework and Person-centred active support aim to improve people’s quality of life including by putting individuals, even with the most severe disabilities, at the centre and in control of their lives. These approaches, even if not in name, have clear similarities to adopting a strengths- or asset-based approach in social work and social care more widely. Cementing this parallel, Haney’s (2018) work found that social workers have accurate knowledge and hold strengths-based attitudes about autism and persons on the autism spectrum.

Evaluating strengths-based approaches

Traditional evaluative methodologies, such as randomised control trials (RCTs), work best when we are asking straightforward questions of a clearly delineated intervention for a defined population – questions like ‘can it work for group X with problem Y’? Such trials depend on ‘an intervention’ – that operates largely independently of context – interacting directly with a number of individual subjects/patients with a delineated – often single – difficulty or health condition (Foot, 2012).

Given the complexities inherent in the interconnected systems that can form part of a strengths-based approach (services, interventions, communities, environments, relationships, and so on), it is perhaps unsurprising that there a number of challenges associated with evaluating this approach. Moreover, for RCTs to make sense, there should be good grounds for assuming a degree of homogeneity of impact of the intervention on individuals, so that the task becomes one of estimating the mean effect size. When an intervention can have wildly different (and unpredictable) impact(s) on individuals, and even more so in whole communities – with some gaining great benefits, while others suffer ill-effects – it makes far less sense to seek an estimate of ‘average benefit’. So, assessing the empirical value of a strengths-based approach, whilst important, may not be straightforward or even possible, at least in a conventional way. Council leads in one study acknowledged ‘the challenge is to develop an evaluation framework that would enable us (them) to understand the short-term outcomes and longer team impacts of the initiatives’ (Miller & Whitehead, 2015).

An important consideration when thinking about how to evaluate a strengths-based approach (or approaches) appears to be dependent on how we think about it conceptually. In their review of empirical studies of the strengths perspective, Staudt, Howard, and Drake (2001) concluded that the dimensions/aims of the strengths perspective are not adequately operationalised or measurable, and that it lacks empirical support for either its uniqueness or its efficacy. Moreover, in those studies reporting positive outcomes, they reported it is not possible to determine whether outcomes are due to the strengths-based approach, or the delivery of additional services (attribution problem). However, Barbara Probst (2009) argues that strengths-based approaches are often misunderstood, resulting in confusing and fruitless debates about whether there is empirical evidence for the utility of the strengths perspective. She argues that the strengths perspective is fundamentally an applied concept that can operate only through the medium of a specific intervention, not a distinct ‘modality’ whose efficacy can be independently evaluated. She also cites Saleebey (2009), who makes clear that the strengths perspective is not an explanatory theory or a specific methodology, but a fundamental orientation toward hope, healing, purpose, and meaning that can be applied to a range of settings and interventions. Probst (2009) argues that instead of arguing about whether the strengths perspective is a ‘real theory’, has been sufficiently operationalised, or can be empirically tested, it may be more fruitful to examine how it can be used by a wide range of professionals in practice. Further to this, she argues that a more relevant question is to ask whether there is a nurturing environment that can support a shift from a deficit-based to a strengths-based approach. How one evaluates the impact or efficacy of ‘practice applications’ or of a ‘nurturing environment’, however valid they may be, would at best be challenging, and at worst simply not viable.

Miller and Whitehead (2015) suggest that while evidence is slow to emerge, evaluation is likely to begin with a focus on reduction in ‘conversions’, or the numbers of enquiries for adults’ social care that result in longer-term packages of care, and concomitant cost-savings. One example is that of Shropshire’s ‘Let’s Talk Local’ initiative (based upon asset-/strengths-based principles) which established these performance indicators to develop an outcomes framework:

• Increased number of people leaving services with information and advice.
• Increased individual resilience and reduced reliance upon paid support through the use of peer support and localised Let’s Talk Local sessions.
• Reduced spend from the adult social care budgets.
• Customer satisfaction and reduction in complaints.
• Reduced sickness levels and turnover of staff.

