Description
Assessment Tools
Assessments are an integral part of the planned change process. During this part of the process you will accumulate, organize, and review the information you will need to begin the planning and intervention phases of treatment. Content and information are obtained from multiple sources (the child, family members, school personnel, etc.) and in various forms (interviews, records, and observation). It is essential to collect data in a comprehensive manner—understanding the presenting problem from an ecological model that seeks to gain insight into the concern on a micro, mezzo, and macro level. Focusing on a multilevel approach to a client’s concern and taking into account the environmental factors that contribute to the presenting problem distinguishes social work from other disciplines.
Post by Day 3 a description of the importance of using multiple evidence-based tools (including quantitative, open ended, and ecologically focused) to assess children. Explain how each complements the other in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the young client’s concerns and situation. Then, describe the use of an eco-map in assessment and explain the different systems you will account for in your assessment of a child.
Support your posts with specific references to this week’s resources. Be sure to provide full APA citations for your references.
Using Eco-Mapping to Understand Family Strengths and Resources
As professionals and families work together to identify and celebrate the strengths and resources
unique to each family, new and innovative ways to describe and discuss family characteristics are
needed. The eco-map, borrowed from social science disciplines, is one method used to describe family
strengths and resources. The ecomap was developed in 1975 by sociologist Hartman (1978) to help
social workers in public child welfare practice better understand the needs of the families with whom
they worked. An eco-map is a graphic representation or visualization of the family and linkages to the
larger social system, including informal (e.g., friends, extended family members) and formal (e.g., early
care and education providers, early intervention providers) supports. It illustrates how the family exists
within the context of its relationships with other individuals and institutions with which the family has
contact. Utilizing an ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the eco-map provides a visual display of
any group of interconnections and relationships, providing a graphic image of the family system within
the larger social matrix. Eco-maps have been used in multiple ways by early intervention providers and
rehabilitation specialists and within the clinical practice of social workers, psychologists, and other
mental health professionals (Bailey & Simeonsson, 1988; Mattaini, 1995). Originally developed as a
schematic “thinking tool” (Hartman, 1978, p. 117) for the social worker to use as a visual representation
of the family system at the beginning of intervention, clinicians quickly came to value its use as a
mechanism to (a) foster collaboration between families and professionals and (b) jointly organize and
depict information. More recently, eco-mapping has been used in clinical practice to evaluate outcomes
and to measure change and monitor progress by completing an eco-map at multiple points in time
(Chatters & Taylor, 1994; Horton & Bucy, 2000). In short, practitioners use ecomaps as a mechanism to
establish rapport with families (Cox, 2003), learn more about the perceptions of the family at their initial
meeting (Hartman, 1978), organize information and facts (Hanson & Boyd, 1996), set goals in
intervention (Horton & Bucy, 2000), and monitor progress (Mattaini, 1995). For each purpose, the
primary value of the eco-map is in its visual impact and simplicity. That is, 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. Given the positive history of eco-maps within the area of social
work, its usefulness as a technique to increase early interventionists’ awareness of the family within its
community, assist in the assessment and planning phase of intervention, and evaluate the effectiveness
of services (Swanson & Niles, 1997) holds great promise for the field of early intervention, specifically,
the family needs assessment component of Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA, 2004). The eco-map provides an opportunity to visually represent the family’s perspectives about
the absence or presence, and nature and strength, of linkages to friends, coworkers, religious or spiritual
institutions, schools, social service agencies, community groups, recreational activities, health care
networks, legal systems, and volunteer or advocacy organizations (Cox, 2003). The eco-map provides an
opportunity to initiate early intervention services and Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) processes
in a family-centered manner, respectful of the diversity and individual resources and needs of families.
The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a brief overview of the eco-map process, (b) describe the key
steps in completing eco-maps with families, and (c) share implications for early intervention practice.
The eco-mapping process will be illustrated through the use of a family vignette.
The Eco-Map Process
The eco-map is a simple paperand-pencil simulation that was developed as an assessment, planning,
and intervention tool (Hartman, 1995). It maps in a dynamic way the ecological systems in which the
family lives and interacts. The eco-map facilitates an informal, conversational approach to family
information gathering, including identification of immediate and extended family members, friends, and
neighbors; recreational, employment, and community supports; and formal resources accessed by the
family. Simple strategies are used to diagram identified resources and supports and relationships
between the family and these other systems. In most instances, interventionists sit with the family and
introduce the activity as a way of identifying the family’s current members, friends, and supports.
