Essay Grade

YEC
Using Eco-Mapping to Understand
Family Strengths and Resources
A
s 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
Katherine M. McCormick, PhD
University of Kentucky
Sarintha Stricklin, PhD
Louisiana State University Health Sciences
Center
Theresa M. Nowak, PhD
Eastern Kentucky University
Beth Rous, EdD
University of Kentucky
DOI: 10.1177/1096250607311932
http://yec.sagepub.com
© 2008 Division for Early Childhood
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
17
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
“
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.
”
18
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
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.
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008
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.
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
The Eco-Map Process
“
The steps in the process
include identifying informal
supports, identifying
strengths of relationships,
and identifying formal
supports.
”
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
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
19
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
Figure 1
First stage of an eco-map
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
20
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008
maternal or paternal
grandparents, 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.
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
Figure 2
Relationship lines
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 twoway 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
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
21
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
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
22
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008
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 speechlanguage 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
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
Figure 3
Completed eco-map
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
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
23
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
Table 1
Categories and Examples of Potential Family Supports
Category
Example of Type(s) of
Support
Example of Person(s)
Family
Grandparent
Friends
Neighborhood
Church
Community
Child care
Intervention services
Mental health
Friend of yours
Next door neighbor
Church member
Case worker
Teacher
Physical therapist
Counselor
Medical/health
Physician
Financial assistance,
emotional support
Friendship
Child care
Transportation
Housing, financial assistance
Child care, parent education
Early intervention services
Emotional support, parent
education
Medical care
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 child’s 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
24
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008
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
family-centered 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
eco-map 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).
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
“
The family’s cultural
heritage and values
become more transparent
as the family and
professional work
together.
”
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
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
25
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
“
The eco-map provides
a comprehensive
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.
picture and summary of
information that easily fits
and supports the IFSP
process.
”
26
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
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.
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008
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.
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
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).
Note
You may reach Katherine
McCormick by e-mail at kmcc02@
uky.edu.
References
Bailey, D. B., & Simeonsson, R. J. (1988). Family assessment in early
intervention. 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 older
African-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. In
R. 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 occurring
learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 151-164.
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
27
Eco-Mapping / McCormick et al.
Flashman, M. (1991). Training social workers in public welfare: Some useful
family 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. Social
Casework, 59, 465-476.
Hartman, A. (1995). Diagrammatic assessment of family relationships. Families
in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76(2), 111-122.
Hartman A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work practice. New
York: Free Press.
Hodge, D. R. (2005). Developing a spiritual assessment toolbox: A discussion
of the strengths and limitations of five different assessment methods. Health
and Social Work, 30, 314-323.
Hodge, D. R., & Williams, T. R. (2002). Assessing African American
spirituality with spiritual eco-maps. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contemporary Human Services, 83, 585-595.
Horton, C. B., & Bucy, J. E. (2000). Assessing adolescents: Ecological and
person-environment fit perspectives. In W. E. Martin & J. L. SwartzKulstad (Eds.), An introduction to person-environment psychology and
mental 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 family
therapy (pp. 83-99). Rockville, MD: Aspen System.
Imber-Coppersmith, E. (1985). Teaching trainees to think in triads. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 61-66.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Amendments of
2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C. 20, §1400 et seq. (2004).
Mattaini, M. (1995). Visualizing practice with children and families. Early
Child 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 diagrammatic
technique. Social Casework, 67(5), 299-305.
Woods, J. J., & McCormick, K. M. (2002). Toward an integration of childand family-centered practices in the assessment of preschool children:
Welcoming the family. Young Exceptional Children, 5(3), 2-11.
28
YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN
Vol. 11, No. 2, March 2008

Purchase answer to see full
attachment