Although a helpful framework, these performance indicators may be subject to similar concerns as those expressed above. For example, one could argue that any impact on these indicators could also be due to the withdrawal of care services.

Practitioners need to evaluate what they do in order to inform future implementation, and commissioners will also want to use the most robust evidence available to them when making decisions on funding allocation. Foot and Hopkins (2010) pose a number of questions related to the challenge posed by the evaluation of strengths-based approaches. These include:

• What does a strengths-based approach achieve?
• Does it achieve health-related goals?
• How does it work: what is the ‘theory of change’?
• In what context does it work?
• What measures can be used to establish baselines and track inputs/outputs?
• How can outcomes be measured in the short/medium term?
• How can the effectiveness of different interventions be compared?

A number of other methodological challenges outlined for evaluation include: clarifying goals and objectives – what are these, how narrow or broad should they be? How can we prove impacts such as stronger community networks or greater levels of social capital on health/care related outcomes? How do we measure organic and dynamic systems that respond differently to varied events and circumstances, and make replicability difficult? How do we identify savings or beneficial outcomes which may not happen within project timescales? These may be overlooked entirely because they accrue elsewhere in the ‘system’, for example, a housing initiative may reduce costs for health services.

One potential way to answer these questions is to model the process and show the complex relationships between inputs, outputs and outcomes using evidence and other local information. Three examples of these models are: the logic model, outcomes-based accountability (OBA), and developmental evaluation.

The logic model (see: https://www.wkkf.org/) is a systematic and visual representation of a programme which creates a framework for evaluation. It provides a ‘roadmap’ for how inputs are linked to outputs and outcomes. By setting out the anticipated ‘theory of action’ – that is, how the inputs will produce the outputs and how those outputs contribute to the outcomes – it enables the measurement and tracking of those inputs and outputs as intermediate states to the agreed outcome.

Outcomes based accountability (OBA) utilises tools such as appreciative enquiry, open space and storytelling which can be used to define the outcomes for people or a defined question. The aim is to gain understanding of what is working and to understand the human stories and experiences that people have had as a result of accessing services.

Developmental evaluation (Gamble, 2008) is an evaluation method designed for social innovation, which can be regarded as a strengths-based approach. It makes use of data generated through network mapping, modelling, indicators, and appreciative inquiry events. The method will not necessarily give you metrics that can be used in any ‘objective’ judgement about the success or failure of a project or produce findings that are generalisable to other localities or circumstances. Rather, it will provide a structure for ‘action learning’ about emerging practices and uncertainty.

All these models will enable a way of charting a project, measuring process targets, and tracking appropriate milestones. Whether they constitute robust evaluations of effectiveness, and/or help commissioners make funding decisions is another question. One option may be to use performance indicators from the national indicator set used for comprehensive area assessments (CAA), another is to utilise the Wellbeing and Resilience Measure (WARM).

The WARM was developed by the Young Foundation and brought together multiple agencies including councils, the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), the Local Government Association (LGA) and academic partners (Mguni & Bacon, 2010). Its aim is to provide a way of bringing together existing and new data to help communities make sense of their choices. In particular, it focusses on analysing assets (or strengths) – things that make communities work – as well as deficits. The framework measures residents’ current wellbeing and other measures of local areas circumstances and needs. It then looks at the balance of assets and vulnerabilities that are most likely to determine future success and how resilient the community will be to ‘shocks’ such as recession and high unemployment. It seeks to identify and understand an area’s strengths, such as levels of social capital, confidence amongst residents, the quality of local services or proximity to employment, as well as vulnerabilities such as isolation, high crime, low savings, and unemployment.

These approaches to evaluation highlight the complexity and challenges related to evaluating strengths-based approaches and practice. The examples given are by no means exhaustive but can inform thinking about research methods and techniques. One important consideration may be the unit – and level – of assessment. For some models and examples this would be improved individual outcomes (as the goal of strengths-based practice for example) whilst for others it may be improved community wellbeing or networks (Ennis, 2010), or practice changes in social work or social care. An ambitious project may include a number of levels, or units of assessment.