Together with the family, they begin the process by putting a circle in the middle of the page with the
child’s name in it. The eco-map can be designed simply with circles, or multiple symbols can be used to
denote differences (e.g., circles for females, squares for males). In addition, metaphoric symbols or faces
can be used to represent people or agencies (Van Treuren, 1986). It also helps to document who is
completing the eco-map by putting a symbol such as a star in the respondent’s circle. The steps in the
process include identifying informal supports, identifying strengths of relationships, and identifying
formal supports.
Identifying Informal Supports
The interventionist should first describe how supports are defined and then ask the family members to
think about the informal supports currently available to them. An example script of this initial step
follows: I would like for us to work together to identify all the different types of people who currently
provide support or help to your child and you. This could include family members, friends, and members
of your church or neighborhood as well as people from your community. Support comes in many forms.
For example, friendship, child care, spiritual support, and a listening ear are all types of support. Let’s
start with your immediate family and more informal supports. First, I am going to put a circle in the
middle of the page with your child’s name in it. Now, I will draw a circle with your name in it. Then, I will
draw a circle for each of the informal supports you identify. Early intervention service providers also
might be interested in the type of supports each person provides as well as the frequency of the
support. Therefore, each of the circles may be labeled and additional information may be solicited about
how each person relates to the child and family, the type of support each person provides, and how
often the child and family receive the support. For example, below the circle, an R could indicate the
relationship of this person with the child and family (e.g., “R = neighbor”). An S might indicate the type
of support provided (e.g., “S = babysitting”). Information about the frequency of the support provided
by this person (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, as needed, once a year) also can be documented. An
example script of this step follows: For each of the circles we have drawn, we need to add some
information about how each person relates to your child, the type of support he or she provides, and
how often your child and you receive the support. Let’s start with grandparents. First, we will note their
relationship as maternal or paternal grandparents, and then list the type of supports they provide to you
and your child. Figure 1 shows the first stage in the development of an eco-map of the Theriot family.
Judi, the mom, is sharing information about her family, including her husband, Jodi; son, Paul; and
daughter, Allie. Allie, in the center of the map, is an incredibly engaging, 35-month-old little girl, who
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 7 months of age. Providing informal supports in her care and
development are extended family members, friends, and neighbors. Each of these individuals or groups
is represented by a circle on the map.
Identifying Strengths of Relationships
At the heart of the eco-map are the relationships between the family and other systems, which are
represented by various types of sketched lines. Hodge (2005) suggests the following conventions:
Thicker lines represent stronger or more powerful relationships. A dashed line represents the most
tenuous relationship, while a jagged line denotes a conflicted one. An arrow is drawn on the line to
indicate the flow of supports, energy, resources, or interests. (p. 320) Supports can go one way, such as
babysitting services offered by a neighbor or assistance provided by a friend. Often, supports go both
ways, such as between a parent and grandparent. Arrows are drawn between the circles to show
whether the relationships benefit or help one or both people (e.g., one-way or two way arrow). Hodge
also suggests that short descriptions, important dates, or other symbols be written to clarify the
relationships. In addition to seeing a quick, available-at-a-glance picture of a family and its interactions,
families are able to use the eco-map to confirm their feelings of isolation or stress (e.g., “So this is why
I’m so overwhelmed; I don’t have many supports or people to help me.”). Figure 2 shows the Theriot
family’s eco-map with relationship lines drawn. The map shows that Judi and Jodi provide primary care
for Allie, but it also shows that Allie spends many of her days with her Maw Maw and Paw Paw Theriot.
They are retired and have taken an active role with Allie, bringing her to most of her special activities.
Paw Paw is good with his hands and has built or adapted trays, standing frames, wagons, and many
other toys and furnishings. Allie’s maternal grandparents are older. Judi worries about them and
regularly helps them with household chores, doctor visits, and medical needs. Judi’s sister, Connie, also
helps her parents and, over the years, has been a huge support for Judi. Connie often babysits for Allie
and Paul and always is available for Judi to “talk things over.” These relationships are represented by the
lines between Connie and Judi, Allie, and Paul. Although Judi worries about Paul, the family has a good
friend and neighbor, Kevin, who takes Paul to many of his baseball practices and games. Judi and Jodi
still worry that they are not giving Paul enough time or attention. The family relies on their faith and
church for guidance and support. They attend services and have other families from their church at their
home for barbeques and picnics. Most of these families have young children close in age to Allie and
Paul. There also are lots of young children in the Theriots’ neighborhood.
Identifying Formal Supports
Finally, family members are asked to identify all of the formal supports they currently receive, and
separate circles for these supports are drawn. Examples of these supports might include physicians,
therapists, and other professionals from community agencies. Formal support comes in many forms. For
example, information, child care, housing, financial assistance, early intervention services, medical care,
and counseling are all types of support. The steps needed to label and denote family relationships with
these formal supports are then repeated. That is, the interventionist asks, “What is the relationship or
association of this person with your child? With you? What type of support does this person provide?
And what is the frequency of this support?” Figure 3 illustrates a completed eco-map for the Theriot
family. This map shows Allie’s favorite activities, horseback riding and swimming. It also shows her
numerous doctors and therapies, including clinic-based speech and physical therapy, homebased special
instruction, and occupational therapy. A family service coordinator also meets with the family monthly
and has helped them access early intervention services and supported them in obtaining a wheelchair
for Allie. Currently, Allie’s providers are discussing her need for an augmentative communication device.
Judi and Jodi are confused about these devices, and they are having a difficult time trying to discuss this
with the speech language pathologist because of her busy schedule. They are frustrated that Allie’s
therapists do not have time to communicate with each other. Jodi also is frustrated with their health
insurance agency’s slow determination and payment process.
Summary of the Eco-Map Process
During the process, family members are encouraged to take the lead in the identification of informal
and formal supports and strengths of relationships. When a stopping point nears, the service provider, if
needed, might ask about specific supports not addressed by the family (e.g., community, intervention
services, medical or health), requesting that the family identify and describe these supports. These
additional supports may then be added to the eco-map. Some families might need additional structure
as they complete this activity. For example, a parent might have difficulty thinking independently of the
various types of supports the child and family receives and would benefit from a listing of sources and
examples of support. If this is the case, Table 1 lists categories and examples of supports to share with
the family. Once all informal and formal supports and their relationships are documented, the family
and provider jointly review the eco-map and reflect on the usefulness of these supports in meeting the
children and family’s identified concerns and priorities. The early interventionist then closes with,
“Thank you for working with me to identify your family’s supports. Let’s review your map regularly as we
consider the effectiveness of these supports in meeting your family’s needs. Here is a copy for you to
keep.”
Implications of the Eco-Map Process for Early Intervention Practice
Some advantages of using an eco-map in early intervention service planning and provision include (a)
establishing rapport with families to build a foundation for the provision of family-centered services, (b)
appropriateness for families of culturally diverse backgrounds and families with limited literacy, (c)
organizing information and facts and linking to the IFSP, (d) facilitating services in natural environments,
and (e) maximizing utilization of informal resources.
Family-Centered Early Intervention Services
When used in initial meetings and information gathering with families, the eco-map facilitates a familycentered approach to assist families in identifying resources currently available to meet their needs. It is
a tool to elicit from family members their own perceptions of their family’s functioning and organization
around their children and their concerns, priorities, and resources. A well-constructed and in-depth ecomap can provide the family and early intervention provider valuable information that formal family
assessment instruments might miss. For example, as noted in Figure 2, the Theriot family’s eco-map not
only shows a large informal support system but points out those supports (i.e., maternal grandparents)
that also are stressors for the family. Hartman and Laird (1983) suggest that the joint completion by
provider and family in a side-by-side process is an important feature of the ecomap. This shared activity
and perspective is congruent with other recommendations for family–professional partnerships (Woods
& McCormick, 2002)
Use with Families of Diverse Backgrounds
Because the eco-map process asks the family to identify family members and community resources, it is
useful across families of culturally diverse backgrounds. The eco-map has been used widely with families
of diverse backgrounds and to map diverse components of family systems (Hodge & Williams, 2002).
The family’s cultural heritage and values become more transparent as the family and professional work
together to identify the family’s various linkages, which are unique to its culture and how the family
interacts with the world. For example, Chatters and Taylor (1994) report that approximately 70% of
African Americans attend church or a place of worship. It would not, therefore, be surprising to see
church and church-related supports included in an eco-map for an African American family. In addition,
the eco-map provides a way to reconceptualize the complex needs of families of children with
significant disabilities (Imber-Black, 1988; ImberCoppersmith, 1983, 1985). Morawetz and Walker (1984)
suggest that this also is true for high-poverty, high-risk families: “Frequently a family will be involved
with many helping systems and the relationships of these systems with each other in respect to the
family will resemble the relationships of a group of angry and rivalrous relatives” (p. 333). These
interactions and relationships can be seen readily in an eco-map. Working together, families and
interventionists will not overlook powerful significant-other relationships that uniquely can assist and
support the family (Cox, Keltner, & Hogan, 2003). The completion of the eco-map can confirm or
challenge the perception about a family and its interactions in the multiple communities in which the
family lives (e.g., school, work, neighborhood, family). Another form of diversity that is sometimes
overlooked is the educational level of families. Eco-map construction is conducted through verbal
interaction between the family and interventionist. This interaction eliminates the necessity for
advanced reading levels, and thus is useful for families with low literacy levels or those for whom English
is not their first language.
Linkage to the IFSP
Family information gathering is essential to the development of individualized early intervention
services for children and families. The specific resources and needs of each family must be considered in
the development and implementation of the IFSP. The eco-map facilitates (a) identification of sources of
family support that can be utilized during service provision, (b) identification of information that will
empower families and assist them in obtaining needed services for their child and family, and (c)
decision making regarding currently used and needed resources—time and resources required of the
family for services and supports (e.g., the Theriot family has to take off work early to pick up Allie and
drive her to therapy). It provides a simple visual that depicts gaps in resources or relationships as well as
identifies conflicting or stressful relationships. In short, the eco-map provides a comprehensive picture
and summary of information that easily fits and supports the IFSP process.
Support Services in Natural Environments
The activities and routines in which young children participate are influenced by the resources, time,
interests, and settings of the family (Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000). The eco-map is
designed to facilitate the identification of these prominent family resources and interactions first,
setting the stage for the provision of supports and services within environments in which the child is
already participating. For example, Allie Theriot (Figure 2) spends much of her time at Maw Maw and
Paw Paw’s house. Mapping of this important resource for the Theriot family sets the stage for
interventions incorporating Allie’s typical activities at Maw Maw and Paw Paw’s house. The eco-map
then moves to other, more formal resources and visually diagrams the connections, or lack of
connections, across these agencies or organizations. The sketched lines and arrows, as shown in the
Theriots’ eco-map, depict how different individuals, interventionists, and agencies interact with one
another. This helps to highlight the type of communication across family members, interventionists, and
providers—a critical component of the provision of services in natural environments.
Review of Informal and Formal Resources When the eco-map is used with families already receiving
early intervention services; it can serve as a mechanism to facilitate a review of the family’s use of
informal and formal resources. The eco-map can be a concrete tool for assessing, developing, and
coordinating natural or informal resources and more formal networks (Flashman, 1991). Often
professionals overlook informal resources, immediately arranging for formal programs or organizations
to assist in meeting families’ needs. The visual display provided by the eco-map allows professionals and
families to quickly identify the “got a need—get a service” phenomenon, which can drain family time,
energy, and resources.
Sequential Eco-Maps
Additionally, eco-maps can be used at the onset of intervention, at transition, or at other points in time.
Hartman (1978) recommended that eco-maps be used to monitor the progress of intervention by
completing ecomaps at multiple points in time. A comparison of these eco-maps might help families and
interventionists measure the changes that have occurred over time. Mattaini (1995) suggested that
sequential eco-maps can be useful particularly in family situations where the interconnected networks
of stressors, supports, resources, and issues are complicated and a single measure simply cannot
capture all of the data of importance.
Summary and Conclusions
As illustrated by the vignette and the accompanying figures, ecomaps offer a feasible method for
gathering extensive information about families and their resources and supports. It is a fun, easy-to-use
paper-and-pencil simulation that organizes and objectifies a tremendous amount of data about the
family system in space and through time. The family plays a vital role in bringing pertinent information
to the table and laying the foundation for a meaningful IFSP. Van Treuren (1986) suggests that the eco-
map has four advantages. It (a) is simple to use and understand, (b) is adaptable to any size family and
can be used with children as well as adults, (c) is functional and useful, and (d) allows for the creativity
of the family and practitioner. The eco-map represents the family within the context of significant
relationships with other individuals and institutions (Horton & Bucy, 2000). It represents the connections
between family and others—basically, family life. The authors of the eco-map consider the tool to be
“practical and parsimonious . . . the usefulness of this simple diagram becomes dramatically clear if one
considers the volume of words it would take to describe the family with words alone” (Hartman & Laird,
1985, p. 161). In summary, the use of the term ecology is purposeful. It describes the balance that exists
between living things and the environment in which they function the mutuality of these interactions,
the flow of resources, the nature of interactions, and the points of conflict. It demonstrates both lack
and abundance (Hartman, 1978).
Reference:
McCormick, K. M., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T. M., & Rous, B. (2008). Using eco-mapping to understand family
strengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 17–28
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
As professionals and families work together to identify and celebrate the strengths and resources
unique to each family, new and innovative ways to describe and discuss family characteristics are
needed. The eco-map, borrowed from social science disciplines, is one method used to describe family
strengths and resources. The ecomap was developed in 1975 by sociologist Hartman (1978) to help
social workers in public child welfare practice better understand the needs of the families with whom
they worked. An eco-map is a graphic representation or visualization of the family and linkages to the
larger social system, including informal (e.g., friends, extended family members) and formal (e.g., early
care and education providers, early intervention providers) supports. It illustrates how the family exists
within the context of its relationships with other individuals and institutions with which the family has
contact. Utilizing an ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the eco-map provides a visual display of
any group of interconnections and relationships, providing a graphic image of the family system within
the larger social matrix. Eco-maps have been used in multiple ways by early intervention providers and
rehabilitation specialists and within the clinical practice of social workers, psychologists, and other
mental health professionals (Bailey & Simeonsson, 1988; Mattaini, 1995). Originally developed as a
schematic “thinking tool” (Hartman, 1978, p. 117) for the social worker to use as a visual representation
of the family system at the beginning of intervention, clinicians quickly came to value its use as a
mechanism to (a) foster collaboration between families and professionals and (b) jointly organize and
depict information. More recently, eco-mapping has been used in clinical practice to evaluate outcomes
and to measure change and monitor progress by completing an eco-map at multiple points in time
(Chatters & Taylor, 1994; Horton & Bucy, 2000). In short, practitioners use ecomaps as a mechanism to
establish rapport with families (Cox, 2003), learn more about the perceptions of the family at their initial
meeting (Hartman, 1978), organize information and facts (Hanson & Boyd, 1996), set goals in
intervention (Horton & Bucy, 2000), and monitor progress (Mattaini, 1995). For each purpose, the
primary value of the eco-map is in its visual impact and simplicity. That is, 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. Given the positive history of eco-maps within the area of social
work, its usefulness as a technique to increase early interventionists’ awareness of the family within its
community, assist in the assessment and planning phase of intervention, and evaluate the effectiveness
of services (Swanson & Niles, 1997) holds great promise for the field of early intervention, specifically,
the family needs assessment component of Part C of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA, 2004). The eco-map provides an opportunity to visually represent the family’s perspectives about
the absence or presence, and nature and strength, of linkages to friends, coworkers, religious or spiritual
institutions, schools, social service agencies, community groups, recreational activities, health care
networks, legal systems, and volunteer or advocacy organizations (Cox, 2003). The eco-map provides an
opportunity to initiate early intervention services and Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) processes
in a family-centered manner, respectful of the diversity and individual resources and needs of families.
The purpose of this article is to (a) provide a brief overview of the eco-map process, (b) describe the key
steps in completing eco-maps with families, and (c) share implications for early intervention practice.
The eco-mapping process will be illustrated through the use of a family vignette.
The Eco-Map Process
The eco-map is a simple paperand-pencil simulation that was developed as an assessment, planning,
and intervention tool (Hartman, 1995). It maps in a dynamic way the ecological systems in which the
family lives and interacts. The eco-map facilitates an informal, conversational approach to family
information gathering, including identification of immediate and extended family members, friends, and
neighbors; recreational, employment, and community supports; and formal resources accessed by the
family. Simple strategies are used to diagram identified resources and supports and relationships
between the family and these other systems. In most instances, interventionists sit with the family and
introduce the activity as a way of identifying the family’s current members, friends, and supports.
Together with the family, they begin the process by putting a circle in the middle of the page with the
child’s name in it. The eco-map can be designed simply with circles, or multiple symbols can be used to
denote differences (e.g., circles for females, squares for males). In addition, metaphoric symbols or faces
can be used to represent people or agencies (Van Treuren, 1986). It also helps to document who is
completing the eco-map by putting a symbol such as a star in the respondent’s circle. The steps in the
process include identifying informal supports, identifying strengths of relationships, and identifying
formal supports.
Identifying Informal Supports
The interventionist should first describe how supports are defined and then ask the family members to
think about the informal supports currently available to them. An example script of this initial step
follows: I would like for us to work together to identify all the different types of people who currently
provide support or help to your child and you. This could include family members, friends, and members
of your church or neighborhood as well as people from your community. Support comes in many forms.
For example, friendship, child care, spiritual support, and a listening ear are all types of support. Let’s
start with your immediate family and more informal supports. First, I am going to put a circle in the
middle of the page with your child’s name in it. Now, I will draw a circle with your name in it. Then, I will
draw a circle for each of the informal supports you identify. Early intervention service providers also
might be interested in the type of supports each person provides as well as the frequency of the
support. Therefore, each of the circles may be labeled and additional information may be solicited about
how each person relates to the child and family, the type of support each person provides, and how
often the child and family receive the support. For example, below the circle, an R could indicate the
relationship of this person with the child and family (e.g., “R = neighbor”). An S might indicate the type
of support provided (e.g., “S = babysitting”). Information about the frequency of the support provided
by this person (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly, as needed, once a year) also can be documented. An
example script of this step follows: For each of the circles we have drawn, we need to add some
information about how each person relates to your child, the type of support he or she provides, and
how often your child and you receive the support. Let’s start with grandparents. First, we will note their
relationship as maternal or paternal grandparents, and then list the type of supports they provide to you
and your child. Figure 1 shows the first stage in the development of an eco-map of the Theriot family.
Judi, the mom, is sharing information about her family, including her husband, Jodi; son, Paul; and
daughter, Allie. Allie, in the center of the map, is an incredibly engaging, 35-month-old little girl, who
was diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 7 months of age. Providing informal supports in her care and
development are extended family members, friends, and neighbors. Each of these individuals or groups
is represented by a circle on the map.
Identifying Strengths of Relationships
At the heart of the eco-map are the relationships between the family and other systems, which are
represented by various types of sketched lines. Hodge (2005) suggests the following conventions:
Thicker lines represent stronger or more powerful relationships. A dashed line represents the most
tenuous relationship, while a jagged line denotes a conflicted one. An arrow is drawn on the line to
indicate the flow of supports, energy, resources, or interests. (p. 320) Supports can go one way, such as
babysitting services offered by a neighbor or assistance provided by a friend. Often, supports go both
ways, such as between a parent and grandparent. Arrows are drawn between the circles to show
whether the relationships benefit or help one or both people (e.g., one-way or two way arrow). Hodge
also suggests that short descriptions, important dates, or other symbols be written to clarify the
relationships. In addition to seeing a quick, available-at-a-glance picture of a family and its interactions,
families are able to use the eco-map to confirm their feelings of isolation or stress (e.g., “So this is why
I’m so overwhelmed; I don’t have many supports or people to help me.”). Figure 2 shows the Theriot
family’s eco-map with relationship lines drawn. The map shows that Judi and Jodi provide primary care
for Allie, but it also shows that Allie spends many of her days with her Maw Maw and Paw Paw Theriot.
They are retired and have taken an active role with Allie, bringing her to most of her special activities.
Paw Paw is good with his hands and has built or adapted trays, standing frames, wagons, and many
other toys and furnishings. Allie’s maternal grandparents are older. Judi worries about them and
regularly helps them with household chores, doctor visits, and medical needs. Judi’s sister, Connie, also
helps her parents and, over the years, has been a huge support for Judi. Connie often babysits for Allie
and Paul and always is available for Judi to “talk things over.” These relationships are represented by the
lines between Connie and Judi, Allie, and Paul. Although Judi worries about Paul, the family has a good
friend and neighbor, Kevin, who takes Paul to many of his baseball practices and games. Judi and Jodi
still worry that they are not giving Paul enough time or attention. The family relies on their faith and
church for guidance and support. They attend services and have other families from their church at their
home for barbeques and picnics. Most of these families have young children close in age to Allie and
Paul. There also are lots of young children in the Theriots’ neighborhood.
Identifying Formal Supports
Finally, family members are asked to identify all of the formal supports they currently receive, and
separate circles for these supports are drawn. Examples of these supports might include physicians,
therapists, and other professionals from community agencies. Formal support comes in many forms. For
example, information, child care, housing, financial assistance, early intervention services, medical care,
and counseling are all types of support. The steps needed to label and denote family relationships with
these formal supports are then repeated. That is, the interventionist asks, “What is the relationship or
association of this person with your child? With you? What type of support does this person provide?
And what is the frequency of this support?” Figure 3 illustrates a completed eco-map for the Theriot
family. This map shows Allie’s favorite activities, horseback riding and swimming. It also shows her
numerous doctors and therapies, including clinic-based speech and physical therapy, homebased special
instruction, and occupational therapy. A family service coordinator also meets with the family monthly
and has helped them access early intervention services and supported them in obtaining a wheelchair
for Allie. Currently, Allie’s providers are discussing her need for an augmentative communication device.
Judi and Jodi are confused about these devices, and they are having a difficult time trying to discuss this
with the speech language pathologist because of her busy schedule. They are frustrated that Allie’s
therapists do not have time to communicate with each other. Jodi also is frustrated with their health
insurance agency’s slow determination and payment process.
Summary of the Eco-Map Process
During the process, family members are encouraged to take the lead in the identification of informal
and formal supports and strengths of relationships. When a stopping point nears, the service provider, if
needed, might ask about specific supports not addressed by the family (e.g., community, intervention
services, medical or health), requesting that the family identify and describe these supports. These
additional supports may then be added to the eco-map. Some families might need additional structure
as they complete this activity. For example, a parent might have difficulty thinking independently of the
various types of supports the child and family receives and would benefit from a listing of sources and
examples of support. If this is the case, Table 1 lists categories and examples of supports to share with
the family. Once all informal and formal supports and their relationships are documented, the family
and provider jointly review the eco-map and reflect on the usefulness of these supports in meeting the
children and family’s identified concerns and priorities. The early interventionist then closes with,
“Thank you for working with me to identify your family’s supports. Let’s review your map regularly as we
consider the effectiveness of these supports in meeting your family’s needs. Here is a copy for you to
keep.”
Implications of the Eco-Map Process for Early Intervention Practice
Some advantages of using an eco-map in early intervention service planning and provision include (a)
establishing rapport with families to build a foundation for the provision of family-centered services, (b)
appropriateness for families of culturally diverse backgrounds and families with limited literacy, (c)
organizing information and facts and linking to the IFSP, (d) facilitating services in natural environments,
and (e) maximizing utilization of informal resources.
Family-Centered Early Intervention Services
When used in initial meetings and information gathering with families, the eco-map facilitates a familycentered approach to assist families in identifying resources currently available to meet their needs. It is
a tool to elicit from family members their own perceptions of their family’s functioning and organization
around their children and their concerns, priorities, and resources. A well-constructed and in-depth ecomap can provide the family and early intervention provider valuable information that formal family
assessment instruments might miss. For example, as noted in Figure 2, the Theriot family’s eco-map not
only shows a large informal support system but points out those supports (i.e., maternal grandparents)
that also are stressors for the family. Hartman and Laird (1983) suggest that the joint completion by
provider and family in a side-by-side process is an important feature of the ecomap. This shared activity
and perspective is congruent with other recommendations for family–professional partnerships (Woods
& McCormick, 2002)
Use with Families of Diverse Backgrounds
Because the eco-map process asks the family to identify family members and community resources, it is
useful across families of culturally diverse backgrounds. The eco-map has been used widely with families
of diverse backgrounds and to map diverse components of family systems (Hodge & Williams, 2002).
The family’s cultural heritage and values become more transparent as the family and professional work
together to identify the family’s various linkages, which are unique to its culture and how the family
interacts with the world. For example, Chatters and Taylor (1994) report that approximately 70% of
African Americans attend church or a place of worship. It would not, therefore, be surprising to see
church and church-related supports included in an eco-map for an African American family. In addition,
the eco-map provides a way to reconceptualize the complex needs of families of children with
significant disabilities (Imber-Black, 1988; ImberCoppersmith, 1983, 1985). Morawetz and Walker (1984)
suggest that this also is true for high-poverty, high-risk families: “Frequently a family will be involved
with many helping systems and the relationships of these systems with each other in respect to the
family will resemble the relationships of a group of angry and rivalrous relatives” (p. 333). These
interactions and relationships can be seen readily in an eco-map. Working together, families and
interventionists will not overlook powerful significant-other relationships that uniquely can assist and
support the family (Cox, Keltner, & Hogan, 2003). The completion of the eco-map can confirm or
challenge the perception about a family and its interactions in the multiple communities in which the
family lives (e.g., school, work, neighborhood, family). Another form of diversity that is sometimes
overlooked is the educational level of families. Eco-map construction is conducted through verbal
interaction between the family and interventionist. This interaction eliminates the necessity for
advanced reading levels, and thus is useful for families with low literacy levels or those for whom English
is not their first language.
Linkage to the IFSP
Family information gathering is essential to the development of individualized early intervention
services for children and families. The specific resources and needs of each family must be considered in
the development and implementation of the IFSP. The eco-map facilitates (a) identification of sources of
family support that can be utilized during service provision, (b) identification of information that will
empower families and assist them in obtaining needed services for their child and family, and (c)
decision making regarding currently used and needed resources—time and resources required of the
family for services and supports (e.g., the Theriot family has to take off work early to pick up Allie and
drive her to therapy). It provides a simple visual that depicts gaps in resources or relationships as well as
identifies conflicting or stressful relationships. In short, the eco-map provides a comprehensive picture
and summary of information that easily fits and supports the IFSP process.
Support Services in Natural Environments
The activities and routines in which young children participate are influenced by the resources, time,
interests, and settings of the family (Dunst, Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000). The eco-map is
designed to facilitate the identification of these prominent family resources and interactions first,
setting the stage for the provision of supports and services within environments in which the child is
already participating. For example, Allie Theriot (Figure 2) spends much of her time at Maw Maw and
Paw Paw’s house. Mapping of this important resource for the Theriot family sets the stage for
interventions incorporating Allie’s typical activities at Maw Maw and Paw Paw’s house. The eco-map
then moves to other, more formal resources and visually diagrams the connections, or lack of
connections, across these agencies or organizations. The sketched lines and arrows, as shown in the
Theriots’ eco-map, depict how different individuals, interventionists, and agencies interact with one
another. This helps to highlight the type of communication across family members, interventionists, and
providers—a critical component of the provision of services in natural environments.
Review of Informal and Formal Resources When the eco-map is used with families already receiving
early intervention services; it can serve as a mechanism to facilitate a review of the family’s use of
informal and formal resources. The eco-map can be a concrete tool for assessing, developing, and
coordinating natural or informal resources and more formal networks (Flashman, 1991). Often
professionals overlook informal resources, immediately arranging for formal programs or organizations
to assist in meeting families’ needs. The visual display provided by the eco-map allows professionals and
families to quickly identify the “got a need—get a service” phenomenon, which can drain family time,
energy, and resources.
Sequential Eco-Maps
Additionally, eco-maps can be used at the onset of intervention, at transition, or at other points in time.
Hartman (1978) recommended that eco-maps be used to monitor the progress of intervention by
completing ecomaps at multiple points in time. A comparison of these eco-maps might help families and
interventionists measure the changes that have occurred over time. Mattaini (1995) suggested that
sequential eco-maps can be useful particularly in family situations where the interconnected networks
of stressors, supports, resources, and issues are complicated and a single measure simply cannot
capture all of the data of importance.
Summary and Conclusions
As illustrated by the vignette and the accompanying figures, ecomaps offer a feasible method for
gathering extensive information about families and their resources and supports. It is a fun, easy-to-use
paper-and-pencil simulation that organizes and objectifies a tremendous amount of data about the
family system in space and through time. The family plays a vital role in bringing pertinent information
to the table and laying the foundation for a meaningful IFSP. Van Treuren (1986) suggests that the eco-
map has four advantages. It (a) is simple to use and understand, (b) is adaptable to any size family and
can be used with children as well as adults, (c) is functional and useful, and (d) allows for the creativity
of the family and practitioner. The eco-map represents the family within the context of significant
relationships with other individuals and institutions (Horton & Bucy, 2000). It represents the connections
between family and others—basically, family life. The authors of the eco-map consider the tool to be
“practical and parsimonious . . . the usefulness of this simple diagram becomes dramatically clear if one
considers the volume of words it would take to describe the family with words alone” (Hartman & Laird,
1985, p. 161). In summary, the use of the term ecology is purposeful. It describes the balance that exists
between living things and the environment in which they function the mutuality of these interactions,
the flow of resources, the nature of interactions, and the points of conflict. It demonstrates both lack
and abundance (Hartman, 1978).
Reference:
McCormick, K. M., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T. M., & Rous, B. (2008). Using eco-mapping to understand family
strengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children, 11(2), 17–28
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Categories: