By Jane F. Gilgun and Samantha Hirschey, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA

In the previous blog, we considered the case of Antonia, who at nine years old had many risks for aggressive behaviors and few resources that she was using to help her build relationships of trust that would in turn help her to cope prosocially. It took several years for Antonia to build relationships and build on her resources and to stop being aggressive. She eventually developed relationship skills to deal with stress instead of physically attacking other girls, to function well in an after-school job, to do well in school, and to gain admission to a university where she is a second-year student.

In this blog, we will present a method of differential assessment, which helps service providers to make recommendations about next steps when young people have aggressive behaviors. The purpose of differential assessment is to identify and understand the risks and resources that are present in the lives of service users and then to make recommendations for case planning based upon the risks and resources identified.

We will analyze Antonia’s case, which at the beginning of service had many risks and few resources, and Christina’s case, where she had many resources and few risks but she still enacted relational aggression against a long-term friend. Through these case studies, we will show how some young people change their behaviors with a minimum of services while others will require intensive services, as did Antonia.

Antonia

When Antonia became a client at ACE, she had many risks for aggressive behaviors and few easily identified protective factors. Protective factors are resources that research has associated with the development of capacities for coping with, adapting to, and overcoming risks. Examples of well-known protective factors include long-term secure attachment relationships with prosocial persons, emulation of the values, beliefs, and behaviors of these persons, good executive functions that include taking the perspectives of others, self-regulate skills that include capacities for managing emotions and behaviors, self-compassion, and compassion for others.

Antonia had many risks. Antonia’s mother abducted her from the home of her aunts that Antonia remembered as loving and safe. Her mother rejected Antonia and verbally abused her, reminding her that she was a child of rape and that her mother hated the rapist. Her mother favored the younger children and told Antonia as soon as she was 18, she was out of the home. Her stepfather was indifferent to her. Her mother and stepfather engaged in verbal and physical aggression, and the police were called to their home many times. Her stepfather had a criminal record that included weapons charges, physical assault, and drug possession with intent to sell. Her mother had a history of shoplifting, writing bad checks, and physical assault. Several members of the extended family also had criminal histories that were intergenerational. Antonia’s situation is typical in child welfare caseloads. It is obvious that Antonia had grown up in a high risk family. That she would believe that fighting with others girls whom she thought were making fun of her is an expectable outcome.

Antonia had some protective factors that may have been key to her eventual capacities for forming trusting relationships and her overcoming and managing her risks. The first five years of her life, according to Antonia, took place in the midst of secure, loving attachments to her aunts and their families. Antonia, like many young children with early childhood secure attachments, had an outgoing, engaging personality when she felt safe with others. Teachers reported that she was an appealing, bright, and usually well-behaved and attractive child except when she felt stressed and threatened. She did well in school but had few friends because of verbal and physical aggression.

Antonia remembers a very happy first five years. Being abducted was shocking and the long-term maternal rejection overwhelmed her capacities to cope. At nine, when she met her ACE case manager, Mary. It took several years for Antonia to trust Mary. It is possible that her trust of Mary built on her early experiences of secure attachment and her relationships with Mary was a factor in her trust of others and her eventual series of accomplishments.

Young people with the risks that Antonia experienced require intensive, long-term services that we will discuss in detail in later blogs.

Christina

Unlike Antonia, Christina had many long-term resources and few apparent risks. Yet, she engaged in relational aggression starting when she was in second grade. She remembers sitting at the lunch table and a new girl named Eleanor wanted to sit with Christina and her friends. Christina said, “You can’t sit here. Sit somewhere else.” The other girls didn’t say anything. Eleanor left without a word.

These kinds of relational aggressions went unnoticed by adults until Christina was in the fifth grade when made fun of Cynthia behind Cynthia’s back and excluded Cynthia from their group of mutual friends. Cynthia had been Christina’s friend since kindergarten. Cynthia got top grades and Christina had trouble with math. Cynthia noticed that her friends began to exclude her from activities at recess and after school. One day, her teacher saw Cynthia crying at the edge of the playground and asked her what was wrong. Cynthia told her. The teacher knew that Cynthia’s friends did not come from high risk situations. She also had trusting relationships with the girls.

The next day, the teacher asked the girls to stay in the classroom during recess to talk about their treatment of Cynthia. The girls said they really didn’t have a reason to exclude Cynthia. The teacher said Cynthia is hurt and confused and wants to be included in her friends’ activities. The girls, including Christina, felt bad.

The teacher explained how important apologies are and gave them some guidelines about how to do them. After talking to the teacher, they were eager to tell Cynthia they were sorry and to invite her back into the group. They said they didn’t need the teacher’s help in reaching out to Cynthia. They didn’t. They apologized. Cynthia was thrilled. She was once again part of the group.

Christina had many resources and few risks. She was the third and last child in a loving family. Her older sister was married and had a family of her own. Her older brother was a star athlete on the high school basketball and baseball team and was headed for college. Both of the siblings had done well in school, and they were close to Christina. Her mother was a loving parent who set clear rules and gave lots of praise for Christina’s accomplishments. Christina shared her activities with her mother and confided in her when she was troubled. Her mother, therefore, was therefore a secure base and a source of nurturance and love. She was also a safe haven where Cynthia could talk about things that bothered her.

Christina had one major risk factor, and that was her parents’ divorce when she was five years old. The divorce came after about a year of bickering and estrangement between her parents. Christina saw her father every weekend, and he paid child support for her and her older brother. Christina felt close to her father, who took her on many outings, mostly physical activities like horseback riding, golf, and boating. She didn’t talk to her father about personal things, but she enjoyed her time with him and developed confidence in her athletic abilities through her time with him. She loved him, and felt love from him.

The teacher knew about the divorce and thought that this could have been a factor in Christina’s exclusion of Cynthia, but she could not be sure. She had a hunch that a simple intervention with Christina and her friend would be enough to change their behaviors toward Cynthia. She had guessed correctly. Christina and her friends didn’t realize that their behaviors were hurtful. When they thought about it, they realized that they were being unfair. They not only wanted Cynthia as their friend but they missed her and felt guilty about excluding her. They took the actions that the teacher suggested, and all was well once again.

Discussion

This kind of differential assessment is important to do so that professionals can tailor their interventions to individual cases. Medical professionals call this triage, where the type of intervention depends upon the risk and protective factors. Some young people require intensive long-term services because they have so many risks and few protective factors while others require a simple, one-time intervention and things straighten out. Simple, one-short interventions are effective when young people have high resource and protective factors and few risks.

Questions to Consider

Please feel free to leave a comment on today’s blog. As you think about the blog, we wonder how you are responding to the ideas we presented. What, for example, do you think we left out? Was there anything in this blog that helped you think more deeply about your cases?

We hope you consider the following questions.

  • Does differential assessment make sense to you?
    • Why or why not?
  • Does your agency encourage you to assess for resources and protective factors in the lives of the children and families in your caseload?
    • How does the agency deliver these types of assessment?
  • Do the professionals with whom you collaborate do differential assessments that focus on both risks and resources?
    • If yes, how do they do these assessments?
    • If no, do you have any reasons to wish that they did?

Next Blog

In the next blog, we discuss relational interviews and how they can be used to build relationships of trust with young people who behave in aggressive ways.

About the Authors

Jane F. Gilgun, Ph.D., LICSW, is a professor, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA. She was a child welfare social worker for more than eight years and has taught courses and done qualitative research on high-risk children and families for many years. A special focus of her research is factors associated with good outcomes when children have experienced complex trauma. Professor Gilgun’s articles, books, and practice manuals are widely available on the internet. Many of them are free.

Samantha Hirschey is a second year master’s student at the School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, USA, and Professor Gilgun’s research assistant. She did her first year internship at the St. Paul Public Schools and her second internship will be at the Community-University Health Care Center that provides mental health services to residents of the inner city of Minneapolis. She has worked in a variety of social service agencies including with children, teens, and adults with mental illnesses and developmental disabilities. She has a special interest in the promotion of integrated behavioral health in children and families.

References

Gilgun, Jane F. (2013). Resilience is relational. Amazon.

Gilgun, Jane F. (2006). Children and adolescents with problematic sexual behaviors: Lessons from research on resilience. In Robert Longo & Dave Prescott (Eds.), Current perspectives on working with sexually aggressive youth and youth with sexual behavior problems (pp. 383-394). Holyoke, MA: Neari Press.

Hughes, Karen (2012). The roots of resilience. Nature, 490 (October), 165-167.

Masten, Ann S. (2014). Ordinary magic: Resilience in development. New York: Guilford.

Unger, Michael & Linda Liebengerg (2008). Resilience in action: Working with youth across cultures and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto.