young exceptional children - university of …cehs01.unl.edu/ecse/960/mccormickeco.pdf ·...

http://yec.sagepub.com

Young Exceptional Children

DOI: 10.1177/1096250607311932 2008; 11; 17 Young Exceptional Children

Katherine M. McCormick, Sarintha Stricklin, Theresa M. Nowak and Beth Rous Using Eco-Mapping to Understand Family Strengths and Resources

http://yec.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children

can be found at:Young Exceptional Children Additional services and information for

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://yec.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/2/17 Citations

by Christine Marvin on December 6, 2008 http://yec.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.dec-sped.org

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://yec.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://yec.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/11/2/17


Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 17

YEC

DOI: 10.1177/1096250607311932http://yec.sagepub.com

© 2008 Division for Early Childhood

Katherine M. McCormick, PhDUniversity of Kentucky

Sarintha Stricklin, PhDLouisiana State University Health SciencesCenter

Theresa M. Nowak, PhDEastern Kentucky University

Beth Rous, EdDUniversity of Kentucky

Using Eco-Mapping to UnderstandFamily Strengths and Resources

As professionals and familieswork together to identifyand celebrate the strengths

and resources unique to each family,new and innovative ways to describeand discuss family characteristics areneeded. The eco-map, borrowedfrom social science disciplines, isone method used to describe familystrengths and resources. The eco-map was developed in 1975 bysociologist Hartman (1978) to helpsocial workers in public childwelfare practice better understandthe needs of the families with whomthey worked. An eco-map is agraphic representation orvisualization of the family andlinkages to the larger social system,including informal (e.g., friends,extended family members) andformal (e.g., early care andeducation providers, earlyintervention providers) supports. Itillustrates how the family existswithin the context of its



Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.

YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Vol. 11, No. 2, March 200818

“

”

relationships with other individualsand institutions with which the familyhas contact. Utilizing an ecologicalmodel (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), theeco-map provides a visual display ofany group of interconnections andrelationships, providing a graphicimage of the family system within thelarger social matrix.

Eco-maps have been used inmultiple ways by early interventionproviders and rehabilitationspecialists and within the clinicalpractice of social workers,psychologists, and other mentalhealth professionals (Bailey &Simeonsson, 1988; Mattaini, 1995).Originally developed as a schematic“thinking tool” (Hartman, 1978,p. 117) for the social worker to useas a visual representation of thefamily system at the beginning ofintervention, clinicians quickly cameto value its use as a mechanism to(a) foster collaboration betweenfamilies and professionals and(b) jointly organize and depictinformation. More recently,eco-mapping has been used inclinical practice to evaluateoutcomes and to measure changeand monitor progress by completingan eco-map at multiple points intime (Chatters & Taylor, 1994;Horton & Bucy, 2000).

In short, practitioners use eco-maps as a mechanism to establishrapport with families (Cox, 2003),learn more about the perceptions ofthe family at their initial meeting(Hartman, 1978), organizeinformation and facts (Hanson &Boyd, 1996), set goals inintervention (Horton & Bucy,2000), and monitor progress(Mattaini, 1995). For each purpose,the primary value of the eco-map isin its visual impact and simplicity.

That is, the eco-map providesa unique method to organize andpresent concurrently factualinformation and the relationshipsbetween variables in the family’scurrent ecology.

Given the positive history ofeco-maps within the area of socialwork, its usefulness as a techniqueto increase early interventionists’awareness of the family within itscommunity, assist in the assessmentand planning phase of intervention,and evaluate the effectiveness ofservices (Swanson & Niles, 1997)holds great promise for the field ofearly intervention, specifically, thefamily needs assessment componentof Part C of the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act (IDEA,2004). The eco-map provides anopportunity to visually representthe family’s perspectives about theabsence or presence, and nature andstrength, of linkages to friends,coworkers, religious or spiritualinstitutions, schools, social serviceagencies, community groups,recreational activities, health carenetworks, legal systems, andvolunteer or advocacy organizations(Cox, 2003). The eco-map providesan opportunity to initiate earlyintervention services andIndividualized Family Service Plan(IFSP) processes in a family-centeredmanner, respectful of the diversityand individual resources and needsof families. The purpose of thisarticle is to (a) provide a briefoverview of the eco-map process,(b) describe the key steps incompleting eco-maps with families,and (c) share implications forearly intervention practice. Theeco-mapping process will beillustrated through the use of a familyvignette.

The eco-map provides a

unique method to

organize and present

concurrently factual

information and the

relationships between

variables in the family’s

current ecology.



Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN


19

“

”

The Eco-Map Process

The eco-map is a simple paper-and-pencil simulation that wasdeveloped as an assessment,planning, and intervention tool(Hartman, 1995). It maps in adynamic way the ecological systemsin which the family lives andinteracts. The eco-map facilitatesan informal, conversationalapproach to family informationgathering, including identificationof immediate and extended familymembers, friends, and neighbors;recreational, employment, andcommunity supports; and formalresources accessed by the family.Simple strategies are used todiagram identified resources andsupports and relationshipsbetween the family and theseother systems.

In most instances,interventionists sit with the familyand introduce the activity as a wayof identifying the family’s currentmembers, friends, and supports.Together with the family, they beginthe process by putting a circle in themiddle of the page with the child’sname in it. The eco-map can bedesigned simply with circles, ormultiple symbols can be used todenote differences (e.g., circles forfemales, squares for males). Inaddition, metaphoric symbols orfaces can be used to representpeople or agencies (Van Treuren,1986). It also helps to documentwho is completing the eco-map byputting a symbol such as a star inthe respondent’s circle. The steps inthe process include identifyinginformal supports, identifyingstrengths of relationships, andidentifying formal supports.

Identifying Informal Supports

The interventionist should firstdescribe how supports are definedand then ask the family members tothink about the informal supportscurrently available to them. Anexample script of this initial stepfollows:

I would like for us to worktogether to identify all thedifferent types of people whocurrently provide support orhelp to your child and you.This could include familymembers, friends, andmembers of your church orneighborhood as well aspeople from your community.Support comes in many forms.For example, friendship, childcare, spiritual support, and alistening ear are all types ofsupport. Let’s start with yourimmediate family and moreinformal supports. First, I amgoing to put a circle in themiddle of the page with yourchild’s name in it. Now, I willdraw a circle with your namein it. Then, I will draw a circlefor each of the informalsupports you identify.

Early intervention serviceproviders also might be interested inthe type of supports each personprovides as well as the frequency ofthe support. Therefore, each of thecircles may be labeled and additionalinformation may be solicited abouthow each person relates to the childand family, the type of support eachperson provides, and how often thechild and family receive the support.For example, below the circle,an R could indicate the relationship

The steps in the process

include identifying informal

supports, identifying

strengths of relationships,

and identifying formal

supports.





of this person with the child andfamily (e.g., “R = neighbor”). AnS might indicate the type of supportprovided (e.g., “S = babysitting”).Information about the frequency ofthe support provided by this person(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, asneeded, once a year) also can bedocumented. An example script ofthis step follows:

For each of the circles we havedrawn, we need to add someinformation about how eachperson relates to your child,the type of support he or sheprovides, and how often yourchild and you receive thesupport. Let’s start withgrandparents. First, we willnote their relationship as

maternal or paternalgrandparents, then list the typeof supports they provide toyou and your child.

Figure 1 shows the first stage inthe development of an eco-map ofthe Theriot family. Judi, the mom, issharing information about herfamily, including her husband, Jodi;son, Paul; and daughter, Allie. Allie,in the center of the map, is anincredibly engaging, 35-month-oldlittle girl, who was diagnosed withcerebral palsy at 7 months of age.Providing informal supports in hercare and development are extendedfamily members, friends, andneighbors. Each of these individualsor groups is represented by a circleon the map.

Figure 1First stage of an eco-map





21

Identifying Strengths ofRelationships

At the heart of the eco-map arethe relationships between the familyand other systems, which arerepresented by various types ofsketched lines. Hodge (2005)suggests the following conventions:

Thicker lines represent strongeror more powerful relationships.A dashed line represents themost tenuous relationship,while a jagged line denotes aconflicted one. An arrow isdrawn on the line to indicatethe flow of supports, energy,resources, or interests. (p. 320)

Supports can go one way, such asbabysitting services offered by

a neighbor or assistance provided bya friend. Often, supports go bothways, such as between a parent andgrandparent. Arrows are drawnbetween the circles to show whetherthe relationships benefit or help oneor both people (e.g., one-way or two-way arrow). Hodge also suggests thatshort descriptions, important dates,or other symbols be written to clarifythe relationships. In addition toseeing a quick, available-at-a-glancepicture of a family and itsinteractions, families are able to usethe eco-map to confirm their feelingsof isolation or stress (e.g., “So this iswhy I’m so overwhelmed; I don’thave many supports or people tohelp me.”).

Figure 2 shows the Theriotfamily’s eco-map with relationship

Figure 2Relationship lines





lines drawn. The map shows thatJudi and Jodi provide primary carefor Allie, but it also shows that Alliespends many of her days with herMaw Maw and Paw Paw Theriot.They are retired and have taken anactive role with Allie, bringing herto most of her special activities. PawPaw is good with his hands and hasbuilt or adapted trays, standingframes, wagons, and many othertoys and furnishings. Allie’smaternal grandparents are older.Judi worries about them andregularly helps them with householdchores, doctor visits, and medicalneeds. Judi’s sister, Connie, alsohelps her parents and, over theyears, has been a huge support forJudi. Connie often babysits for Allieand Paul and always is available forJudi to “talk things over.” Theserelationships are represented by thelines between Connie and Judi,Allie, and Paul.

Although Judi worries aboutPaul, the family has a good friendand neighbor, Kevin, who takesPaul to many of his baseballpractices and games. Judi and Jodistill worry that they are not givingPaul enough time or attention. Thefamily relies on their faith andchurch for guidance and support.They attend services and have otherfamilies from their church at theirhome for barbeques and picnics.Most of these families have youngchildren close in age to Allie andPaul. There also are lots of youngchildren in the Theriots’neighborhood.

Identifying Formal Supports

Finally, family members areasked to identify all of the formal

supports they currently receive, andseparate circles for these supportsare drawn. Examples of thesesupports might include physicians,therapists, and other professionalsfrom community agencies. Formalsupport comes in many forms. Forexample, information, child care,housing, financial assistance, earlyintervention services, medical care,and counseling are all types ofsupport. The steps needed to labeland denote family relationships withthese formal supports are thenrepeated. That is, the interventionistasks, “What is the relationship orassociation of this person with yourchild? With you? What type ofsupport does this person provide?And what is the frequency of thissupport?”

Figure 3 illustrates a completedeco-map for the Theriot family. Thismap shows Allie’s favorite activities,horseback riding and swimming. Italso shows her numerous doctorsand therapies, including clinic-basedspeech and physical therapy, home-based special instruction, andoccupational therapy. A familyservice coordinator also meets withthe family monthly and has helpedthem access early interventionservices and supported them inobtaining a wheelchair for Allie.

Currently, Allie’s providers arediscussing her need for anaugmentative communicationdevice. Judi and Jodi are confusedabout these devices, and they arehaving a difficult time trying todiscuss this with the speech-language pathologist because of herbusy schedule. They are frustratedthat Allie’s therapists do not havetime to communicate with eachother. Jodi also is frustrated with





23

their health insurance agency’s slowdetermination and payment process.

Summary of the Eco-MapProcess

During the process, familymembers are encouraged to takethe lead in the identification ofinformal and formal supports andstrengths of relationships. Whena stopping point nears, the serviceprovider, if needed, might askabout specific supports notaddressed by the family (e.g.,

community, intervention services,medical or health), requesting thatthe family identify and describethese supports. These additionalsupports may then be added to theeco-map. Some families might needadditional structure as theycomplete this activity. For example,a parent might have difficultythinking independently of thevarious types of supports the childand family receives and wouldbenefit from a listing of sources andexamples of support. If this is thecase, Table 1 lists categories and

Figure 3Completed eco-map





examples of supports to share withthe family.

Once all informal and formalsupports and their relationships aredocumented, the family andprovider jointly review the eco-mapand reflect on the usefulness of thesesupports in meeting the child’s andfamily’s identified concerns andpriorities. The early interventionistthen closes with, “Thank you forworking with me to identify yourfamily’s supports. Let’s review yourmap regularly as we consider theeffectiveness of these supports inmeeting your family’s needs. Here isa copy for you to keep.”

Implications of theEco-Map Process forEarly InterventionPractice

Some advantages of using aneco-map in early intervention serviceplanning and provision include(a) establishing rapport with familiesto build a foundation for the

provision of family-centeredservices, (b) appropriateness forfamilies of culturally diversebackgrounds and families withlimited literacy, (c) organizinginformation and facts and linking tothe IFSP, (d) facilitating services innatural environments, and (e)maximizing utilization of informalresources.

Family-Centered EarlyIntervention Services

When used in initial meetingsand information gathering withfamilies, the eco-map facilitates afamily-centered approach to assistfamilies in identifying resourcescurrently available to meet theirneeds. It is a tool to elicit fromfamily members their ownperceptions of their family’sfunctioning and organizationaround their children and theirconcerns, priorities, and resources.A well-constructed and in-deptheco-map can provide the family andearly intervention provider valuableinformation that formal familyassessment instruments might miss.For example, as noted in Figure 2,the Theriot family’s eco-map notonly shows a large informalsupport system but points out thosesupports (i.e., maternalgrandparents) that also arestressors for the family. Hartmanand Laird (1983) suggest that thejoint completion by provider andfamily in a side-by-side process isan important feature of the eco-map. This shared activity andperspective is congruent with otherrecommendations forfamily–professional partnerships(Woods & McCormick, 2002).

Table 1Categories and Examples of Potential Family Supports

Example of Type(s) ofCategory Example of Person(s) Support

Family Grandparent Financial assistance,emotional support

Friends Friend of yours FriendshipNeighborhood Next door neighbor Child careChurch Church member TransportationCommunity Case worker Housing, financial assistanceChild care Teacher Child care, parent educationIntervention services Physical therapist Early intervention servicesMental health Counselor Emotional support, parent

educationMedical/health Physician Medical care





25

“

”

The family’s cultural

heritage and values

become more transparent

as the family and

professional work

together.

Use With Families ofDiverse Backgrounds

Because the eco-map processasks the family to identify familymembers and community resources,it is useful across families ofculturally diverse backgrounds. Theeco-map has been used widely withfamilies of diverse backgrounds andto map diverse components offamily systems (Hodge & Williams,2002). The family’s cultural heritageand values become more transparentas the family and professional worktogether to identify the family’svarious linkages, which are uniqueto its culture and how the familyinteracts with the world. Forexample, Chatters and Taylor(1994) report that approximately70% of African Americans attendchurch or a place of worship. Itwould not, therefore, be surprisingto see church and church-relatedsupports included in an eco-map foran African American family.

In addition, the eco-mapprovides a way to reconceptualizethe complex needs of families ofchildren with significant disabilities(Imber-Black, 1988; Imber-Coppersmith, 1983, 1985).Morawetz and Walker (1984)suggest that this also is true forhigh-poverty, high-risk families:“Frequently a family will beinvolved with many helping systemsand the relationships of thesesystems with each other in respect tothe family will resemble therelationships of a group of angryand rivalrous relatives” (p. 333).These interactions and relationshipscan be seen readily in an eco-map.

Working together, families andinterventionists will not overlookpowerful significant-other

relationships that uniquely canassist and support the family (Cox,Keltner, & Hogan, 2003). Thecompletion of the eco-map canconfirm or challenge the perceptionabout a family and its interactionsin the multiple communities inwhich the family lives (e.g., school,work, neighborhood, family).Another form of diversity that issometimes overlooked is theeducational level of families.Eco-map construction is conductedthrough verbal interaction betweenthe family and interventionist.This interaction eliminates thenecessity for advanced readinglevels, and thus is useful forfamilies with low literacy levels orthose for whom English is not theirfirst language.

Linkage to the IFSP

Family information gathering isessential to the development ofindividualized early interventionservices for children and families.The specific resources and needsof each family must beconsidered in the development andimplementation of the IFSP. Theeco-map facilitates (a) identificationof sources of family support thatcan be utilized during serviceprovision, (b) identification ofinformation that will empowerfamilies and assist them in obtainingneeded services for their child andfamily, and (c) decision makingregarding currently used and neededresources—time and resourcesrequired of the family for servicesand supports (e.g., the Theriotfamily has to take off work early topick up Allie and drive her totherapy). It provides a simple visualthat depicts gaps in resources or





relationships as well as identifiesconflicting or stressful relationships.In short, the eco-map provides acomprehensive picture and summaryof information that easily fits andsupports the IFSP process.

Support Services in NaturalEnvironments

The activities and routines inwhich young children participate areinfluenced by the resources, time,interests, and settings of the family(Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, &Bruder, 2000). The eco-map isdesigned to facilitate theidentification of these prominentfamily resources and interactionsfirst, setting the stage for theprovision of supports and serviceswithin environments in which thechild is already participating. Forexample, Allie Theriot (Figure 2)spends much of her time at MawMaw and Paw Paw’s house.Mapping of this important resourcefor the Theriot family sets the stagefor interventions incorporatingAllie’s typical activities at MawMaw and Paw Paw’s house. Theeco-map then moves to other, moreformal resources and visuallydiagrams the connections, or lack ofconnections, across these agencies ororganizations. The sketched linesand arrows, as shown in theTheriots’ eco-map, depict howdifferent individuals,interventionists, and agenciesinteract with one another. Thishelps to highlight the type ofcommunication across familymembers, interventionists, andproviders—a critical component ofthe provision of services in naturalenvironments.

Review of Informal andFormal Resources

When the eco-map is used withfamilies already receiving earlyintervention services, it can serve asa mechanism to facilitate a review ofthe family’s use of informal andformal resources. The eco-map canbe a concrete tool for assessing,developing, and coordinatingnatural or informal resources andmore formal networks (Flashman,1991). Often professionals overlookinformal resources, immediatelyarranging for formal programs ororganizations to assist in meetingfamilies’ needs. The visual displayprovided by the eco-map allowsprofessionals and families to quicklyidentify the “got a need—geta service” phenomenon, which candrain family time, energy, andresources.

Sequential Eco-Maps

Additionally, eco-maps can beused at the onset of intervention, attransition, or at other points intime. Hartman (1978)recommended that eco-maps beused to monitor the progress ofintervention by completing eco-maps at multiple points in time.A comparison of these eco-mapsmight help families andinterventionists measure the changesthat have occurred over time.Mattaini (1995) suggested thatsequential eco-maps can be usefulparticularly in family situationswhere the interconnected networksof stressors, supports, resources,and issues are complicated and asingle measure simply cannotcapture all of the data ofimportance.

The eco-map provides

a comprehensive

picture and summary of

information that easily fits

and supports the IFSP

process.

“

”





27

Summary andConclusions

As illustrated by the vignetteand the accompanying figures, eco-maps offer a feasible method forgathering extensive informationabout families and their resourcesand supports. It is a fun, easy-to-usepaper-and-pencil simulation thatorganizes and objectifies atremendous amount of data aboutthe family system in space andthrough time. The family plays avital role in bringing pertinentinformation to the table and layingthe foundation for a meaningfulIFSP. Van Treuren (1986) suggeststhat the eco-map has fouradvantages. It (a) is simple to useand understand, (b) is adaptable toany size family and can be used withchildren as well as adults, (c) isfunctional and useful, and (d) allowsfor the creativity of the family andpractitioner. The eco-map representsthe family within the context of

significant relationships with otherindividuals and institutions (Horton& Bucy, 2000). It represents theconnections between family andothers—basically, family life. Theauthors of the eco-map considerthe tool to be “practical andparsimonious . . . the usefulness ofthis simple diagram becomesdramatically clear if one considers thevolume of words it would take todescribe the family with words alone”(Hartman & Laird, 1985, p. 161).In summary, the use of the termecology is purposeful. It describes thebalance that exists between livingthings and the environment in whichthey function, the mutuality of theseinteractions, the flow of resources, thenature of interactions, and the pointsof conflict. It demonstrates both lackand abundance (Hartman, 1978).

NoteYou may reach Katherine

McCormick by e-mail at [email protected].

References

Bailey, D. B., & Simeonsson, R. J. (1988). Family assessment in earlyintervention. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: Problems and prospects.American Psychologist, 34, 844-850.

Chatters, L. M., & Taylor, R. J. (1994). Religious involvement among olderAfrican-Americans. In J. S. Levin (Ed.), Religion in aging and health:Theoretical foundations and methodological frontiers (pp. 196-230).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cox, R. P. (2003). Health related counseling with families of diverse cultures:Family, health and cultural competencies. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Cox, R. P., Keltner, N., & Hogan, B. (2003). Family assessment tools. InR. P. Cox (Ed.), Health related counseling with families of diverse cultures:Families, health, and cultural competencies (pp. 145-168). Westport,CT: Greenwood.

Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Rabb, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000).Everyday family and community life and children’s naturally occurringlearning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 151-164.



Flashman, M. (1991). Training social workers in public welfare: Some usefulfamily concepts. Journal of Independent Social Work, 5(3/4), 53-68.

Hanson, S., & Boyd, S. (1996). Family health care nursing: Theory, practice,and research. Philadelphia: Davis.

Hartman, A. (1978). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. SocialCasework, 59, 465-476.

Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Familiesin Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76(2), 111-122.

Hartman A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work practice. NewYork: Free Press.

Hodge, D. R. (2005). Developing a spiritual assessment toolbox: A discussionof the strengths and limitations of five different assessment methods. Healthand Social Work, 30, 314-323.

Hodge, D. R., & Williams, T. R. (2002). Assessing African Americanspirituality with spiritual eco-maps. Families in Society: The Journal ofContemporary Human Services, 83, 585-595.

Horton, C. B., & Bucy, J. E. (2000). Assessing adolescents: Ecological andperson-environment fit perspectives. In W. E. Martin & J. L. Swartz-Kulstad (Eds.), An introduction to person-environment psychology andmental health: Assessment and intervention (pp. 39-47). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Imber-Black, E. (1988). Families and larger systems. New York: Guilford.Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1983). The family and public service systems: An

assessment method. In B. Keeney (Ed.), Diagnosis and assessment in familytherapy (pp. 83-99). Rockville, MD: Aspen System.

Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1985). Teaching trainees to think in triads. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 11, 61-66.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Amendments of2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C. 20, §1400 et seq. (2004).

Mattaini, M. (1995). Visualizing practice with children and families. EarlyChild Development and Care, 106, 59-74.

Morawetz, A., & Walker, G. (1984). Brief therapy with single-parent families.New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Swanson, J., & Niles, M. (1997). Community health nursing. Philadelphia:Saunders.

Van Treuren, R. R. (1986). Self-perception in family systems: A diagrammatictechnique. Social Casework, 67(5), 299-305.

Woods, J. J., & McCormick, K. M. (2002). Toward an integration of child-and family-centered practices in the assessment of preschool children:Welcoming the family. Young Exceptional Children, 5(3), 2-11.





young exceptional children - university of …cehs01.unl.edu/ecse/960/mccormickeco.pdf ·...

Documents